Doubt and Redoubt

The chairman of the DNC says, “We can’t win,” and “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for…” (Please, please God don’t let Dean be forced to resign!)

You’d expect yesteryear’s (patriotic and pro-American) Democratic party to be saying things like, “He’s doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign.” But they’re not. They are saying this about Lieberman who dared to speak in support of the troops AND the mission.

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," said Lieberman, urging bipartisan cooperation. mercurynews

Shocking. Utterly shocking statements from a Senator in a time of war! Why, to actually come out and say this when Democrats are 'putting a strategy together'? Lieberman is, "undercutting their effort to forge a consensus on the war." That consensus being that our troops have been defeated. That we can't win. That it's best we pull out immediately and declare the Iraq war, "immoral, illegal, and unwinnable."

In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a "colossal mistake" for the Democratic leadership to "lose its will" at this critical point in the war. washingtonpost.com

My observation has been that the left has chosen a deliberate strategy of trying to weaken domestic support for the war purely for partisan political advantage. An observation borne out everyday by their own statements and actions.

"He's doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign," said Ken Dautrich, a University of Connecticut public policy professor. "It's Lieberman being Lieberman. And it's frustrating for people trying to put a Democratic strategy together."

Sensing political vulnerability in Bush's handling of Iraq, Democrats are anxious to craft a compelling anti-war theme uniting the party for the pivotal midterm congressional elections.

Democrats hope a surging anti-war tide in 2006 can help them shatter the GOP's 12-year lock on the House and win back the Senate for the first time since 2001.

"It's not a tidal wave now, but the ingredients are starting to fall into place," said veteran Democratic strategist Tad Devine. mercurynews

Instead of criticizing Lieberman they should be praising him, and following his example! The Democratic Party is now in thrall to the most partisan left-wing elements of their party. What patriotic American in their right mind would believe that ensuring failure in Iraq would catapult them to power? And once in power, what kind of policy would they have endorsed? "When it gets tough, we run." Which is ok, because the other half of leftist foreign policy is that America shouldn't be a superpower. In their hands, it won't be.

And so, the 'forging of a consensus on the war' is going forward. Stage left: Cindy Sheehan, the icon of the New Vietnam Strategy, is overseas on a mission to undercut America and stand in solidarity with insurgents in Iraq.

The scheduled speakers included Sheehan, who has become a focus of anti-war sentiment in the United States by camping outside the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush; Hasan Zergani Hashim, a spokesperson for Iraq's radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; and leftist British legislator George Galloway. yahoo.com

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

The culture of arrogance

As Joe Lieberman knows, if you criticize the left's position you will be 'attacked'. The irony is that, for some on the left, free speech and putting forward your opinion only works in one direction. Calling Bush a liar, an incompetent, or worse, and the war lost and hopeless is just expressing your opinion, but disagreement or defending a policy you agree with is 'arrogance' and 'attempting to shut people up'. Sadly, this tactic is itself an attempt to shut down conversation and make sure that only their view is heard.

"Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war." nytimes sucks (registration required)

What is arrogant is formulating a political stategy based on the premise that America needs to lose so that you can win. What is arrogant is voting for a war and then undermining it while it is underway and calling the President divisive for continuing to support the policy you voted for. (Or is that hubris? Arrogance just doesn't convey the element of darwinian defeat that inevitably comes from these kinds of leftist self-defeating policies.)

In the end, it is evident that the anti-war movement is the last redoubt of failed leftist ideology.

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 11, 2005 1:24 AM
Comments
Comment #101067

Eric,
Yes, you said it before:

Withdrawal = surrender.

I’ve noticed the Joint Chiefs are preparing plans to withdraw. Rumsfeld has hinted at withdrawal, too. Traitors! Traitors in the Pentagon! I look forward to your posts attacking them as well. Traitors in the Pentagon! They’re everywhere! Like you have said:

withdrawal = surrender


Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 2:27 AM
Comment #101077

Unlike Republicans, Democrats welcome diversity of views. We do not rely on Talking Points as much as the GOP. Hence, Democrats sound more like individuals than the robotic rightwingnut clones that litter the RNC and this Blog.

Posted by: Aldous at December 11, 2005 3:29 AM
Comment #101108

Aldous

Probably the major reason the Democrats have no talking points is they speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Does Dean speak for your party or Lieberman?

Does Kerry speak for your party or Clinton.?

Typicial Democrat response:The shot-gun method.Have party members,usually on the same day,say opposite things.

Cohesion.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at December 11, 2005 5:17 AM
Comment #101117

Aldous,

Wait…wait…who, who is it that is heading up the anti-torture bill? Is it McCain? Oh man! Got to hate those follow the line politicians from the Republican Party. Shoot, damn, to bad we don’t have any independent thinkers.
Do you see the Republicans calling McCain a traitor to the party? No, in fact you see negotiations and serious discussion at all levels. But I think you do see as in Eric’s post that no Democrats DO NOT “welcome diversity of views.”

Posted by: The BDB at December 11, 2005 6:39 AM
Comment #101122

You libs need to remember Bush won Kerry the 3 purple hearts in 3 months “War Hero” lost get over it. Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire.

Posted by: Thomas at December 11, 2005 7:10 AM
Comment #101125

“Unlike Republicans, Democrats welcome diversity of views. We do not rely on Talking Points as much as the GOP. Hence, Democrats sound more like individuals than the robotic rightwingnut clones that litter the RNC and this Blog.”

Okay…uhhhh….diversity of views??? I guess if one of the left’s views is obviously to be “diverse” on their views. Hmmmmmm…lets think when they were the most diverse….oh yeah…when they also voted to invade Iraq, then months later, decide that we needed to pull out and they them selves are the leaders in turing this country against each other. Now that’s diversity. Well said whoever you are. Seems your just another leftwing thug scared to post him name. Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Tim Kazee at December 11, 2005 7:18 AM
Comment #101130

—-
Typicial Democrat response:The shot-gun method.Have party members,usually on the same day,say opposite things.
—-
Truth to you libs is like garlic to a vampire.
—-
lets think when they were the most diverse….oh yeah…when they also voted to invade Iraq, then months later, decide that we needed to pull out and they them selves are the leaders in turing this country against each other. Now that’s diversity. Well said whoever you are. Seems your just another leftwing thug scared to post him name. Thanks for your comments.
——
My observation has been that the left has chosen a deliberate strategy of trying to weaken domestic support for the war purely for partisan political advantage. An observation borne out everyday by their own statements and actions.
—-

OK, just let me know when you guys want to actually discuss something. Until now, it’s just political party banter. I know you hate the ‘liberals’, us ‘lefties’ or ‘DEMS’ or ‘leftwing nut jobs,’ but is there a point to this or should I come back in a few days and leave you guys to your fun?

Posted by: tony at December 11, 2005 7:57 AM
Comment #101132

A friend told me yesterday that it took a Democratic congressman to finally push the Republican administration into talking about withdrawing troops. Then mentioned as proof possible troop reductions in January. I reminded him additional troops were brought in to boost security operations during the last election and there were planned troop reductions following this very important Dec. 15 elections. It is possible we may be turning a corner here guys. The Sunni clerics are now calling for full participation in this election saying that this will hasten the departure of the Americans.
In this they are accepting the fact that the only way they are going to get rid of the American troops is to improve the political and security situation. The recent remarks by the Democratic leadership works directly against this and is most unhelpful.
Rick Kuwait

Posted by: Rick Klankey at December 11, 2005 7:58 AM
Comment #101149
Do you see the Republicans calling McCain a traitor to the party? No

Yes, I do.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 11, 2005 9:20 AM
Comment #101153

The Democrats probably perceive a win/win situation. They know that eventually American troops will give more and more reigns of authority to the new Iraqi government and their own military. As this occurs, regardless of published or non-published time tables, the Democrats will claim their public invective caused Americans to be sent home.

As to Lieberman, be wary to his agenda for the future. Kudos for the present in supporting a war time President, however in 2008 this is a liberal that will probably run for Presidential office. As much as he is hated today by fellow Democrats, the politics of the future may embrace this liberal as one that might win an election. After all he was tough on terrorists in a probable American victory and may claim liberal changes may be better for America. If Hillary were to be his VP running mate, it would be a tough ticket to beat by Republicans.

Posted by: Theway2k at December 11, 2005 9:37 AM
Comment #101159

Lawnboy,

Good, there should be an equation between Blog posters, a minimal right-wing group and some group selling t-shirts to the Chair of the DNC! I’m glad we’re talking on the same level here.

Posted by: The BDB at December 11, 2005 9:55 AM
Comment #101161
minimal right-wing group

If you think the Club for Growth is a minimal right-wing group, then you don’t pay attention to Washington. Thy are very influential.

I do like the moving standard:

“You don’t see Republicans doing it.”
“Yes, I do.”
“Ok, you don’t see Republicans from this secret list I keep in my hand doing it.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 11, 2005 10:11 AM
Comment #101165

More mindless character assassination and hatred from the Right. How typical.

The left has chosen a deliberate strategy of trying to weaken domestic support for the war purely for partisan political advantage.
Four points about this patently absurd statement:
  • First of all, you present no evidence that opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is done solely for political purposes.
  • Opposition to a war solely for political purposes is wrong? So, why did the Right oppose Kosovo? Please tell us why opposition to a war is valid for the Right, but wrong for everyone else. Pardon me, but your hypocricy is showing.
  • Opposition to a war (even if done for political purposes) is not as bad as wanting to start a war solely for political purposes.
  • Opposition to a war (even if done for political purposes) is not as bad as trying to time a war for maximum political gain.
  • Those evil Dems. They’re almost marginally a fraction as bad as the Right.

    Eric, I’m still waiting for you to back up your silly statement about P Diddy (vote or be killed by Republicans) from your last post. Either back it up with facts, or retract it.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at December 11, 2005 10:27 AM
    Comment #101166

    PH,
    withdrawal = surrender?
    Remeber this line, “when the Iraqi’s stand up, we will stand down”?
    In 06 we will see a gradual reduction of troop strength because of that successful strategy. I believe those on the left (chiefly that mental powerhouse and engaging diplomat Cindy Sheehan) calling for immediate withdrawal or “redeployment”. That strategy is one of defeatism. So please clarify your “withdrawal” definition.

    Posted by: Jay at December 11, 2005 10:30 AM
    Comment #101167

    Phx8

    I think Eric’s point was that the Dems are trying to forge a policy that is anti-war and that the strategy is not related to Iraq as much as domestic politics. The evidence seems to support this. Dean/Murtha/Pelosi say things that are clearly defeatist, whether you agree or not if they are right. Lieberman says the future will be hard, but we could win and he is accused of dividing the party. Doesn’t Lieberman have the status to enter the debate in his own party? Or has party leadership made up its mind already and it is that we lost?

    Not to put words in Eric’s post, but I think his second good point was that the Dems attack anyone who disagrees with them using ironic position that THEY are trying to shut down debate. We have seen President Bush called all sorts of names. If someone on our side implies Dean is an idiot, we are accused of hate speech. Count the negative references to various politicians and tell me who is the hater and who is the “hatee”.

    Aldous

    That assertion is just wrong. Pro-choice people spoke at the Republican convention. Any pro-life in prominent positions among the Dems. I spend some time at universities. If you want to provoke a fight all you have to do is say Bush may not be a bad guy. There are the same places, BTW, were a conservative speaker will be heckled and even physically assaulted.

    Tony

    I am a reasonable guy. In many of my posts I don’t even refer to either political party by name and although I tend to make fun of many things, I respect my opponents. Yet I have been called evil on dozens of occasions.

    I am well-educated and have traveled widely, yet I have been called ignorant and limited. Although I have not set foot in a church in 20 years except as a tourist or guest at a wedding or funeral, I have been called a religious conservative.

    The problem for liberals is that they think they are mainstream and anyone to the right is outside. The middle of the American political spectrum is moderate conservative. If you look at media, CNN and Fox are probably about equally distant from the middle. Liberal ideas are not very popular in today’s America. Liberals refuse to understand this and keep on trying to figure out how conservative have been tricking the electorate.

    Theway

    The Democratic activist wing hates Lieberman. These guys forget nothing and learn nothing. They have been on the same page since the fought Ronald Reagan. Joe would have a better chance winning the Republican nomination (BTW joke)

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 10:30 AM
    Comment #101175

    —-
    The problem for liberals is that they think they are mainstream and anyone to the right is outside. The middle of the American political spectrum is moderate conservative. If you look at media, CNN and Fox are probably about equally distant from the middle. Liberal ideas are not very popular in today�s America. Liberals refuse to understand this and keep on trying to figure out how conservative have been tricking the electorate.
    —-

    But you continue to see things in a monocular way - ‘liberals.’ You dismiss the ideas out of hand because they perceived to be on the liberal ‘agenda’ or liberal way of thinking. I have problem ideas and concepts and suggestions or criticism, but the bulk of the problems, especially on this thread so far, is that people seems to be tossing rocks at the liberals but are offering no points of discussion.

