What's the 'Vietnam Exit Strategy'?

Does the left support victory in Iraq? Apparently not because usually, supporting victory means believing in it. “Dean: U.S. can’t win Iraq war” Of course, I’d hate to be labelling people according to what they actually say (on a continual basis), but the Left has had the same exit strategy for Iraq since we’ve been there. It’s the ‘Vietnam Exit Strategy’, and Dean explains it as well as anyone…

...the idea the war in Iraq can be won is "just plain wrong."

In an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio Monday, the head of the Democratic Party drew a parallel between efforts to hand over security responsibilities to Iraqis and similar efforts during the Vietnam War to the South Vietnamese.

That side ultimately lost the war.

"Of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to support their own country," Dean said. "I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice."

Dean said he wished President Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."

"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.

Calling President Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy, Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops within the next six months. Dean: U.S. can't win Iraq war

Ah, for the good old days. That's what will put this Democrat party back into power. Declaring defeat and pulling out, letting the bad guys take over.

Remember: "Our troops are the enemy."

The Fall of Siagon... or "What supporting our troops but not the mission looks like."

1975: Saigon surrenders

The war in Vietnam ended today as the government in Saigon announced its unconditional surrender to the Vietcong.

The President, Duong Van Minh, who has been in office for just three days, made the announcement in a radio broadcast to the nation early this morning. He asked his forces to lay down their arms and called on the Vietcong to halt all hostilities.

In a direct appeal to the Communist forces, he said: "We are here to hand over to you the power in order to avoid bloodshed." news.bbc.co.uk

Insert Iraq in place of Vietnam and you have future history according to Howard Dean. Funny how simple the Democratic strategy turns out to be. Maybe someone found an old playbook and decided to dust off a few plays for 'Auld Lang Syne'.

Or maybe someone snuck into the D's locker room and switched playbooks. Due to The Conspiracy's By-Laws I can't name names, but a possible suspect's name might rhyme with 'stove' and could have been accomplished during any number of fake grand jury 'testimonials' set up to throw scandal hungry leftists off balance and lead them to believe a 'Watergate Experience' was also forthcoming. Illusion and misdirection, that's what we Republicans do best, no? But then Democrats are so easily fooled.

Is it 1975 yet?

For it before I was against it... or the Winter Soldier strikes again!

Schieffer: Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis' freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Kerry: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, 'Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis.

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that. CBS News, Face the Nation (PDF warning)

Isn't this why Kerry lost the election?

"...going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, ...Our troops are the enemy... terrorizing kids and children, ...Our troops are the enemy... you know, women, breaking sort of ...Our troops are the enemy... the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. ...Our troops are the enemy... Whether you like it or not--" ...Our troops are the enemy...

So why wouldn't it be surprising to hear the exact same talking points coming from Osama Bin Laden?

Zawahri said the new "crusader" campaign by the United States and its Western allies was failing as evident by U.S. losses in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"America and its crusader allies have not achieved anything. Its forces in the battleground are receiving blows each day."

He discredited Iraq's January elections, saying only half the population turned out to vote, and blasted what he called a weak government that was swept into power.

"The (Iraqi) government is begging Americans not to leave because they know the day Americans leave is the day they are finished."

Four years after the U.S. war on Afghanistan, only the Taliban exercised real power in the country, chaos reigned in its capital Kabul, and legislative elections held in September were fraudulent as they were monitored by a biased United Nations, he said. reuters

A pattern emerges

Lest I be accused of hatred and lies, I wouldn't have to do this if the Democrats had a different agenda and actually said so. But the truth is out there-- when you consider that Democrats began floating the idea of a draft to fill in the Vietnam nostalgia and hasten the end of the war. Is it just my definition of hyposcrisy and double dealing that is amiss here or didn't Democrats create a bill to reinstitute the draft before the 2004 election and then used the fact that there was a bill to reinstitute the draft in congress to say Bush wants to institute a draft?

I also remember something about Rock the Vote and P. Diddy saying "Vote or Die" in reference to how Bush's second term meant death for America.

Hoping to build on the American public's growing frustration with the war in Iraq, anti-war activists in San Francisco submitted a local ballot measure that would put the city on record as opposing the presence of military recruiters in public high schools and colleges.

If it qualifies for the November ballot and is approved by voters, the initiative would not ban the armed forces from seeking new recruits at San Francisco campuses, an action that puts schools at risk of losing federal funding.

Instead, the nonbinding "College Not Combat" resolution merely would encourage city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters even if it means forsaking government dollars and to create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults. sfgate

Similiar efforts are under way all over the country by dedicated people.

The Vietnam Exit Strategy includes floating fears about a draft as a tool to weaken support for the war. Efforts to stop military recruiting in order to weaken support for the war. Saying there is no way to win in Iraq as a way to weaken support for the war. Calling Iraq Vietnam and a quagmire in order to weaken support for the war. Calling for an immediate pullout and calling Iraq a defeat in order to weaken support for the war.

Everything points to the fact that the left is doing everything it can to weaken support for the war.

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 7, 2005 4:47 AM
Comments
Comment #99615

Eric,

Your uncommon ability to read between the lines and see information that supports your theroies is uncanny.

Amazing.

Did you have to go to school for that, or was it a correspondence course?

Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2005 6:27 AM
Comment #99620

Thank you Eric, that was a wonderful piece. It amazes me the way Kerry talks.

Of course you do realize that you will only be attacked for unsupported claims and talking points. In any case, thank you.

Posted by: danny at December 7, 2005 6:41 AM
Comment #99622

I’d hate to wonder what our boys overseas are thinking when they hear of things such as that mentioned above. Granted, being a soldier in a state of war probably isn’t much for morale in the first place, but to be a soldier in a state of war from a country where a large percentage of its citizens are defacing and voiding your efforts must be terrible.

Posted by: Rudebones at December 7, 2005 7:01 AM
Comment #99623

Eric

This piece is the early favorite to win the prestigious Sicilian Eagle best post of the week award.

Once awarded,feel free to use it on your professional resume.

Both Dean’s comments are,of course,moronic,sophmoric and idiotic and Kerry’s were…just John being himself.

I woner what my friend Burt has to say about Dean and Kerry’s words of infinite wisdom?

What say you,old friend?

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 7:14 AM
Comment #99629

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…

And they wonder why most of our troops don’t vote Democratic. It’s too bad we can’t make Kerry post links to back up his outrageous claims.

Iraqis should be doing that.

He wants Iraqis to break into homes and terrorize families? Scary…

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 7, 2005 7:21 AM
Comment #99634

SE,

Haven’t we been told that the “war” in Iraq was part of the “war on terror”?

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead/2004-October/001207.html

“We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile,
aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they
are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of
picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are
upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in
their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient
straw man of “left wing media bias.”“

Didn’t Bush himself say that the war on terror was unwinable?

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/227273p-195190c.html

“Prez on war against terror: ‘I don’t think you can win it’

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — President Bush says staying the course in the war on terror will make the world safer for future generations, though he acknowledges an all-out victory against terrorism may not be possible.
In an interview on NBC-TV’s “Today” show broadcast to coincide with Monday’s start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush said retreating from the war on terror “would be a disaster for your children.”’”


So, wouldn’t this be an attempt by Eric to have his cake and eat it too?

Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2005 7:29 AM
Comment #99646

How is any war ‘won’. Kill more than be killed.

I am sorry but there is no winner there, only losers.

We put unjust wars first because most wars are unjust. War mentality relies heavily on using the human herd instinct to shame the soldier into fighting the unjust war. One is told that they should be a brave soldier and fight for some cause that is in fact a bullshit cause. They are promised glory and honor and that if they die then their memory and their families with bet attributed with greatness because the honorable brave soldier gave his live for the supposedly noble cause.But often the noble cause is just some oil company trying to set up an unelected puppet president in order to steal oil from a less powerful group of people— wait i am sorry, to liberate them.

The realist is required to think things through and to determine as best (s)he can what the truth is and if the war is unjust to resist the war and to refuse to participate in it. In an unjust war the realist is expected to fight against the war effort - to protest - and to make the truth known to as many people as possible.

Sometimes a madman is allowed to seizes power and becomes a threat to the civilized world and has to be taken out. I think most people would agree that taking Hitler down in World War II was something that was absolutely necessary to preserving the future of mankind. In such a situation the Realists will conclude that war is necessary and will do whatever it takes to win the war with the goal of restoring the peace.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 7, 2005 8:04 AM
Comment #99649

From The “National Strategy for Victory In Iraq” - Published - November 2005.

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element
in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past
wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or
be signaled by a single particular event – there will be no Battleship Missouri, no
Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
In the short term:
• An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency,
meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security
forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling
key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
• An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security,
with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to
reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
• An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
• An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the
institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their
country.
• An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for
regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

——————————-

Eric, I’ve been through the recently published strategy for victory in Iraq. Nowhere in the strategy is there a discussion of how the US will deal with the probable rise of Shiite sponsored theocratic rule within the country. We have made as central tenets of our strategy for victory an Iraq that is “democratic and a partner in the global war on terror”. Is that realistic? Is it not more likely that any government elected by Iraqis will be dominated by Shiite majorities? Is it also likely that those Shiites will align themselves more closely with Tehran than Washington D.C.?

In fact, the strategy mentions Iran only twice in the 35 pages of information on what victory means. Once on page 13 and once on page 24 and in both instances only identifies Iran as a potentially “de-stabilizing” force in the region.

To me, any cogent strategy for success in Iraq has significant discussion of how to deal with Iran. I’m not sure Governor Dean was too far off the mark when I read this strategy. Is it more likely that the Iraqis will throw off centuries of tribal hostility towards each other and embrace a truly representative democracy, or is it more likely that a majority of people in Iraq, who for 30 years have been brutally oppressed by a smaller minority from a different tribe will seek revenge against its oppressors and align themselves with a country and a people that map to their beliefs, customs and laws?

Additionally, if we are “successful”, and a democracy is instantiated within Iraq. What happens if that democracy decides to adopt a theocratic constitution and form of government? If they institute a council of clerics that drive sharia law into public policy, will we be satisfied? Will this constitute victory? What happens if this occurs? Will we overthrow the government and attempt to put someone in more palatable to our tastes?

Rather than look at Vietnam as a model for the US to consider in making its policy, perhaps we should look at Afghanistan under the Soviet Occupation from 1979 - 1988. During that period of time, the occupied were never pacified, never stabilized and the final outcome was a country destroyed, over a million afghans killed and 15,000 Soviet forces killed. After the departure of the Soviets, a series of ineffective faction based and war lord led republics trundled along until 1996 when the Taliban rose to power.

I don’t necessarily agree with Governor Dean, yet. I do however think there is a growing dis-satisfaction with this administration’s failure to develop a cogent plan for Iraq that has some positive options for the US. It looks to me that there are two probable options for us: We can get ourselves accustomed to a long (multi year, 5 more years probably) stay within Iraq to attempt to pacify the insurgency and broker some type of peace between the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. Or, we can pull back and let the Iraqis attempt to work things out. Neither scenario is a good one. In the first, we commit troops for long term occupation. Resentment within Iraq continues to build and the country gets unified on one thing: getting us out. The result? More IEDs and more attacks against US soldiers and casualties continuing to mount. Of course, we won’t sit idly by and let them blow us up or shoot at us. We’ll respond, which will include the unintentional deaths of more Iraqi non-combatants, which will then result in more recruits for the insurgency. Look at Israel and Palestine for an example of this. In this option, we have a long-term war that will continue to kill US and coalition soldiers. The country’s appetite for this will wane and political force will be brought to bear to end the occupation and come home.


In the second option, we see a de-stabilization of the country into civil war. Most likely, the Shia will direct their anger toward the Sunni. If they are smart, they will sign a non aggression alliance with the Kurds in order to concentrate their efforts on the Sunni minority. Syria will offer support for the Sunni, Iran will offer support for the Shia. Who will win? War of attrition and Iran probably has more troops, resources and time. Russia and China have both entered into signficant trade and financial agreements with Iran. With 60 million people, significant resources, a standing army of over a million soldiers, Iran is a force of considerable power. The Iran backed Shia would most likely prevail and Baghdad will be a friend to Tehran. This is obviously not in our best national interest geo-politically.

