Democrats & Liberals Archives

Democrats Won? NO, WE LOST

After Democratic leaders agreed to vote on a “clean” (no timetables or other requirements) funding bill, they announced to the world that this was a victory. How is it possible to give in to the president by presenting him with everything he asked for and call this a victory? NO, Democrats lost.

The leaders tell us this is the best that can be done. The votes are not there to change the course in Iraq. By agreeing to give Bush money, it will be Bush's war and not that of the Democrats. In September worried Republicans will flock to our side. In the fall the pressure will build and Bush will cave in.

None of this makes sense. Democrats have the upper hand. According to the latest New YorkTimes/CBS News poll:

A large majority of the public — 76 percent, including a majority of Republicans — say that the additional American troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush have either had no impact or are making things worse there. Twenty percent think the troop increase is improving the situation in Iraq.

A majority of Americans continue to support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

Nothing could be clearer. In a showdown between Bush and the Democrats, the public is solidly with the Democrats. Yet the Democrats are blinking because they are scared. They are afraid that Bush and other Republicans will call them wimps that are weak on defense, trash them for not supporting the troops, and claim that Democrats can't stand up to Al Qaeda.

By this time they should know better. Regardless of what Democrats do, Republicans will trash them. No need to be afraid it will happen. It is GUARANTEED to happen. The reason Democrats won last November is because they disregarded Republican bluster and worked tirelessly to elect anti-war candidates to the House and Senate. Why can't current Democratic lawmakers stick to their guns?

Wait 'till September? Here's Senator Feingold's response:

You know what’s going to happen in September? They’ll bring General Petraeus back and he’ll say, Just give me until the end of year. I think things are turning around. And then we’ll be out of session, come back in late January, February, and the fact is a thousand more troops will lose their lives in a situation that doesn’t make any sense and it is hurting our military, hurting our country. This should not wait till September.

And what do you think will happen in January, February? The general will ask for more time again. The war will continue as long as this administration is in power. This is Bush's well honed stall tactics.

Democrats became week-kneed and gave in. We lost the battle.

In order to win - and we MUST win to save our troops and our country - Democrats must be firm. Send Bush a bill that funds the war up to a certain deadline, after which money is cut off. We must offer this as the last word. It will not be changed. Bush will wait until the last possible moment and then he will give in. The country is with us. If we do not budge, we are bound to win.

If we do not win this tussle, Republicans will continue to denigrate Democrats. If we win, Republicans will have a new-found respect for Democrats that will enable Democrats to lead.

Posted by Paul Siegel at May 24, 2007 6:35 PM
Comments
Comment #221244

Well, they did manage to include the minimum wage increase to $7.25/hr over two years, with billions to go to businesses as compensation for higher wages paid. Some Democrats might call that a win, like the non-Democrat Democrat Joe Lieberman. God only knows how those 20 million illegal immigrants need a minimum wage increase. Win-win all around! Why does winning like this make me want to vomit?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 24, 2007 6:58 PM
Comment #221252

Stating the obvious, this results in the War being firmly pushed into the run for the White House and will more likely spell doom for encumbants in 2008. If the voters, on the whole, wanted a referendum on the War during last year’s elections, they did not get it today. However, I believe they’ll have a longer memory than normal and we will see even more politicians shown the door. I just don’t think the American people are done saying their peace.

Posted by: Honest at May 24, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #221254

Paul,

Nothing could be clearer. In a showdown between Bush and the Democrats, the public is solidly with the Democrats.


Wrong, Paul! The Majority of Americans are NOT with the democrats and their “retreat” and “defeat” strategy. War Is Not Lost, And Victory Is Important

Posted by: rahdigly at May 24, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #221256

What were the votes of Hillary and Obama? They were really down playing it yesterday in the media, and I have not heard anything tonight.

Posted by: Honest at May 24, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #221258

Both Hillary and Obama voted against it.

Wrong, Paul! The Majority of Americans are NOT with the democrats and their “retreat” and “defeat” strategy.

Rah, more than 70% of Americans want a plan for withdrawal.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #221259

Oops. I’ve seen polls that say more than 70% support a withdrawal plan. Paul’s article quotes a NYt/CBS poll showing 63% support a witdrawal plan.

Either way, rah, you’re wrong.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 24, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #221263

Rahdigly-
The truth is, we can keep fighting as long as we like. But fighting is not what’s going to win or lose the war. What was going to win the war was getting political accord between the different sides. I don’t see where any real progress has been made. Offer what excuses you may, but some things will remain true.

First, this situation was never a necessary part of winning the war. This developed after our primary military victory, and continued to develop over the next few years, while Bush insisted nothing was wrong, and that he just needed more time.

Second, the enemy we face is one we gave the opportunity to participate by not putting a plan or the resources in place to fight. Rumors are that Bush is now trying, through various troop rotation tricks, to raise in country levels to 200,000. Funny how this confident, bold commander doesn’t have the guts to tell the country about what he’s doing.

Third, this was not hindsight. He was told by various commanders what had to be done. He simply did not listen. He chose to go with the words of a bureaucrat in Washington, and despite several high profile failures that were foreseen ahead of time, was absolutely unprepared for them.

As a matter of fact, he was told that at the very least he needed about 200,000 troops to keep just the major cities under control.

Now, if we had enough troops, why were they not deployed to protect the borders, prevent infiltration, calm down lawlessness, and prevent the awful messes that happened in Fallujah and Najaf? Why have we allowed all this B.S. to happen? And how is all this winning the war? This is not an endurance fight against a stubborn enemy. This is a political fight which we’ve utterly failed to win.

Did people like me want that to happen? We’ve been the people telling Bush to improve things all along. You think all that was just for your party’s benefit? You think the rage and dissatisfaction With Bush is just some abstract free floating affair?

At the end of the day, the Republicans and this president brought this situation on themselves. They were so concerned about beating us in elections that they stonewalled on every potentially damaging charge or incident, allowing all this to get worse.

Winning takes more than simple endurance. It takes more than brute force. Too many people look at war in the first-person shooter sensibility. Many fail to consider that war is the extension of policy by other means- which means in short that we’re trying to get them to do something.

It’s not that America cannot bring the force necessary. It’s that all the force in the world cannot bring people to trust us after four years of hellish, lawless occupation.