    Try to make your points by directly addressing the pros and cons (not conservatives and liberals or Dems and Reps.) So far, you have simply attacked by base of thinking without showing a single proof of a negative. You say that people are moderate conservative and that maybe the liberal thought process should reflect that. For me, I am not going to start from a perspective of popularity and work backwards from that. I try to base my opinions and concepts on cause and effect + exposure to as many avenues of thought as possible… trying to see what might work better than what will be most popular. But then again, I’m not a politician.

    Posted by: tony at December 11, 2005 11:15 AM
    Comment #101176

    I want Dean to stay at the DNC FOREVER! He’s great. I didn’t think they could find a suitable replacement for McAuliffe. They did.

    Keep it up Howie. Do NOT let them shut you up.

    Posted by: LaMano at December 11, 2005 11:16 AM
    Comment #101180
    You�d expect yesteryear�s (patriotic and pro-American) Democratic party to be saying things like, �He�s doing damage to the ability of Democrats to wage a national campaign.�

    Eric,

    You may have noticed I posted something to this effect a while ago. A lot of left/Dem posters agreed with me, and a lot disagreed. According to the media, Dean is making many high-level Democrats nervous.

    As for Lieberman, he is entitled to his opinion. I don’t think anyone is interfering with his right to free speech. You can’t expect other Democrats to pretend to agree with him just because he is a Democrat.

    Personally, I find Lieberman’s statement preposterous because Bush has undermined his OWN credibility. Going along with what Bush says because he is the president is what got us into this mess.

    Speaking of undermining the president’s credibility, how about this:

    Who in America would willingly send their son or daughter to die in Iraq based on the President’s explanation of the events? President Bush has put our troops in precarious positions over and over again. We should say today that not one service man or woman should be placed in harm’s way based upon the President’s empty threats or hollow promises.

    Want the guy hung for treason? Actually it was a Republican (Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL) talking about Clinton!

    Posted by: Woody Mena at December 11, 2005 11:33 AM
    Comment #101191

    It amazes me the way liberals have taken over the Democratic Party and yet claim that they are inclusive. Can anyone tell me the last Democrat to hold a position of prominance that was:
    1. Anti-abortion?
    2. Pro gun rights?
    3. Pro deatn penality?

    As far as the Democratic party and the war, they have been given exactly what they have asked for. They said that the President couldnt go to war without debate and votes in the Congress. When it was brought to the floor for debate, they cried foul. They shouldnt have to vote BEFORE the elections. They had to, and they supported it.

    Now they want to immediately pull out. It was brought to the floor. “You cant do that”, they cried and then voted not to pull out. Then they went back to the mantra of leave now. The most disturbing part of all of this is that the last Presidental nominee of the Democrats said, “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…”. He is very consistant. Just like the good old days after his ‘Nam stint, when he told bold face lies to advance his career in politics. then, he should have been prosicuted for perjury to congress or war crimes.
    Democratic leaders can, on the floor of the Senate, compare our service members to the Nazis, but can DARE NOT back a Republican President’s war plan. I ask you where is the Diversity?

    The Democrats say that the President lied about pre-war intel. But every one that was in office before this President has said almost exactly the same thing during the Clinton Presidency. Why could they believe it then, say it themselves, but now it is a lie?

    I myself have had my family(both blood and extended) and my own ass hanging in the breeze while the politicians were hacking it out. WAR IS NOT THE TIME OR PLACE FOR TRIANGULATING POLITICAL GAIN. Someone in the Democratic party needs to explain what their definition of mission accomplished is and debate that or leave the rhetoric out.

    Posted by: submariner at December 11, 2005 12:24 PM
    Comment #101193

    Eric,

    Until very recently it’s been nearly impossible to criticize this war; now it’s happening and you’re complaining that democrats are shutting out any support for it. All I can say is you’ve had more than long enough to make this thing work, and now it’s time for some discussion about what we need to do given the position we’re in.

    Bush asked for, and recieved, a vote to use force in Iraq, which he said he needed as a threat if peaceful negotiations were going to work. He asked for it during a time when it was almost impossible to say no, and put forward a lot of “evidence” for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that placed our country in immediate jeopardy. In retrospect, giving this president support of any kind was a huge mistake.

    Bush claimed the war would be short and sweet. He made a point that this war would cost less in money and manpower than any before in history. He shunned international support.

    The reasons why I will no longer support this president are:

    1. He’s more than had his chance during a time when his support was unanimous.
    2. He’s a liar. He planned for this war at the same time he said he didn’t believe in nationbuilding, way before 9/11.
    3. He’s incompetent. Katrina, the War, Homeland security, the economy, jobs, social security, it just doesn’t seem to end.

    You don’t seem to feel it’s necessary to make any points at all in your post about why we should support this president or war. You point out, again and again, that criticism is happening and ain’t it unpatriotic. You really don’t have anything to say about why supporting this president and war is a good idea. You can’t see how out of gas your party is. When all you’re left with is waiving the flag, it means there’s nothing of substance left, and it’s over.

    Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 12:32 PM
    Comment #101203

    Message to Liberals and Democrats here……you really need to check out the History of your beloved party and who influenced it and molded
    it to become the Socialist…if not down right Communist cess pool it is today!!!

    Here’s some help:

    Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

    http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm

    The Democrat Party’s Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism

    http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/democratrecord.html

    Democrats “Use” Blacks To Advance A Radical Left-Wing Socialist Agenda

    http://www.toogoodreports.com/column/reader/shepherd/20021205.htm
    R I G H T O N ! B Y D A V I D H O R O W I T Z
    http://www.salon.com/march97/columnists/horowitz970303.html
    Hillary and the Black Panthers: The Real Story
    http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=127

    What makes a liberal?

    http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2003/08/12/168067.html


    Posted by: Lug at December 11, 2005 12:54 PM
    Comment #101211

    Max, Bush NEVER said this would be a “short and sweet” war, in fact he stated early on that this would be a long and arduous task. That would make you a “liar” (just using terms you’ll understand). Secondly, “until recently it’s been nearly impossible to criticize this war”? Are you serious? That is all the left has been doing now for two years, unless you call the last two years recent. I remeber in Oct. of 03, Rockefeller, Kennedy and Clinton providing compelling evidence of the danger Saddam posed. And BTW, we are winning the war, despite what you’re engaging, mental powerhouse of a diplomat Cindy Sheehan might say. Dec. 15 will see millions of Iraqi’s go to the polls for the third time and support their government and 200,000 strong military. Or have you missed that?

    Posted by: Jay at December 11, 2005 1:08 PM
    Comment #101221

    Hi Jay,

    “And BTW, we are winning the war”

    There were some 150 attacks/week in Iraq this time last year. There are now some 700/week. How is that winning?

    The Iraqi government is dominated by terrorists. How is that winning?

    Our troops are fighting to support terrorists…..how can we win by supporting terrorists?

    We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of terrorists and the terrorists aren’t losing. This isn’t at all a good strategy.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:30 PM
    Comment #101227

    Jack,
    Eric recently wrote an article excorciating liberals for talk of withdrawal from Iraq. He made it abundantly clear:

    withdrawal = surrender

    So I will keep that in front of Eric over the months. You’ll keep seeing it. Surely Eric feels that way as a matter of principle, and not as a matter of political expediency. Surely he will condemn any withdrawal whatsoever, regardless of who initiates it, because after all, according to Eric:

    withdrawal = surrender

    Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 1:33 PM
    Comment #101228

    Tony

    But Tony that is exactly what you do. People explore all the alternatives that fit into their ideological perspective. It is a human condition. But liberals formerly dominated the debate and they still dominate academia and the media, so they fool themselves easier.

    Think of unspoken assumptions. Condoleezza Rice is the most successful black woman in American history. She came from a relativley humble background. Why does the liberal establishment not celebrate Condoleezza Rice? You can believe if she ever broke with Bush she would be lionized.

    You complain about right wing attacks. As I mentioned and you can find examples throughout this blog, I have been called evil on many occasions, sometimes for things as mundane as supporting personal accounts in SS. On several occassions some troglodyte has given me the option of being stupid or evil.

    On a couple of occasions, I have merely asked people to substitute terms. When people call the President a liar, fool, chimp etc, what if we just substituted a prominent Democrat? The response has been something like “well it is true.”

    I don’t know if you saw Meet the Press this morning. If not take a look. Lindsey Graham and Madeline Albright shared the interview. Graham talked about mistakes we made in Iraq. He said that those who oppose the war are not traitors. He said that both sides want to make progress. He condemned Republican attacks against Dean and he said that maybe Dems should stop calling the president incompetent and a liar. Albright welcomed his tolerance, but would not reciprocate re the president. This is the extent of liberal tolerance.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 1:35 PM
    Comment #101230

    Hi phx8,

    Do you consider a partial withdrawl to be a partial surrender?

    Can we come up with a “surrender coefficient” based on how many troops people advocate withdrawing?

    If someone advocates sending in more troops does that give them a negative surrender coefricient?

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:36 PM
    Comment #101231

    Phx8

    Withdrawal on the terrorists terms is surrender. If we withdraw when conditions merit, when they meet OUR goals, it is victory. When someone says we should leave in six months, without knowing what conditions will be in six months it is a surrender.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 1:38 PM
    Comment #101232

    Hi Jack,

    “Withdrawal on the terrorists terms is surrender.”

    What about withdrawl on the terms of the terrorists we’re supporting?

    The “Supreme Couuncil for Islamic Revolution in Iraq” (SCIRI) is quite powerful in the Iraqi government and they want us to withdraw.

    If the “good” terrorists in the government want us to withdraw does that involve surrender?

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:42 PM
    Comment #101234

    Hi Jack,

    “When someone says we should leave in six months, without knowing what conditions will be in six months it is a surrender.”

    I think that means we can never withdraw.

    I just knew we were going to be stuck in Iraq forever!


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 1:45 PM
    Comment #101236

    Louis, denigrating the 27,000,000 strong Iraqi’s, the 200,000 strong Iraqi security and military, the Iraqi government and the 150,000 strong U.S. Military and placing all bets on the 20,000 strong insurgency. Haven’t we gone over this before?

    Posted by: Jay at December 11, 2005 1:47 PM
    Comment #101239

    Louis,
    “Negative surrender coefficient.” Good one!

    Jack,
    It’s Eric’s formulation:

    withdrawal = surrender

    He made this abundantly clear in his articles about Murtha’s proposition. It’s worth noting again, surrender in Iraq is nearly impossible. Surrender is defined as delivering oneself into the power of the enemy, on conditional or unconditional terms, such as Lee did when surrending to Grant at Appomattox.

    But Eric introduced ‘surrender’ into the discussion, and clearly equates withdrawal with surrender. The action itself is self-evident, regardless of which politicians engage in withdrawal/surrender, or what terminology they invoke.

    Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 2:03 PM
    Comment #101241

    LOUIS XIV:

    By your terms, we must have lost WWII. we have been in Europe for about 60 years so far. I am curious about something. Do you have any idea how many American servicemen/women died there in the 3 years after the war? How aboutin the 60 years after the war?

    Iraq has had less time to form a stable democracy than the United States took just to ratify our constitution. We were not really a stable country until well after the “Civil War”.

    To all of those that doubt the worth of the Iraqi war, would it have been worth it just to have democracy start to take hold from Egypt to the P.L.O. and to have Lybia to rejoin the legitimate world by swearing off WMD’s and allowing inspections? Europe was neck deep in nationalism and dangerous dictators before WWII, and had they been confronted ealier, the cost would have been much less.

    Will we never learn?

    Posted by: submariner at December 11, 2005 2:10 PM
    Comment #101243

    Louis

    Do you try to focus like a spotlight on the non-significant part of the argument. Zeno’s paradox doesn’t work in the real world. Our course we could project conditions six months in the future and plan accordingly. But to simply advocate withdrawal in six months is not the same thing.

    Phx8

    Murtha’s proposal can be called a lot of things. It is not technically surrender by the definition you provide, but it sure is not anything like responsible or smart. The results would be a diaster.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 2:25 PM
    Comment #101251

    phx8,

    I’ve noticed the Joint Chiefs are preparing plans to withdraw. Rumsfeld has hinted at withdrawal, too. Traitors! Traitors in the Pentagon! I look forward to your posts attacking them as well. Traitors in the Pentagon! They’re everywhere! Like you have said:

    withdrawal = surrender

    You bring up a good point. But then that would mean that Democrats agree with Bush’s plan. If so, what are they opposing exactly? And why do they continue to say Bush has no strategy in Iraq?

    ElliotBay,

    More mindless character assassination and hatred from the Right. How typical.

    Again, the ad hominim charge of hatred. Saying I hate liberals is basically a convenient way of trying to discredit the person rather than the argument.

    First of all, you present no evidence that opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is done solely for political purposes.

    None, except for direct quotes from democratic strategists.

    Sensing political vulnerability in Bush’s handling of Iraq, Democrats are anxious to craft a compelling anti-war theme uniting the party for the pivotal midterm congressional elections.

    Democrats hope a surging anti-war tide in 2006 can help them shatter the GOP’s 12-year lock on the House and win back the Senate for the first time since 2001.