Of course, both scenarios could be BS and we’ll see the flourishing of a western style democracy with full women’s rights, no reciprocity from Shia against Sunni, and a non-intrusive Iran and Syria. The Kurds might fully join the ethnic triumvirate and a stronger, freedom loving, democratic power with vast oil reserves that they will be able to independently operate within the free market will emerge. Tolerance of multi religious worship may take hold, with Christians, all aspects of Islam and perhaps even Jews allowed to worship according to their own beliefs. A fair and balance press may emerge that doesn’t shill for political power and instead informs the public with the truth of what is occurring in the country. All of these things may emerge, and if they do, it will be a wonderful thing. The likelihood of this happening in my view is significantly less than the other two scenarios I described above. So, I ask you. What is the real definition of victory in Iraq? I really want to know. The “strategy” document that reads more like a Christmas Wish than a strategic plan doesn’t do it for me. Someone got the answer?

Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 8:31 AM
Comment #99651

Granted as a dem I am in no way in favor of either John Kerry and ‘silly-string’Dean nor condone their rediculous statements. Frankly I think they should get the hell off our team and take Michael Moore/Al Franken with them.

“The war is not winnable” is also a statement by George W Bush, that is known as was in the Matt Lauer interview, yes. Now beyond that..

Right now we are doing more than just bursting into homes and breaking a few Islamic customs. We are terrorizing a civillian population. WE are busting down doors in hospitals looking for terror suspects and shutting off electricity in operating rooms. We are the very tories we fought so vigilantly against in the late eighteenth century in our American revolution. Search and seizures, torture, disappearances and the like.

WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST ISN’T TERROR IT’S THE IRAQI POPULATION. We are the invaders, we are the insurgeants as we control those cities.

Are any of you history buffs? Well do you remember how Hitler took over France and Poland? What did he do? He took control of the cities and did searches and seizures and got the population to turn on it’s own citizens. What are we doing?

We took over the cities and are now getting resistance how dare they fight against the empire, Right? We are the roving targets of all of their aggression as we use tyrrany to topple terror. Gee why aren’t we percieved as liberators, I wonder maybe because we are killing people in cars that are fleeing the cities and getting urban populations killed everywhere we dummards go. We hang around shopping areas and schools and other civic places and then we are bombed, killing them too. They have no armored vests but we insist upon being in their periphery in a misguided attempt to be these wonderful protectors. Then we get bombed or shot at and civillians get caught in the crossfire and blown to shreds and then they are angry. You would be too if your child’s head, arms and legs were blown off because some idiot soldiers want to play superman in your public square. Who’s the bad guy with such stupid moves on our part?

We are entirely unsafe to be around or to have around. They don’t protect my freedoms at all in this war so I can speak however I like about them.

WE WENT THERE FOR THE OIL AND GOT CAUGHT UP IN AN ENTANGLEMENT OF LIES. SO NOW WE HAVE TO DO THIS BOGUS NATION BUILDING. that’s what it is, pottery barn my ass. we did “shock and awe” for oil.

Now why are conservatives afraid to be pragmatists? WE got the oil, mission f**kin’ accomplished, done. Now let’s protect that pipeline and stay out of the cities. we got what we came there for despite Bush’s claims to freedom fries and liberty soft drinks, we got the oil. We have a seat at the OPEC table.

Believe it or not the terrorists will come to us even if 100 miles away.

Allawi got a shoe up his butt can you blame them for inserting it there? He played partisan to the very people who terrorizes their nation and peace and stability, The United States of America. We ransacked their entire country all on a whim and have killed in excess of 180,000 civillians. Who can claim now that we are really the good guys or that our soldiers aren’t invaders. Again we killed 180 thousand and growing daily the longer we stay in those cities like a hitleresque presense with a bad strategy.

Congress left and right are full of shit on this issue. Dean and Kerry are wanks amongst their own peers but the whole attitude to this reads like a Milton Bradley game to these people, THIS IS NOT A GAME TO THE THEM THE WAY IT IS TO US in the U.S. we are getting their civillian populations killed now in excess of 180,000 lives, possibly higher. And the people can’t flee the cities so they just wait until it’s their tyurn to get blown to bits or have their home raided and their family members shot.

OH what a great thing we did liberating them. How is death on the street coner liberation. Or to have the dummies in uniform go into a neighborhood to get attacked and then leaving behind dozens of innocent civillians dead in the aftermath.

What about the orphan problem as parents trying to get food for their kids never return because they get caught in the crossfire?

Republicans are never the good-guys because they think it’s all a game and not human life. I refuse to engage in these dummard CNN talking points with you I’ll just tell you the truth and there it is. We are not the good guys in this fight. Tie your yellow ribbons somewhere else!

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 8:33 AM
Comment #99652

With the ruling majority of Iraq aligning with Iran and Iran poised to send the Iraqi gov’t. whatever it needs to carry out genocide upon the Sunnis, on the day the Western Coalition leaves Iraq, the table is set for one of two outcomes.

Either 1) a Western Occupation remains indefinitely to hold back the Iraq/Iran alliance, and against the wishes of the Iraqi Government we remain as occupiers, we are caught in the situation of fomenting a growing insurgency as we already have been, until such time as we can no longer afford to stay due to debt and deficits at home as well as a divided nation on our continued Iraq presence and growing body bags, or,

2) we leave and allow the Iraq/Iran alliance to take place and the ethnic cleansing to commence in Iraq against the Sunnis.

Seems Dean, Kerry, and similar critics are facing reality, a reality which this administration recognizes and can’t resolve other than their electing option one, stay the course, bankrupt our nation, divide our people, all the while transferring ever more American tax payers to the Iraqis for years and years to come.

There will be an exit of American troops, and afterward, there will be a civil struggle and challenge to Iraq’s government. The only question is when and after how many American dead and wounded soldiers?

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 7, 2005 8:33 AM
Comment #99663

Are we sure Kerry didn’t have some rice lodged in his brain when he blew his own ass up? Maybe the fact that he committed a war crime himself has finally taken its toll.
Dean appears to have performed a labotomy on himself or has inhaled too much. Maybe he’s into reddiwhip.
Kennedy drank one too many bottles of scotch and his memory is playing tricks on him.
Pelosi is just plain stupid.
Boxer just follows her leaders * Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid.
Reid is in a class all his own. From ‘moderate?’ to outright viscious.


Feel free to attack any politician of your choosing. Be careful though. Calling people demeaning names is a form of torture.

Posted by: damagedbyrice at December 7, 2005 9:08 AM
Comment #99678

Damagedbyrice, did your Mom let you stay home from school today because you have the sniffles? That was nice of her.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 9:29 AM
Comment #99706

That post has no relationship to reality. It’s either an excellent satire or a poor mans Goehring.

Posted by: Dave at December 7, 2005 10:03 AM
Comment #99747

Jay,

Why are you paying 2.35 a gallon? For whom does that serve to charge you more? That would be the corporate interests that got us into this jam, Jay? This war makes billions annually for all GW’s corporate donors incl. oil companies and weapons contractors.

A thug hardly, but there are those part of an urban combat strategy that get civillians killed in the crossfire. But the part about hospitals, schools, neighborhoods and civillian costs are absolutely true. Are they fighting in close combat situations in Iraq? YES. Are they using mortars and grenades and even phosphorous in those neighborhoods, YES. Is that killing civillians including children who get caught in that, YES. Are there cases where civillian cars were shot up and blown up by US forces and families were killed inside, YES. Are republicans and democrats talking about this war in abstract or highly generalized term, UNDOUBTEDLY. Are there in excess of 100 thousand civillian casualties as a result of the American invasion, YES. Do they do assault invasions of complete neighborhoods and door to door searches, YES. Are they hanging out in front of civic places at times jeopardizing the lives of civillians, YES. Are they going through hospitals even going as far as turning out electricity, Apparently so. Are there surgeries being done in Iraq where they don’t even have even an anesthesiologist on staff, YES thats true too. Are hospitals in the wartorn areas unable to get medical supplies, YES. Did we use White Phosphorous just for luminating night skies, NO we used it with a HE for maximum impact (high explosive rounds). Will the truth of what’s really going on now shock us when we find out about it in the aftermath of this war, YES. Are we deploying depleted uranium rounds over populated areas, YES. Are many of their waters polluted with toxic chemicals, YES. Are we fighting for liberty when we do all this to a population, that’s my question. Did we do this all on a misguided 9/11 whim, Undoubtedly so. Do thy have elctricity or phones in those cities under American occupation, very little if any. Do they have running water in those areas, Sometimes not. Are there now waterborn diseases as a result, YES. Did we destroy them just after they began a recovery of their own economy, YES. Will they continue to be pissed off about what we’ve done, UNDOUBTEDLY. Will they take up arms and fight against America for doing what they did, Apparently so.

I just would like to see this discussion go beyond just the CNN talking points and go to what’s happened instead of the abstract.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #99746

Jay,

Take a deep breath and cool down, please. Novenge was not trying directly to insult your relatives. Please do not take disagreement about Iraq personally - that wasn’t his intent. Your brother-in-law is probably a great guy, but that doesn’t mean that there is no room to criticize the decisions made by the military and civilian leadership.

Please do not take critiques of the job the military has been given and the instructions they have as an insult to those you care about - doing so will close off any debate and lead you to the level of illogical responses that you accuse liberals of.

Also, please pull back on the swearing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #99750

David
As the “main guy” on watchblog I applaud your efforts on exposing the corruption that exists on the two party system…sometimes I wish that 3 parties would simoulteneoesly start…a conservative,moderate and liberal party…this way a new movement would have appeal to all segments that are sick of the status quo and each would have membership ab initio

That being said,I think you are a little too much on the doom and gloom side post election and post America leaving(whenever that will be).

Yes there will be further carnage but moving forward there will be additionial strength in the newly elected government…a government by the way that will have active Sunni participation.

Maybe you should withhold the gloomy stuff until after the election and see what the new year brings.

Rocky
Nice hearing from you again.

My view is that every day more experienced insurrgents get killed off and the “replacement” killers taking their place are far less experienced.

Meanwhile,both US forces,who have benefit of two or three tours now are better able to handle this urban warfare as are the new Iraqi security forces.

What the new security forces needs(and this is a function of time,plain and simple) is a mid-level officer corps..which will happen.

What we need desperately there are translators and better on the ground intel…although the intel is getting better by the hour.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 11:11 AM
Comment #99767

It took over thirty years for Robert McNamara to admit that Vietnam was nothing but a mistake — something that the vast majority of American’s already recognized. Perhaps it will take many Republican’s an equal number of years to admit that the war in Iraq has been too. Although who knows, there are still a certain percentage on the right (those who didn’t fight there, mostly) who refuse to agree with that assessment on Vietnam, so maybe it’ll never happen with Bush’s war, either.
Btw, it didn’t take McNamara very long at all to come to a decision regarding our current war. He feels that we’ve made the same mistakes all over again. On Iraq he says: “It’s just wrong what we’re doing. It’s morally wrong, it’s politically wrong, it’s economically wrong.”

In 1995 in his memoir ‘In Retrospect’ McNamara laid out 11 lessons he felt we should have learned from Vietnam. Since so many of them apply to Iraq, it seems obvious that the Neocon’s and their followers didn’t read his book.

So, here they are:

McNamara’s 11 lessons

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience… . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine… . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
6. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
7. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
8. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
9. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
10. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions… . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
11. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 7, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #99770

Novenge,

You’ve definitely drank the cool-aid…

Posted by: Cliff at December 7, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #99772

Cliff,

No cool-aid, just a frank look at reality and the natural revulsion that should follow.

