Democrats & Liberals Archives

Plan For Success

House Democrats just announced legislation that would redeploy troops out of Iraq by the end of next year — or sooner if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks. This is just a bone for the “get out now” faction of the Democratic Party, of course. Even if it passes in the House (doubtful) it’ll never make it through the Senate or past President Bush’s desk. Democrats just do not have the votes to wrest this war away from the Republicans.

Speaking of whom, the Republicans are complaining that Democrats only plan for failure. Maybe they've got a point. Let's take that criticism to heart and plan for the success of President Bush's surge and ultimate victory in Iraq:

After Gen. Petraeus subdues Baghdad, we must turn our attention to the rest of the Iraq. To clear and hold Fallujah, we'll need tens of thousands of additional troops on top of the 21,000 we just sent to clear and hold Baghdad. And then tens of thousands more to clear and hold Najaf, and Basra, etc., etc. Without constantly deploying new troops to Iraq to hold what we've won, we'd just be playing the same game of "whack-a-mole" that failed for the last four years.

The Pentagon's pre-war planning called for three to five hundred thousand troops for five-plus years to secure Iraq, and that's where President Bush's "clear and hold" strategy leads us. Even now, Gen. Petraeus is leaving the door open for more troops and more time. Given that, what can Democrats do to help President Bush succeed?

The obvious first step is to solve the military's manpower problem. There's no way President Bush can send hundreds of thousand of additional troops to Iraq for years and years without completely destroying our armed forces, and in the absence of higher recruitment levels, Congress must re-institute the draft.

In order to equip those new conscripts, we must mobilize what's left of America's manufacturing industry. Congress must make GM and Ford cut back on civilian production and build Bradleys and Stryker armored cars for our troops. Boeing and GE must build Blackhawks and F-22 Raptors for our pilots, Pfizer must make the medicines necessary to treat our wounded and Gillette must make special purpose DuraCell batteries to power their night scopes.

And, of course, we need to pay for it. As President Roosevelt told our parents and grandparents during a war which President Bush compares to this one, "War costs money... That means taxes and bonds and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and other non-essentials. In a word, it means an 'all-out' war by individual effort and family effort in a united country." President Bush and Congress must raise taxes to win this war.

In order to combat this "unprecedented threat to civilization" in Iraq, Congress and President Bush must conscript the men and women of this country to fight, they must subordinate our private industries to our national goals and they must raise taxes to pay for it.

That's the plan for success in Iraq. To argue for anything less means you are a coward and a defeatist willing to lick the sandals of the enemy. Either that, or you believe Iraq is nothing but a distraction from the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the choice is between redeploying our troops soon or redeploying them sooner as the Brits are doing.

Posted by American Pundit at March 9, 2007 11:53 AM
Comments
Comment #211195

So, they plan to have them removed in October 2008… Why does that time frame sound so familiar for…?

To be honest, it appears that the Dems in control could easily rescind their original authorization and end this whole debacle, *IF* they really wanted to. It appears to me that they are just wanting to get one more election cycle out of it and win back control of the WH as well.

Either they care about the lives of the soldiers and want the war to end or they are concerned about political machinations that will game them the most power… Am I the only one thinking it is the latter really?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 9, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #211197

17 Resolutions in the House and still waiting for a concensus. Apparently Dems can’t muster the courage of their supposed convictions to really do something and risk the ire of the voters when they see the results.

Posted by: Jim at March 9, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #211199

The Democrats simply do not have the power to end this war on their own. They are not “in control”. They are doing what they can.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders proposed a joint resolution, intended for consideration in the House as well, that would limit the authority Congress gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq. It would require that troops start returning home within four months of passage and sets March 31, 2008, as a goal for withdrawing most troops. But it would require Republican votes to overcome parliamentary obstacles from GOP leaders.

However, we still need Republican support.

Posted by: Max at March 9, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #211200
“To be honest, it appears that the Dems in control could easily rescind their original authorization and end this whole debacle, *IF* they really wanted to. It appears to me that they are just wanting to get one more election cycle out of it and win back control of the WH as well.”

Yes, it’s called the politics of next week or next month, as opposed to the politics of five or ten years down the road. Yes, this politics thing is an ugly business to be sure.

It would seem that the Dems have learned some lessons from the obfuscation, prevarication, obstruction and recalcitrance of the GOP regarding…well, everything— from this Iraqi caper, to global warming, to growing poverty and poor job creation performance, to the devolution of the theory that government serves the people and not just the oligarchs, plutocrats and the gunrunners of the world.

Yes, it’s an ugly business to be sure. Imagine, playing politics with people’s lives and fortunes—it’s disgusting, really. An outrage!

So, who’s going to win the National League pennant this year, Rhiny my boy?

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #211202
To be honest, it appears that the Dems in control could easily rescind their original authorization and end this whole debacle, *IF* they really wanted to.