    “It’s not a tidal wave now, but the ingredients are starting to fall into place,” said veteran Democratic strategist Tad Devine.

    Every statement from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is shrill evidence of it. Jay Rockefeller’s memo contains an express admission of it. Besides which, what I am saying is not that merely opposing the war is wrong, but that after supporting the war democats are now actively pursuing a strategy of underming domestic support for the war in an attempt to create defeat.

    Next.

    Opposition to a war solely for political purposes is wrong? So, why did the Right oppose Kosovo? Please tell us why opposition to a war is valid for the Right, but wrong for everyone else. Pardon me, but your hypocricy is showing.

    As many are fond of saying, opposing a war can be a responsible and honest position. Supporting defeat is not. The time to stop the war was when they were voting for it! Which is where Republicans opposed it. Your representatives didn’t oppose it when they voted for it. Now that we are committed they want to ‘pull the rug out from under the troops’ in the words of David Bonior.

    REP. DAVID BONIOR: Well, I don’t know what the motivation is, but I suspect that they’re not very thrilled with this war, and they’re certainly not very thrilled with Mr. Clinton. And they’ve referred to it as Mr. Clinton’s war on the floor of the House on numerous occasions. The last thing we need to do is to make partisan this war effort. These are not Democrats or Republicans that are fighting there on our behalf and trying to end this genocide. These are American, young men and women. And we ought to be on their side. And we ought not to be sending a message and pulling the rug out from underneath them by voting against what they’re doing.

    Kosovo is a good example. The major difference between Iraq and Kosovo being that Bush gave the opposition plenty of time to debate and make their positions clear— and vote on a resolution of force. Clinton sent troops to Kosovo without an authorization of force or a declaration of war and only came back to congress to rubber stamp the whole deal after troops were already deployed.

    In an unexpected but perhaps long-simmering act of challenge to our self-appointed Imperator, Senators Robert Byrd, a Democrat, and John Warner, a Republican, proposed an amendment that would have compelled the President to adhere to a protocol mandated by the Constitution and the War Powers Act alike: To appear before Congress and present his case for further deployment of U.S. soldiers “equipped for combat” (War Powers Act), and to continue to “consult regularly with Congress until U.S. Armed Forces are no longer” so deployed.

    This provision had a retroactive component also, as Clinton had never bothered to consult with Congress about the stationing of U.S. troops in Kosovo in the first place, last June, treating his address to Congress on March 23, 1999 as all that was required to wage war, construct a massive - and no doubt permament - stately martial dome to house 5,900 G.I.s with all the amenities of home, including fast food restaurants and health clubs, and to provide the opportunity to squire his daughter on a taxpayer-subsidized tour of the provinces to be ogled at by homesick soldiers.

    Interestingly Bush did not support this resolution and helped Clinton defeat the the bill:

    PHOENIX, AZ – Today, Presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan released the following statement:

    “With the aid of George W. Bush, President Clinton narrowly defeated the Byrd Amendment in the Senate, 53-47, which would have ended the U.S. military occupation of Kosovo in 13 months.

    “Gov. Bush has revealed himself to be an interventionist in the Clinton- Gore mold. buchanan.org



    Democrats said at the time that setting a date to pullout of Kosovo would hand a victory to the enemy:
    The provision, inserted into a military construction spending bill at the committee level, would have set a deadline for U.S. troops to pull out of Kosovo, unless the Congress affirmatively voted to keep them in at a later date. Biden said the Congress would be “rolling the dice” with Milosevic if a pull out date was imminent. “If the indicted war criminal Milosevic knew that the U.S. Congress was serious about abandoning Kosovo, his temptation to make mischief there would be dramatically increased,” he said. biden.senate.gov

    And we still have troops in Bosnia/Kosovo today! Honest disagreement is one thing. Actively undermining American will and resolve in order to have a Vietnam Style defeat is something else entirely.

    Opposition to a war (even if done for political purposes) is not as bad as wanting to start a war solely for political purposes.
    Here again we see the hypocrisy of the left. Presenting evidence that the left is pursueing a campaign to undermine the war for political reasons is ‘hatred’ and ‘liberal bashing’, but saying Bush started the war for political reasons is not? Implicit here is also an admission that I am right. Democrats are doing this for political reasons, and they use their charge that Bush started the war for political purposes as a reason to do so themselves.

    For one thing, doing it for political reasons alone is not what’s so bad about what Democrats and the left are doing. It is the fact that they are actively pursueing a strategy of American defeat in order to defeat a President politically, not that opposing anything politically in and of itself is wrong.

    Opposition to a war (even if done for political purposes) is not as bad as trying to time a war for maximum political gain.

    huh? No matter what the timing is, there is no way to avoid such a charge. Besides I think what you are saying is basically the same as the point before it. That Bush started the war for political reasons. A baseless charge for which you have presented no evidence of whatsoever.

    Posted by: esimonson at December 11, 2005 3:19 PM
    Comment #101253

    Hi Jay,

    “denigrating the 27,000,000 strong Iraqi’s, the 200,000 strong Iraqi security and military, the Iraqi government and the 150,000 strong U.S. Military and placing all bets on the 20,000 strong insurgency.”

    I cited numbers Jay. I didn’t denigrate anybody. I mentioned a few obvious and extremely important facts.

    There were 150 attacks/week this time last year. There are 700/week now.

    Can you stop misrepesenting what I said and explain how we’re winning against the insurgents?

    Since when is stating obvious and important truths “denigrating”?

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 3:22 PM
    Comment #101255

    Hi submariner,

    “By your terms, we must have lost WWII.”

    That is quite untrue. Is it possible for you to confine yourself to the truth here?

    “Do you have any idea how many American servicemen/women died there in the 3 years after the war? How aboutin the 60 years after the war?”

    Do you think that Saddam killed a lot of Iraqis?

    I didn’t use the argument that we’re losing too many troops.

    Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in the Iraqi government. Do you think this is a good idea?

    If you’re like most neocons I’ve met you lack the courage to answer that last question.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 3:28 PM
    Comment #101256

    Hi Jack,

    “Do you try to focus like a spotlight on the non-significant part of the argument”

    Please don’t misrepesent my writing like that.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 3:30 PM
    Comment #101257

    Jack,

    George suggested this was going to be a cakewalk with frosting on top. That’s why they didn’t send in enough troops. That’s why Bush waived the “Mission accomplished” banner. He really thought it was over.

    Nothing we’ve done is sustainable without prolonged massive effort on our part. The minute we leave everything will fall apart. I guess you and I have a different definition of “winning”, because actually at this point I say we lost already. This war is over, stick a fork in it. The only question now is how long is it going to take to pull out? How much pain? Will you wait till our country is destroyed?

    I notice that you addressed all my points except that Bush is a big fat liar. You know, that he lied big fat big time when he was planning an invasion of Iraq at the same time he was campaigning on a platform of no nation-building. That was whopper, whudn’t?

    Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 3:32 PM
    Comment #101264

    Max

    I wrote a whole post on the Bush lied myth. I quoted the articles from factcheck.org. I also explained why all those Dems who saw similar intelligence now can’t remember what they said.

    His initial campaign strategy was changed by 9/11. You guys just don’t listen to what he says. For example, read the State of the Union speech 2003 where he uses the term imminent to describe that threat. Actually he says the threat is NOT yet imminent. But you all hear what you want.

    BTW - Bush is not fat. You should be in such good condition when you are his age.

    Louis

    As I said, I am not trying to be difficult, but I often really don’t know why you use the Arguments you do. As I read what you wrote, I thought you were relying on a sort of Zeno’s paradox, i.e. if our plans were always six months in the future we could never actually reach them. If that was not what you meant, I am sorry. If it is what you meant, it is as I said.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 3:59 PM
    Comment #101266

    Eric,
    Your continuous vicious attacks on the left make you guilty of

    trying to discredit the person rather than the argument.
    You are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of.

    Kosovo.

    Clinton sent troops to Kosovo without an authorization of force or a declaration of war and only came back to congress to rubber stamp the whole deal after troops were already deployed.
    Perhaps you’ve heard of NATO. We have treaty obligations to NATO, and President Clinton was honoring them. You know about treaties, don’t you, Eric? Those are the constitutionally-mandated obligations that the Bush administration doesn’t believe in honoring. Opposition to our actions in Kosovo didn’t stop with the troop deployment, by the way. I remember watching a news report at the time about Republicans who were claiming that our troops were running out of ammo. If that isn’t a treacherous invitation for an attack on our troops, I don’t know what is.

    Bush did have political motives for invading Iraq:

    Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
    “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.

    And there was political timing regarding the invasion of Iraq. According the the British government, the invasion had a
    timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    I note with interest your deafening silence when asked repeatedly to back up your silly statement about P Diddy’s get out the vote effort. Backit up or retract it, Eric.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at December 11, 2005 4:06 PM
    Comment #101268

    Hi Jack,

    “Do you try to focus like a spotlight on the non-significant part of the argument”

    If you can show that I generally do that I encourage you to do so. If not please retract that statement.

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 4:12 PM
    Comment #101269

    Elliot

    Clinton did the right thing in Kosovo, but it was not “legal” any more than Iraq nor was it required by the NATO treaty. In fact Kosovo was a serious strain on NATO, which did not do out of alliance activities. Non of the Balkan states were memebers of NATO and non of them attacked any NATO members.

    Also re NATO. It is a lumpy organization made up of the U.S. and allies. I say it that way on purpose. NO military operation is possible without the U.S. wanting it to happen. We kind of authorized ourselves and then cited our authorization as proof that it was authorized.

    Re vote or die

    I recall the rapper “vote or die” slogan. It did not have to do with Republicans. The interesting thing was that the campaign was such a failure. I guess a lot of young people chose die instead of vote.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 4:14 PM
    Comment #101271

    Louis

    Please see my comment above. If indeed you did not mean what I thought - I am sorry. If you did mean it, that is my example.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 4:17 PM
    Comment #101272

    Hi Jack,

    If you can show that I generally do that I encourage you to do so. If not please retract the statement.

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 4:23 PM
    Comment #101274

    Louis

    I expect you posted this last one before you read mine above.

    I am truly sorry. I often do not understand what you are trying to say or how you prioritize. I am not writing this to be difficult. As I wrote in the other thread, we see things differently. I hope your outlooks works for you.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 4:48 PM
    Comment #101275

    LOUIS XIV:

    First and foremost, thanks for responding to me. As for sticking to the facts, you said that you knew that we would never leave Iraq. According to your statement, our tenure in Iraq is a bad thing. I would like to parallel it to WWII. In both:
    1. We were reacting late to what was a direct threat. Terrorism is as much a threat to us as the Axis were. If you disagree please explain the error I am making.
    2. It took time for both Theaters of Operations to really stabilize. Again it took half a century for Europe, yet 3 years looks too long for you in Iraq.
    3. In both cases, the most dangerous and unstable regions in the world(in terms of willingness to wage war and commit genocide) are being dealt with. When democracies were established in Europe, the wars were finally stopped(no Western democracy has ever declared war on another). Since we have been actively standing against tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East, how much progress has been made against both in the “belly of the beast”?
    4. You say that we are installing terrorists(SCIRI) into government in Iraq. Should people be brought into democracy with a terrorist background?………………………………..I just wanted you to have a gut reaction to that question…………………..Now explain Seinn Feinn and their relationship to terror and the rate of terrorism by them before, during and after their assimilation into democracy.
    5. Many liberals did not agree with us being in the War(directly referring to the European theater in WWII…..please read up on Andy Rooney’s and others’ opinions about it before he saw first hand the result of the Nazi’s efforts).
    6. The price was high and paid for by the blood of Americans. True repersentative democratic governments were nonexistant in both continential Europe in the 40’s and in the Middle East now(excluding Israel). In both areas, after we got involved militarily, it blossomed. If you conclude that it is too high in Iraq, I would like you to justify the price for a free Europe.

    Now you like to quote the instances of terror in Iraq as a justification for loss. If we are losing because of the number of attacks by the insurgency, then by the same reasoning, should not the American government withdraw form the lawless Los Angeles? What about Louisville,KY? There have been more Kentuckians killed there than in Iraq in the last 3 years.

    Should we abandon the war on drugs because of the number of “insurgents” waging war against it? Are people not dying in the streets due directly people wanting to be able to distribute drugs? Please define insurgency and tell me why we should retreat from one(or withdraw) and not the other.

    Louis, one of the things that really tears me up(and I am not accusing you of this in this post) is for liberals comparing Iraq to Vietnam as a quagmire or waste of time money and people. The only fair comparison is that we went to war and defeated the enemies’ military…..then we lost the guts to finnish the job for purely political gains. Please compare Senator Kerry’s remarks on both.

    Posted by: submariner at December 11, 2005 5:01 PM
    Comment #101276

    JACK:

    You said that Iraq was as illegal as Kosovo. On what do you base this? Did not both Houses of Congress vote to authorize military force in Iraq? As far as international war, Iraq signed an unconditional letter of surrender after Gulf War I. They then fired on American troops numerous times, violating the terms of surrender. PLEASE explain how this war was illegal.