When will the right admit that under BushCheney we’ve become the axis of evil? It’s time to expurgate the poisons, accept the blame, ask forgiveness, and become good citizens again.

Posted by: Dave at December 7, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #99773

I think the US should pullout and admit defeat 1 day before the Iraqi election. I mean, it’s only Iraq’s third election this year and with a newly formed constitution. Where they’ve come in three years is just amazing; look how long it took Japan and Germany after WWII.

So, I think the US’s approach for future wars and conflicts should be to pullout before we even get started. Just admit defeat. Yeah! Oh and, we should hand over all the power to the liberals. Yeah!!

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #99780

I knew I could count on Eric for more right wing vitriol and distortions.

Does the left support victory in Iraq? Apparently not
Bullshit. There is a HUGE difference between wanting to achieve victory and discussing the best way to achieve it or wondering if victory is achievable. Typical, Eric. Karl Rove would be so proud.
Declaring defeat and pulling out, letting the bad guys take over.
It was Nixon who pulled out of Vietnam. But you blame the Dems. Cute. Last time I checked, Nixon was a Republican.
Our troops are the enemy
Despicable lie. Nothing more, nothing less. Kerry said no such thing.
Is it just my definition of hyposcrisy and double dealing that is amiss here or didn’t Democrats create a bill to reinstitute the draft before the 2004 election and then used the fact that there was a bill to reinstitute the draft in congress to say Bush wants to institute a draft?
And this would be completely different from the Republicans introducing a bill to withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately, so they could blame the Dems, wouldn’t it? Where’s your outrage at those vile, double-dealing Republicans?
P. Diddy saying “Vote or Die” in reference to how Bush’s second term meant death for America.
As opposed to Dick Cheney saying that a vote for Kerry would cause more terrorist attacks?

Now that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq is draining like the water out of a flushed toilet, it’s funny to watch the Right say anything - ANYTHING - to try to blame the left. It’s funny - and typical.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 7, 2005 12:09 PM
Comment #99782

What do the Iraq elections mean to the average Iraqi?

Squat. Nada. Zilch.

What does the Iraqi constitution mean to the average Iraqi?

The same.

We’re in Catch-22. The only way to win is to leave. The only way to leave is to win. So, let’s say we won, and leave. What’s to lose?

Posted by: Dave at December 7, 2005 12:16 PM
Comment #99789

Here is a terrific article by Juan Cole on the recent political history of Iraq, from the rise of Dawa and SCIRI to today.

Dave,
The constitution and the election mean the triumph of the Iraqi Shias, and the establishment of Shia domination over the gulf. As someone said, “unintended, meet consequences.”

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #99795

Elliot, come up with a new line other than Reps saying anything -ANYTHING - to excuse this war. Remeber I took full responsibility for this war with only one squirm, I thought that would satisfy you. Our troop strength will begin a gradual reduction in 2006 and I can hear it now that the libs will take credit for it. which will be a continuance of the BS they utter everyday. By the end of 06 the Iraqi government and military will be 95% in control (my prediction) and our troop strength will be less than half what it is today. The libs will then be saying that if it wasn’t for the pressure they put on the WH, that wouldn’t have happened. I remember someone saying that as “the Iraqi’s stand up, we will stand down”. Who could that be? Reps don’t have to excuse this war, with two successfull free elections (a third one just days away) for the first time EVER in Iraq including women voters, Saddam on trial, a constitution nearly completed, a 200,000 strong Iraqi military and security forces growing and improving daily. By the end of 06 this may be deemed one our more successfull military efforts, and even Sen.Lieberman might agree. He just came back from there and was impressed by the progress, how many times have you been to Iraq Elliot?

Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #99798

Jay,
What Eric & most right wingers blithely ignore is the fact that the Shias will be in power next month. We’ll be in Iraq as long as they want it, and no longer. It doesn’t matter about the US strategy for victory.

A better question is whether the new Iraqi government will sign the PSA’s with American Big Oil. Will Chalabi’s tentacles grip of the oil and finance sectors of the new government be strong enough to deliver Iraq’s oil reserves to the US? Or will the fundamentalists be powerful enough to turn their backs on American Big Oil, and turn to the French & Russian companies?

The new government will consist of members of Dawa and SCIRI, along with al-Sadr. These people are no friends of the US. These people are very friendly with Iran.

When they ask the US to leave- and it will be sooner rather than later- the US will leave. There will be no choice. The alternative of facing combat with the Shias makes the illusion of victory moot.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #99800

PH, so now it is a conditions based victory? Our mission was not to prop up a puppet government (as I clearly rememer that being one of the left’s complaints)so now the complaint is that they don;t like who is in charge. The people of Iraq voted for this government, it is not our place to criticize it. They now (or soon) will have a freely elected representational government with a military to protect their authority. That was the mission. Now we leave, support and hope that they respect others sovereignty.

Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2005 1:14 PM
Comment #99802

This thread is tired flamebait basically saying all democrats think our soldiers are the enemy. It doesn’t engage any real issue, and isn’t worthy of being posted to this site. What are we supposed to discuss? I feel no need to defend these comments, which aren’t representative of democrats as a whole and seem designed simply to raise ire.

What of Dean’s comment that the war can’t be won? Is it true? I don’t know the answer. It’s certainly not a clear cut case either way or a ridiculous position to take. Personally, I, and many others, think it can be won but not by this administration, where there has been no accountability or admission for errors, and no results. We’ve broken our bank, spent like there is no tomorrow, still do not have a well-defined plan, and every plan for success that should have been implemented years ago now has far less of a chance of working.

Instead of writing the same tired flamebait blaming the democrats’ criticisms of the war for its failures you should try writing about why you think this war is winnable. The country is sick and tired of this kind of knee jerk partisan finger pointing. Put your mouth where our money is and tell us why the war is working. We’re waiting…

Posted by: Max at December 7, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #99806

Dave,

When will the right admit that under BushCheney we’ve become the axis of evil?

Thank you for showing which side you’re really on, Dave. You only prove my point that the left has always seen America as the focus of evil, and our foreign policy as the reason for terrorism. (Actually, you could make the case that our foreign policy may have contributed to allowing this evil to propagate in the middle east but Bush’s policy is would actually be a radical divergence from that foreign policy.)

ElliotBay,

Bullshit. There is a HUGE difference between wanting to achieve victory and discussing the best way to achieve it or wondering if victory is achievable. Typical, Eric. Karl Rove would be so proud.

No, there is a huge difference between supporting victory and supporting defeat. Joe Lieberman is a liberal who supports victory. Howard Dean is a liberal who supports defeat. There is a huge difference between the two. What is gained by attempting to weaken support for the war except a Vietnam style defeat?

This is the reality you have to accept. The Democrats have been implementing a political strategy that is based on, Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.”“Sadly, for America, this means Democrats support defeat.

It was Nixon who pulled out of Vietnam. But you blame the Dems. Cute. Last time I checked, Nixon was a Republican.

Nixon wasn’t much of a conservative in my opinion. But it’s a good example of what happens to Republicans when they follow liberal policy demands. Didn’t Nixon do exactly what Howard Dean would have demanded he do? What McGovern promised to do? What Bush is in fact being asked to do by the left today?

Nixon should be your hero for getting us out of Vietnam finally, unless that was actually a secondary objective. The primary objective being domestic political victory. But then where did the Democratic party go from there? McGovern and Carter?

Our troops are the enemy

Despicable lie. Nothing more, nothing less. Kerry said no such thing.

No, Murtha said it. Kerry echoed it.

And this would be completely different from the Republicans introducing a bill to withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately, so they could blame the Dems, wouldn’t it? Where’s your outrage at those vile, double-dealing Republicans?

Huh? I think you’re beginning to believe the propaganda. Republicans exposed the hypocrisy of democrats by bringing this vote to the floor and didn’t pretend that it was their position. They did the same thing with the draft bill. Democrats tried to blame Bush for trying to institute a draft! Republicans called them on it. The difference is honesty.

As opposed to Dick Cheney saying that a vote for Kerry would cause more terrorist attacks?

Yes, different in that Cheney wasn’t saying that Democrats would actually be doing the terrorist attacks, only that their policies would lead to vulnerability to attack. While P. Diddy was actually intimating that Republicans might be doing the killing. We are racists after all.

Now that support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq is draining like the water out of a flushed toilet, it’s funny to watch the Right say anything - ANYTHING - to try to blame the left. It’s funny - and typical.

Thank you! You prove my point, you are happy that support for the war has been weakened and not only that, but any effort to increase support and argue against the arguments against supporting the war is discouraged by characterizing that effort as blame shifting. You prove my argument wholly.

Declining support for the war = Mission accomplished for the left.

Posted by: esimonson at December 7, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #99807

Jay,
Fair enough. Let’s look at other countries with similar situations. Would you advocate the Egyptian government be democratically replaced by a representative one, like the Islamic Brotherhood? In Syria, would you like to see fundamentalists democratically take over from Assad? In Lebanon, would you like to see Hezbollah democratically govern?

Furthermore, in the name of democracy, would you advocate installing Islamic regimes at the cost of 2,000 American dead per government, 15,000 wounded, $250 billion or more spent, not to mention the tens of thousands of civilians and opposing forces who would die?

Perhaps that’s where we’re heading anyway? The point is that it’s painfully stupid to bring that about by invasion and occupation, and loss of blood and treasure, regardless of the current governments in place.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #99811

PH, no, no and no. I don’t want to impose any type of government on any nation. I only want them to respect others sovereignty and respect human and civil rights. The other Arab nations may fall a little short in the human and civil rights area but they are not even close to the disregard of sovereignty and human rights that Saddam had.

Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2005 1:39 PM
Comment #99813
When will the right admit that under BushCheney we’ve become the axis of evil?

Thank you for showing which side you’re really on, Dave. You only prove my point that the left has always seen America as the focus of evil

Eric, you proved nothing. He said that Bush’s administration is making the country known as evil. That’s completely different than your claim that liberal have always seen America as evil.

He says that America is good but perverted by a bad President. You misread it as saying America is bad.

Do you honestly think that you are an honest player in your debates?

Our troops are the enemy

Despicable lie. Nothing more, nothing less. Kerry said no such thing.

No, Murtha said it. Kerry echoed it.

No, Eric. You are changing the meaning of what Kerry and Murtha said in your paraphrase. Then, you attribute your misinterpretations to the entire class of Liberals. That is morally equivalent to lying on two levels.

Please stop.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #99817

Lawnboy,
“You are changing the meaning of what Kerry and Murtha said in your paraphrase. Then, you attribute your misinterpretations to the entire class of Liberals. That is morally equivalent to lying on two levels.”


Are you actually going to try to defend Kerry and Murtha’s comments?! They are both ridiculous; they think that b/c they fought in Vietnam that they are the ones that know what’s best for our troops? Wrong! Kerry and Murtha are being used, by the democratic party, b/c they are the few that have been to war. However, that’s the war we lost and Kerry was a big anti-war activist.

Well, we don’t have a draft anymore and our troops don’t need a “staged” political stunt from these democrats to tell them that they can’t win or this war is unwinnable. The only thing that is unwinnable is Kerry running for President; maybe that’s why Kerry didn’t get 25% of the military vote in the 2004 election.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 1:56 PM
Comment #99819

rahdigly,

I’m neither attacking nor defending Kerry and Murtha. I’m having a meta-debate trying to show Eric why so many of us see his posts as and comments as illogical partisan rhetoric.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #99828

All

Now comes the mighty Sicilian Eagle flying in to the fray.

Eric…right on.Keep up the fight my noble friend.

To my left friends;

The elections are next week.Like most of the chirping that went on here (A) before the January elections and (B) before the September elections and (C) after the ratification vote of the constitution is exactly that…chirping.