Unfortunately, Dems don’t have the votes. There just aren’t enough Democrats in Congress.

As long as Republicans are squarely behind the way President Bush is running the war, we just don’t have the votes to end Republican filibusters and Presidential vetos.

And I’m surprised at how many sandal lickers there apparently are out there. No one has seconded my call for a drafting our young citizens and industries and raising taxes to win complete victory in Iraq. Don’t you guys want to win?

Posted by: American Pundit at March 9, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #211206

AP:

“Don’t you guys want to win?”

I do, and I have it on good authority (the Dickmeister) that this thing IS winnable.

I really think the Rhinehold brings up a good point. If only the Dems had the guts, the determination, the integrity to get us out of Iraq that the GOP showed in getting us in this mess—ah, what a wonnnerful world this would be.

It would seem to me that, in the long run though, the neo-cons are getting from the supposedly ‘left-wing’ Dems exactly what they want—an indefinite stay in beautiful downtown Bagdhad, giving war another chance. I don’t know what they’re grousing about.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 2:35 PM
Comment #211210

AP:

“As long as Republicans are squarely behind the way President Bush is running the war, we just don’t have the votes to end Republican filibusters and Presidential vetos.”

That is why I believe the Congressional Dems should pepper the White House with legislation to force a clear demarcation in the American people’s minds about who is prolonging this fiasco. If they play their cards right, we could have five-ten presidential vetos in time for the ‘08 elections.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that a number of GOP-ers could peel off by next summer, after running several polls and seeing that the lay of the political land might shorten their stay in our nation’s capitol.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #211213

Tim,
My thinking exactly. Bring it to a vote, and force a filibuster or veto. Filibusters would be the most likely device of choice, since they can provide Republicans political cover that would be stripped by a vote and presidential veto.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #211216

Tim, phx8, YES. I agree 100%. That would be a very good way to make it more than clear to the American people that it is the GOP alone who is prolonging this disaster.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #211223

Adrienne:

Regrettably, there is plenty of blame to go around on this Iraq thing. There is no question that the GOP Congress has marched in lock-step with the president on the war for the last four years.

But, if I remember correctly, there were more than several Dems who voted for this enterprise, no doubt believing that a nice little well-run imperial excercise would do wonders for the economy and the US standing in the world.

I sometimes get the feeling that if this had been run a little better, there wouldn’t be a nickel’s worth of difference between the the Democratic Party and the GOP. I offer some comments by Stephen Daugherty, Hillary, Steny Hoyer, Lieberman, Bill Nelson of Florida, and a host of others, as evidence.

The Dems are in the rather enviable position of being against this stupid war, yet not having the votes to really do anything about it. Unless they tie a draw-down to some funding package—and get their brains beat out by the Right Wing shriek machine.

As Emma Goldstein said, “The bulwark of capitalism is militarism.” I don’t see any Democratic second thoughts on capitalism or imperialism—until it gets ugly and unsightly.

Then, they wring their hands and weep crocodile tears for those misfortunates that have to pay the price of imperialism. Great theater. Lousy morals.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #211225

Emma Goldman—not Goldstein!! Shesh!

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #211227
That is why I believe the Congressional Dems should pepper the White House with legislation to force a clear demarcation in the American people’s minds about who is prolonging this fiasco.

That’s exactly what Dems are doing.

I sometimes get the feeling that if this had been run a little better, there wouldn’t be a nickel’s worth of difference between the the Democratic Party and the GOP.

That’s absolutely correct. Success begs forgivness. If Iraq were today a thriving liberal democracy, even the French couldn’t complain.

What’s unforgiveable is the complete incompetence this administration has shown in prosecuting this war. It makes it hard to forgive the way we were misled into it. Bush — and the lemmings who didn’t question any aspect of this conflict from the beginning to the present — made America look like a country of fools.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 9, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #211236

AP:

We weren’t misled into Iraq. We were lied into it.

As for efficiently run hypo-nationalism and imperialism, with a pinch of dog-eat-dog capitalism, I’d rather pass, thank you.

“What’s unforgiveable is the complete incompetence this administration has shown in prosecuting this war.”

You make my point—Dems don’t question imperialism or American imperial exceptionalism. Unless it isn’t ‘run’ properly.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #211248

Well Tim, I can’t argue with your points. However, it’d be nice if you didn’t tar and feather all Dems with the same broad brush. I’ve been against this war from the beginning, and so were many, many other Democrats. Indeed, I walked away, and then decided rejoined the Dems because I’d like to to see it become a party capable of representing a moral and upright point of view, both at home and abroad.
Now, you might believe that’s an impossible goal, but in my view, it’s at least worth a try.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 6:11 PM
Comment #211258

Sad, and highly disturbing article: I am Sullied-No More
Faced with the Iraq war’s corruption, Col. Ted Westhusing chose death before dishonor

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #211262

“Without constantly deploying new troops to Iraq to hold what we’ve won, we’d just be playing the same game of “whack-a-mole” that failed for the last four years.”