The Bush sensibility is that a loss is only a loss when admitted. Occasionally, that’s true, but most of the time, there’s what you’re trying to do, and what you actually manage, and what you have the ability to manage in your current position. War is not just pretty rhetoric. In fact, the rhetoric is and should be a small part of such consisderations.

What’s lost us the war is that Bush blew the chance to keep Iraq peaceful, to bring it to function economically, and to bring the democracy about that we intended to bring about.

These things are time sensitive, and the time has come and gone. Even if your President’s goals succeed, we leave behind a place seething in anger, without the Democratic government we promised, with inconstant utilities, rampant poverty and unemployment- in short we leave a mess. I am f***ing ashamed that this is what we have been reduced to regarding as victory.

What’s monstrously shameful in itself is a president willing to open his mouth to support the troops at the drop of a hat, but who has not added the soldiers necessary to carry out the war he insists on continuing. He is running our forces ragged, in defiance of our own military’s doctrine, to the point where our soldiers are being deprived of the ability to reequip, retrain, and recuperate, for the love of God.

Why is this so damn difficult for the Republican party, party that supports the military, to take care of? Isn’t it real hypocritical for those who preach victory, and glorify this war, to turn around and run their military into the ground? Don’t answer that question, the answer should be so god-forsaken obvious its not funny! Yet time and again, the response is, the commanders on the ground have not asked for the troops.

Well, let me let you in on a little secret. Okay, let me let you in on something else that is so ridiculously obvious, that I shouldn’t have to be telling you this: Those soldiers in Iraq take orders, and they do not act insubordinate up the chain of command. They will not go out there and contradict their Commander in Chief, even when he is wrong. More importantly, since he is their ultimate superior, they will take his lead when he suggests that they make do with what they have. They will take orders until they just can’t take it any more, and they leave the military.

Which is what happens. This is the meaning of breaking an army. And it’s coming about because this president fights the war on a political front, with little regard for real conditions. He had open fricking insurrection in major cities during the election. For over half a year, our soldiers were bombed and blasted by these sons of b****es coming out of Fallujah and Najaf. And does he take care of that? What you do think? The fights to take those cities back waited until the end of the election year. He cut thems short in the preceding, despite the protests of those on the ground and the enemy flourished. Where was your cut and run rhetoric then, pray tell?

Why is this president and his Administration, so desperately behind the curve on every issue that matters in this war? Why is this even remotely tolerable among God-fearing and America loving Republicans? Why does this always have to be a political argument, and not an discussion of policy?

The bloody irony of all this, literally and figuratively speaking is that Bush could have won public support for this war far more easily, and won the war itself if he were just willing to listen. Instead, we are told to support the troops when what Bush really means is support my policy without question.

If I wish to be brutally honest about why I’m only mildly disappointed in my Democratic leaders in comparison to some, it’s that I’ve got a long enough memory of all the f***ups that this president has willingly bulldozed through, rather than fix, to know that Bush’s modus operandi is that everybody else can have this war when they take it from his cold, dead presidency. I think it’s chickens*** the way my leaders justified backing down on this measure. But it’s nowhere near as chickens*** as all those chickenhawk Republicans who could jump on Democrats in a split second over any kind of dissent, constructive or otherwise, yet couldn’t do the basics of oversights on a war that the public could tell was having serious problems. I don’t appreciate failure of this kind from anybody. The real question is, where have the Republicans been during all this.

I’ll tell you where they were lining up: behind the Republican leadership. The people who got to sit here safe in America while what was supposed to be a peaceful post war period spun out of control. The people who have let Iraq become a number one al-Qaeda funding source, who have returned Afghanistant to poppy-growing fundamentalists who actually aided and abetted those who struck the towers. The people who took a fight to rid Iraq of terrorism to the place, only to find it not there, and through a series of mistake bring it to the place.

You want to know why your party is loosing? Because it became a hollow shell of itself where people regularly allowed that kind of failure and hypocrisy. God save my party from becoming like that. I can only that the constituents in my party will think of the good of the country first, and not merely blindly line up behind candidates.

I will tell those dissatisfied with the Democratic Party at this moment not to abandon it, but to make themselves heard, and make themselves known as a factor. Let those who are not doing their best to serve the interest of this country and their party know that their failure to meet those obligations is being taken seriously, that they are on probation. I don’t mind rolling a few of their heads.

If you had taken my attitude to your own party, maybe you could have halted their fall from power. Unfortunately, you were too busy defending them from the Democrats to defend yourself from their hypocrisy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #221266

Well Stephen, looks like you’ve been saving yourself for this.
You’re very wise, and it’s pretty obvious that you can tell the difference between frustration, disappointment and just plain apathy.
I really though our salvation had arrived….with strict marching orders and we could finally see the beginning of the end…..that we could stop the death toll and start bringing these kids home. Even all the bulls**t going on through this administration took a back seat to shutting Iraq down, but we run into yet another stumbling block.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 25, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #221270

I think we should go after those Democrats,who voted for this bill.The Blue Dog Democrats should be purged from the Democratic Party,once and for all.I feel like punching most of the Blue Dog Democrats in the face.They are just like dogs.They just rollover and, let Chimpy rub their belly.You never see cats act like that. When the last king is hanged with the bowels of the last priest,the human race can hope for happiness. A popular eightteen-century phrase re-expressed in a Parisian revolutionary journal(11 July 1791).

Posted by: the libertine at May 25, 2007 1:18 AM
Comment #221275
After Democratic leaders agreed to vote on a “clean” (no timetables or other requirements) funding bill, they announced to the world that this was a victory. How is it possible to give in to the president by presenting him with everything he asked for and call this a victory?

I haven’t heard this being announced by democrats as a victory. I am hearing much more somber comments. Paul, who are you referring to?

Posted by: Schwamp at May 25, 2007 7:47 AM
Comment #221276

Sandra Davidson-
I haven’t been saving anything. That’s just a more frustrated version of everything I’ve been saying. I’m just sick of this Republican mythology on the matter, the fact they still don’t get what it’s really about. To put it plainly, I wanted to win! Despite everything, I wanted us to come out of this war, at the very least, having made up for the mistake by leaving the place better than we found it.

I wasn’t looking for us to lose this war. It angers me to no end that I’m told this was my intention. I’m watching a report on CNN with one of those commanders on the ground saying that even in an al-Qaeda drenched area, we were going in without enough soldiers, and this might be a reason that soldiers recently got abducted. I also saw something in the Houston Chronicle saying that the wear and tear of the war on the unit is part of that, too.