Iraq enacted a constitution faster than our founding did.Within 2 weeks it will have an elected government.There have been zero attacks in the USA since 9/11,most of Al Quida is dead,imprisioned or in jail,Homeland Security is up annd running,The Patriot Act (remember that) hasn’t imprisioned one American unjustly,Bush is moving on the border issue,the US economy is humming along creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and negating this countries loss due to Katrina,The security forces now number over 200,000…all in a span of 12 months.

Meanwhile Kerry calls soldiers terrorists and Dean embarrasses himself for the thousanth time.Kennedy,of course,remains dead drunk,so please take a deep breath and say”Eagle was right,damn it”

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 2:19 PM
Comment #99831

Eagle was right, damn it

Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2005 2:22 PM
Comment #99832

rahdigly,

Congressman Murtha is a decorated combat veteran. He has been a loyal proponent and supporter of the military and veterans as long as he has been in congress (31 years). He is the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. He has close friends at the Pentagon with whom he speaks to regularly. Isn’t it reasonable to believe that some of the folks in the Pentagon are using him as a voice to challenge the administration’s policies? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see what happens to Soldiers when they challenge the administration. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff learned this the hard way. He got “retired” for suggesting Rumsfeld didn’t go in with enough troops. Is it unreasonable to assume that those in uniform who disagree with the administration might go to a friendly face to get some help?

Also, saying John Murtha is ridiculous is absurd. This man probably knows more about the military and the capabilities of the military than anyone posting on this blog or most of the people in Washington. He sure knows more about it than the President, Vice President, Sec. Defense and Sec. State. Have some respect.

Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 2:23 PM
Comment #99833

The question here is whether or not you people admit when you’ve made a mistake. If you had admitted it, it may have dashed Bush’s reelection chances, but it would have saved this country some grief and useless contention.

Fact of the matter is, the conservatives were the driving force behind Vietnam, whether they were Democrat or Republican. This time around, they committed the same mistake: Instead of working to solve the problem, instead of being vigilant in oversight of the war, they treated the failure as if it was a perception problem, and blamed the critics for its failures, rather than its architects.

The cruelty here is that America’s soldiers are carrying the burden of the fight on their back, when that burden should be on their superiors shoulders instead. They are being expected to win the war that their Generals and their president aren’t planning well enough to succeed. They are being told that half of America isn’t supporting them, when the truth is that everybody is on their side, and the leaders are the ones people truly despise.

People like you have allowed those leaders to fixate on the political battle to the detriment of the real battle. You’ve allowed them to answer the questions about practical strategy, supplies, and manpower with questions about the reporter’s and other folks loyalties, and not straight answers.

Wars are won by purpose. Bush gave us one that turned out to be an empty shell. Wars are won by unity. Bush intentionally ostracized those who thought the policy needed a different direction than the failed one he implemented Wars are won by sufficient force and manpower. Bush lead a lighter force into Iraq without the necessary training or equipment to handle the situation. Wars crippled by beginnings like this are difficult to impossible to win, whether or not you can sugarcoat the coverage. The difference between Kerry, Myself, and Dead, is that Kerry and me believe that it will be difficult, while Dean believes it will be impossible.

You folks wasted the opportunity to get the country behind you, by not being honest, not being diligent, and not being willing to reach across lines and consult with us. You wanted this war to yourself, and unfortunately, you seem on your way to having it that way, and we seem to be on our way to losing this war, despite the wish for many like myself to see it be a success.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 2:27 PM
Comment #99836

Eagle was right, damn it.
Except for the “Bush is moving on the border issue” part. I know snails who move faster than that…

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 7, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #99839

I WISH Eagle was right, damn it.

Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 2:41 PM
Comment #99840

Stephen, first of all Kennedy really began the Vietnam conflict and Johnson accelerated it (neither one was conservative, although Kennedy was maybe the last Dem President I had respect for). Secondly, We are not blaming anybody for the war, if you would actually listen to the conservatives they are trying to tell you that we are winning. Why would we give anyone else credit for that? I loved the line “wars are won by unity”, please tell that to Kerry, Pelosi and Dean.

Posted by: Jay at December 7, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #99841

Eric,

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. Everyone in this country konws that we have to win the war on terror. Our disagreement is over whether or not the invasion and occupation of Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror.

The fact is that a large number of Iraqis see our troops as the enemy. Here’s what Murtha said:

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists.
Murtha said nothing that was factually incorrect. But you accuse the Dems of wanting the US to lose. That is simply not true. Saying that the Dems WANT the US to lose in Iraq, is either completely ignoring reality, or lying. There is no other choice. Not one Dem that I know of has ever said that they want us to lose.

It was Richard Nixon’s policy to get us out of the Vietnamesse civil war. Remember “Vietnamization”? Don’t blame the Dems for Nixon’s policies, because that just won’t wash.

Republicans exposed the hypocrisy of democrats by bringing this vote to the floor and didn’t pretend that it was their position. They did the same thing with the draft bill. Democrats tried to blame Bush for trying to institute a draft! Republicans called them on it. The difference is honesty.
No, the difference is spin. You’re claiming that wne the Republicans introduce legislation that they oppose, that’s “honesty”, but when the Dems introduce legislation that THEY oppose, it’s hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways, dude. If it’s dsihonest for the Dems, it’s ALSO dishonest for the Republicans. I think it’s hypocritical to accuse one side of something that the other side is doing, too.

There’s a HUGE difference between a private citizen (like P Diddy, whoever that is) who was trying to get out the vote and the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES stating something that was simply not true. And let’s see your evidence to back this up:

P. Diddy was actually intimating that Republicans might be doing the killing.
Either back it up or retract it, Eric.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 7, 2005 2:45 PM
Comment #99851

First off, “EAGLE WAS RIGHT, DAMN IT”

Ok now, Dennis wrote:
“saying John Murtha is ridiculous is absurd. This man probably knows more about the military and the capabilities of the military than anyone posting on this blog or most of the people in Washington. He sure knows more about it than the President, Vice President, Sec. Defense and Sec. State. Have some respect.”

First of all, I said their comments are ridiculous. To say that our troops are “tired”, “can’t win”, weeks before the Iraqi elections (third in a year w/ a constitution) is just absurd. And if you’re defending Murtha’s war/military record then you probably wouldn’t mind defending John McCain’s record as well. Oh yeah, and he is for more troops not less.

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 3:08 PM
Comment #99853

“I’m absolutely convinced that we’re making no progress at all …” -Rep. John Murtha on “Meet the Press,” November 20, 2005

That is factually incorrect.

Posted by: Jack at December 7, 2005 3:09 PM
Comment #99855

Jack wrote:

“I’m absolutely convinced that we’re making no progress at all -” -Rep. John Murtha on “Meet the Press,” November 20, 2005

That is factually incorrect.”

Is it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10042399


“REP. JOHN MURTHA, (D-PA): Our military has done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It’s time to bring the troops home.”

Posted by: rahdigly at December 7, 2005 3:20 PM
Comment #99858

All

The mighty Sicilian Eagle is gratified that so many have agreed with his position.

However he has dectected that the mighty Stephen Dougherty has entered the fray,and now he must don his battle armor in preparation for such a mighty foe.

Although the mighty Eagle would rather engage in debate with the mighty Burt,Stevephen will do.

Stephen

Surely you are saying that this country would have been better off had Kerry been elected ,are you?

If so,your mom would be wearing a burka right now.

Seriously.

Plus,Kennedy and then LBJ committed ground troops to Vietnam…both liberals.

Was JFK not a liberal?Didn’t LBJ lead the Civil Right movement with the sweeoing Civil Rights Act?

Neither were conservatives,so I completely disagree.

As a matter of fact,my hero,Richard Nixon cleaned up the mess.

McNamara,as Defence Secretary (a Democrat by the way) in his book later admitted his errors.

In no way other than what Kennedy,Kerry and Dean are trying to do is Vietnam and Iraq similiar.

Draft army vs a volunteer army being the singlre biggerst difference.

The trouble is that Kerry still thinks its vietnam.

Admiting that you backed a losing candidate is tough my friend….and if you don’t watch out you wiull be inb the same place again if you don’t support McCain in ‘06.

Until then,you can count on the old Sicilian Eagle for comfort and guidance.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 3:28 PM
Comment #99861
Surely you are saying that this country would have been better off had Kerry been elected ,are you?

If so,your mom would be wearing a burka right now.

This is what you see as mighty battle? Aye carumba.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 7, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #99867

Vietnam and Korea policy comes from the long shadow of the “loss” of China to Mao’s Communist rebels. In this day and age, we would probably more rightly say that Chang Kai-Sek’s government probably lost it, but Democrats had little will to “lose” another nation to the communists.

Nobody wanted to look like they were soft on Communism, especially not the Kennedy’s. These people weren’t very commie friendly, lets recall. Johnson was even more hawkish. So, Kennedy and Johnson pursued the war.

Kennedy rightly held off on full scale war, though he made the mistake of backing the wrong horses, politically speaking, individuals who were left-over lackies and Right-Wing zealots from the colonial days. He also didn’t keep his generals on a short enough leash, or make sure that information was flowing well between Washington and the military HQ in Saigon.

The Saigon Bubble would cripple us, eventually. Nothing is so toxic to a war than commanders, citizens, and political leaders kept in the dark about the real results of the strategies and the actual conditions of the war. It doesn’t help that such a bubble also creates a strong difference between results related by official sources, and the unofficial but more accurate information that leaks out.

Then Johnson made two further mistakes: He blamed the press for reporting the truth, instead of ascertaining (or telling us) the truth himself, and he took us into a full scale war on flimsy evidence. It was a bad idea then, and its a bad idea now. If you cannot present a compelling, solid case for why you are going to war, one which rests on the bedrock of facts, you are preparing your own failure.

Perceptions differ much more wildly when the subject is… Well, subjective. When there is objective truth to what’s going on, it becomes more difficult to take assymetrical views, except by way of a strong ideological difference.

We lost Vietnam, and could lose this war, because Americans are not given a war they could uninformly support as beneficial to all interests. Even the supposedly hateful Democrats supported the president when the war was against the Taliban. Most Americans believed that they and al-Qaeda were a threat.

Unity is not difficult when people perceive a common threat. That’s why the irregularities with evidence concerning the WMDs was so important. Disarming Saddam and preventing him from arming terrorists was a cause most Americans could agree on, especially if the evidence was compelling. It was.

But it was imcomplete, deceptively distributed and edited intelligence, and that means two things: One, the threat as supposed by the Administration was false, and Two, the consent for war was cheated out of us, instead of fairly sought.

Bush’s deceptive means of gaining support for this war is what has turned people against the war. The only thing that can create support for further efforts is a way out. Were it not for the fact that Iraq could become a new haven for terrorism, I would be talking about bugging out myself, but as I and most Americans believe, we can only pull out the way you get an arrow out: by going all the way through and breaking it off on the other side.

If Bush is smart, he will recognize that most Americans want victory, and will stop playing one against the other. He will take a mature perspective, and ask for a solid, honest accounting of what’s going on. He will ask his chiefs of staff what numbers of soldiers his generals really want, and he will give them that number, even if he has to draft them. He will pull the plug on the unnecesary weapons programs, and he will commit to rebuilding our military. He will make supply and logistics something the Army takes care of once again, and get KBR out of the business of logistic support.

If he’s smart, he will forget about all the ideology and all the B.S., he will stop fighting this divisive political war against the Democrats and the Press, and he will focus his efforts on getting the jobs done here.

If you’re smart, you will support the soldiers by making sure the bureacracies in Washington and the Corporations at home do not cheat our army of what they need to fight well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 3:44 PM
Comment #99873

First off, “EAGLE WAS RIGHT, DAMN IT”

Ok now, Dennis wrote:
“saying John Murtha is ridiculous is absurd. This man probably knows more about the military and the capabilities of the military than anyone posting on this blog or most of the people in Washington. He sure knows more about it than the President, Vice President, Sec. Defense and Sec. State. Have some respect.”