The LAST 4 YEARS?

Don’t you mean the last 37 YEARS?

What did Isreal do after Munich?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Germany do after the disco bombing?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Italy and Greece do after the airport bombings?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Regan do after Lockerbie?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Regan do after Beruit?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Clinton do after the embassy bombings?

Whack-a-mole.

What did Bush do after 9/11?

Whack-a-mole.

What will Hillary do after election in 2008 and another terrorist bomb goes off in our country?

Whack-a-mole.

What will Rudy do after election in 2008 and another terrorist bomb goes off in our country?

Whack-a-mole.

What have Democratic and Republican presidents and foreign governments done in the last 37 years to respond to terrorist incidents?

Whack-a-mole.

Whack-a-mole is even older than that if you count Viet Nam before and after the Tet Offensive.

Every past and potential (2008) world leader since Munich has been stuck in the “whack-a-mole” mode…a failed strategy that does not strike at the root of the terrorist problem.

Do I have a solution?

Nope.

Do you?

What is it?

Post it here.

Posted by: Jim T at March 9, 2007 7:49 PM
Comment #211266

Adrienne:

Yes, I could continue to qualify all my statements about this war regarding some Dems (and fewer Repubs) being against the war. But the Democratic Party, I believe, had enough evidence and votes to stop this war in October 2002. And, indeed, 22 Senators did vote against it.But the
party as a whole, I believe, uses the Left and the Progressives to put a pretty face on aggression, then does the right corporate, imperial thing. Over and over and over again.

There is no examination, no dialogue, no questioning in the Party, and certainly in the MSM and the country in general, about the underpinnings and assumptions of the imperialism and unilateralism that has guided American foreign policy since WWII, and especially in the last 10-15 years.

There is going to be a very heavy price for this Iraq debacle, the costs are only dimly percieved right now. The Democratic Party must (and historically will) take some of the blame.

I admire your fortitude regarding your return to the Party to try to effect changes in its policy. I choose to work outside the party, because I can no longer tolerate it’s moveable principles, it’s bashing of its grassroots supporters to placate centerist and right-wing screeching. The duopoly no longer has my support. When I can stand with the Dems on certain issues and principles, I will. I will walk away when I can’t.


Posted by: Tim Crow at March 9, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #211276

I just read that democrats are loading the defense bill with pork spending on non defense related issues. So far 20 billion worth of PORK.

Is the Democrat Congress setting their sights on failure?

1) We are now approaching the 25% mark on the year in just a few weeks and still have NO BUDGET. How long will democrats refuse to deal with the budget? How can PAY AS YOU GO work when there is NO BUDGET? It can’t. It’s nothing but propaganda until we have a budget.

2) Pork spending by dems is massive. EarMarks are still with us. The corruption has not been stopped it’s still in play. Democrat corruption is no better than Republican corruption!

3) Still no mention of moving us toward a balanced budget. Why? Where is the fiscal responsiblity they promised the voters?

4) Still no effort to work toward a fix for Social Security.

5) Still no effort to work toward a fix fore Medicare.

6) No effort to stop illegal immigration AT THE BOARDER.

7) No effort to create and PAY FOR national health care.

The Republicans failed us. That’s the past. The democrats ARE FAILING US. That’s the PRESENT and the FUTURE!

Isn’t it time we pushed Pelosi and Reid to get off the corruption educational union dollars, sweet property deals, corrupt ear marks and start doing the work on the budget and social programs that needs to be done? Isn’t it time one of you starts a thread asking if the democrats are failing us when it comes to the 07 budget and fiscal responsiblity?

Posted by: stephen at March 9, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #211278

Jim T,

Whack-a-mole represents an attempt to deal with the symptom, rather than the underlying problem. Usually, when we are talking about terrorism, we refer cases from the Middle East. The solution? Resolve problems between the Arabs & Israelis; if it cannot be resolved, stand for what America should stand for in the first place by advocating separation of church and state, and refusing to back Islamic & Jewish states. In addition, cease US support of authoritarian Arab regimes, and stop practicing imperialistic policies in the region.

Stephen,

Congress is currently operating under a continuing resolution:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Continuing_resolution_of_2007

There are no new earmarks. However, some previously funded ones remain in place.

With a few exceptions noted in the article, spending is restricted to the provisions of the previous budget.

The money for a new budget will not be appropriated until October. You will have to wait until later this year to see much happen.

Posted by: phx8 at March 9, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #211280

So, the democrats opted to spend just as much money as the Republicans would have in 2007?

This is the fiscal responsiblity they told us about?

I think this deserves a thread. They opted to spend massively rather than be fiscaly responsible.

In effect, they have opted to not doing anything responsible for the budget in 2007 but instead they will show us in 2008 why they are “serious” about a budget they refuse to control now?