It infuriates me that the same people who are so proudly and vociferously critical of dissenters in this war are so damn irresponsible and ham-handed in their conduct of this war. It’s like they think that they can just propagandize and cheerlead their way into victory.

I think it mostly has to do with what lessons they learned from Vietnam. They learned that the American were weak-willed and easily affect by negative coverage (not saying this is true, just what lesson they drew.) They learned that it could all be blamed on those liberals, who could be counted on to betray the country to its enemies. They learned that in a war like this, you only win if you stay until you win.

They learned the wrong lessons. They learned a view of war built on superficiality, and what could be described as a rationalization of the way the government handled Vietnam. Ironically, they may have made Iraq more like Vietnam by trying to use the Iraq war to avenge it on the Liberals.

They tried to keep all the secrets and push the coverage towards favorability. They blamed the media for being negative, instead of trying to deal with what was bringing the bad news.

They encouraged, for political reasons, the same kind of bubbling away seen in Vietnam, where reports on the ground weren’t getting to the brass in Saigon, and what Saigon knew wasn’t getting back to Washington. The results of that have largely been the same.

They encouraged people to blame dissenters, even as the reasons for that dissent came and grew of discontent with the failure of the war to perform as promised.

Finally, they’re perseverating on that war in the hopes of winning it, a mistake that was made before with Vietnam, where we escalated and escalated, yet really had no solid idea of how to achieve the strategic victory. You can kill millions of people and not win if you don’t fight with an eye towards an objective, and/or if that objective is not well understood or plausibly reachable.

The real lessons of Vietnam concerning Iraq were these: Don’t lie to yourself or the American people. Know how you’re going to get from here to there, strategically speaking. And please, God, don’t try to build support by being divisive and abusive to critics. It only ends up creating the opposite problem.

We should not expect something as complex as a war to be easy to stop. We got to approach this smartly, take better positions to fight from. This won’t be easy, and we can’t just slap something together.

The Libertine-
I think we should try and teach them some lessons first, appeal to their constituents. If they feel the war endangers their ballot box, they might cooperate next time around As for that last quote?

I really have my doubts that tyranny ends with priests and kings dead. Bush is good evidence of that, as he is neither.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2007 8:01 AM
Comment #221281

AP,

Oops. I’ve seen polls that say more than 70% support a withdrawal plan. Paul’s article quotes a NYt/CBS poll showing 63% support a witdrawal plan.Either way, rah, you’re wrong.

Look at that (recent) poll again; the people are telling us what they think and what they think is that War Is Not Lost, And Victory Is Important and the President should rely on the “Generals” not the “Congress” for advice on how to conduct the war. Yet, some of you go on and keep thinking that it’s you and the politicians that should do it; see where that gets you.


stephen,

“Finally, they’re perseverating on that war in the hopes of winning it, a mistake that was made before with Vietnam, where we escalated and escalated, yet really had no solid idea of how to achieve the strategic victory. You can kill millions of people and not win if you don’t fight with an eye towards an objective, and/or if that objective is not well understood or plausibly reachable.”


That’s why people should use the WWII comparison, rather than Vietnam. Just a reminder Stephen, WWII we won, Vietnam we lost. The difference between winning and losing was (clearly) the will of the (American) people; they were willing to do whatever it takes to win (in WWII), Vietnam they were not. The media and (some) people are falling for the enemy proproganda about “withdrawl” and “defeat” in Iraq. It’s a shame those people can (actually) feel that way when we have an all volunteer military willing to enlist and re-enlist to fight this enemy. Yet, some of their fellow “americans”, who wouldn’t (ever) enlist in the military regardless of if we were in a war or not, want to throw them under the bus, admit defeat, and succumb to the enemies lies and despicable strategy all b/c they hate the President. A President, by the way, whom the military voted in favor of by (nearly) 4 to 1 margin in 2004!!!! Yet, some of you don’t want to hear that. Oh well, make sure you

Posted by: rahdigly at May 25, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #221285

Rah, in Iraq, whatever it takes means reinstating the draft, bumping our troop strength over there up to at least 500,000, and taking control of the Sunni Triangle, and the Kurdistan/Turkey Border, before all hell breaks loose up there too.

But, Republicans and Democrats alike INSIST that the draft is a bad idea. It is the Republicans who ARE UNWILLING to do whatever it takes to win. That has been the case since the beginning. Now, the cost is too high, and gains too small, to allow for turning Iraq into a peaceful and compliant nation to Western security needs.

So, the bottom line is, this IS like Viet Nam. The American people are unwilling to reinstate the draft and therefore, unwilling to do what it takes to win the peace in Iraq. That leaves only one alternative as in Viet Nam, withdrawal and redeployment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #221288
Yet, some of their fellow “americans”, who wouldn’t (ever) enlist in the military

You’re talking about the chickenhawk Republicans who got us into this mess and then lost it, I’m sure.

whatever it takes means reinstating the draft, bumping our troop strength over there up to at least 500,000, and…

Absolutely right. Wasn’t it a Democrat calling for the draft? How about Sen. Clinton’s bill to send another 100,000 troops to Iraq that Republicans wouldn’t even let come to a vote?

Everybody knows what’s needed to secure Iraq. That was obvious even before the war, and Democrats spoke out. But President Bush — the Commander in Chief — and his unquestioning zombie followers refused to do what it takes to win in Iraq.

And now, the Bush administration is in the wacky position of letting Gen. Petraeus set America’s foreign policy. Lame. Is the military under civilian control as required by the Constitution, or not?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #221291
the people are telling us what they think and what they think is that War Is Not Lost, And Victory Is Important

…As long as it involves a timetable for withdrawal. Spin it all you want, but facts are facts.

And the fact is, most Americans don’t think fighting in Iraq makes a damned bit of difference in the war on terror. The Fort Dix Six just reminded us that no matter what we do over there, we’ll still have to fight them here anyhow.

Heck, President Bush just released intelligence showing that bin Laden thought Zarqawi was wasting his time in Iraq and wanted him to concentrate on America instead.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 25, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #221297

The Romans could not keep Mesopotamia as a provice for long, see
http://www.roman-empire.net/
Bush is no Trajan or Hadrian, and probably never heard of either of them.