First of all, I said their comments are ridiculous. To say that our troops are “tired”, “can’t win”, weeks before the Iraqi elections (third in a year w/ a constitution) is just absurd. And if you’re defending Murtha’s war/military record then you probably wouldn’t mind defending John McCain’s record as well. Oh yeah, and he is for more troops not less.

Posted by rahdigly at December 7, 2005 03:08 PM

—————————

I’d be happy to defend McCain’s record, and agree with him that more troops are probably needed if the country is to really be pacified.

I took your “They are both ridiculous” as a perjorative against Kerry and Murtha, not Kerry and Murtha’s comments. If you meant the latter, then I retract my statement. There have been too many posts on this site villifying John Murtha. Some have even called the man a traitor and a coward. Let me make it clear. I haven’t seen you do this am not implying you have.


Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #99874

“The Mighty Sicilian Eagle”
Sounds like a good name for a pro wrestler.
Which brings up the point that pro politics is scripted and stage managed the same way pro wrestling is; and that while we cheer our favorites, nothing will really change no matter who wins. But we’ll keep watching it anyway because it’s fun.
But that’s off topic.
Carry on.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 7, 2005 3:53 PM
Comment #99875

I wonder why these Dems who are so against the war did not stand up to clinton in Bosnia. Bosnia was no threat to our national security. We are still in Bosnia 10 years later. Why no outcry?. As far as WMD if there is anyone who does not believe Sadam had WMD must be living in a dreamworld. Look where we found Sadam in a little hole in the ground. I wonder how many WMD could be all around Irag in the same type wholes, or perhaps moved to Syria?

Posted by: Thomas at December 7, 2005 3:56 PM
Comment #99876

SE-
Nixon didn’t clean up the mess. It just got us out of the room. The North Vietnamese communists, unfortunately, are the ones who cleaned up the mess.

As for the Democrats who started Vietnam being liberals, They could only be called that from the angle of social programs and the like. From the point of view of defense and the like, they were quite conservative.

Kerry at least had Vietnam to learn from. This president only had weekly drills, which he couldn’t bother to attend.

As for the Draft? We won WWII on a draft. Don’t tell me we couldn’t win the right war with a drafted army.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #99877

Thomas-
Bosnia was the right place to intervene. Letting Milosevic eat his way through the Balkans would have been no different than the caving in to Hitler about the Sudetenland and the Anschluss. Same with Saddam in the Gulf War.

But this time? There was no solid evidence that Saddam could invade his neighbors or anything conclusive that he had WMDs. Saddam was not in a positions where we needed to use active military force to contain his ambitions or remove any real threat to his neighbors.

Remember, intentions don’t kill people, WMDs and armies on the march kill people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 4:02 PM
Comment #99879

Stephen Stephen

Kerry the “War hero” He spent 3 months in Vitnam and got him out with 3 purple hearts. What a joke Kerry new 3 and out. The Kerry that voted for before he voted against. Give me a break Stephen Bush won get over it.

Posted by: Thomas at December 7, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #99881

Stephen

Do me a favor and ask your friends on the left wheather or not JFK was a liberal or a conservative.

He certainly had liberal views on women and infidelity,didn’t he?

Not to mention a liberal view on nepotism.

You get the point.

The Vietnam war could have been won easily.Nixon,when he mined Hiapong Harbor nearly brought the North to its knees.

It wasn’t a war to win,however.

By that time Kerry and his crowd(The SDS,Panthers,Vietnam Veterans Agauinst the War,ect) had poinoned America with help from the liberal press.

Note too that many more were killed AFTER the war was “lost”.

The killing fields of Cambodia attest to that.

In those days there were two suuperpowers to navigate against…The USSR and Red China.

Thus the stragetic decisions made then have no application today,

If the US wanted to “win” the war,leveling Ho Chi Min City was have accomplished that easily.

While the aftermath of the second world war and French colonialism motivated the Vietnamese,make no mistake about it:this war could have and should have been won had we the backbone and politicial will to do so.

Iraq is a different story,Steve.

Actually Iraq is not the story either.
Rather it the latest skirmish area of World War Three.

Today the liberals are calling it a police action..the same terminology used 3 decades ago…it’s not..it’s a war…world war..and some of us realize it.

Unfortunately those who don’t are stil being lulled by the tongue of the great divider…John Kerry.

Had that guy been elected,we’d be up shit’s creek without a paddle,no doubt about it

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 4:12 PM
Comment #99886

Travler

The mighty Sicilian Eagle is in fact a wrestler…he wrestles with the evil forces of the left every day…and believe me,nothing is staged.

Despite my humor,there are many people here on the left who I respect very much(Stephen and Burt being two),and are as passioniate in their views as I.

On the other hand ,I could mention a few dorks too.

Then again,the Eagle critiques the message,not the messanger!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 4:19 PM
Comment #99890

SE

Do me a favor and ask your friends on the left wheather or not JFK was a liberal or a conservative.

He certainly had liberal views on women and infidelity,didn’t he?

——-

You think Liberals have the corner on infidelity? Don’t recall Newt Gingrich, Bob Montgomery, Henry Hyde, Bob Packwood, being liberal, but oh well, perhaps they were. Come on SE, Pols of all stripes are inherently egotistical and some of them act as if they have the right to be unfaithful. You can do better than that.

Posted by: dennis at December 7, 2005 4:26 PM
Comment #99891

Kerry’s problem with his answer is he tried to avoid trashing Lieberman who is more Neocon than democrat.

Inserting a quote that he didn’t say “our troops are the enemy” seven times has a nice effect.

You have learned well Eric.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 7, 2005 4:26 PM
Comment #99895

HEY SICILIANEAGLE LAY OFF THE GRAPPA!!!!

The mighty Novenge has to wrestle an italian elephant then.

Kerry said during the campaign that he was going to continue with the commitment of troops in Iraq. He said that they were going to tighten national security and showed from the outset that there was no weakness on those ground. Round one you lost unless you can bring forth a statement that is contrary to what Kerry made claim he was going to do. Got one?

JFK was in on the original build up of the Vietnam conflict and was not necessarily a supporter of civil rights atleast actively as presumed nor was The Bay of Pigs his invasion plan, just to get that out of the way. Now Johnson was the one who brought us into the conflict largely but it was Nixon that stepped up the war (the history on this gets really ugly)but he did eventually do a form of surrender.

Now let’s get to this conflict, year 2005. What you are seeing is largely propaganda not fact and can be taken apart on many levels. And decisively the EAGLE WAS WEARING ROSE-COLORED GLASSES, DAMN IT! Ask me how and I’ll pull your case apart.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 4:30 PM
Comment #99900

As for John Kerry’s remarks, they are neither surprising nor out of character. It is the same type of treatment he has given to our Nation’s Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen for 30 years. It is the reason that Kerry is not our President now. Consider: he lost the veteran vote by 84-16, and it’s estimated that veterans turned out some 67% of their vote. Basic math: 30 million veterans x 67% = 20 million voters; 84% = 16.8 million votes. How many votes did Kerry lose by??? Sorry, but you can’t call someone a “baby-killer” and expect them to vote for you.

Dean, I think, is never to be taken seriously. I have never heard a sensible thing come out of his mouth. I think it is interesting that the party he supposedly speaks for is already distancing itself from his latest remarks. In an article in this morning’s Washington Post, Reps. Emanuel, Edwards, Harman, and Edwards are all quoted as saying that Dean is out of step with his own party. Dean’s own COS is quoted as saying that Mr. Dean was misrepresented, classic pol spin.

For those of you who chime in with such salacious remarks, I have but one question. While we all agree that we are entitled to our individual opinions, when were you willing to take up arms to defend that right, and the others afforded us? If you HAVE NEVER DONE SO then kindly do not sit in judgement of those of that have. You will never know what we have sacrificed so that you didn’t have to.

Posted by: Ray at December 7, 2005 4:37 PM
Comment #99901

Dennis

All the Republicians that you list (1) all have small weenies and (2)none were sitting presidents.

Actually the only other recent president similiar to Kennedy was Clinton,but then again he was standing according to reports.

However,both liked cigars as I recall.

Novange

List me for the 5 pillars of Islam without reverting to a google search..how’s that for openers?

Be truthful too


Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #99910

Sissy-eagle,

I don’t need no stinkin’ armor but you need to change the topic, don’t ya’? In my neighborhood we call that a punk-out. I like your tact though it’s cute, stay drunk you’re more fun this way.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #99914

No-Veg

The name’s Eagle…Sicilian Eagle and I like my martini(not grappa) shaken,not stirred.

Can’t have a discussion unless you know the 5 pillars,No-Veg,everything comes off that.

The Eagle never punks out either.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 5:08 PM
Comment #99916

Sicilian-ego,

Let’s skip the chit chat and go right to brass tacks—you game?

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #99919

Novenge, here you go…

1. There is no other god but Allah and Mohammed is his propet

2. Pray, I don’t know the arabic term

3. provide charity

4. Perform the “Haj” (pilgrimage)

5. I think it is to fast during Ramadan


Let the dialog begin.

Posted by: Dennis at December 7, 2005 5:21 PM
Comment #99920

Sicily tyson,

Is this a fatwa?

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #99921

No-Veg

Sure answer the question…name the five pillars of Islam…ok…I feel sorry for you today…go ahead and look them up…

Then tell me what alms giving by those bastard Wahhabis has to do with Iraq.

Once you understand that principle you will the discover that Iraq is the site of one battle in a war.

How’s that?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #99925

SE,

Where should we start? Your contention on the economy or Bush moving on immigration? Or perhaps that the war doesn’t leave us in a bigger bind?

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #99926

Demolish all of Islam is what you are getting at? Interesting.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:28 PM
Comment #99929

I think we are waiting for someone to walk up, hand us a sword and say “we surrender.” Its amazing how some try to make war fit in a conventional box. We are like the British, lining up redcoats during the Revolutionary war. I believe the terrorists won that one by hiding behind trees and never giving up.

Posted by: Brian at December 7, 2005 5:37 PM
Comment #99932

Novenge(note the decorom)

The president was correct when he said that Islam has been hijacked by radicial militants.

Of the world’s one billion Muslims,roughly 10% of them or 100 million (yes,100 million…more than the population of Nazi Germany during the second world war) hate the infidel.

By defination,if we adhere to any other religion we are the infidel and must be destrotyed.

The Wahabbi sect in Saudi Arabia is the pus that infects the world.

Since a basic pillar of Islam is almsgiving,these bastards are the very ones financing the insurgency.

If the fight was in Syria,Lebanon or Disneyland the sect would still finance the insurgency because that’s the way it is.

The other 90% have been terrorized for a long time….actually since 1952 when the Moslembrotherhood in Algeria first reared its head,and all hell broke loose when Isreal was esttablished.

Thus the tail wags the dog in that religion.

Throw in the fact that the Sunni hate the Shia since two minutes after the Phrophet died and there you have it…a two headed monster.

We(America) are the victims.We are witnessing the Islamic Revolution…a war that will be similiar to our Protestant Revolution(a war by the way where millions died as Christianiaty struggled toi find its identity)

The same is happening now…Islam is in a death fight with itself over its identity.

At stake is ..well..the future of Western thought.

Most do not see the link.

The enlightened do (The Sicilian Eagle is modest .

To make matters worse,at the bottom of the pile is the Palestinian issue.

Connect the dots…it has nothing to do with politics.

Zero.

Which,by the way is the exact number of terror attacks that have taken place in America post 9/11

Sorry for the typos.

It’s freezing tonite in Boston and my wings are cold.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 5:44 PM
Comment #99935

Breathtaking…. To go throught all thease blogs and read the garbage, and pure distane for our country its amazing. I cant even believe people are Quoting John Kerry. I wish that piece of trash would go make HEINz57 and shut the hell up. I cant even understand why people make commets like we are going to lose this War,, For the most part we have already won! This crap that comes out of Kerrys mouth and AAHHAAHH!!! DEANS mouth thats whats helping the insurgents, they think they are breaking our will to fight.. They must have read the democrats hand book that says WE CANNOT WIN WE CANNOT FIGHT,, WE NEED FRANCE WE NEED THE U>N.. No what we need is for everodody to leave that TEXAN alone and let him finish this thing!!!!!! ALSO you libs should know that in Vietnam, Military we won that war We LOST THE war home in the media… Never again will you libs do that kind of damage to this country

Posted by: ProWar at December 7, 2005 5:53 PM
Comment #99936

Sicillian, you’re in Boston area too huh?