Spending exactly as much as the Republicans were planing to do is not exactly what they ran on. And no one is FORCING them to do this…they do so willingly.

Unfortunately, they have chosen to continue to “spend our childrens future” and now I know why Reid and grandma Pelosi no longer talk about our childrens future…now they are the ones spending it!

Thanks for your link. I was unaware they had opted to spend as much as the Republicans were doing. They have run away from an issue they made a top issue. In my opinon, they are failing us. And their decision to FAIL on budget control in 07 is not a wise one. Not for our children, not for us. Didn’t they tell us to “think of the little children”? Why have they now forgotten those little children?

Posted by: stephen L at March 9, 2007 11:53 PM
Comment #211287

Stephen,
A budget should have been approved in October, before the Democrats even came into the majority. When they came into power in November, there was really no practical alternative to a continuing resolution. It is not a great solution, but it is really the only practical option. The only way any kind of judgment can be made about the Democrats and the budget is to see what happens later this year.

As for larger issues, such as MediCare and Social Security… If you were in charge of strategy for the Democrats, what would you do? Enact legislation today, which would require compromising with a Republican minority holding sufficient power to filibuster block action, & force compromise, and which would also require getting legislation past a Republican president? Or wait you until after the 2008 elections, when the prospects of a Democratic legislative supermajority and presidency are excellent?

If you could pass a weak compromise today, or wait less than two years and have the chance to do exactly what you want to do, which would you choose?

Posted by: phx8 at March 10, 2007 12:29 AM
Comment #211313

AP,

You’re 100% right, uh, make that correct!

This is in the news just this morning:

“Pentagon struggles to find fresh troops”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_troops;_ylt=AubDE_.cvRFzZi_prLPIVWGs0NUE

This should come as no surprise. McCain said on ABC’ This Week several weeks ago that he’d prefer to send more troops in the “surge” but we don’t have them. We’re “ALL IN”.

We should also be mindful of the length of time it takes to train new troops in this hi-tech age. If we try to send troops into Iraq with 12 weeks basic training we better get a damn good supply of body bags. I know that’s grim but it’s just the damn truth.

It’s also irresponsible to not “pay-as-we-go” for this war. The national debt is creeping towards 70% of GDP.

Sheesh, we can only hope that Henry Waxman will unearth enough republo-sleeze to impeach both Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #211325

Tim:
“I choose to work outside the party, because I can no longer tolerate it’s moveable principles, it’s bashing of its grassroots supporters to placate centerist and right-wing screeching.”

I think that’s a shame, because the more of us who work inside the party moving it’s principles back toward the left where they belong, the better off we’ll be, and the sooner it will happen. As for the grassroots, we’re growing stronger every day — and less able to abide the crap that the DLC has been doing.

“The duopoly no longer has my support. When I can stand with the Dems on certain issues and principles, I will. I will walk away when I can’t.”

The way I see it Tim is this: if I am completely inflexible with others and unwilling to compromise and work toward a consensus, I will completely fail to make anything happen. I knew when I rejoined the Dems that they were never going to be the party that always said and did exactly what I personally think is right, but I definitely think the party can return to being a populist party that listens to the concerns of our people, tries to solve problems wisely, compassionately and logically, and works toward peaceful solutions in the world wherever possible.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #211331

AP,

“Given that, what can Democrats do to help President Bush succeed?”


First thing they have to do is prove to the American people that they (actually) want to succeed!


“Democrats just do not have the votes to wrest this war away from the Republicans.”

Or the Troops and the American people!!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 10, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #211335

There you go with POS as source for your statement again, Rahdigly. And I’m not sure who might consider a cross section, nationally, of a whopping 800 people (from The Moriah Group who was responsible for the poll) to be a true barometer of what “most” Americans want.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 2:01 PM
Comment #211338

rahdigly,

FYI I do support the troops. I think far too many of our troops are having their tours of duty extended and far too many are having to serve too many tours. I notice that your link to the poll of military personnel includes Air Force and Navy and, while I don’t mean to diminish their devotion and sacrifice to our beloved USA, the Army, Marines, and National Guard have shared the greatest sacrifice in Iraq.

That really doesn’t matter anyway. The poll is certainly less than “overwhelmingly” optomistic regarding the outcome of the war in Iraq. I hope everyone takes time to read thru the entire poll.

Regarding the second poll, IMO it’s almost laughable to present a poll by the Moriah Group, which was founded to represent the election efforts of Zach Wamp. sheesh, there’s another “Gingrich-ish” story. I assume you’ve heard the not-so-new story of Newty boys extramarital romps, but of course he prayed to the lord so he has the authority to rule over the rest of us.

In Wamp’s case it was the admission of Cocaine use but, here we go again, Wamp prayed to the lord and he’s now one of the chosen that gets to rule over the rest of us wretches and ungodly libs.