    Posted by: submariner at December 11, 2005 5:08 PM
    Comment #101279

    in the second line of my last post, please insert “international law” for “international war”. Sorry for the typo.

    Posted by: submariner at December 11, 2005 5:36 PM
    Comment #101280

    Submariner

    You are stepping into a talk we have been having for years and you will get used to the context.

    I suspect you and I agree on this.

    I don’t believe that either war was illegal. I don’t think we need the permission of anyone outside the U.S. That is why I put legal in quotes.

    Some of our blogmates think Kosovo was legal but Iraq not. You are right that we had a variety of legitimate reasons to go into Iraq, including the wording of SC 1441 (which we did not need) You are also correct that Saddam shot at our forces and engaged in acts of war against us.

    Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 5:50 PM
    Comment #101288

    I hope the Democrats keep Howard Dean as DNC Chairman. Hell I hope the run him for President.
    I also hope the Republicans find some just as stupid and make them RNC Chairman, and run them for President.
    That way the voters can see just how low both parties have gotten and will kick both of them out of office.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at December 11, 2005 6:29 PM
    Comment #101289

    Hi Submariner,

    “We were reacting late to what was a direct threat.”

    Iraq wasn’t a threat to us compared to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Somolia.

    “Since we have been actively standing against tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East, how much progress has been made against both in the “belly of the beast”?”

    We are supporting tyranny in Iraq. The Iraqi government and security forces are riddled with those who support/partake in vicious killing of those they disagree with.

    It remains to be seen whether we’re making things safer for ourselves by occupying in Iraq. There is evidence to the contrary.

    “Should people be brought into democracy with a terrorist background?”

    It’s not just backround. These guys are terrorists in the present tense. They are perpetrating terrorism. Sadr is a vicious terrorist who is powerful in the government and he is an avowed enemy of America.

    “True repersentative democratic governments were nonexistant in both continential Europe in the 40’s and in the Middle East now(excluding Israel).”

    It’s silly to compare Europe to the Middle East that way. Europe has a long history of leaders attempting fair government. The Middle East has been about tyrany for some 6 thousand years of recorded history.

    European countries had a national heritage to fall back on. Iraq has tribal/sectarian warefare to fall back on which is precisely what they’ve done.

    “If we are losing because of the number of attacks by the insurgency, then by the same reasoning, should not the American government withdraw form the lawless Los Angeles?”

    If you consider how many police have been killed in Iraq vs. LA you’ll quickly realize you’re not making any sense.

    “Should we abandon the war on drugs because of the number of “insurgents” waging war against it?”

    I didn’t say that. I said that, given the fact that attacks have increased 4 fold in the last year, it doesn’t look like we’re winning.

    “or waste of time money and people.”

    We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing. There are far better ways to fight terrorism.

    Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists. This isn’t fighting terrorism….it’s supporting terrorism.

    Too many in the Iraq government and the Iraqi military look on our occupation as a chance to brutalize those they were oppressed by. Many Shiites in the government and military are involved in death sqauds who kill and torture Sunnis.

    It’s not a question of whether terrorists are winning in Iraq. It’s a question of which terrorists are winning. The Shiite terrorists are winning in the sense that they control the government and the military. The Sunni terrorists have a, thus far, effective strategy.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 6:57 PM
    Comment #101290

    Hi Jack,

    “you try to focus like a spotlight on the non-significant part of the argument”

    If you can show that I generally do that I encourage you to do so. If not please retract that statement.

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 6:59 PM
    Comment #101291

    Submariner,
    Comparing Iraq with WWII is not a useful exercise. Warfare has fundamentally changed. A good reading suggestion was passed on to me, “The Sling and the Stone” by Hammes. Might be worth a look.

    WWII was a conventional war fought between countries with similar strengths, and the main combantants possessed relatively homogenous populations. It is the classic example of Third Generaton Warfare.

    The country of Iraq is colonial fiction dreamed up by Winston Churchill, in order to facilitate British control of the oil fields. Unlike the homogenous populations of the main participants in WWII, Iraq possesses three disparate populations: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. Iraq is a good example of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). What we are now seeing is a classic insurgency, with the added complication of strife between the Iraqi ethnic groups.

    Vietnam is a textbook example of 4GW. In that respect, Iraq and Vietnam are similar; in a nutshell, both are insurgencies. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but check out the Hammes book from the library. The guy’s a retired Marine colonel, he’s not partisan, and he knows what he’s talking about. He and General Petraeus are quoted at length in the recent article from the Atlantic Monthly, “Why Iraq Has No Army.”

    Posted by: phx8 at December 11, 2005 7:01 PM
    Comment #101292

    Ron,

    “That way the voters can see just how low both parties have gotten and will kick both of them out of office.”

    If we haven’t gotten it yet, we deserve whatever we get.

    I think that both sides have drunk the koolaide and it will be some time until sanity reigns again.

    Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2005 7:02 PM
    Comment #101294

    Jack,

    I agree with you that Clinton was right about Kosovo. My point to Eric was that some Republicans did exactly what Eric was hounding the Dems for - objecting to the war once troops were committed.

    I know that the Vote or Die campaign had nothing to do with either party, but Eric claimed it was partisan. Specifically, he said that

    P. Diddy was actually intimating that Republicans might be doing the killing
    I’m going to continue to hound him about it until he either admits he was wrong, or backs up his assertion with a link or two that backs him up.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at December 11, 2005 7:04 PM
    Comment #101300
    Can anyone tell me the last Democrat to hold a position of prominance that was: 1. Anti-abortion? 2. Pro gun rights? 3. Pro deatn penality?

    1. Harry Reid, current Senate minority leader
    2. Howard Dean was endorsed for governor eight times by the NRA.
    3. John Edwards

    What do I win?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 11, 2005 7:44 PM
    Comment #101303

    Ron,

    Actually, I am hoping that the pundits from both sides realize that there are no sides, because we are all Americans.

    I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

    “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” — Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence

    “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Ben Franklin, 1759

    Posted by: Rocky at December 11, 2005 8:09 PM
    Comment #101336

    Click here to listen to Dean’s full interview. It doesn’t sound so bad to me. Things can always be made to sound bad when you take sound bytes out of context, and put a right wing spin on it. The right claims the left is hurting the morale of troops by calling for redeployment, but the way I see it, it is the right is hurting troop morale by taking sound bytes out of context and spinning them to push them into our faces over and over.

    This is actually and old tactic of the GOP. It reminds me of the whole Clinton affair. I always heard people who were discusted that the “Presidents” sex life was was hurting the moral values of this country. But truth be told, it was not Clinton who brought his personal and private sex life into your living room every night, it was the Republicans. And now they are doing the same thing again with Iraq.

    How many times have they taken comments out of context and kept blasting them at us. Look at that pathetic bill introduced by ol’ cut and run Duncan Hunter. It was just a stunt designed for political gain. The bill he introduced in no way resembled anything the Dems were calling for. The sad part is that people actually fall for this B.S., and then wonder why our government is in such bad shape. Pathetic. I hate to say it, but if the Dems want to win they need to start playing the game by the Republican’s rules. Here’s a start:


    On Monday, NBC’s Today show broadcast a taped interview in which Bush said of the war on terror: “I don’t think you can win it.

    “I don’t know where he is,” Bush said about Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 news conference. “I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
    Appearing on CNN on Tuesday night, Pat Robertson recalled a private meeting with Bush before the Iraq war began, at which he said the president asserted there would be no casualties.

    Bush said, ” “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties, ” Robertson related.

    Senator Tom Daschle, asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

    Daschle recalls, “I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: “We just have to do this now.”

    What was the rush? Oh, Mid-term elections. At the end of December, we will meet all of the many rotating “goals” for Iraq, but this administration is Stalling. Why? Oh, Mid-term elections.

    Looks like Dean is not the only one saying stupid things about the war. But, this is the logic of the right. When President Bush said “I don’t think you can win it.” a year and a half ago, all we heard were the crickets chirping. But when Dean says “we can’t win” the right starts yelling “un-patriotic un-american traitor!” Ok, whatever.

    Here is Dean’s comments in full context: Click here for Dean’s full interview

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 11, 2005 10:15 PM
    Comment #101337

    Rocky
    I hope they do to.
    What the politicians need to do is start putting the problems facing this country first.
    We’re facing record debt. We’re paying 0ne Billon a day in intrest on the national debt. And we’re barrowing that.
    Spending is out of control.
    Education has been on a down hill slide for the last 30 years.
    Our boarders are not secure.
    I just don’t believe that either the Republicans or the Democrats are intrested in addressing these and other and other problems. They take only care of their wealthy donners.
    If Congress and the Prisident don’t address these problems, this country is going to be in a real heap of crap.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at December 11, 2005 10:21 PM
    Comment #101339
    What do I win?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 11, 2005 07:44 PM

    LB, you forget your on red world. You don’t win here, even when you do.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 11, 2005 10:37 PM
    Comment #101373

    The Supreme court just passed a law that says that elderly and disabled people will be harrassed to the grave for making the mistake of going to college in their youth. In a landmark decision that repeals the laws made by Bill Clinton that allows people to be forgiven of debts that exceed 15 years, the Republican Supreme Court denied the relief of an elderly gentleman of age 67 from debt relief.

    Now, even the elderly and disabled have to pay for Mr. Bush’s war. I think that the war should continue. That way America will soon be destroyed from within. how much more debt can the poor handle? There are NO jobs regardless of the propoganda fed to us by the White House.

    Before I even knew that This President was running for President, I had prophesied that the next president would be the Anti-Christ. He would be the man who would usher in the End of the World, Armegeddon as the Bible calls it. He came in claiming to be all for Peace. Yet, he and his regime have done nothintg but kill, steal, and destroy since their onset.

    He is killing the people and replacing them with foreigners who are going to kill him and everything that looks like him before it is over with. No amount of money is going to save the country. Michael Jackson, George Clooney, Madonna, and others are right to leave this country. I would leave too, but I just don’t have the money.

    Slavery is overtaking the people in America. Their country is being bought out from beneath them. American men are selling their bodies on the market like street whores. Women are choosing sterility to stay alive. 250,000 Black children have been removed from their homes and climbing. Children are killing children and their parents, while our president sucks up(this means lap dogging, not having sex for you dirty minded people. This is the way I talk) under the Wonderful Haitian, (Oh yes, didn’t I say this sounds like Haitian politics?)Condi. Bill was caught. That is the only reason we did not lose everything under him.

    Our newly deceased governor passed a bill that the disabled can legally be discriminated agoinst in employment and in pay. Now the Nazi influenced Supreme Court is killing the elderly and the poor.

    YOU TELL ME WHAT THESE HEARTLESS MURDERERS STAND FOR!

    SLAVERY-Young women’s children are being removed from them and they are forced to work in cruel and dehumanizing jobs to make Republicans richer.

    RAPE-American women all over the country are being raped not knowing if the man has AIDS or not. Take Kobe Bryant and millions of other women who are being sold into sweat shops all across America.

    MALE PROSTITUTION-I am finding out that the a good deal of the men in homosexual relationships are not homosexuals. They are selling their bodies to stay alive.

    The EXTREME rise of DRUG PUSHERS and GANGS all over America-jUST TO SURVIVE, these men are going back to the life that provided the money for them.

    Glorified Gangsters-Why do you think America is relating to the Gotti’s? P Diddy and Mr. Bentley, Snoop and Juliani? They hate the life many have to lead because of the state of the national economy. It is a fool indeed who thinks that people who disagree with them is an enemy. This President reminds me of Michael jackson. He has so many Yes men around him that he has no judgement whatsoever.

    We do not have a war. The Iranians have a War. We have a country on the brink of total disaster. Greedy millionaires spending $200,000 on a pair of eyelashes and rappers spending $25,000 on a necklace. Our President wants Japan to import our beef. Of course, they will.
    They will put tariffs on our imports to mark it up so high while bombarding our country with billions of trade deficit cars with low import tariffs.

    Now I see whose birthright America stole. Negligent and irresponsible? Now America has left its back doors unguarded too long. The enemy has come in. The world court has set America up. Our country is owned by The Chinese. The so-called terrorists are using ninja tactics. We’ve been played.

    I remember that in 1998, and that is a miracle by itself, I told a White preacher, Thomas Mims, that the People whom I NOW know as terrorists, would place women next to all of the leaders that are like their wives but have more power than their wives. These women will even be in churches all across America. This is a sign of the rise of the anti-christ. They will have a mark on them that will identify them to all of the elect. That also means that the elect will be hated and hunted, oppressed and destroyed by these heartless murderers.

    Our Country is getting rich and we the poor are dying because of their trying.

    Posted by: Gwendolyn Boyer at December 12, 2005 4:29 AM
    Comment #101374

    The Supreme court just passed a law that says that elderly and disabled people will be harrassed to the grave for making the mistake of going to college in their youth. In a landmark decision that repeals the laws made by Bill Clinton that allows people to be forgiven of debts that exceed 15 years, the Republican Supreme Court denied the relief of an elderly gentleman of age 67 from debt relief.