Okay now that wasn’t the original contention, a large majority of what you said that sparked the debate was the stuff that led to the “Eagle was right, damn it.” statement.

Now what you bear now is the wahabists are a**-holes well yeah, mm-hm ofcourse. Yes Whabism is a dangerous sect both intellectually as to whom they are well documented to train and summarily fund.

Listen when you have something the mighty Cato-Institute democrat Novenge will banter in. Right now the mighty Novenge has to get a steak out of the broiler before it burns up.

Posted by: Novenge at December 7, 2005 5:56 PM
Comment #99963

SE,

“Note too that many more were killed AFTER the war was “lost”.

The killing fields of Cambodia attest to that.”

The Vietnamese actually stopped the “Killing Fields” by invading Cambodia. The Viet Cong had nothing to do with the Khmer Rouge.

http://www.dithpran.org/killingfields.htm

“After the Vietnamese invaded and liberated the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge, 600,000 Cambodians fled to Thai border camps. Ten million landmines were left in the ground, one for every person in Cambodia. The United Nations installed the largest peacekeeping mission in the world in Cambodia in 1991 to ensure free and fair elections after the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops. Cambodia was turned upside down during the Khmer Rouge years and the country has the daunting task of healing physically, mentally and economically.”

“The Wahabbi sect in Saudi Arabia is the pus that infects the world.”

So,….. we invaded Iraq?

“We(America) are the victims.”

So, in reality, the screwing that the West gave the Middle East after petroleum was found to be a commercially viable product had nothing at all to do with anything.

“The same is happening now…Islam is in a death fight with itself over its identity.”

…And a democracy in Iraq will fix everything?

“Connect the dots…it has nothing to do with politics.”

Except in Washington.

Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2005 7:36 PM
Comment #99975

Stephen:
“The only thing that can create support for further efforts is a way out. Were it not for the fact that Iraq could become a new haven for terrorism, I would be talking about bugging out myself,”

I agree with Gen. Odom when he says that the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq, the more likely Iraq could become a haven for Al Qaeda. Because it seems the longer we stay, the more Iran will be able to exercise influence over the fundamentalist Shiite regime that Bushco has been propping up in Baghdad.
I believe that a quick withdraw and exit would actually put the skids on the warring factions within Iraq.
Think about it. The Sunni’s, which seem to be the current leaders of the Iraqi resistance, would be a lot more likely to participate in the political process if we pulled out, and that could act as a counter to the theocratic and paramilitary Shiite’s who are the ones controlling Iraq’s government at the moment. And this could also reduce Iran’s influence in Baghdad, because they are the ones who’d really like to keep the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in power.
Also, once our occupation ends, I think the ability of Al Qaeda to attract new members is going to evaporate for the most part — since it’s really the anger over our presence in Iraq that has been giving Al Qaeda their chance to draw recruits.
Everyone who keeps saying that Iraq would be plunged into much worse chaos if we leave (although I do think there will undoubtedly be some sort of civil war that will occur whether we stay or leave), or says that Al Qaeda will become a gigantic threat there (which is what Bushco has been selling lately) I feel are not really looking at who the Iraqi people are. Indeed, from what I’ve been reading, it seems that the main force of the resistance has been mostly comprised of the former Iraqi army, the Republican Guard, and a whole lot of pissed off Iraqi citizens (mostly Sunni’s) rather than from Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 7, 2005 8:11 PM
Comment #99985

Adrienne,

You are making the same mistake that many in our hemisphere do when considering motivations in the Arabian world. You are pretending that they think and act like we do. They don’t! They have a different moral code than we, different culture, different values. The things we consider important are the very things that are detested by Arab tradition. Stop to consider how long you could be online posting in Saudi Arabia? Iran? Iraq? Syria? Egypt? Libya? And not because of your political views; those wouldn’t matter in a society where women aren’t allowed to hold leadership positions. No, simply because of your gender, you would be subject to a public stoning for simly daring to have thoughts!

Secondly, this fight is not solely about Iraq. Iraq is merely the latest stage in what has been a very, very, very long war. al-Queda is not the only Islamic terrorist outfit; in fact, it isn’t really a terrorist group at all. It is an umbrella group for numerous Islamic terrorist organizations, serving the same function as NATO did for North Atlantic defense in the Cold War. OK, that might not be the best analogy, but many of the functions are the same: co-ordination of assets, intelligence, funds, and command. It is the principle reason that the lethality of terrorist actions have become more brutal in the past ten years. The players haven’t changed, only the way they now effectively work in concert. Understand that, and you will understand the how and why of terrorist recruiting.

Each group (Hammas, PFLP, IsTR, etc.) effectively recruits it’s own agents. They recruit in the neighborhoods that spawned them to begin with. Wahabi’s recruit in Saudi Arabia. Shi’a recruit in Iran and Iraq. Palestinians recruit in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan. Remember 9/11, and how everyone was amazed at the same nationality of the hijackers? Here’s why: al-Queda planned, financed, and co-ordinated the attack, but the actual hijackers came from the IPA (Islamic People’s Army), a Wahabi/Sunni terrorist sect. Funny how most people have forgotten that.

This war was first taken outside of the Middle East in 1972. Remember Munich? By 1979, we were caught in hte snare. Oddly, most Arabs still think of us as the “Great Satan,” even though that particular mullah has been dead for a while. For the past 22 years, we have been attacked militarily.

So that leaves us where we are today. This is a struggle with an idealogy, not just one particular nation or sect. It is about which view will prevail in the end: western secularism, or muslim extremism? Make no mistake, our enemies are committed to this fight. I we leave the fight now, it will not end the violence. It will simply escalate in ways beyond our imagination. Our enemies revel in causing mayhem, destruction, and death. For them, it is actually a moral duty to kill those who do not follow Allah.

May God have mercy on our souls if we do not stand and fight!

Posted by: Ray at December 7, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #99987

Ray,

“By 1979, we were caught in hte snare.”

You have to admit that Iran had a pretty good reason to be pissed at us.

Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2005 9:07 PM
Comment #99988

I really don’t see why Democrats should bother with Iraq at all. Iraq is a Republican War and only Republicans should fight it, taking any gains/losses it gives. That being said I believe it would be a mistake leaving Iraq which will embolden our enemies. I am thus gratified that those few Republicans in Uniform are willing to spread freedom in Iraq. If only the Republicans at Home will enlist to help them, it would be a sure victory for America.

Posted by: Aldous at December 7, 2005 9:08 PM
Comment #99989

Rocky

Nice try.

1.The Vietnamese stopping the Cambodians?Please.That’s revisionist,pure and simple.As long as American troops were in Vietnam,the Khelmer Rouge were in check.Despite what the Pentagon said at the time,special forces were there and kept a lid on things.The massacre started AFTER American troops left.

2.Iraq was the battlefield…what part of that don’t you understand?
Plus,despite what the left has been chirping about…that Bush lied/twisted/enhanced/embellished intel is pure hog wash and everybody in intel knows that.
Do I need to list the countries AGAIN that confirmed WMD?Isreal,Egypt,Britian,Russia….

I am sure that Bush saw the opportunity..he’d be blind otherwise….

Listen,America had been attacked.

There is a segment of our society that goes beserk with rage over the above sentence.

If Sadaam wasn’t in cohoots with OBL,then they were car-pooling at least.

Really,that’s all that is needed to some,me included.

If I were a son of a bitch(which I am not),I guess I’d say “Whoops…sorry”

But that’s silly too.

Let me tell you something:You don’t think that somewhere….in a teeny tiny office in nowhere,USA…that some military computer model hasn’t predictated in their logorythims (sic) exactly what happened or will happen with statisticial probability?

I do.

Stats don’t lie…ever.

The usual left response is ……”nice Tom Clancy”

How silly.

3.Correct.Petroluem has nothing,zip,nada to do with anything.
Iraqi exports per year $28 billion
Cost of the war per year $60 billion

Remind me not to go into business with you.

4.Probably yes,democracy will fix things.Check out the cell towers,computer cafes,wireless internet,tv,newspapers….in five years not only will Iqaq be profoundly changed,the entire area as well.

The democratization of the Middle East has begun,to tell you the truth….can’t you see that?

5.Agree completely.The most hateful Congress since the Civil War.(Yikes,I never looked at it that way!)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 7, 2005 9:12 PM
Comment #99990

Ray:

You forget that most Arab Fighters were not extremists in the beginning. The PLO and Chechnya Movement were secular for the early part of their Founding. It is when people lose hope that they turn to God for their future. In the Muslim’s case, those are the Islamic Fundamentalists. Thus Hammas and the Chechnyan Fanatics are born.

Never forget that it is the West who refused to resolve the Issues with the Secular Arab Movements. Now that they are Religious Nuts, it is too late.

Posted by: Aldous at December 7, 2005 9:15 PM
Comment #99994

The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing—plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war—more dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace. Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf war, for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would have been no Iraq War, and thousands of lives would have been saved. There would have been little, if any, American support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the hatreds, feuds, and terror of the Middle East would never have been brought to our shores.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character—except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Posted by: NatAll at December 7, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #99999

Hi Natall,

I’m curious about your political affiliation. You sound like Nazi scum.

Are you a Nazi or do you belong to some other hate group?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 7, 2005 9:41 PM
Comment #100006

Ray,

None of what you’ve said is even close to a sensible argument. Al Qaeda members of Saudi extraction, lead by Saudi leader Bin Laden are the ones who attacked us on 9/11. The last thing we should have done at that moment in time was to attack Saddam who had completely held islamic fundamentalism in check in that country. There was no link to the hijackers and Iraq. Even Bush was forced to admit this.
Furthermore, Bush was in office for 9 months before 9/11, but he never once said that Iraq was such a grave threat to American safety before that time, nor was anyone making claims that Iraq was full of jihadists planning terrorist attacks on America. Clearly the administration decided to use Al Qaeda’s attack on this country opportunistically to get us to go there. For what reason is really anyones guess.
This war has been a disaster on every level — and has given Bin Laden and Al Qaeda everything they could have asked for to grow their numbers. All we’ve done by nonsenically and illegally invading and occupying Iraq is create a new place to grow more hatred for the US and recruit and train more terrorists with our soldiers as the targets.
It would be very unwise for us to stay in Iraq because while Bush says “victory”, he can’t define what that is supposed to mean. And he says “stay the course”, but so far that has been a Total Disaster. (I know many of you rightwingers won’t allow yourselves to even think about that fact, but it happens to be the truth.)
We need to get our troops the hell out of there as soon as we possibly can.
Gen. Odom knows this. Colonel Murtha knows this. Those in the Pentagon who asked Murtha to speak in their stead know this, as well. I’m willing to take them at their word, rather than take the word of a bunch of Neocon’s who don’t have a nickels worth of experience in the military, and who have certainly been showing us that in no uncertain terms.
And guess what? According to a very broad range of public opinion polls the majority (60-65 percent) of the American people now think it would be a very good idea for us to leave Iraq too.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 7, 2005 9:50 PM
Comment #100009

I have heard and read a lot of what we would consider a victory in Iraq. We have all given our opinion on what type of governance should be placed on the Iraqi people. The problem is that the situation is much more complicated than most realize. I think this is causing most of the problems for the Bush administration.

I think most thought victory would be declared after going in and destroying the WMD, removing Saddam Hussien from power and installing a new Democratic government. The first two went relatively smoothly. The third will bog us down for years. What the average American that doesn’t follow politics doesn’t realize is that the region is so volitile and the factions are so complicated that it will take decades to install a stable democracy.