Most Americans with no direct connection, lost interest in this war years ago, but it keeps going on and on like someone is waiting to invade Cambodia, I mean Iran, and widen the war.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 25, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #221302

Calling for a draft?
Republicans wouldn’t let them?
Democrats spoke out?
Refused to do what it takes?

Um, AP? Republicans are no longer in control.

Quit living in the past and get your Dems to do what “everybody knows is needed to secure Iraq.” Call for another draft and send another 100,000 troops to Iraq.
IF you guys knew what it takes to win in Iraq before the war, why won’t you lead us to victory now?
Fear of losing in the next election is greater than winning in Iraq maybe?

Posted by: kctim at May 25, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #221307

Rahdigly-
The difference was not the will of the American people, which Republicans seem more and more willing to underestimate nowadays.

No, the difference is, for us to win in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese had to politically organize and put up an effective military resistance to the North. The were a disaster on both counts. Why do you think we ended up fighting a full scale war there, instead of supporting them while they sortted things out?

Without South Vietnam getting its act together, which our presence actually got in the way of, we had no victory.

With WWII, we had allies, but we had their cooperation in the venture, and a common political goal of defeating the axis powers. We weren’t waiting for an enemy to give up or magically reconcile with everybody else.

In Iraq, we had victory in our hands, but lost it, and not because of political opposition to the war. The poor decisions that put us in this position were made early on when most Americans still cheered on the war.

The problem, to put it plainly, was that we never truly secured Iraq. Without that security, everything else, including securing a military victory, preventing al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold, reconstructing Iraq, and reforming its political structure was undermined by the lawlessness and chaos.

I do not subscribe to the tinkerbell theory of warfighting. I think it takes more than clapping and believing in counterinsurgencies to bring victory back to life.

Your side has been consistent in its forced underestimation of the needs of this war. For political reasons, you echo your president’s positions, regardless of what other, more qualified people are saying on the subject. If your side has been so right, why are we sitting here now? Your side was predicting victory at this point. Why did it not predict this?

I think you and other Republicans say whatever you have to say at any given moment to keep from admitting the war’s lost, whether or not it contradicts what your side said six months or a year ago. There was not word one of a surge before the election. Then all of a sudden, the president puts more troops in Iraq, after saying we should stay the course, that we didn’t need any more. Then he starts his surge, and says in six months its no more excuses. Now we’re talking about September. Does it give you the slightest little bit of cognitive dissonance to consider what your rhetoric or the President’s will be that month, when the President and others speak to our progress, or lack of same?

I only ask because my experience of this war has been the perpetual claim of victory deferred. It’s like Waiting for Godot with heavy artillery. Same thing, month after month, year after year, as everything gets visibly worse in the country we’re fighting this war with.

I think you have the feedbacks wrong. People hate this president because of his failures. He didn’t fail for a lack of support, for a lack of will from the American people. That’s just the convenient misanthropic excuse the Republicans have handy because they want the benefit of being right without the requirement of having to show practical proof for that belief.

At some point, though, people want hard proof, not more excuses.

kctim-
The battlefield has changed because Bush did not heed those calls when heeding them would have mattered. It would throwing good people’s lives and good people’s money away for dubious benefit. We blew it. At some point, in any real-world war, there is a point where your means of victory and your belief in it part ways. The environments of a war change, and there are such things as lost opportunities. The Iraq war, at this point, is a long tragic chain of such lost opportunities.

Besides, we got into power by promising to withdraw America from the war. That’s what this whole discussion is about. Outdoing the president on the surge is guaranteed to be a poor way to win the next election, and is by no means guaranteed to win this war at this point. It’s convenient for some to think it’s fear and partisanship, or abstract hatred of Bush, but the truth is, the failures of this president and his party are the drivers of his unpopularity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #221308

Stephen… most of us feel the same way, it’s just that you have far more patience and are more prolific with your words. Both of those qualities prevail when some of the rest of us are sitting out here foaming at the mouth… ;) Thanks again.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 25, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #221309

Stephen, not quite correct. To win in Viet Nam required invading, bombing, and destroying the North and the willingness to take on the Chinese in so doing. Every president of the Viet Nam conflict refused to risk inciting the Chinese into the conflict. Thus, it was apparent by 1967, that the war in Viet Nam could not be won militarily.

A similar situation now exists in Iraq. To seek a military solution regardless of the Iraqi government, would entail destroying the Sunni Triangle with massive bombing and innocent losses. That action of course, would bring a response from the Sunni nations surrounding Iraq in the way of oil embargoes, and radical increase in recruitments to a regional Sunni counter attack against the U.S., not to mention a dramatic recruiting campaign for al-Queda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

That is not a road our military or Chiefs of Staff would even allow Bush to walk down. Hence, like Viet Nam, there can be no military solution to Iraq. The ball is in the Iraqi’s court to fight their civil war, and either have one side win, or both sides capitulate. Which of course, means we are wasting American lives and treasure trying to prevent the inevitable.

The best we can hope for is to prevent the region from being sucked into the Iraqi conflict, but, even that effort is limited in our choices and abilities and by the course the Iraqi conflict takes.

It is a quagmire. No easy way out, and definitely no victory in Iraq for America other than those which are already history. We cannot afford to continue to funnel 2 billion dollars a month into Iraq for the next decade. It is just not in our economic cards and China knows it all too well, which is why they are in no hurry to comply with our trade demands. They are funding our war in Iraq, and as long as they funding it, they don’t have to worry about diplomatic trade demands.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #221310
“You’re talking about the chickenhawk Republicans who got us into this mess and then lost it, I’m sure.”


I’m (also) talking about the chickenhawk liberals, chickenhawk anti-war/Bushies crowd, and the chickenhawk “bloggers” (!!!) who are determined (as is the true “enemy”) for us to lose in Iraq!!! I just showed you a recent poll that shows the American people believe that “the War Is Not Lost, And Victory Is Important”; yet, some of you don’t want to admit that. Americans don’t like the war (no question about that) and they definitely don’t like to lose a war; especially when you have an all VOLUNTEER military that accepts their mission and are putting their lives on the line to accomplish the “mission”!! Yet, there are those that are so hateful, of the President, that they will go “through” the (volunteer) military just to attack this President!!! They’ll actually attack their mission and point out all the bad and leave out the good about what’s going on. It’s a selfish point of view some of you choose and it’s bullsh*t and (absolutely) despicable!