What a hypocritical load of BS! If you really support the troops demand we start paying for this war, both financially by raising taxes, and by reinstating the draft! We’re expecting far too much from far too few and it’s time for everyone to take a bite out of this big, fat, Republican built shit sandwich!

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #211346

KansasDem,

You say you support the troops. How?
Have you personally thanked any of them for their service?
Have you sent any of them “care” packages?
Have you bought any of them lunch, coffee?
Have you told any of them that you will help take care of their family while they are gone?
What have you done personally to support the troops?

Posted by: tomd at March 10, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #211363

tomd,

You asked:

“You say you support the troops. How?”

My oldest son and my daughter have served in the armed forces. Thanks! My grandson lived with me while his Mom was in Kuwait, does that count?

“Have you personally thanked any of them for their service?”

No. I can’t say I have. I thank lots of people all the time but I can’t say I’ve made a priority of thanking vets.

“Have you sent any of them “care” packages?”

Yes, I’ve donated money to the VFW for that purpose.

“Have you bought any of them lunch, coffee?”

No.

“Have you told any of them that you will help take care of their family while they are gone?”

I did take care of my grandson while my daughter and his dad were both gone. Does that count?

“What have you done personally to support the troops?”

I was one. Two of my children have been. How much does it take?

…………………………………………

I owe no man an apology and to personalize this is the lowest form of cowardice. Do you even support yourself?

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 4:47 PM
Comment #211365

KansasDem,

Thank you sincerely for your service and please tell your son and daughter that I really appreciate what they have done.

“I owe no man an apology and to personalize this is the lowest form of cowardice. Do you even support yourself?”

I personalize this because it IS personal. When I stepped off that plane from VietNam 38 years ago and my fellow countrymen tried to make me feel guilty and ashamed of what I had done, I vowed to do all in my power to not let it happen to any other soldier.

It IS personal to me.

Posted by: tomd at March 10, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #211375

“Do you even support yourself?”

Sorry, I forgot to answer. If I’m going to ask you personal questions I’m prepared to answer.

Yes I do support myself and my wife of 38 years. Appx 50k per yr. Nothing fancy. Struggled for every little bit I have.

Posted by: tomd at March 10, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #211376

tomd,

I try to keep things impersonal.

I was passed over with the draft lottery and I enlisted. I regret that now and I don’t mind saying so. I was never “in the bush”. I never left Saigon. I was basically a desk jockey. But Saigon was a dangerous place too. By the time my feet touched the deck of the Blue Ridge my asshole was so tight I couldn’t pass gas without orders.

My thanks came in the form of an administrative Dishonorable Discharge which was later changed to a “less than” because I refused to “comment” (actually testify against someone) about the death of someone. Well, everything then was a mess (I honestly knew nothing). You need not tell me about the military.

The term SNAFU was not created yesterday. My dad died when I was nine years old due to wounds he received serving in the Air Corps during WWII. Sometimes it takes a long time to die. We’re very lax at factoring in that prolonged cost right now.

Please Tom, let your elected representatives know that we’re placing too much of a load on too few. We must either back out of Iraq or reinstate the draft!

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #211378

“I do support myself and my wife of 38 years. Appx 50k per yr. Nothing fancy. Struggled for every little bit I have.”

tomd,

My apology. I really didn’t mean it that way. I was actually speaking of a “political point of view”. My anger towards Bush & Co. ran over into your personal life. I apologize.

We simply disagree. I am curious, what would it take for you to turn against Bush?

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #211381

Adrienne:

“I definitely think the party can return to being a populist party that listens to the concerns of our people, tries to solve problems wisely, compassionately and logically, and works toward peaceful solutions in the world wherever possible.”

There were too many Dems that ‘went along’ with Bush’s imperialist ride in Iraq. There were too many Dems that voted for the Bankruptcy ‘Protection’ Act, the Patriot Act, the deregulation of media in 1996, NAFTA and CAFTA, too many who thought, like Madeline Albright, that 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a consequence of the UN embargo on Iraq in the ‘90’s was acceptable, too many Dems who think labor rights and environmental laws and regulations are expendable to the next fast buck, who don’t think that a $600 billion Defense budget that can’t seem to give our military in the field the proper equipment and armor is unconscionable. SIX HUNDRED BILLION—and soldiers are ending up without limbs in run-down VA facilities that are a disgrace to a civilized people, while (an admittedly Republican) Congress cuts VA funding and gives tax cuts to the wealthy.

The Dems have contributed to this Republican culture of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. The Repubs don’t believe in government, think its corrupt, incompetent and arrogant—then they do everything to make that attitude a reality.

The Dems in the last 10 years have been silent, complacent, and in a lot of cases, have enabled the greatest assault on democratic government in the country’s history.

Your welcome to do what you can to change the Party from the inside. I’ll see what I can do to shame them into doing the humanistic, judicious thing on the outside.