We are Americans looking in. Maybe the solution needs to come from the inside. What do the Iraqis consider as being a victory? What kind of governance do they think would be best? At the end of the day this is their country and they must make it work. Maybe a democracy is not what will work best for them. How much say do the Iraqis actually have, and how much is being forced on them by the west? I really don’t know, but the perception is that a lot is being forced by the U.S.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 9:59 PM
Comment #100011

I suppose its a good time as any to ask for the emails of the pro-war people? All emails will be forwarded to the Army Recruiting Office.

Kindly Post your EMails below.

Posted by: Aldous at December 7, 2005 10:14 PM
Comment #100016

The VietNam comparison is near and dear to the liberals. It’s the same roadmap they so badly desire to use in this war. Yap away on the 6:00 O’clock news ‘til they can negotiate defeat.

Posted by: pige at December 7, 2005 10:36 PM
Comment #100028

SE,

“1.The Vietnamese stopping the Cambodians?Please.That’s revisionist,pure and simple.As long as American troops were in Vietnam,the Khelmer Rouge were in check.Despite what the Pentagon said at the time,special forces were there and kept a lid on things.The massacre started AFTER American troops left.”

I don’t suppose you took the time to look at the website I linked, so let’s try this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea#The_Fall_of_Democratic_Kampuchea

“In the meantime, as 1978 wore on, Cambodian bellicosity in the border areas surpassed Hanoi’s threshold of tolerance. Vietnamese policy makers opted for a military solution and, on December 22, Vietnam launched its offensive with the intent of overthrowing Democratic Kampuchea. An invasion force of 120,000, consisting of combined armor and infantry units with strong artillery support, drove west into the level countryside of Cambodia’s southeastern provinces. After a seventeen-day blitzkrieg, Phnom Penh fell to the advancing Vietnamese on January 7, 1979. From new redoubts in the mountain and jungle fastness of Cambodia’s periphery, Pol Pot and other Khmer Rouge leaders regrouped their units, issued a new call to arms, and reignited a stubborn insurgency against the regime in power as they had done in the late 1960s. For the moment, however, the Vietnamese invasion had accomplished its purpose of deposing an unlamented and particularly loathsome dictatorship.”

“2.Iraq was the battlefield…what part of that don’t you understand?

Hey, you’re the one that brought up Wahabi’s, and their support of terrorism.
Oh, and BTW we could have nipped this in the bud in with the Saudi’s, don’t ya think.

“Stats don’t lie…ever.”

Yeah, right.

http://www.zealllc.com/commentary/damnlies.htm

“Benjamin Disraeli , the prime minister of the British Empire from 1874-1880, was reported by Mark Twain to have uttered this brilliant quote on statistical analysis: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Anyone who has worked with numbers knows they will confess to anything if one tortures them long enough.”

“3.Correct.Petroluem has nothing,zip,nada to do with anything.
Iraqi exports per year $28 billion
Cost of the war per year $60 billion

Remind me not to go into business with you.”

Gee, I was talking about the screwing the west started putting on the Middle East from the time Gulf and Standard oil started exploration in the early 1900’s until the countries nationalized production in the 60’s and 70’s. We had our way with those countries. Britian took great advantage, and we weren’t much better.
So, you’re right they had absolutely no reason at all to pissed at us, and, of course, oil has nothing to do with the history of the region.
Yeah, right.


Posted by: Rocky at December 7, 2005 11:13 PM
Comment #100032

I’m setting here watching Scarborough Country on MSNBC. Who ever says the media is liberal, hasn’t been paying attention. The guest is Al Franken. A heated discussion erupts about WMD. Joe Scarborough’s entire side of the argument seems to be to just talk louder and talk over Franken and keep cutting him off before he finishes a thought. Does he think this makes what he is saying true? This is what people are calling the liberal media?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #100034

The funniest part, is the title of the segment is “Al Franken lets loose”. Say what? It should have been titled “Joe Scarborough goes berserk”.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 7, 2005 11:30 PM
Comment #100130

Rocky

1.By 1978 (the date you quote),the vast vast majority of American troops had already left Vietnam,so thanks for proving my point for me.The killing was done post-American departure,period.

2.The Saudi royal family is corrupt but they hold power there(for decades) only by being in bed with the Wahabbis.Had they been removed long ago maybe things would be different.In all probability they wouldn’t because who ever their succesor,the Wahabbi sect would control and that includes continued alms giving to those who fight against the infidel.There are many infidels too…it didn’y start with the Iraq occupation either.

3.We should all take the blame for Saudia Arabia’s corruption.In a way,we are all unindicted co-conspiritors(that is everyone except my friend Burt who still uses a skateboard,I think).We are,of course,energy pigs and as a country don’t give a shit where it comes from unless it’s cheap.
For Christsakes,last week,Rep. Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy (that’s Bobby’s son who is in the oil business,and the heir apparent to his uncle) had tens of thousands of oil delivered to the “poor” by the Venezulian government.
Now that propaganda story is all over the world,and Delahunt is gloating his sucess.What an idiot.He has no idea the politicial victory he has given the Venezualeans.

During the past hurricane season,high energy prices were one major reason that the president plundged in the polls.

All Americans care about is this:Gas for under $2.00 a gallon.

Meanwhile in Sicily (where I live 6 months a year)I pay 40 euro to fill up my fiat Punto…that’s about 50 bucks to fill up my egg-beater.Here in the states,I pay 40 bucks to fill my Toyota Forerunner.

Thus we are to blame,in part for the Saudi corruption.

By the way,the encyclopedia you site was the subject of a news article thius week criticizing it for inaccurate information.

As far as statistics….Disreali said that before bookies were invented.I can believe how these guys can predict NFL scores and pointspread every week.

Believe me,Disreali is ead wrong.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 8, 2005 6:33 AM
Comment #100134

se,

I have chosen not to use wiki anymore myself. I hadn’t used it much to begin with BUT who knows? about the accuracy now - I can rewrite history too - if I choose to.
I may continue to use it, once in awhile, as a reference/starting point and find verification elsewhere.

Posted by: dawn at December 8, 2005 7:19 AM
Comment #100136

SE,

Somehow I get the impression that you didn’t bother to read the links that I provided.

You think that you have made your point and you are going to stick with it dispite being wrong, hey, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.

BTW, statistics are like polls. You can massage them any way you would like, and get the results you seek.

Stay warm.

Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2005 7:33 AM
Comment #100137

Dawn,

“I have chosen not to use wiki anymore myself. I hadn’t used it much to begin with BUT who knows? about the accuracy now - I can rewrite history too - if I choose to.
I may continue to use it, once in awhile, as a reference/starting point and find verification elsewhere.”

wiki is one of the few sites that people like you and me can challange the information and help to make it acurate by adding through the discussion pages.
I provided two sites for SE to read, he just didn’t bother to read either one.

Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2005 7:37 AM
Comment #100145

This post is a macguffin, a subplot meant to distract readers from figuring out how the story will end. Culling a few quotes and presenting them out of context to “prove” that Democrats think soldiers are the enemy may earn you some high-fives from fellow Republicans, but to most people it comes across as a desperate act to distract and evade talking about the real issues this war confronts us with.

If your position is that no errors were made concerning this war and that there are no problems that need to be fixed, well, good luck with that. Massive denial has worked well for this administration, but I think the cat’s out of the bag now. The more denial, the more finger pointing and shirking of responsibility, the greater the anger this country will rightly unleash on your party.

Posted by: Max at December 8, 2005 8:25 AM
Comment #100160

Aldous,
giantsdiehard@yahoo.com - sign me up!!!!!

Max, beware of backlash. The libs have been trepiditiously posturing themselves against this war for sometime now. They only way that they can benefit from that position is if we lose or withdraw soon. Notice how middle-of-the-road Hillary has been lately? Or how about Lieberman? The third freely held election in Iraq’s history is one week away which will finalize a freely elected representational government combined with a military and security force that is over 200,000 strong. 2006 will the year that Iraq will begin to join the league of civilized nations and our troops will be gradually coming home victorious. Liberman knows it and I think Hillary sees it to. The big losers will be Kerry (of course he will then be saying that he voted for the war), Pelosi and Dean (big time), and that will not help the democratic plantation.

Posted by: Jay at December 8, 2005 9:37 AM
Comment #100170

Adrienne,

Your most recent post demonstrates the lack of understanding about the Middle East that permeates most of the country. There is virtually no understanding of the politics, culture, social dynamics, or economics of the region.

Everyone assumes that they are just like us, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Hopefully, you realize what happens when you make assumptions. My advice is to go there, travel around a little bit, and get a feel for the people and what they really think of Western culture. Stay away from the tourist spots, and actually get out amongst the everyday people. Either that, or spend a lot of time actually researching popular culture and history in the Middlde East. Gain a true understanding of what motivates the “man in the street.”

Then, we can have an intelligent discussion. As I said, Iraq is but one campaign in a much larger war.

As for the guy who wants me to sign up…I served in the USMC for 11 years. I would happily re-enlist today, except that they sent me packing due to injuries. If they are willing to take me back, I’m there.

At least some of us are willing to fight for what we believe in.

Posted by: Ray at December 8, 2005 10:02 AM
Comment #100192

Rocky,
“wiki is one of the few sites that people like you and me can challange the information and help to make it acurate by adding through the discussion pages.”

challenge - and change

How can we possibly trust a place where anyone can add an interpretation they prefer?
Some may not look elsewhere to verify or may not have time or may not because they like the version they read.

The last time I went to wiki (just a few days ago) there was supposed to be a link to a piece of info quoted on the page - not to be found - tried to google it - not to be found -

I was using some of the info in an article - not going to happen now. Have to find more & new sources.

Two days later the story came out on the news about the guy being linked to the Kennedy assassination.

Posted by: dawn at December 8, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #100232

Ray:
“Your most recent post demonstrates the lack of understanding about the Middle East that permeates most of the country.”

And your most recent post shows that you didn’t even read my post at all since you replied to nothing I’ve said.
However I can see that you’re trying real hard to act as though you know a great deal when you obviously don’t know much of anything. The only people who now think was a good idea to go into Iraq when we needed to put the screws on Al Qaeda is the Neocon’s and their most sycophantically mindless followers.

Go blow smoke up somebody elses ass, because this girl ain’t buying.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 8, 2005 2:02 PM
Comment #100242

Ray

Thank you for your service to your country.

Enough said.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 8, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #100251

lawnboy,

He says that America is good but perverted by a bad President. You misread it as saying America is bad.

Do you honestly think that you are an honest player in your debates?

Our bad President has perverted the country and made it evil? Such hateful rhetoric.

An Honest player? You mean like calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar and hate filled?

No, Eric. You are changing the meaning of what Kerry and Murtha said in your paraphrase. Then, you attribute your misinterpretations to the entire class of Liberals. That is morally equivalent to lying on two levels.

Please stop.

Just what does it mean when Murtha says, “Our troops are the enemy.” What does it mean when Kerry says that our troops are breaking into homes in the dead of night terrorizing women and children…

While we are talking about honesty, how hard is it to honestly interpret what your represetnatives are saying?

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the—of—the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not—

Kerry is elaborating and reiterating Murtha’s statement of, “Our Troops are the Enemy,” in this quote. It’s exactly as it sounds. Please, stop lying to yourself.

I’m neither attacking nor defending Kerry and Murtha. I’m having a meta-debate trying to show Eric why so many of us see his posts as and comments as illogical partisan rhetoric.

Illogical partisan rhetoric. You’ll have to try harder than just calling me names to do it.

Stephen,

Fact of the matter is, the conservatives were the driving force behind Vietnam, whether they were Democrat or Republican.

I’ll accept that statement as true. JFK was on many levels more conservative than George Bush, absolutely. But Johnson? Nixon, eh. Nixon put in price controls for pete’s sake. Not much of a conservative.

The following is also true: the left was the driving force behind our defeat.