America will not loose this war and any future war. That’s a fact! This country is too(oooo) great to allow that to happen. And, I’m saying this with Bush as our President, Clinton (either one of them), and so forth. America is about “dissent” not “hatred”; some of you ought to figure that out at some point and get on board!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 25, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #221311

Democrats gave in, oh what a surprise.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 25, 2007 8:27 PM
Comment #221312

This more than anything shows why voters can no longer trust Democrats concerning Iraq. If we want to get out voters need to vote for the Green candidates and Libertarian candidates in November 2008, because we will still be there than. Democrats won’t get us out, most of them are scared of big bad Bush. If more people vote for Libertarians and Greens it may finally scare the Democrats enough to let them know they better act or they will continue to lose votes and credibility.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at May 25, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #221316

Richard Rhodes, your comments defy the facts. Fact, Democrats did not have sufficient votes to override a Presidential veto. Even with every Democrat voting the same way, they did not have enough votes as long as Republicans voted with the President.

Also, don’t be ignorant of the ‘ride the wave’ strategy. Democrats pushed, they pushed again, and at the end of the summer with increased American losses, the wave of public sentiment against our continuance fighting the sectarian civil war is one Democrats will continue to ride as they push further and further the President on his failed Iraq strategy.

Democrats are about to cut funding for Guantanamo to partially compensate for the additional spending in Iraq. They will also begin cutting other programs the President champions for his legacy like the Moon/Mars initiative. Bush cannot, and will not be permitted to spend like there is no tomorrow on his Iraq war. It will cost him and his legacy more with each passing emergency spending and budget proposal.

It may sound like I am defending the Democrats. I am not. This is just the reality on floor of Congress. They don’t have a sufficient majority to override the veto. Thus, they have no choice but pressure Bush in alternative ways, and they are doing just that. The poll numbers against the Iraq war and Bush will continue to erode. And with that erosion will come public support for Democrats efforts to cut the President’s intentions to buy his legacy through other programs. In the political reality that is, there is little more than can do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #221322

David R. Remer-
I’m taking as my main source David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest, and what that source indicates is that our military strength was brought in as a substituted for the South, which was unwilling or unable to to take the counterinsurgency ball and run.

We could have won the Vietnam war the way you describe to face the horrors of a nuclear confrontation, which in real terms would have been a strategic mistake for our country. So, short of that, we needed the South Vietnamese to take ownership of their country. To win that, Halberstam asserts, we would have had to have gotten them on board in the beginning of the sixties or before, prior to the point where we burned up our goodwill by supporting Diem so strongly. Johnson’s escalation, where we went from Counterinsurgency to full-scale war markes the beginning of our defeat. We could not win if South Vietnam was using us as a crutch.

The real problem with this war is the way people equate victory in armed conflict with victory in the overall war. As Von Clausewitz says, war is policy carried out by other means. Our policy was a combination of a free (from our point of view) South Vietnam that could stand on its own, without the need for our constant intense military support, combined with the successful continuation of our containment policy. For us to win, South Vietnam had to become self-sufficient in its defense regarding the North. That never happened, and that’s why we lost. In fact, our actions were largely counterproductive, despite our continued success in inflicting casualties and winning conflicts.

This is what I don’t like about Rahdigly’s approach. He doesn’t see outside what you could call the video game statistics of the war.

The best outcome for us is for a calmer, more integrated Iraq to emerge from the ruins of the old one. Our military efforts are not helping anything to emerge besides further chaos, but is artificially propping up an unsuccessful system.

Which is why I agree this war is a quagmire. The real trouble here is that Bush has successfully lead us into the middle of a minefield. and will likely end up getting us hurt worse in the aftermath for his negligence and incompetence.

Rahdigly-
You showed us one poll out of nowhere, which contradicts what most polls say. You can allege a conspiracy by the media on the other ones, but since most of us on the left and center don’t buy that media conspiracy theory, the argument gets you nowhere, and the poll is treated as it should be: as an outlier.

The word Chickenhawk represents those who support wars they were never willing to fight themselves. Bush kept himself out of harms way as did Cheney, but they showed no such reservation about sending my generation to fight their war without working things out.

As for an all Volunteer army, that army is falling apart at the seams because of this President’s actions. I have no idea why hawks like you can continue to ignore the problem, what it benefits you or anybody else to have our military overdeployed and undermanned in what you term to be a critical mission. I don’t get the logic on that. Is it just that you consider this propaganda? So many screw-ups have been glossed over in your party’s quest to disregard discouraging information from Iraq.

I am bitterly angry at this President, make no mistake about it. But I have reason, and however little respect you give to those reasons, they are important to me and most Americans.

America can lose wars, and probably will. We may not admit it at the time, but given a policy rather than politically oriented definition of war and victory, that’s bound to happen at some time. However, no one defeat is inevitable. We will lose the wars we lose because of our mistakes in choosing and carrying them out.

You guys went in far too sure of yourselves, and far too unwilling to consider the possibility that the world might not work the way you wanted it to, even when you wished your hardest for it. Now you want the rest of us to kiss your butts on this war, to tell you just the good things about what you’re doing. For a number of good reasons, we’re really not in the mood to play sycophants.

You had the chance to keep our cooperation, by telling us the truth, hell, knowing the truth from the start, and not spending all those years trying to duck responsiblity for what went wrong. But now you come back, throwing the strongest of vitriol at us for not flattering your sensibilities, and expect us to get on board.

I’m so sorry we’re not kissing Bush’s hand like you think good Americans should. I’m so sorry we’re not lavishing praise on the worst military policy in a decade, as if that could improve things. I’m so sorry we couldn’t help you paint the portrait of this war that matches the beauty of the one you see in your mind’s eye. We’re too busy watching the real world results of that war and feeling pissed off that it’s all come to this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2007 10:40 PM
Comment #221330

Paul
Of course we lost..and so did the country. It was political reality. We just did not have the votes to overide a veto.
Although most Americans oppose the Iraq war there is not a clear majority in favor of a rapid pullout,not yet anyway. Its our job to convince them. This will be aided by another political reality. The Reps do not want another election about Iraq.
Besides there are clear winners. Gasoline is at an all time high. The oil oligarcy is pleased.