As for being flexible and amenable to compromises—I’ve actually been around a little longer than you, so I am aware that any party isn’t going to be a mirror to my wishes and political proclivities, believe me. But there comes a time when the silence, the acquiesence, the cowardice, of the Pelosis, the Hoyers, the Reids, the Schumers and the Emmanuels cannot be ignored or shrugged off.

Perhaps another 10-15 years of destructive Right-wing, fascist governence by the GOP is just the ticket to bury them forever. They have done a stellar job so far of rallying the Left, the Center, and even the old-time conservatives, who are ashamed to thrown in the neo-con kettle of fish. Perhaps several more election cycles of a party who steadfastly believes that government is the problem will finally stop being elected by people who haven’t declared open war on their own government.

Assuming, of course, that we survive this cowboy, pre-emptive foreign policy that could very well kill us all.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 10, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #211382

“Please Tom, let your elected representatives know that we’re placing too much of a load on too few. We must either back out of Iraq or reinstate the draft!”

Trying to be impersonal here, I don’t agree that we need the draft again. We needed the draft when the most important job was to pull a trigger, but times have changed all that. Would you rather have a dedicated career oriented person guiding that predator and deciding “friend or foe” or the Wal-Mart stock clerk who just graduated from high school and gets drafted, goes awol a couple of times during basic, tries just enough to get by and only wants out? You say you weren’t “in the bush”.

I was. I was in 2nd Btn 173rd Abn. I was a squad leader in an infantry company. I was in II CORP in the central highlands. I’m familiar with Saigon. I spent a week at 3rd field hospital with a screwed up pelvis. Saigon was indeed dangerous and it made me wonder why I had to unload my weapon when I entered the city limits. Political correctness even then.

I disagree that we are placing too much of a load on too few. We have the best trained, most dedicated, best equipped soldier this word has ever seen. If we turn them loose and let them do their job, they will.

Being on of the ones “In the bush” I know how disheartening it is to hear attitudes like yours.

And “back out” Sadly, I remember a time when that wouldn’t have been considered.

Posted by: tomd at March 10, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #211383
“There you go with POS as source for your statement again, Rahdigly. And I’m not sure who might consider a cross section, nationally, of a whopping 800 people (from The Moriah Group who was responsible for the poll) to be a true barometer of what “most” Americans want.”

So, that’s your response to a poll showing 57% of Americans support the “mission” and to stay until it’s completed?! Kind of lame response don’t you think! Now, if this poll weren’t true, then why wouldn’t the Dems in Congress vote to cut of funding for the War? That would certainly end the War that they believe isn’t “winnable” or “worth fighting for”.


The fact is, the American people are behind this war (and the “mission”) and the left knows it! And, they’re scared to f#$k with the public.

Yet, you go on believing that the majority of Americans don’t support completing the mission in Iraq. Go ahead, see where that gets you…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #211388

phx8

If I were in charge of the dmocrats on day one I would have formed a bipartisan committee to establish a budget for 07. A budget they promised us, a fiscally responsible one. Blaming last years congress for their REFUSING TO DEAL WITH THE BUDGET doesn’t fly.

I would also establish a group to work on a compromise social security plan.

If they would be lucky, they might be able to fix social security before the O8 elections.

I would also work out a plan to move us though a series of budgets to a balanced budget and announce that plan.

In short, I would pay attention to spending, pay attention to budgets, work on these issues instead of spending like crazy and blaming republicans for it!

Before the elections….they told us they would grab control of spending and do it. After the election…..now all we hear are excuses. Excuses from you for them. Excuses from them.

The democrats are failing us. Not the Republicans. The democrats have control of the budget now and they are refusing to cut spending. They are spending exactly as much as the Republicans would have and no longer screaming about how horrible all this spending is.

Very very disappointing. Is it to late for you folks to stand up and insist they act responsibliy and cut spending? Move toward balanced budgets? Move toward a bipartisan social security fix?

Of is the democratic party the party of huge spending and deficits and “fiscal responsiblity” is a little “white lie” they only talk about during an election?

I told you folks they were lying. I told you folks they would not take control of the budget. We are approaching the 25% mark on 2007 and they still are REFUSING to cut spending and take control of spending. Even worse, the culture of corruption continues, but now it’s the democrat party culture of corruption.

Posted by: Stephen at March 10, 2007 7:04 PM
Comment #211393

No Rahdigly, if you go back and read carefully, I was trying to show you that the poll you referred to AGAIN, is extremely biased, and…..there is no way to convince anyone that 57% of 800, is most of America !!!!!! But, by all means, keep trying….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #211397

This is taken from the site you feel reflects what “most of America wants”.

survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.

Go back here http://www.pos.org/inthenews/20070220.cfm and read it again yourself.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #211403

Shall we try some facts again?

McCain recently said he’d prefer sending more troops than what Bush promised in his “surge” but we DON”T HAVE THEM!