People like you have allowed those leaders to fixate on the political battle to the detriment of the real battle. You’ve allowed them to answer the questions about practical strategy, supplies, and manpower with questions about the reporter’s and other folks loyalties, and not straight answers.

Wrong Stephen, in fact, we have seen this administration neglect the political battle as Democrats have not stopped to use the war as nothing but a political tool. You guys were calling this a quagmire on day one! You completely minimize the divisive tactics of your representatives and attribute ALL blame on Bush.

The invasion of Iraq was not only necessary it is a key battle in the war on terror. We cannot win without taking the battle to the enemy. Without changing the middle east. Your solution changes nothing.

Posted by: esimonson at December 8, 2005 3:19 PM
Comment #100252

Stephen,


You folks wasted the opportunity to get the country behind you…

??? You mean like when democrats voted for the war then changed their minds? You have a funny definition of unity. Sounds like unity is agreeing with the left no matter what.

Posted by: esimonson at December 8, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #100256

ElliotBay,

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. Everyone in this country konws that we have to win the war on terror. Our disagreement is over whether or not the invasion and occupation of Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror.

I agree that this is the basic disagreement between us. Iraq is in fact a part of the war on terror.

Murtha said nothing that was factually incorrect. But you accuse the Dems of wanting the US to lose. That is simply not true. Saying that the Dems WANT the US to lose in Iraq, is either completely ignoring reality, or lying. There is no other choice. Not one Dem that I know of has ever said that they want us to lose.

Of course not, they wouldn’t ever dare say such a thing so plainly— unless the polls were favorable. Just like Kerry, who voted against the first Gulf war, wouldn’t have dared vote against the invasion of Iraq because of the polls. This is one factor you must consider when evaluating elected Democratic posititions, they’re spineless waffling politicians. Of course they wouldn’t put themselves in such a position. They’ve come close to it though.

What do Democrats want? They want us out of Iraq before the job is done. Is that a distinction you would agree with? I say that that is losing. Howard Dean says we can’t win. If we can’t win, haven’t we already lost? Is this a factual statement? No it is not.

If you have not yet lost, but say we have, and want to take actions based on that faulty premise which will ensure that we do lose, then you WANT us to lose.

What Murtha is saying is illogical. Murtha says that US troops cannot accomplish the mission because there is an enemy. In what war is there ever not an enemy? Murtha also says that all Iraqis hate us. Not true.

Murtha is confused about a great deal of things. Is there a civil war or isn’t there?

Murtha vs. Murtha: Rep. Murtha on the prospects of an Iraqi civil war:
[T]here’s a civil war going. We’re caught in between a civil war right now. Our troops are the targets of the civil war. They’re the only people that could have unified the various factions in Iraq. And they’re unified against us. —ABC’s This Week, 12/4/05

[— same show, a few moments later.]

[W]hy should I believe what the CIA says about what’s happening in Iraq, that there’s going to be a civil war? First of all, al Qaeda was wrong. It was wrong on the nuclear stuff. It was wrong on everything they have said over there. So why should I believe that there’s going to be a civil war?

Rep. Murtha on whether the Iraqis will throw us out:

[T]he military won a military victory. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. …[snip] … Now, it’s got to be a political win. They have to win this politically. The Iraqis themselves. We’ll stay there forever. The Iraqis are never going to say turn it over. We can’t allow them to say when it’s gonna turn it over.—This Week, 12/4/05

[— same show, a few moments later.]

You’re gonna see the Iraqis clamoring. Listen, anybody we support in Iraq loses the election. And so they’re gonna be clamoring for us to get out.

Sorry, this man seems confused. In his current state I wouldn’t follow him either into battle or out of it. …[Emphases added] P.S.: Reinforcing the suggestion that he’s been pulling a Nader, Murtha also had nice things to say about President Bush. (“I like this guy. …Well, he’s coming around, because he’s talking about redeployment. He’s talking about pulling our troops out. And I can see by what he’s saying that we’re going to be out of there by the end of the year or very close to it.”) I must have missed the subsequent wall-to-wall fish-out-of-water MSM coverage—you know, “Longtime Iraq War Critic Praises Bush Plans,” that sort of thing. … 6:17 P.M. slate

Posted by: esimonson at December 8, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #100265
Our bad President has perverted the country and made it evil? Such hateful rhetoric.

That’s his belief, and you’re welcome to dislike it. However, the point is that you changed the meaning of what he said to distort his meaning and then to smear all Liberals. Disagree with us if you must, but please don’t attack us for the straw men in your mind.

An Honest player? You mean like calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar and hate filled?

We’re not saying that anyone who disagrees with us is lying and hate-filled. In fact, I respect many people who disagree with me. However, your tactics prevent me from respecting your debate and your approach. This is a perfect example; you twisted our specific complaints about your behavior into a prejudicial belief against a whole class of people.

You do not debate honestly, fairly, or respectfully. You can deny it or continue to divert attention or take my words out of context or continue your hypocritical ignorance of problems from your side, but it’s still the truth about your style.

Just what does it mean when Murtha says, “Our troops are the enemy.” … While we are talking about honesty, how hard is it to honestly interpret what your represetnatives are saying?

It’s easy if you try.

Murtha was not saying that our troops are our enemy. Here’s the full quote:

QUESTION:
Democrats have called for an exit strategy in the past, but Republicans have said that it’s a nonstarter. Is there anything — do you think that the climate has changed in Congress that would give your legislation a chance?
ANSWER:
I don’t know whether the climate’s changed or not, but I know one thing: It’s the right thing to do. And setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn’t work, because they always find an excuse not to get them out.
There’s times you just got to — you got to change your mind about this thing, you got to change your direction. There’s times when you just got to say, “What’s the right thing to do?” The right thing to do — our troops are the enemy, they’re the targets.
When I went to Anbar province, General Huck (ph) said to me, “You know, the thing that’s so discouraging? We got all this armor and everything, and the snipers are shooting right below the helmets.” They blowing the turrets off tanks no matter how much armor that we put out there.
We’re the targets. We’re uniting the enemy against us. And there’s terrorism all over the world that there wasn’t before we went into Iraq.
(my emphasis added)[MyDD]

He’s not saying that they are our enemy. He’s saying that they are considered the targets and the enemy in the environment they are in. He calls those who attack the troops the common enemy.

Your interpretation takes his words completely out of context to twist the meaning. That’s dishonest.

Kerry is elaborating and reiterating Murtha’s statement of, “Our Troops are the Enemy,” in this quote. It’s exactly as it sounds. Please, stop lying to yourself.

Kerry is reporting the facts as he sees them. He’s not saying that our troops are the enemy - he’s saying that our troops are doing things that are counter-productive and sometimes the wrong thing to do. That’s a far, far cry from the lie you twist it into.

I’m not lying to myself. I’m reading the quotes honestly in context. I invite you to try it.

Illogical partisan rhetoric. You’ll have to try harder than just calling me names to do it.

Specifically describing your actions and pointing out the inconsistencies in your illogic is not calling you names. It’s using facts and logic to prove a point.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 8, 2005 4:05 PM
Comment #100289

Rocky:
“wiki is one of the few sites that people like you and me can challange the information and help to make it acurate by adding through the discussion pages.”

I love wiki! It’s free and it’s extremely informative. Anytime someone is in doubt about an article all they have to do is check the referrences given at the bottom. If they don’t seem up to snuff, one can always go looking elsewhere online.
Personally, I think it’s very silly for people to be writing off the entire site simply because one kook with some sort of a grudge decided to put up a line of nonsense.

Lawnboy,
Nice response to Eric. You rock.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 8, 2005 5:10 PM
Comment #100292

Thanks, Adrienne. It’s good to have you around, too. Somehow, I doubt Eric will read what I actually said about his tactics and instead will twist something I wrote into a further proof of the evils of Liberalism.

One can hope, though.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 8, 2005 5:20 PM
Comment #100312

Adrienne,

Good to hear from you. I use wikipedia perhaps a bit too much, but I find the information reliable for the most part.
If nothing else this site (watchblog), has opened my eyes to researching and then backing up my opinion with facts. I try to be honest with folks that I have discussions with. I find it extremely annoying when someone just spouts off with some innane crap, and then can’t, or won’t, back it up with facts.
I also find it annoying when people skim the discussions only for the parts they think will prove them right, without reading the details that actually prove tham wrong.
I put links up for a reason. If I am wrong, tell me I am wrong, and back it up with facts of your own, complete with links to the information that proves me wrong.
We have to form our opinions based on facts, and the more facts, the better.

Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2005 6:41 PM
Comment #100316

The Vietnam War “exit strategy” ruined our national reputation of having the fortitude to finish what we start. We rebuilt Europe and Japan with the Marshall Plan through national commitment and perseverance. We need to complete the transformation of Iraq from a tyrannical dictatorship and rogue state into a survivable democracy.

The worst thing we could do is “cut and run” and allow Islamofacist enemies to begin a destructive civil war and anarchy. The liberal idiots who now call for “immediate withdrawal” would then condemn the U.S. for the violence the Islamists would perpetrate in the absence of the U.S. military. We know the liberals will stoop to anything to make Bush look bad—even if their ideas are antithetical to U.S. interests and would ultimately loose U.S. lives—because they hate the Christian conservative Bush so much they have gone stark raving mad.

It would be better for the U.S. interest to keep a large military force in Iraq and loose 10,000 more American soldiers’ lives than to “cut and run.” Iraq is THAT IMPORTANT geopolitically. A democratic Iraq will be an alternative model for neighboring Arab countries, and will counteract the fascist movement of Iran-sponsored militant Islamism. Iraq would be the necessary base of operations if the world is forced to prevent to nuclear arming of Iran.

Liberal “surrender-Crats” will not admit that there would be wholesale slaughter in Iraq if we pull out now, nor will they admit that Iraq is steadily becoming a model for democratic freedom in an otherwise appallingly unfree Arab world. Surrender-Crats hate Bush so much they have become utterly irrational, and their advice (accept for a courageous few like Joe Liebermann) cannot be trusted.

The U.S. military could protect Iraq from Islamist overthrow with a significantly smaller force than is now in Iraq, but it would have to alter its current strategy and tactics. With fewer than half of the current U.S. force, the enemy might be emboldened to attempt open warfare. A reduced force which defeats the enemy militarily, would defeat them psychologically and politically as well, and would reduce their recruiting and support capability.

Posted by: Metros at December 8, 2005 6:51 PM
Comment #100317

Metros,

I read your whole post and the only talking point you missed was “stay the course”.
Amazing.

Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #100335

You know, it’s not all about us.

How many of you remember Afghanistan, and the invasion by the USSR?

Did the Soviets have to deal with an opposition party, or a free media?

Were the Soviets more brutal in their attempts to control the country?

What happened to the Soviet Union?

The resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan faced by the US involves some of the same people the USSR faced in Afghanistan. Do you really think the insurgencies depend upon their appeals to an opposition party in the US, or a free media?

Compare and contrast the US experience with the Russian experience. Think it through.

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2005 7:50 PM
Comment #100352

phx8,

“What happened to the Soviet Union?”

Simple answer.
They ran out of money.
Sound familiar?

Posted by: Rocky at December 8, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #100353

What do you expect from a rich white and rich jewish run America.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at December 8, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #100360

Albert Garibay,

Where have you been? You’ve toned down your hatred. Good for you!


Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 9:08 PM
Comment #100373

Well it is the truth WE CAN NOT WIN war is never WON is it America ?

Posted by: Albert Garibay at December 8, 2005 10:20 PM
Comment #100380

Eric,

I’m still waiting for you to back up your statement about P Diddy. Back it up or retract it, Eric. I could use your unsubstantiated accusation as evidence that all conservatives are liars, but unlike you, I won’t stoop that low.

Metros

the liberals will stoop to anything to make Bush look bad
I have news for you, pal. The liberals don’t have to do ANYTHING to make Bush look bad - he’s doing a great job of that himself.

Posted by: ElliottBay at December 8, 2005 11:02 PM
Post a comment