Posted by: BillS at May 26, 2007 12:14 AM
Comment #221336

Paul-

The United States is building an Embassy larger

than 25 football stadiums, an oil pipe line all the

way to the ocean an paying Israel seven million

Dollars a year not to blow it up. We are paying

between eight an ten thousand private security

people ten thousand dollars per month each. I

have no idea how many contracting companies are

are being paid for! Then add all the coast of

incurred for maintaining our full Military an

all that comes with it. AND WERE GOING TO LEAVE

WHEN, and at what Cost??

Posted by: DAVID at May 26, 2007 2:14 AM
Comment #221340

Stephen, that is the point, however, that I was making. The political victory in Viet Nam was NEVER in our hands to control. It was always S. Viet Nam’s to win or lose. The only victory the U.S. could attain in Viet Nam was a military victory, but, the cost of beating the North would have been the risk of a new war with China.

Thus, the parallel with Iraq is nearly identical. The political victory needed to produce the outcome we seek is NOT in our hands to control. That is in the hands of the Iraqi government and people.

Like Viet Nam, we could achieve a docile Iraq through decimation of the Sunnis, but, at the cost of both a widened war between the U.S. and other Islamic nations and regional Middle Eastern expansion of the sectarian violence which would threaten the flow of oil. So the military option for victory is not in the cards.

This is as true a case of the ignorance of history repeating the mistakes of history as has ever been seen in modern times. And I use the word ignorance with both its meanings, to recognize but ignore, and to be uneducated. Wolfowitz and Cheney reflecting the former definition and Bush the latter.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2007 6:39 AM
Comment #221348

I feel totally defeated. IMO our party has presented themselves as nothing more than weakkneed spineless slackers. They had a chance to take a stand and present themselves as true leaders with the guts to face adversity and deal with whatever outcome may prevail. They totally failed. Taking a stand and making a statement is about perserverence, determination and the deep desire to do the right thing. They failed on all counts with regards to Iraq. We the american people are the losers. The lost lives, lost billions and loss of respect within the world community.

There is a winner here. Bill S sees it clearly. It is the one factor most people seem to avoid approaching like the plague. The oil conglomerate is succesfully managing to maintain security for their interests at our expence.

The time for our party to show some honest sensibilities and fortitude has been and is now past. It leaves me wondering what it truly takes to reach a level of competant government working in the interests of the people as opposed to those of the wealthy. It seems this group of dems does not have the mettle to take us in that direction.

Posted by: ILdem at May 26, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #221356

Some of you just can’t take the results; claim that it’s an “outlier”. Wrong! The American people and The troops have been speaking for months now; some of you just will not accept the facts. Oh and by the way, the the (true) enemy has been “playing some of you like fiddles”; has to suck for some of you to be “played” by a bunch of (murdering, brainwashed) scumbags?!!! Oh and, some of you will be quick to throw around terms like “we lost” or “chicken hawk”; however, you’re not as “quick” to agree with the American people or the troops that are actually there fighting to “ACCOMPLISH THEIR MISSION” and have expressed that they can & do (indeed) want to win! Yet, keep hating Bush and see how far away from reality some of you have actually gone. The US will win inspite of some of you and your hatred for Bush. See ya!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 26, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #221364

-

Isn’t Ignorance Bliss

-

Posted by: DAVID at May 26, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #221365

rah,

“Yet, keep hating Bush and see how far away from reality some of you have actually gone. The US will win inspite of some of you and your hatred for Bush.”

No matter how many times you repeat this rantra, you never account for the fact that the Iraqis need to cooperate.
The Iraqis must want to succeed enough to die, if necessary, to have their own freedom, in their own country.
All of the different factions of Iraqis must coalesce in order for your claims to be anything remotely based in reality.
It’s far past time for the Iraqis to stop cutting bait and start fishing, or all of your “good intentions” are merely pavement on the American military’s road to ruin.

Posted by: Rocky at May 26, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #221371

Willie

Taking a stand and making a statement is about perserverence, determination and the deep desire to do the right thing.

Yes Willie. The right thing would be correcting all the wrongs that have resulted from deceptive incompetant management and leadership from our executive branch. I would rather associate with spineless leaders who have good intent than corrupt deceptive bums who cater to only their own greedy self interests. I may not be happy with the dems at this point but I am totally disgusted with the alternative.

Posted by: ILdem at May 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #221372

Rah

Man you must be smokin some good sh-t. The only person here with no clear vision seems to be you and a couple of other blind fools. It must be hard to see thru the smoke. The realities of the corrupt republican party have been cleary laid out in the open for the entire world to see. It amazes me that some seem to have no perception of reality when it is slapping them in the face saying here I am, see me. Thankfully your kind is a steadily declineing minority. I guess it just takes some longer than others to see what is so blatantly obvious.

Posted by: ILdem at May 26, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #221379

Rahdigly-
A Conservative Blogger’s headline on the company that did your beloved poll was “Don’t Crap On My Plate, then Call It Chocolate Pudding” Kind of helpful in assessing the quality of the poll. How you conduct a poll can bias results. He says he doesn’t trust their methodology.

Here’s another question: if your poll is right, then what the hell are those traitorous bastards at Fox News doing wrong? Only a quarter of the people polled by them are willing to give the surge time to work. Only a third believe that succeeding is the unequivocal top priority. By comparison, 46 percent of respondents unequivocally want out. Only fourteen percent believe Bush more about the status of the war than General Petraeus, which is not even close to the slight majority that favors him. Fifty seven percent believe we have either lost, or haven’t lost but are heading that direction. Only a third believe we will win. Of particular interest is who people believe is responsible for our trouble in this war:

“If the United States fails in its efforts to establish a stable Iraq, who do you think will be most to blame: President George W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress, or reporters and the media?” Options rotated

President Bush
37

Reporters and the media
8

Democrats in Congress
7

Donald Rumsfeld
5

Republicans in Congress
1

The Iraqis (vol.)
5

Combination (vol.)
28

Unsure
9

Either Fox news is every bit as much a part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, something I think we both find unlikely, or the polling company you cite, which your fellow conservative compared to a very unappetizing kind of dessert, is flawed and misleading.

One thing for sure, Bush is cited as the number one reason for this failure for a reason.

Democrats in Congress weren’t even able to push past this President’s Veto, or stop the surge that was exactly the kind of things that the public elected them to prevent. What makes you think, given all that, that this president could fail to make his policy succeed, given the weakness of policy interference demonstrated so far?