    Now, even the elderly and disabled have to pay for Mr. Bush’s war. I think that the war should continue. That way America will soon be destroyed from within. how much more debt can the poor handle? There are NO jobs regardless of the propoganda fed to us by the White House.

    Before I even knew that This President was running for President, I had prophesied that the next president would be the Anti-Christ. He would be the man who would usher in the End of the World, Armegeddon as the Bible calls it. He came in claiming to be all for Peace. Yet, he and his regime have done nothintg but kill, steal, and destroy since their onset.

    He is killing the people and replacing them with foreigners who are going to kill him and everything that looks like him before it is over with. No amount of money is going to save the country. Michael Jackson, George Clooney, Madonna, and others are right to leave this country. I would leave too, but I just don’t have the money.

    Slavery is overtaking the people in America. Their country is being bought out from beneath them. American men are selling their bodies on the market like street whores. Women are choosing sterility to stay alive. 250,000 Black children have been removed from their homes and climbing. Children are killing children and their parents, while our president sucks up(this means lap dogging, not having sex for you dirty minded people. This is the way I talk) under the Wonderful Haitian, (Oh yes, didn’t I say this sounds like Haitian politics?)Condi. Bill was caught. That is the only reason we did not lose everything under him.

    Our newly deceased governor passed a bill that the disabled can legally be discriminated agoinst in employment and in pay. Now the Nazi influenced Supreme Court is killing the elderly and the poor.

    YOU TELL ME WHAT THESE HEARTLESS MURDERERS STAND FOR!

    SLAVERY-Young women’s children are being removed from them and they are forced to work in cruel and dehumanizing jobs to make Republicans richer.

    RAPE-American women all over the country are being raped not knowing if the man has AIDS or not. Take Kobe Bryant and millions of other women who are being sold into sweat shops all across America.

    MALE PROSTITUTION-I am finding out that the a good deal of the men in homosexual relationships are not homosexuals. They are selling their bodies to stay alive.

    The EXTREME rise of DRUG PUSHERS and GANGS all over America-jUST TO SURVIVE, these men are going back to the life that provided the money for them.

    Glorified Gangsters-Why do you think America is relating to the Gotti’s? P Diddy and Mr. Bentley, Snoop and Juliani? They hate the life many have to lead because of the state of the national economy. It is a fool indeed who thinks that people who disagree with them is an enemy. This President reminds me of Michael jackson. He has so many Yes men around him that he has no judgement whatsoever.

    We do not have a war. The Iranians have a War. We have a country on the brink of total disaster. Greedy millionaires spending $200,000 on a pair of eyelashes and rappers spending $25,000 on a necklace. Our President wants Japan to import our beef. Of course, they will.
    They will put tariffs on our imports to mark it up so high while bombarding our country with billions of trade deficit cars with low import tariffs.

    Now I see whose birthright America stole. Negligent and irresponsible? Now America has left its back doors unguarded too long. The enemy has come in. The world court has set America up. Our country is owned by The Chinese. The so-called terrorists are using ninja tactics. We’ve been played.

    I remember that in 1998, and that is a miracle by itself, I told a White preacher, Thomas Mims, that the People whom I NOW know as terrorists, would place women next to all of the leaders that are like their wives but have more power than their wives. These women will even be in churches all across America. This is a sign of the rise of the anti-christ. They will have a mark on them that will identify them to all of the elect. That also means that the elect will be hated and hunted, oppressed and destroyed by these heartless murderers.

    Our Country is getting rich and we the poor are dying because of their trying.

    Posted by: emall111 at December 12, 2005 4:31 AM
    Comment #101376

    LOUIS XIV and PHX8:

    I am sorry for thinking that continental Europe has never had in its histories tyrants. I did not realize that democracy was founded 6000 years ago in France, Austria, Germany and Spain. I am also sorry for basing my arguement on the premise that freedom and liberty will defeat terrorism. How in the world could I think that changing a dictatorship into a a representative government could cause people to be vested in their own country enough to defeat terrorism. Please tell me what the solution is then.

    Enough of the acid. Directly, how then do we defeat terrorism? Are there peoples in this world that cannot live in freedom? Who then are they? Terrorists or the general population of Iraq as a whole?

    You are both correct that tactically, at this time the WWII tactics for war is not relevent. Just as we won the War in Europe, we have won the war in Iraq. We are in the post-war phase. Just as we had to put down “insurgents” after WWII we must do so now in Iraq.

    Again, I would like to hear what your definition of winning in Iraq is. Is it having less than 1% of the populice willing to blow themselves up? Tactically, how can you say that the insurgency is winning when their own families disavow them and the Iraqi people are turning in their leaders? What exactly are their terms of victory? They want the withdrawl of American troops without democracy. There is only one way for that to happen….lack of courage and conviction in our leadership.

    In the Soviet Union in 1990, no person living there had ever experienced freedom. The Soviets were among the largest supporters of state terrorism. Were they ethnically divided? Surely then, democracy could not work there either. And my goodness, what were the Founding Fathers thinking when they tried it here?

    In short, I believe that where and when it has been tried, democracy has been successful. It has been able to overcone all manners of devirsity and is the solution to terrorism. In Iraq, it is working and will if we dont just up and leave. Our willingness to fight the fight and see it through has had and is having a positive effect in the region of the world that needs it most.

    Posted by: submariner at December 12, 2005 5:30 AM
    Comment #101388

    Hi Submariner,

    “I am sorry for thinking that continental Europe has never had in its histories tyrants.”

    I indicated no such thing. Why don’t you try sticking to the truth?

    “I did not realize that democracy was founded 6000 years ago in France, Austria, Germany and Spain.”

    Are you capable of discussing these matters without lying about what I’ve said?

    The discussions will go much better if you don’t lie a lot.

    “I am also sorry for basing my arguement on the premise that freedom and liberty will defeat terrorism.”

    I’ve been trying to discuss that premise. You’ve been attacking me for things that I didn’t say.

    Iraq isn’t free. There are death squads within the Iraqi security forces who slay those who they disagree with. Barbers are killed in Iraq for cutting men’s beards (it goes against the Koran). Women are killed for not being virgins. Chrisians are being viciously persecuted.

    You call a country where one isn’t free to be Christian “free”. Your standards for what freedom is seem a bit odd.

    Whether our activities in Iraq will defeat terrorism remains to be seen. There is reason to believe that our activities in Iraq are promoting terrorism.
    http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=243671&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

    “we have won the war in Iraq.”

    Your standards for winning are odd. Here’s my standard: If the terrorists win we lose.

    So far the terrorists are ahead so we’re not winning.

    “Is it having less than 1% of the populice willing to blow themselves up?”

    Whatever the percentage is we’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing. Tactically speaking that is an incredible mess.

    “Tactically, how can you say that the insurgency is winning”

    There were 150 attacks/week this time last year. There are 700 attacks/week now. How can you say that the insurgency is losing.

    The terrorists are ahead in Iraq. The Iraqi government is made up largely of terrorists. As long as the terrorists are in control we’re losing.

    Do you think that it’s appropriate for our troops to fight and die in order to support terrorists? If you’re like most neocons you’re afraid to answer this question.



    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 8:31 AM
    Comment #101394
    In short, I believe that where and when it has been tried, democracy has been successful.

    What do you do when belief is in contradiction with reality?

    • The democratic Weimar Republic of Germany turned into the Third Reich.
    • East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other Eastern European countries had one democraic election before communism took over.
    • Russian democracy, which you referred to positively, is fading away.
    • Pakistan “history is divided into alternating periods of authoritarian military government and democratic civilian/parliamentary rule”

    There are many other counter-examples to your belief. I’m not saying anything against Democracy; it’s the best system humanity has devised. However, the belief that democracy automatically works wonders is ahistorical and dangerous.

    Successful democracy depends on a stable middle class, the rule of law and strong legal authorities, and a society that generally accepts a preference for democracy. Democracy works much better in societies that have a history or model of successful democracies and free systems. Without those elements, a democracy has a very slight chance of taking root, however great the advantages of democracy are.

    In the Soviet Union in 1990, no person living there had ever experienced freedom. The Soviets were among the largest supporters of state terrorism. Were they ethnically divided? Surely then, democracy could not work there either.

    As I mentioned, democracy hasn’t been working very well in Russia. I think it had a chance, but right now it’s not strong. If you look at the 15 former Soviet Republics, only Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have strong, stable democracies. Those countries never accepted being part of the Soviet system, have always seen themselves as part of advanced Europe, and have a history of Hanseatic rule to base their cultures on. In contrast, countries like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are essentially dictatorships. I’m not saying those countries will never be democracies, but it will take a lot of hard work; just like Iraq. In fact, in those places, it might not be possible under present circumstances.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2005 9:00 AM
    Comment #101438

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
    -signed; Your loving GOP
    -ad paid for by your local FREC

    Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 10:56 AM
    Comment #101463

    Interesting strategy from the democrats:

    “Uh guys, what do we do? For this whole thing to be successful we would have needed to win the initial military war … oh shit, we did that in a few weeks, Damn!”

    “Okay, then we would’ve needed to kill or capture Saddam and his rape room sons. Arghh! Gosh darn it, that’s done.”

    “We would’ve needed to start a political process with initial appointees, then elections, then a some type of constitutional referendum. … Holy Crap! That’s done too!”

    “We would then need more permanent, long lasting elections which especially encouraged the Sunnis to participate since they are the most prone against voting… Kiss my ass! That’s this week!”

    “We could compare this whole thing to Vietnam?? Except that the geo-political dynamics are nothing like Vietnam and the body count is something like 1/10th of Vietnam on a daily average … shoot! What the heck can we say … come on Sheehan & Moore & Franken & Dean . . surely you guys can think of something?”

    “That’s it! Bush planned all along to bring the troops home after the mission was done but if we can force the issue, maybe bring the troops back 48 hours before Rummy and Bushy wanted to … WE CAN CALL THIS A HUGE DEMOCRATIC & LIBERAL VICTORY!!! WOOHOO!! THAT’S THE TICKET!!! AND WE’LL GET IT ALL STARTED WITH JACK MURTHA WHO WILL TRY TO CONVINCE EVERYONE THAT OKINAWA IS JUST A SMIDGE OVER THE HORIZON!! HOW MUCH MORE BRILLIANT COULD WE BE???!!!!

    Posted by: Ken Cooper at December 12, 2005 12:22 PM
    Comment #101472

    I’ve noticed a woman can chose to murder her unborn baby without consent from the father. Then make the father pay for the murder.
    One of my employees got his girlfriend pragent. They split up shortly before she found out that she was pregant. She told him she was going to murder the baby. He told her he wanted custody of the baby sense she didn’t want it. She said it was none of his business and she was going through with the murder and she wanted him to pay for it. He rightfully refused. He filed in court to stop her sense he wanted the child. She filed to have him pay for the murder. She won, he lost.
    Here is someone who wanted his child and is now not only miss out on the joy and happiness that raiseing a child can bring. But he’s being forced by the court to pay for the child to be murdered.
    I know yaall liberials think that he should pay for the murder because he knocked her up. But she didn’t have to have sex with him. And if she wnats to murder the child SHE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
    If the father wants the child he should be able to have it. It’s HIS child too. Before yaall start with the ‘It’s her body’ crap. ONCE SHE BECOMES PREGANT SHE LOSES ALL CONTROL OVER THAT PART OF IT. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A HUMAN LIFE HERE. NOT A TUMOR.
    That unborn baby has more right to live than ALL the murders that the left wants to save the worthless lives of.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 12:40 PM
    Comment #101475

    Sorry that shouldv’e beem posted on another post.
    Go to Right to Life: Men Need Not Apply to respond. I’ll post this over there.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 12:46 PM
    Comment #101478
    HOW MUCH MORE BRILLIANT COULD WE BE???!!!!

    Ken,

    Your right, Democrats are taking a page from the Republican play book when It comes to using events for political gain.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 12:51 PM
    Comment #101506

    I know this is way off topic, but I must respond.

    Not all liberals take the same stance on abortion. Personally, I believe strongly in choice. You make your choice on this issue when you have unprotected sex or don’t use birth control. I’ve always had to laugh when heterosexuals charge that gay men lead a destructive “lifestyle”. Yes HIV is highest amongst this group because most don’t use protection, but one thing that gays will never sexually transmit to their partner is an unwanted pregnancy, something I would argue is far more destructive.

    Personally, I consider myself a liberal but I am against all abortions except in cases which threaten the life of the mother, or cases of rape. And yes, I realize that broken condoms happen, but that has got to account for such a small number of unwanted pregnancies that it doesn’t justify abortion as a method of birth control.

    And yes, I absolutely agree that the father should have an equal say in whether his child is murdered or not. And it is sick that the courts don’t recognize the father’s rights. If the father doesn’t want to see his child murdered and is willing to pay for all the financial costs of childbearing, then that should be his right, as long as it doesn’t pose a reasonable risk to the life of the mother. Which is a different story, in which case the father should have to pay for the abortion.