McCain says, “WE’RE ALL IN”.

Today’s news has a headline that says, “////

OOPS, cancel that!

Now Bush says we need “8,200 more U.S. troops”.

Yes, earlier today our commanders on the ground were asking for more troops.

Well, troops don’t grow on trees.

This administration is out of touch with reality!

Bush not only believes in money trees, he obviously believes people grow on trees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our CinC is sinking us.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #211405

“The democrats are failing us. Not the Republicans.”

In your dreams! How you get away with derailing the topic of our posts time after time after time I’ll never know.

You’re either a complete and total “boob” or you are simply trying to get someone like me to get kicked off of here. Either way is fine with me.

Tom d seems to be stuck in the 60’s and still believes we can win the war in Nam if we really try. And he just can’t stop until he brings back memories of shit I’d rather never think about again.

Well, let the neocons have it all. They deserve the spoils of war. Fuck ‘em.

Posted by: Kansasdem at March 10, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #211407

K D….I’ve just been thinking the last couple of days that some of these guys on here have been sent to wear us down…..one at a time ! It’s a plot..a grand conspiracy, so we can’t give in…;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #211415
Trying to be impersonal here, I don’t agree that we need the draft again.

We do if we’re going to clear and hold all of Iraq. By not supporting an all-out effort to secure that country, you and President Bush are dooming the operation to slow defeat. Put up or shut up.

The democrats have control of the budget now and they are refusing to cut spending.

BZZZT! Wrong. Dems cut spending by throwing out the pork Replicans put in the spending bills last year. They instituted a pay-as-you-go rule and AFAIK haven’t broken it.

You’re always spouting that fiscal irresponsibility bs, but never provide anthing to support it. If you want any credibility around here you have to do more than throw around unsubstantiated accusations.

I vowed to do all in my power to not let it happen to any other soldier.

tomd, I don’t know of it happening to any soldier in this war — unless you count the crappy care and shrinking benefits they got under the command of this President and the oversight of the Republican Congress.

And frankly, my Dad and a bunch of my uncles and cousins and guys I got to know came back from service in Vietnam and never felt like they were made to feel “guilty and ashamed” of what they did. Certainly, I don’t think you have anyting to be ashamed of for serving your country. I hope you have loving family and friends that you can talk to about what you went through during and after.

Kansasdem: Calm down buddy. People are people and internet blogs aren’t necessarily a reflection American society. They tend to attract people with… umm… let’s just say “strong opinions”. By that, I mean you don’t usually see moderates manning the barricades. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at March 10, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #211418
You make my point—Dems don’t question imperialism or American imperial exceptionalism. Unless it isn’t ‘run’ properly.

To an extent, you’re right. Since WWII, Democratic and Republican foreign policy have largely been two sides of the same coin. That is to say, “realist”.

The notable exceptions to realpolitik came in the form of President Carter cutting off aid to the Shah of Iran because he was a “bad guy” and President Bush invading Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.

Given the results of those liberal policies, I gotta stand with the realists. BTW, I don’t want to see US boots on the ground in Darfur either, unless it’s in our national interest to do so — and nobody’s made a case for that yet.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 10, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #211486

AP:

When did Carter cut off support (financial or otherwise) to the Shah of Iran? Last I heard, we supported that vicious two-bit dicatator right up to the point that his own people kicked him out.

And since when has pre-emptive invasion of a country (Iraq) ‘to spread democracy’ become a ‘liberal’ endeavor? Perhaps in a 1920’s, Wilsonian view of liberalism—thank goodness our politics, thanks to the neo-cons, has become even more ‘real’ since then.

Sorry, when I think of the advocates of ‘realpolitik’, I see Henry Kissinger in all his Machiavellian angst, croaking about ‘geo-political spheres of influence’ while ignoring the carnage he really is advocating. Zbiggy Brezienski is the Democratic version of that animal.

This was a fun article, by the way—thanks for sharing your ideas.

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 11, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #211556
“No Rahdigly, if you go back and read carefully, I was trying to show you that the poll you referred to AGAIN, is extremely biased, and…..there is no way to convince anyone that 57% of 800, is most of America !!!!!! .”


It looks as though you don’t like the (positive) results that Americans have about the Iraq war; rather than a well-informed “pollster”.


Ok, with the POS survey aside, let’s see if you can answer this question:

Do you believe the majority of Americans are for completing the mission in Iraq?!


Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #211575

The point I’m trying to make with you is that the polling results you provide, are from a totally biased and partisan company. And, there is no way that even you can accept 800 people in one area to be a legitimate cross section of opinions !! As far as positive results, it couldn’t have taken long to pick out that few who lean in the same direction as your “well-informed (?) pollster”.
And re: your question about “completing the mission in Iraq”, I won’t fall into a game of semantics on that. These kids are fighting and dying for Bush’s mission, and his percentages have dropped so low, that those supporting him in any way, are in the minority !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 12, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #211582

Sandra,

“I won’t fall into a game of semantics on that. These kids are fighting and dying for Bush’s mission, and his percentages have dropped so low, that those supporting him in any way, are in the minority!”