There are only two plausible answers to that question. Neither mutually excludes the other. In fact, both can feed on each other. One, the policy is wrong for the situation. Two, internal divisions in the White House and in the White House contributed to a dysfunctional system for the execution of the policy and for the reliable feedback of necessary information.

If being criticized is all that it takes to undermine the policy of this President and your party, then the policy is weak indeed. Only illusions blow away in the winds of public opinions so easily.

Good policy has a tendency to produce results that back its validity. America is not seeing the results to validate the Bush policy.

As for the Terrorist’s motivations? These folks’s views, actions, and motivations are by definition pathological. It makes little sense to synchronize our actions to responding to their sick mind games. The Terrorist’s power is that they can make us worry ourselves sick, act like lunatics, and put ourselves through hell out of fear of them.

The better strategy is to tell the terrorists to go have sexual relations with themselves, and to come up with ways to make their jobs too difficult for them to have much fun otherwise. The war has swelled their ranks, has given them easy access to American blood to spill, and made it ridiculously easy for them to humiliate our country, bring it pain, and divide us against each other.

In some fashion, we have stop caring what they think, and start caring again about what is in our best interests. We can still fight the terrorists without being so constantly concerned about whether we’re emboldening them. We just have to keep in mind that emboldened or not, they’re going to find a minefield of a defense to run through when they come to our shores trying to make trouble.

The value of such an approach is that you’re no longer focused on anticipating and getting in front of an evanescent, unpredictable state of mind, but instead a much more realistically definable set of objectives they might have, with countermeasures that have far less uncertainty built into their operation. The fact that most passengers will rush a would be repeater of 9/11 is a good reason why that scenarious is unlikely to be repeated. Other scenarios can be similarly discouraged if we just think, rather than act from kneejerk anxiety.

Weary Willie-
I cannot look at a President who talks grandly about winning wars, but does not strengthen and add manpower to a badly overtaxed army, and take his claims seriously. This is a man too worried about political doctrine to reconcile his efforts with basic military doctrine. Either he’s committed and a fool, or he’s not committed, and all this is just a political smokescreen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #221380

I’m for adding a third option……how about he just NEEDS TO BE COMMITTED !??!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 26, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #221384

Stephen Daugherty-

The importance of your keeping up with this

Administration along with a few others, is

very significant an well appreciated. I can’t

say how important being honest an as complete

with your posts impress many.

Thank You


-

Posted by: DAVID at May 26, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #221387

DAVID-
Here’s the thing I’ve observed: rhetoric by itself, while infinitely malleable, can always be adapted to by a rival, in the fullness of time. That’s just the matter of pushing the right buttons, coming up with the right phrases.

The Republicans did many things right with their PR, except relying on it to maintain their political hold on the country. It’s not simply that this is immoral. Spin and lies can only deal with what people know, and are only at their most effective when they don’t have effective competition with a better basis in reality.

I try to use facts more than clever wording, because clever wording sours people when they discover its deceptive or wrong. It’s insulting to people’s intelligence. I want to be factually right from the start, and start the logic and the wit from that basis.

The Republicans tried to build a political system which allowed them an arbitrary degree of control over public policy, control ensured by an active, forceful and pervasive system for getting their message out. Their talking points networks were effective, their research into button-pushing words effective as well. They succeeded in reshaping a lot of public attitudes.

But the arbitrariness of their system had to face a challenge in our new century that it was never built to take on: Issues of political importance, where the facts they used were openly and publically put to the test and found wanting.

They prepared their cheatsheets, and found the test different than the one they had written their scripts for. Undeterred, they kept on trucking, and even now continue their attempts to make this work. But as the poll results show, many people simply don’t buy what they’re selling.

Their discipline compels them to keep the public face consistent. Consistency, though, doesn’t always work in one’s favor when it becomes obvious that one isn’t in command of the facts. Then it becomes a millstone around one’s neck that one cannot let go of without the risk of admitting the problematic truth, or at least the possibility of it.

They’re caught with a message nobody believes, but which they can’t let go of without sending a message they don’t want to send.

This is the paralyzing dilemma of those who cannot make the tough choice early on to face the truth, and it’s the hell that people on all sides of the issues should do their best to avoid.

The politicians need to realize that there is more than one way to communicate a message, and not all of the means of communicating a message are voluntary, and under one’s control. If you lie, then the truth revealed and proven sends a message in the context of what you said that changes the meaning of what you said.

As you can imagine, your intended message falls apart if things go in that direction. The only way to keep the message as consistent as possible is to have as little disagreement between the truth and what you say as you can manage. And if things turn out not to be as you believed they were? Then your best bet is to try and reconcile those things as best as possible. The alternative is to stubbornly get in the habit of sending the wrong messages hoping that your party faithful will continue to take your gospel on faith, even as events and discrepancies create friction between your accounts and other’s reality.

The one thing that I have yet to understand is why the Bush Administration and the Republican party have put themselves and everybody else through that chaos and confusion, why they can’t see that their own actions and the messages they have sent, constitute much of the reason they’re in the crap political shape that they are in.

I would advise my own party that they do not need to get into these habits. They need to realize that only good action reconciled to truthful, well constructed messages aids in one’s successes. Everything else is a liability to be avoided.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #221402

Ildem said: “The time for our party to show some honest sensibilities and fortitude has been and is now past. It leaves me wondering what it truly takes to reach a level of competant government working in the interests of the people as opposed to those of the wealthy. It seems this group of dems does not have the mettle to take us in that direction.”

What it takes, Ildem, is Democrats voting out Democrat incumbents and replacing them with Democrat freshman committed to not making the mistakes of their predecessors. The same is true for Republicans. Independent voters of both liberal and conservative leanings stand ready to assist Democrats and Republicans with this house cleaning. But, it is up to the party’s voters to effectively clean house in their own party, and demand responsibility, ethical behavior, and most important, bipartisan solutions to the challenges facing our nation, for without those, our nation shall surely falter.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #221405

David R. Remer -

I am afraid the Political affilations of our

population are like Religious beliefs and most

likely will take either a serious event, or a


few more years,waiting for a younger generation with an absolute will power to

decide things have to change.

Posted by: _DAVID_ at May 27, 2007 4:09 AM
Comment #221422

Stephen Daugherty-
It is that chaos an confusion which enables the
Republicans to subvert our Constitution in order
to promote their hiden agendas. The Democrats
are not much better. They remind me of two old
sailing ships passing one-another on a dark fogy night.