    I don’t like what I have seen from Judge Allito so far, but one thing I do agree with is that a wife should have to notify her husband if she is going to murder their child. When you get married you enter into a contract. A contract to share the most intimate parts of your life. IMO, It is not unreasonable to require the consent of the father before an abortion can be preformed outside the risk of death of the mother.

    That said, I don’t think roe v wade will be overturned anytime soon. I think we are doing a disservice to the unborn when we bicker back and forth about pro-choice and pro-life. I maybe the only liberal who doesn’t care for Hillary Clinton, but she got it right when she said ” We should all be able to agree that we want every child born in this country and around the world to be wanted, cherished, and loved. The best way to get there is do more to educate the public about reproductive health, about how to prevent unsafe and unwanted pregnancies.”

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 1:49 PM
    Comment #101518

    Eric, both Lieberman and Dean have been called on the carpet by Democrat leaders. We’re not supporting the president’s version of this war, but we will, as a party, support a successful resolution of this war. Hell, it’s what we wanted all along. Your prejudicial belief in our will to lose, however, has blinded you to that basic fact.

    Why have we been making the success of this war such an issue for so long? Why have we made the improper entry into the war the issue, and not merely entry into any war?

    The Republican notion of Democrats being peaceniks was a gross caricature in the days of LBJ, and it is a gross caricature now. Worse, this B.S. is getting in the way of moderate consensus on the things we need: more efficiency in the DOD, a larger volunteer army, and a better strategy for Iraq.

    Bush has held on to his strategy and his policy for so damn long, that people are losing hope that our plan is going to be changed in any fashion, much less in a productive way. People who once believed that there was another way out, if only Bush or somebody else had the will to do it, now only believe that Bush is going to keep this farce going long past the point where anything useful can be done.

    Bush’s stubborn resolve to do things his way, despite all the evidence that his plan isn’t doing its job, has done more to sink people’s hopes than any nattering nabobs of negativity. It’s one thing to see setbacks. People can overlook those, if they think those setbacks will be corrected for, remedied by their leaders. But when the believe that their leaders can’t or won’t correct the errors, and remedy the problems, that’s when morale really goes in the toilet. What use is there hoping for the better, when you know that your president will keep the status quo going.

    Me? I’m uncertain. I would like to believe that when and if we Democrats take back one house of the legislature or both, we might be able to force the president’s hand towards something more sensible. But I do not know how large the window of opportunity is to get this right. I hope we aren’t past the point of no return here. Unfortunately, you are unwilling to believe that such a point exists, or that we might be approaching it.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2005 2:09 PM
    Comment #101537

    ElliotBay,

    Your continuous vicious attacks on the left make you guilty of “trying to discredit the person rather than the argument” You are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of.

    You still haven’t even made an attempt to point out specifically what about my post is a ‘vicious attack’ in any way different from what democrats do every day.

    Perhaps you’ve heard of NATO. We have treaty obligations to NATO, and President Clinton was honoring them. You know about treaties, don’t you, Eric? Those are the constitutionally-mandated obligations that the Bush administration doesn’t believe in honoring.

    I wasn’t aware that NATO treaty obligations overrule our constitution. But you seem to be supporting a strange precedent here. That the President can go to war without congressional or UN approval as long as some NATO members agree? You are not making sense here, ElliotBay.

    Opposition to our actions in Kosovo didn’t stop with the troop deployment, by the way. I remember watching a news report at the time about Republicans who were claiming that our troops were running out of ammo. If that isn’t a treacherous invitation for an attack on our troops, I don’t know what is.

    Is this a vicious attack on Republicans? I’m trying to figure out what one is so that I can avoid them.

    You may look at the link I provided to the pbs story where Republicans were asking for MORE money than what Clinton was asking for to fund the Kosovo war. This is the argument you are referrring to about a month after Clinton had already sent troops into Kosovo. Because of the depth of cuts in defense spending the troops were running out of ammo— budget wise they did not have the funds to replenish the material they were using in Kosovo. Clinton asked for only what would replace what they were using bullet for bullet. Republicans demanded that the troops get more funds allocated.

    Bush did have political motives for invading Iraq:
    Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

    “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”


    Too bad this doesn’t have any link so we can check the source here.

    But read the quote, he’s talking about the first Gulf War here, it’s not at all clear he’s talking about planning to invade Iraq himself. Bush did in fact squander the political capital after that war by sitting back and assuming that he could rest on his laurels. Rule number one in politics is that you can never shut up and just let your opponent speak. That’s what GW is talking about here.

    ElliotBay, are you sure you’re not letting your own hate, like Howard Dean’s, “I hate Republicans…” cloud your judgement?

    And there was political timing regarding the invasion of Iraq. According the the British government, the invasion had a
    timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    Which proves… nothing. Did Bush manipulate the UN, and France in creating delay after delay? No matter when the invasion happened the left would make the same charge and link it to something.

    I note with interest your deafening silence when asked repeatedly to back up your silly statement about P Diddy’s get out the vote effort. Backit up or retract it, Eric.

    I don’t recall your asking about P. Diddy’s “Vote or Die” campaign. What did you disagree about that? That P. Diddy said it, or that it meant something negative about Republicans?

    Posted by: esimonson at December 12, 2005 2:36 PM
    Comment #101546
    Before I even knew that This President was running for President, I had prophesied that the next president would be the Anti-Christ. He would be the man who would usher in the End of the World, Armegeddon as the Bible calls it. He came in claiming to be all for Peace. Yet, he and his regime have done nothintg but kill, steal, and destroy since their onset.

    Gwendolyn,

    You may be more right than most realize. Nostradamus had prophesied three antichrists. The first is widely believed to have been Napoleon, the second referred to as “Hister” by Nostradamus was Hitler. Nostradamus called the third Mabus. If you write the name Mabus on a piece of paper and hold it up to a mirror it becomes “sudaM”.

    Here is what Nostradamus said about the third antichrist:

    CII, Q62 Mabus will soon die, then will come, A horrible undoing of people and animals, At once one will see vengeance, One hundred powers, thirst, famine, when the comet will pass.

    CVI, Q33
    His hand finally through the bloody ALUS,
    He will be unable to protect himself by sea,
    Between two rivers he will fear the military hand,
    The black and angry one will make him repent of it.

    After 9/11, Nostradamus’ prophecies were erroneously recited. Here is what Nostradamus actually said:

    C6, Q97

    At forty-five degrees, the sky will burn,

    Fire approaches the great new city,

    Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up,

    When they want to have verification from the Normans.

    And what some believe he said about the 2004 tsunami:

    C9, Q55

    The horrible war which is being prepared in the West,

    The following year will come the pestilence

    So very horrible that young, old, nor beast [will survive]

    Blood, fire Mercury, Mars, Jupiter in France

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 2:44 PM
    Comment #101562

    Eric-
    You can’t charge that Democrats are trying to abandon our troops and lose the war on a regular basis and not convince people that you’re not laying vicious attacks on them. In your high-minded dudgeon about all things liberal, you might not think these to be harsh words, but for the people who are at the other end who do not believe what you slanderously allege they do, they are vicious things to say indeed.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2005 3:11 PM
    Comment #101621

    LOUIS XIV:

    You have accused me of lying and attributing quotes to you that you didnt make. First thing, point out where I did either of these. Please note my line ” Enough of the acid.”, did it dawn on you that the first paragraph of my post was just that(sarcasm) and was aimed at not only your post? It was directed at two responses to my ealier post. I addressed both in one post.

    I dont know why I am frustrated, I asked you and PHX8 direct questions, PHX8 answered the arguement on WWII in a direct way(I will work on that response when I am finnished here) and you avoided my direct questions and called me a liar and said that I needed to stick to the truth. That is typical, I guess. Avoid the questions and attack the messenger. This is not supposed to be for personal attacks, but to debate valid points. If I lied or distorted what you said, show me where I attributed a misquote to you and i will apologize. If not, an apology from you is in order.

    Now back to the points:
    1.My definition of winning the war is that our military totally destroyed their military organization and took control of the enitre country. That may be a strange way to win a war, but that is the path we took. What is going on now is an insurgency(a misnomer).
    2. You said, ” Iraq isn’t free. There are death squads within the Iraqi security forces who slay those who they disagree with. Barbers are killed in Iraq for cutting men’s beards (it goes against the Koran). Women are killed for not being virgins. Chrisians are being viciously persecuted.

    You call a country where one isn’t free to be Christian “free”. Your standards for what freedom is seem a bit odd”. Please state your source. I have seen pictures of beardless Iraqi men on CNN, FOX and MSNBC, and they were quite alive looking.

    3. You said, “I said that, given the fact that attacks have increased 4 fold in the last year, it doesn’t look like we’re winning.”. Is the number of attacks the insurgents make in a given time peroid the measure of their sucess? I would argue that the more desperate they get, the more attacks and different kinds of targets they make. But does it help or hurt their cause? Did the big attack on that wedding help them win? My point is simply this: if you have 10,000 insurgents(if you have different estimates, please insert that number) murdering men, women and children in their country, how long can they keep murdering before the people say enough and start turning the leaders? That is what is happening now.

    4.You said,”Do you think that it’s appropriate for our troops to fight and die in order to support terrorists? If you’re like most neocons you’re afraid to answer this question.” If there is a fundamental change in government to democracy, and the government is stable and responsive to the will of the people, trust the Iraquis to make the best decision. For what reason does the Iraqui people not deserve and are incapable of handling self-determination and freedom?

    5. In an ealier post, You said,” Too many in the Iraq government and the Iraqi military look on our occupation as a chance to brutalize those they were oppressed by. Many Shiites in the government and military are involved in death sqauds who kill and torture Sunnis.” I again would like to see the reference. The Shiites and Sunnis actually resolved some of their differences on the constitution in a peaceful way and both sides are supporting the elections. That doesnt sound like terrorist to me.

    Now that i answered your questions LOUIS please do the same for me. These are not new ones, but if you are like most liberals, you are afraid to(kind of stings dont it?).

    Now explain Seinn Feinn and their relationship to terror and the rate of terrorism by them before, during and after their assimilation into democracy.

    Would it have been worth it just to have democracy start to take hold from Egypt to the P.L.O. and to have Lybia to rejoin the legitimate world by swearing off WMD’s and allowing inspections?

    Democratic leaders can, on the floor of the Senate, compare our service members to the Nazis, but can DARE NOT back a Republican President’s war plan. I ask you where is the Diversity?

    The price was high and paid for by the blood of Americans. True repersentative democratic governments were nonexistant in both continential Europe in the 40’s and in the Middle East now(excluding Israel). In both areas, after we got involved militarily, it blossomed. If you conclude that it is too high in Iraq, I would like you to justify the price for a free Europe.

    Posted by: submariner at December 12, 2005 5:05 PM
    Comment #101634
    Surely then, democracy could not work there either. And my goodness, what were the Founding Fathers thinking when they tried it here?

    This is a silly thing to say. Democracy worked here because our founding fathers wanted it and created the culture that would support it. Iraq is a different world, a culture completely disconnected from ours. Why do we feel we know what will work best for them when most of us don’t even have a basic understanding of their culture.

    The only reason that Democracy could work here is because of massive Native American massacres. Europeans came here and encountered a culture that was totally foreign to their own. Did our forefathers work with these people to make life better for them through Democracy? No they destroyed that culture through massacres, then replaced it with a new culture to establish this Democracy.

    Why do we think we can now go into Iraq and push our ideals and beliefs onto a foreign culture? We can’t, unless we are willing to repeat history and do to Iraqi’s what our forefathers did to Americans.

    Enough of the acid. Directly, how then do we defeat terrorism? Are there peoples in this world that cannot live in freedom? Who then are they? Terrorists or the general population of Iraq as a whole?

    There is no good answer to that question, and it may not be possible. The President himself said “I don’t think you can win it.”

    How do you declare victory over an enemy when you don’t know who it is? How do you set down at a table with your enemy and sign a peace treaty when the enemy is not a country or a government but groups of individual terror cells. This is not a conventional war, thus it requires to be fought in an unconventional way.

    When the President says “But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”,has he accomplished that through the invasion of Iraq? No, he has actually made it more acceptable in Iraq.

    We cannot win this war by becoming the aggressors. It just will never work in the war on terror. So what do we do? It is really nice that we have this massive Department of Homeland Security, but Katrina showed us all that this department is nothing more than an incompetent money whore filled with Bush cronies. Throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. It won’t work. 4 years after 9/11 and putting over 200 billion into war, and our own borders still are not secure. What sense does this make?

    So what do we do?

    1) Train the civilian police force to recognize and handle potential threats. Police departments all over the country complain that they have never been involved in the war on terror. These are the frontline people. These are the people who are in every town in America and if trained properly can identify threats.

    2) Secure our borders. This is a no brainier, yet it still hasn’t happened. In fact this President has fought any effort to stop the stream of illegals coming into the country over the southern border. Why? Because they are cheap labor for his Corporate buddies. The President is charged with protecting America, not protecting the profits of Corporate America.