It’s not a game, it’s a straight-forward question. With polls aside, do you believe that the majority of Americans are for or against “completing the Mission” in Iraq?!!

Step up and answer the question!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #211589

For the last time…”completing the mission” in Iraq is multi-faceted and carries too many conditions, so can’t be answered with a yes or no. By the way, if you’re so gung-ho to be there, when are you going to volunteer??

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 12, 2007 3:13 PM
Comment #211592

I’ve already volunteered; I served in the 90’s and I have a disability that’s keeping me from going back; believe me, I would be in special forces right now if it weren’t for my hand. I do train military and ex-military though and I’m looking into going over there as a civilian. So, I don’t need anybody’s smart-a-lick (“chicken hawk” insinuating) comment to “volunteer” when I already have.


And, if you’re so opinionated with the bias of that poll, then why won’t you answer a simple question as to whether or not you believe the majority of Americans believe in accomplishing the mission?! You talk about “semantics”; calling our troops “kids” is certainly semantics.


So, don’t play this game about how this poll is wrong and then make little absurd comments about “Bush’s war”, “kids” and “volunteer yourself”; that’s a cowardly response.


Don’t be afraid of debate. Answer the question.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #211594

Rahdigly, I will thank you for having served, although you don’t say where. As for anything else, feeding time is over now……..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 12, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #211604
do you believe that the majority of Americans are for or against “completing the Mission” in Iraq?!!

I think 100% of Americans are for completing the mission in Iraq. But more than 70% of us don’t think our current CinC is up to the job.

If Bush won’t send enough troops to complete the mission, then we oughta just leave.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 12, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #211611

“I will thank you for having served, although you don’t say where. As for anything else, feeding time is over now……..”

You think I’m waiting for you to thank me on my enlistment; get over yourself. You proved that you couldn’t even answer a simple question; probably worried that your opinon will tell us what you truly believe. Newsflash, toughguy, I already know what you believe; so, you don’t ever have to answer that (simple) question. Someone else will (probably) bail you out by jumping in and calling me names and saying I am “bullying” you or something other than the actual fact.


Some of you (constantly) prove that you’re all talk. You get high-handed about “sources”, “polls”, “accuracy” and “bias”; then when asked to show your “hand”, you whine and moan and run away from the debate like a bunch of b*tches.


AP,
” think 100% of Americans are for completing the mission in Iraq. But more than 70% of us don’t think our current CinC is up to the job.
…If Bush won’t send enough troops to complete the mission, then we oughta just leave.”


First off, thank you for being concise and frank with your answer; it wasn”t that “multi-faceted” as some have expressed.


The democrats in office are trying to undermine Bush’s “surge” plan; which would increase the amount of troops there.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #211618

Rahdigly, I wouldn’t be afraid to answer any of your questions if you didn’t take most everything said to you and twist it into something unrecognizable.
As far as thanking you for your time spent in the service, you can lose the attitude, because I have for years, and will continue to thank anyone who has ever served.
Running away???? Bit**es….???? You ever hear of “discretion is the better part of valor” ?
And finally, in regards to Iraq…..we got lied to, cheated and tricked in there, and it is far past time to get out!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 12, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #211645

You’re hiding from a simple question; that’s what it all comes down to. Yet, before I asked that question, you were so bombastic with the poll I used as a source. Once I dropped the source and asked you a (simple) question, you clammed up and start dodging the question throwing around words like “semantics”, “volunteer yourself” and “kids”.


I was right on the money with the fact that it’s easy to see you have nothing to debate except for Bush bashing. It’s “Bushes War” and “kids fighting for Bush’s mission”, etc. and you try to cover it up with the “bias” poll and the thanking of Military enlistments; what a bunch of bull!


It’s time for the grown ups to be just that. I’m calling you out in the sense that you either “sh*t or get off the pot”, so to speak. If you want to run your mouth crapping on the poll that showed the majority of Americans for the mission, fine. However, if you want any credence or respect (at all) from the “blogosphere” then answer questions directly and (then) prepare for debate. Step up son.


Step up or step off…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #211674

Rahdigly, I don’t know how, or why, you seem to be exempt from the “attack the message, not the messenger” condition on here. I find that I’m really tired of your messages, though, so you can find someone else to feed off of…..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 13, 2007 3:29 AM
Comment #211690

The only thing that was attacked was your comments. You didn’t answer a simple question, then you went and made (“chicken hawk” style) comments about volunteering when I certainly did. Since you don’t want to answer questions, you clearly showed us who you really are and what you stand for.


All over a simple question; that’s all it takes to expose and debunk some bloggers…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 13, 2007 9:26 AM
Post a comment