Posted by: -DAVID- at May 27, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #221437

DAVID, I find hope for my daughter’s future in the growing numbers of Independent voter rolls, and diminishing numbers of both Republican and Democratic rolls as has become apparent over these last 16 years of elections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2007 1:45 AM
Comment #221442

David R. Remer- I guess I decided to make the
independent move regardless of the out come when
I voted for Pat Buchanan, although for all the
right reasons, knowing what the end results would
most likely be, an I would do the same thing all
over again because as you say David, the right
time hadn’t come. I surely hope like minds will
come together sooner than later an do the best
we can in providing a better future for our
Country first, an all the young people who have not
seen the best that our Government has
shown in past generations.

Posted by: DAVID at May 28, 2007 5:03 AM
Comment #221445

DAVID-
The real question is whether the independent streak is a result of real discontent on both sides, not merely the Republicans. I think in recent times, the discontent against the Democrats has had more to do with memory of what was done, and a heaping dose of propaganda, than what was actually done.

Unfortunately for us, that doesn’t necessarily have to stay the same.

One thing in our favor: people pay attention. Hopefully, those in Washington keep up with that and are kept aware of the mood of their people. I don’t think much of quitting the party, because political change works along lines of who’s present. The bad direction of both parties starts with people dropping out, believing that this sends a message. There are so many willing to remain party members, though, and people tend to still vote along partisan lines, even when no longer part of the party, that the gesture doesn’t deprive the parties of much.

What it does do is dilute the concentration of those in the party whose views reflect yours. As instantly gratifying as taking your ball and going home is, it changes nothing for the better. One’s silence is a vote. A Generation of Americans have seen the results of people quitting on the political system; the political system quits right back, quits dealing with their needs, with the real world. As long as we leave the parties to those who care more for winning political games and imposing agendas than actually doing some good for the people, things will continue in this vein.

I stick with the Democratic Party because I believe in its basic principles. I do not, however, go in believing that the expression of those principles is perfect or will come along merely because of the passive presence of the voters. There are many good officeholders, but also any number of your standard politicians, looking to benefit from the power of the position. I want to make the difference between the good officeholder and the standard one merely a question of motive- both should be doing the right thing, one out of love, the other out of fear. I want the standard ones on their toes. Give it long enough, and they might just become good ones to save themselves the effort of having to put up a front, or they might find themselves out of a job, and that’s fine enough by me.

I don’t want a party that tends to politics while the reality of the Republic and the world crumbles around it. I want results.

But the thing I would tell people hit hard by their disappointment here is that nothing like this is easy. I’ve been fighting to get some sense into our country’s policy for years now, and the fact is, we won’t solve a generation of problems in just five months. We have to be smarter, more resilient and more patient than that. Before we give up on the politicians already there, let’s put the pressure on, and let’s see what more they’re capable of. If they have the bad sense to continue to disappoint us, then, we’ll just have to look for new candidates who have better sense.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2007 8:40 AM
Comment #221447

Rahdigly-
Our soldiers are not so gung-ho about the war as you would have us believe, especially since the people they’re training to replace them are ending up among the insurgents they fight, kill, and capture.

Supporting this war does not support the soldiers. It supports a policy formulated blind to the realities of the situation. Nothing so grimly presents us with the twisted nature of this war as American soldiers stuck training and being allies with those who strike back at them.

Iraq has also become a primary source of recruiting, funding, and real world experience for our enemy, not to mention a convenient place to kill Americans, a situation that was not like this before our invasion, and only seems to get worse the longer we stay.

Our efforts are not achieving the desired results, and the indications are that giving up on this war, far from being appeasement, would be our opportunity to stop giving al-Qaeda a free ride on its training, propaganda, and spilling of American blood.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #221745

Dammit Paul, you read my mind. How disappointed I am in our party. Again. In the words of Chandler Bing, could we BE more gutless?

Posted by: Jon Rice at May 30, 2007 11:08 PM
Comment #221800

Stephen Daugherty-

Have you at one time or another thought the

Democratic Party may now have an over abundance of

splinter groups, involved in trying to get more

laws passed for selective groups an make changes

that benefit a few. The point is, in the event

you do not make English the official language, in

time, we will end up with a major language

problem like some other Countries have. Worse

case scenario would be Africa where every

twenty to thirty miles the people can not speak

to one another. In some areas they have a war

once or twice a year just to settle disputes

because they can not communicate with each

other. Then you have the blue dog Dems. who want

separate but equal treatment plus a few other

special groups which most people will not discuss.

I would love to see every one go by our Constitution an bill of Rights, and Congress should make a new law an override The Supreme
Courts last decision on Abortion .

-


Posted by: -DAVID- at May 31, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #221949

All major problems have that problem. I think the Democrats have a more mature approach. Better to let people get their opinions out of their system than to radicalize those opinions by surpressing them. The more a party lets people find their natural balance, and follows that natural balance, the better off it is.

As for making English the official language? That could make the problem worse, where leaving it alone might make it better. People tend to adopt the language they grow up around. The more insular the community, the slower they pick up the language of the larger community. The English First paradigms, by discriminating against non-English speakers, would encourage that division, and minimize interaction. Result? Hardcore language communities.

You should look at Europe and shudder at what’s become of it, because they have tried and done many of the things folks want to try here, including these defensive measures against cultural contamination. Result? Strong, vocal, fairly unassimilated communities of immigrants.

The beauty of a fair, democratic system is that it defuses many conflicts before they even start. It is better, ultimately, to let people assimilate on their own terms, than to force it on them in a vain attempt to change what history and linguistics has demonstrated to be a fairly difficult thing to change in adults.

You can’t resolve conflicts when you seek to cut out some of those involved. That might seem like a solution to some, but in reality, it’s a problem in itself. It’s an artificial win that brings people to a false complacency while other simmer in their discontent. It’s better, ultimately, to let the marketplace of ideas work things out on its own.

As for supreme court decisions? If the Courts say that the reason for their decision is that Congress never said something in the law they did write, Congress can write legislation to fix that. If, however, the courts declared a law null and void, or made a decision concerning an interpretation of the law, their word is final, and contradictory legislation will tend to get struck down.

Too much of a sense of wish fulfillment can be harmful in politics. The system is not bound to serving at the pleasure of any one group, but rather towards the needs of the public in general.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2007 11:04 PM
Post a comment