    3) Use domestic forces to find and rid the country of terrorists that are already within our borders. Institute strict requirements for entry into this country. Every person trying to enter this country should have a background check done before they are allowed to enter.

    4) Our constitution protects American Citizens as it should. But those who are not American Citizens should be subjected to a different set of standards. Junk the patriot act that infringes on American citizens, and draft a new act that regulates non citizens.

    5) Us our intelligence to eliminate specific threats. When threats arise abroad we should know what our targets are and who they are. Then we should use military action to destroy these targets. Much like Clinton did with Iraq in 1998. Over 4 days we bombed specific targets that intelligence showed where used to develop WMDs. We now know that mission was a success as no WMDs were ever found in Iraq. When we need to weaken terrorist or weaken the support for terrorists it should be swift destruction of specific targets or embargos, not occupation that only accomplishes the opposite effect of creating new terrorists. Most people will not react to destruction of buildings that are used for WMD production facilities, but they will react strongly to occupation and death of innocent civilians.

    6) Use diplomacy first. War should only be used as a last resort. Wars are started by those who are not intelligent enough to think of alternatives. Look what Reagan did with Russia. Reagan won the Cold War by turning enemies Into friends. He used words instead of bombs. He convinced them that Democracy was the best way, he did not force it onto them.

    Even if we prevail against the insurgence in Iraq, have we won anything? Consider that the 9/11 terror attacks killed 2,986 people. There have been 2,344 coalition deaths in Iraq, 317 coalition deaths in Afghanistan, 4,034 Afghanistans and today the President said 30,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed. 36,695+ people have been killed in the war on terror, 36,695+. There has got to be a better way. We just need someone smart enough to find it, running the country.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 5:29 PM
    Comment #101639

    I think it is very important to look at the reasons for terrorism today. If we ignore the past, we will just repeat it.

    The Arabs had lived more or less happily under Ottoman rule for 400 years, until the Young Turks had tried to “Turkicise” them and change their traditional system of government. The British found an ally in Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, the hereditary ruler of Mecca and believed by Muslims to be a descendant of the family of the Prophet Muhammad, who led an Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule, having received a promise of Arab independence in exchange.

    But when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, the Arabs found they had been betrayed, indeed doubly betrayed. For not only had the British and the French concluded a secret treaty (the Sykes-Picot Agreement), to partition the Middle East between them, but the British had also promised via the Balfour Declaration the international Zionist movement their support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was the site of the ancient Kingdom of Israel but had had a largely Arab population for over a thousand years. When the Ottomans departed, the Arabs proclaimed an independent state in Damascus, but were too weak, militarily and economically, to resist the European powers for long, and Britain and France soon established control and re-arranged the Middle East to suit themselves.

    Who became the main targets of terror? Britian and France. Now we are over there basically doing the same thing.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 5:49 PM
    Comment #101651

    Eric,

    I call your attacks vicious because that is exactly what they are. Those are the facts as I see them.

    Oh, and by the way, I don’t hate the right. Any more than you hate the left.

    You said that you weren’t “aware that NATO treaty obligations overrule our constitution.”. Ever read the constitution, Eric? Here’s a quote from Article 6:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
    The constitution itself requires the President to abide by treaties. Apparently the Bush administration thinks that “American exceptionalism” means that the Bush League are excepted from having to preserve, protect, or defend the Constitution of the United States. But hey, the ends justify the means, right Eric?

    You accused me of not posting a link to back up the pull quote. But I did post a link. Scroll up and look at the post from December 11, 2005 10:27 AM. I posted it there. If you’re gonna accuse me of something, at least get your facts straight.

    The British government knew that the Bush administration wanted the invasion of Iraq to coincide with the elections. how would they know that unless the bush administration told them? Just because it didn’t work out that way doesn’t mean that the Bush administration wasn’t trying for the maximum political advantage.

    Regarding P Diddy. You accused P Diddy’s “vote or die” program of being partisan based and went on to claim that:

    P. Diddy was actually intimating that Republicans might be doing the killing
    Your own link calls the program “non-partisan”. So, you need to either back that assertion up, or retract it as unfounded.


    Posted by: ElliottBay at December 12, 2005 6:25 PM
    Comment #101692

    JayJay:

    You said,” Democracy worked here because our founding fathers wanted it and created the culture that would support it.”. I do not believe that to be true. The culture of democracy was created AFTER the Revolutionary War. At that time, we had no idea what our form of government would be like. Even after the War many were calling for President Washington to be crowned as King. The culture that was created to support it came from and was limited to a very small group of men that had a handfull of common beliefs. This small group forged the document and from the time that first state to voted for until the 13th state, 13 years had elapsed .

    You said,”Iraq is a different world, a culture completely disconnected from ours. Why do we feel we know what will work best for them when most of us don’t even have a basic understanding of their culture.”. We did force a regime change, but what part of our culture other than representative government are we forcing on them. Can not the different branches of Islam form that type of government? I would argue that our culture post Revolutionary War was just as diverse and untrusting of each other’s regions as the Iraquis are. It is no more silly to think that we could pull it off but they cant.

    You said,”The only reason that Democracy could work here is because of massive Native American massacres. Europeans came here and encountered a culture that was totally foreign to their own. Did our forefathers work with these people to make life better for them through Democracy? No they destroyed that culture through massacres, then replaced it with a new culture to establish this Democracy.”. Most of that statement is incorrect. Democracy did not thrive here because we massacred the Indians. Expansionism was the cause of the Indian massacres, and all involved should be judged accordingly. That being said, we didnt massacre them to forcably spread our culture among them, we did it to expand our territory. I hope I dont sound like I am splitting hairs, because in my opinion there are major differences between the two. Neither reason is justifiable nor moral.

    You said,”Why do we think we can now go into Iraq and push our ideals and beliefs onto a foreign culture? We can’t, unless we are willing to repeat history and do to Iraqi’s what our forefathers did to Americans.”. Please give me some examples of our culture that we are pushing on them other than the form of government.

    You said, “How do you declare victory over an enemy when you don’t know who it is? How do you set down at a table with your enemy and sign a peace treaty when the enemy is not a country or a government but groups of individual terror cells. This is not a conventional war, thus it requires to be fought in an unconventional way.”. I agree with this statement. The unconventional way that is best, in my opinion, is to hound the terrorist where they hide, and where fight them where they are. I also admit that there are more terrorist than those in Iraq. they all should be put on notice that we will seek all of them and destroy them and any allies. If any government is allowing them safe harbor, put them on notice also. We cant do it all at once, but we can systematically go after them, until the threat is eliminated.

    You said,” We cannot win this war by becoming the aggressors. It just will never work in the war on terror.”. Can we win being passive? We never responded aggressively to the terrorist attacks from the Twin Towers(first attack) through bombings of embassies to the USS Cole(blame goes to both parties in these). Did being passive help us stop the terrorists?

    On your points bulleted 1,2,3 and 5, I agree. By definition alone, we cant be secure if our borders arent. I wish bullet 4 was true at times, just for convienance. However it flies in the face that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator…….It is all men not all American.

    Your bullet 6 ,I believe, is as crucial as it is wrong. President Reagan did not defeat them by turning them into friends. He confronted them from a position of strength(an interesting thing here is to read what the liberals were saying about his policies dealing with the Soviets AS IT WAS HAPPENING and compare their views to what they say about confronting terrorism. There are a lot of simularities and the liberals were/are wrong in both cases dealing with the most dangerous threats of the day.),promised to be either a friend or foe with equal resolve(walked out of a summit in Iceland instead of giving away SDI), defeated them and then we assisted them in their tranisition to democracy.

    As far as the 36,695+ that have died in Iraq during the war and insurgency, I will say that there HAD to be a better way. Look at the number murdered by Sadaam in Iraq, Iran and Kuwait during his tenure. Establishing democracy is the better way, and we have a leader that saw it.

    Posted by: submariner at December 12, 2005 8:35 PM
    Comment #101706

    Hi Submariner,

    “First thing, point out where I did either of these.”

    I did. I will do so again.

    “I am sorry for thinking that continental Europe has never had in its histories tyrants.”
    “I did not realize that democracy was founded 6000 years ago in France, Austria, Germany and Spain.”

    “1.My definition of winning the war is that our military totally destroyed their military organization and took control of the enitre country. That may be a strange way to win a war, but that is the path we took. What is going on now is an insurgency(a misnomer).”

    It isn’t working that way in Iraq. The vast majority of our casualties have occured since we took over the country. This is in contrast to your flawed analogy with Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan surrendered. Iraq didn’t.

    “Now explain Seinn Feinn and their relationship to terror and the rate of terrorism by them before, during and after their assimilation into democracy.”

    Did that involve our troops figthing and dying in order support Arab terrorists? Did that involve us using massive military resources to support Arab terrorists…..if not then it has no place in this discussion.

    “Now that i answered your questions LOUIS please do the same for me.”

    You have not answered my question. I predict you are so afraid of my question that you’re unable to answer it. I’d be pleased if you’d prove me wrong and answer the question.

    “Democratic leaders can, on the floor of the Senate, compare our service members to the Nazis”

    You are going in for gross distortion here. Why can’t you go in for honest discussion?

    “If you conclude that it is too high in Iraq, I would like you to justify the price for a free Europe.”

    Iraq and Europe aren’t at all similar. I’ve given your reasons. Others have given you reasons.

    Iraq didn’t surrender to us like Japan and Germany did. Most of our servicemen in Iraq have died after we took over the country. This is a pattern that has been going on for thousands of years in the Arab world……they don’t surrender like Germany and Japan did.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 10:03 PM
    Comment #101707

    Hi Submariner,

    “The culture of democracy was created AFTER the Revolutionary War.”

    You are unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence. You are unfamiliar with other writings of Jefferson and others.

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 10:08 PM
    Comment #101710

    Go back to the Grecian history to learn about democracy.
    This country was founded to be federal republic.

    Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2005 10:21 PM
    Comment #101717

    submariner,

    1) They did not come to this country and declare it a democracy, I agree. There was of course a period of expansion and exploration. And yes, of course democracy was forged by a handful of men with common ideas. The idea has to start somewhere.

    2) While you may not see it as pushing a new culture, I don’t think they see it that way. We are occupying their country and calling the shots. If China occupied the United States and tried to push communism as our way of governance, would you say ok? It is not only a government type change it is also a cultural change.

    3)

    Most of that statement is incorrect. Democracy did not thrive here because we massacred the Indians. Expansionism was the cause of the Indian massacres, and all involved should be judged accordingly.
    Democracy could not have happened without expansionism which led to the massacre of Indians. Ultimatly when our government was founded the Indians were excluded, in fact I don’t even think they were considered citizens, although I could be wrong about that.

    4) see #2

    5)That cannot be done without occupation? Hunt them down, absolutly, put pressure on the governments that harbor them, absolutly, destroy WMD production facilities, you got it. But occupation? IMO, it is an unessacary part of this war. Again the war on terror isn’t against any nation in particular, we need to find these cells and systematically destroy them with as little disruption to the nation as a whole as possible.

    6)You said: “Can we win being passive?” I never said we should be passive, we should be very aggressive in defending our country, and we should have specific limited targets throughout the region. I think it is too dangerous to target entire countries when it is not them who we are suppose to be fighting.

    7) on #4 of my post, the constitution covers US citizens only. It does not say all the people of the world.

    We the People of the United States

    Article. IV. section 2

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    In fact our court system has no jursdiction over non citizens.

    AMENDMENT XI The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

    There is no reason in the Constitution that non citizens cannot be subject to laws that citizen are not.

    8)My point here is that Reagan ended the Cold War through non violent means. If we had a president that did’t piss off 3/4 of the world, we would be in a much better position today.

    9)The number of Iraq citizens killed by Sadam does not diminish the fact that the U.S. was responsible for 30,000 deaths. We already have a poor image in the reason, those deaths will not make relations any better.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 10:31 PM
    Comment #101719

    Actually tomh is correct, the United States is a Constitution based republic with a strong democratic tradition. It is not a pure democracy.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 10:34 PM
    Comment #102146

    LOUIS XIV:

    Again, lets get what is a sidebar issue out of the way. I did not attribute the that quote to you. No where in that paragraph did I even use quotation marks or mention your name. It was a very sarcastic ramble by me in part for you response that Europe was different because of their history with governments. If you still believe that I was delibertly misquoting you and/or deliberately assigning statements to you that you didnt make, In front of God and the bloggers, I sincerely apologize. I further promise to try to bottle the sarcasm when addressing you, because my kind of dry arguments and humor are lost on most. I would in fairness like to ask something of you in return. If you think I have something that is a lie or wrong, point it out in a civil manner, back up your position with whatever references you have and dont assume that is what I(or anyone else) have done. I assure that in my life, I have been wrong on things, but I dont resort to lying to make a point. When you(I or anyone else) stoops to name calling, it takes away from the debate, and makes everyone have a bad taste in their mouth. It is a waste of time and resources when we can be learning more about our strengths and weaknesses in our thought process. I apologize from my side for doing the same.

    Now for your last posts:
    1. You said, “It isn’t working that way in Iraq. The vast majority of our casualties have occured since we took over the country. This is in contrast to your flawed analogy with Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan surrendered. Iraq didn’t.”

    Germany signed an unconditional surrender. Yet still there were units that refused to quit fighting. It took several months of mop-up work to end that. In Iraq, we destroyed and then dismantled their military(what was left that wasnt destroyed or deserted). At some point, some Iraqi in their chain of command singed the order that all units should cease hostilities and stand down. Ceremonies aside, there is no more a thorough surrender that. The biggest differences in the post war attacks are target selection, and numbers of them and that in Germany it was military units doing the attacking. They in my opinion were as lawless and vile as the terrorists are now in Iraq, but they werent attacking their own people trying to destabelize the country.

    In rebuttal to my statement,”Tactically, how can you say that the insurgency is winning”, you directly reply,”There were 150 attacks/week this time last year. There are 700 attacks/week now. How can you say that the insurgency is losing.” The way I read that is that you are equating sucess for the insurgency directly and soley on the number of attacks they make. I on the other hand see that only .4% of their population(estimate of 10000 insurgents and 25000000 population) are fighting the march to democracy(bear with me, I will address my use of that term shortly). In doing so, they have alienated their own families, other Arab nations and the other 99.6% of their countrymen. As for the number of attacks being 700 a week, I would like to ask you what was the most casualities and deaths in any one week infilcted by the insurgents? I dont remember hearing of a 300 death by insurgent week nor even 200. Apparently most of their attacks are ineffective to put it mildly. ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox recently hailed the “First national poll ever In Iraq”, and 84% of the population thought they would better off within a year. Again, how is that losing?

    I was trying to make a point with Sein Feinn. I said, “Now explain Seinn Feinn and their relationship to terror and the rate of terrorism by them before, during and after their assimilation into democracy.”, To which you replied, “Did that involve our troops figthing and dying in order support Arab terrorists? Did that involve us using massive military resources to support Arab terrorists…..if not then it has no place in this discussion.” I disagree completely.

    The stated goal of the IRA(of which Sein Feinn became the political arm) was to make Northern Ireland ungovernable to the point that the Brits would lose heart and just leave. That is the strategy of the insurgents today. Make America leave while Iraq is unstable. The leadership of the IRA were avowed enemies of the Brits and were known terrorists. Most of them had personally carried out terrorist missions. Yet when they became involved in democracy, both fully and honestly, these terrorists laid their weapons and peace was achieved. This is a prime example proving that assimilation into a free and democratic society can and i believe WILL lead to a lasting peace that opposes terror on all levels.

    Which directly leads to your question and assertion, “Do you think that it’s appropriate for our troops to fight and die in order to support terrorists? If you’re like most neocons you’re afraid to answer this question.” I replied, “If there is a fundamental change in government to democracy, and the government is stable and responsive to the will of the people, trust the Iraquis to make the best decision.”. I guess my answer was not clear. Let me elaborate. I support what our troops are doing. You never offered any proof or references of the leaders of Iraq running death squads(I directly asked you to do that)nor did you ever give the proof of their intentions to wait us to to exact revenge. What I see is something just the polar opposite. I have seen clerics opposed to the democratic process, that are now encouraging people to take part. I see Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds working to overcome major differences so that the democratic process can proceed. I see all regions of Iraq peacefully in disagreement. I believe that as this happens, the death squads, the acts of terror and the insurgency will be exposed trully for what it is, and as is happening now, more and more people will turn the leaders in and take a stand against it all. Just to be blunt, our troops are supporting a political process that if sucessful will defeat these things. It is more than an insult to say that our troops are supporting terrorists, they are supporting democracy. As with Seinn Feinn, once they are participating in a real democracy the terrorism will be fought and defeated from within.

    You made the statement, “You are unfamiliar with the Declaration of Independence. You are unfamiliar with other writings of Jefferson and others.” Back that statement up. My arguement was that at the start of the Revolutionary War, only a handful of people had envisioned a democracy here, and even fewer(IF ANY) knew what shape it would take. Many(if not most) would have accepted President Washington to be King. We signed the Declaration in 1776, but it was in May 1787 before the Constitional convention first met. It was 13 years before all 13 Origional Colonies radified it(although it was ratified on June 21, 1788). From the time of the Declaration of Independence until the Constitution becoming law of the land was 21 years. The Federalists Papers( written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay) were one of the most important tools to sway the public. They were written after about 20 years
    after the Declaration of Independance. Show me where in that we had a majority of citizens hell bent on democracy. Show me the culture of democracy BEFORE the Revolutionary War.

    You and others seem to imply that democracy wont work in Iraq, mostly due to “culture” and other reasons. I am argueing that it can. It worked in other places that did not come from a history of freedom. That includes the United States. In fact, we were in search of freedom, liberty and representation. We stumbled on our form of democracy.


    JAYJAY and TOMH:

    Please note that in one post I referred to our government as a western democracy. I am aware of what our form of government is and some of the history of governments. In fairness, given that we dont know each other, I should have been more exact and consistant.

    Posted by: submariner at December 13, 2005 6:14 PM
    Comment #102166

    JAYJAY:

    Addressing your points:

    1) They did not come to this country and declare it a democracy, I agree. There was of course a period of expansion and exploration. And yes, of course democracy was forged by a handful of men with common ideas. The idea has to start somewhere.

    I agree that it had to start somewhere. That is precicely my point. It worked here when we started with just a history of tyranny and a quest for freedom. We made it work, and I think that if the Iraqi people get a taste of that, it can work there also. I also believe that with what is happening in the world, it is more than worth the price.

    2)While you may not see it as pushing a new culture, I don’t think they see it that way. We are occupying their country and calling the shots. If China occupied the United States and tried to push communism as our way of governance, would you say ok? It is not only a government type change it is also a cultural change.

    With a vast majority of the Iraqis believing that they will be better off in a year and they are participating in democracy, I dont think that they believe that we are calling the shots. China has a repressive form of government. If western democracy is more repressive that Sadaam, your point has merit.

    3)Long before the 54’40’ or fight campaign started, our form of democracy was doing well.

    4)see #2(lol)

    5) I am saying that if a country is willing to go to the point of harboring terrorist, and will not yield, invasion is justified. With that comes rebuilding and occupation. A government willing to do that will in all likelyhood be a despot, and a threat.

    6) See #5

    7)All peoples on U. S. soil are allowed due process. The reason for Gitmo being used is to keep those particular people from having access to the court system. Even at that, there has been movements by both litigation and leglislation to allow those people habius corporus hearing in the courts. I would have to do some research, but it seems to me like AMENDMENT XI reads that no citizen will be tried by the U.S. courts over violations of foreign laws or in foreign lawsuits. It does not say that non-citizens have no rights in our country. If anyone has studied this, please fill me in.

    8) President Reagan did win the Cold War by nonviolent means. But he was not loved by the rest of the world. There were deep divisions in NATO and he was belittled not only by the American press and liberals(again if you get some spare time read what our flagship papers and networks thought of the policies and the man) but our allies as well. Although Prime Minister Thatcher and the Pope were strong in their support, I remember being in ports of our allies where we werent exactly welcome by the governments because of our “Cowboy” President. Most were convinced that he was going to Start a nuclear holocaust. We won through strength first with a resolve to confront the Soviets military directly. Up until that point all we put much effort into was containment. It didnt work in Europe before and during WWII, it didnt work with the Soviets for 50 years, it didnt work with Cuba and it wasn’t working in Iraq prewar. It had the best chance of sucess with Iraq, but when you have a despot that cares nothing for his people and you have a few people willing to violate the isolation for money a despot can sustain indefinately.

    9) 30,000 died in both the war and in attacks by the insurgency. Please dont say that those killed by terrorist are our fault. I dont see how it was our fault for Sadaam decieving the entire intelligence gathering world into believing he had WMD. Sadaam made himself appear to be a threat for both political standing in the Arab world and for negotiation strength with us. He failed to see that after 9/11 our president would not tolorate that.

    Posted by: submariner at December 13, 2005 7:21 PM
    Comment #102173
    I also believe that with what is happening in the world, it is more than worth the price.

    I hope your right, but if it’s ok with you, I won’t hold my breath.

    I am saying that if a country is willing to go to the point of harboring terrorist, and will not yield, invasion is justified. With that comes rebuilding and occupation. A government willing to do that will in all likelyhood be a despot, and a threat.

    What has happened with Iraq has the potential to help us or hurt us on many levels. One thing that will surely happen is we will not invade another country under the circumstances we invaded Iraq with. This will help us in that we will scrutinize the reasons for war much more closely, but it also has the potential to hurt us. If we become gun shy, it could be to our detrimate. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and I don’t see much work being done by either side. We should be coming up with intelligent ways to fight the war on terror going forward. We should be working with our allies who have many year of dealing with terrorist to see what works and what doesn’t. As War is the method of a man who cannot think of an alternative. Our next President, from left or right, needs to be a thinking man.

    Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 7:53 PM
    Comment #102186

    JAYJAY:

    I agree with you on your last post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and allowing me to do the same. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate both in tone and substance and I learned from the experience. For that I am grateful.

    Posted by: submariner at December 13, 2005 8:32 PM
    Comment #102228

    Hi Submariner,

    “Germany signed an unconditional surrender. Yet still there were units that refused to quit fighting.”

    We didn’t lose most of our soldiers in Germany after we won. The war in Iraq isn’t at all like the war with Germany.

    “I on the other hand see that only .4% of their population(estimate of 10000 insurgents and 25000000 population) are fighting the march to democracy”

    As I said, we’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing.

    “Again, how is that losing?”

    The insurgents have been getting sronger rather than weaker even though they are fighting the most powerful nation on the planet.

    Your comparison of Irish terrorists to our situation in Iraq is ridiculous. We didn’t send massive military resources into Ireland to fight Irish terrorists.

    “I support what our troops are doing.”

    You agree that our troops should be fighting to support terrorists in Iraq. I can’t tell you how wrong I think that is. It’s disgusting that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists.

    “You never offered any proof or references of the leaders of Iraq running death squads”

    It’s been all over the news lately. Rumsfeld recently said that it’s our business to report it.
    http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8175

    “It is more than an insult to say that our troops are supporting terrorists”

    It’s a fact. When the facts of what’s going on in Iraq are presented things look really bad there. Many top military people are aware that things are a real mess there.
    “I don’t think this committee or the American public has ever heard me say that things are going very well in Iraq.”-General Myers

    “Back that statement up”

    You had said “The culture of democracy was created AFTER the Revolutionary War.”

    If you read the Declaration of Independence, The age of reason, and other writings from that time you’ll realize that the culture of Democracy was present before the war.

    “You and others seem to imply that democracy wont work in Iraq, mostly due to “culture” and other reasons.”

    Iraq is opting for repression and terrorism. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group.

    Comparing Iraq to America at the time of the revolution is absurd.

    America had leaders who were a product of the European enlightenment. Iraq has leaders who are Islamic fundamentalists. To say that Enlightenment philosophers and Islamic fundamentalists are similar is quite ridiculous.

    In fact, we were in search of freedom, liberty and representation.”

    The Iraqi government is in favor of Islamic fundamentalism and repression of sects/tribes that they have a beef with.


    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 11:29 PM
    Comment #102232

    Hi Submariner,

    “Show me where in that we had a majority of citizens hell bent on democracy.”

    Are you saying that those who fought the revolutionary war didn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence? You seem to be quite the historical revisionist.

    Your comparison of Iraq to our founding fathers is extreme revisionist history.

    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 11:49 PM
    Comment #102542

    LOUIS XIV:

    Thank you for posting the link. Lets discuss it for a minute. I think you will find it very enlightining. The article you posted as your proof does not support your arguement that our Servicemen/Women are fighting to support terrorists.

    You Made the following statements:

    1)”You agree that our troops should be fighting to support terrorists in Iraq. I can’t tell you how wrong I think that is. It’s disgusting that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists.”

    2)”You never offered any proof or references of the leaders of Iraq running death squads”That was my quote to which you replied:
    “It’s been all over the news lately. Rumsfeld recently said that it’s our business to report it.
    http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8175

    “It is more than an insult to say that our troops are supporting terrorists”. That was my quote to which you replied:
    “It’s a fact. When the facts of what’s going on in Iraq are presented things look really bad there. Many top military people are aware that things are a real mess there.”

    3)”Iraq is opting for repression and terrorism. The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group.”

    Now lets examine your statements using your “proof”. Show me where in that article the Badr Organization , the Kurdish peshmerga, or the Wolf Brigrade have committed acts of terror or ran death squads. The SCRI and their Wolf Brigrade have been accuse of murdering 6 clerics and other things, but nowhere on the internet have I found any proof, just accusations. From what I have read, most of the accusations have came from Sunni groups that are loyal to Al-Zarqawi. Try:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/09/30-020905.htm


    You claim them to be terrorist, but again with no proof. In fact these groups are waging a counter-insurgency and are quite effective and helpful. You claim that government has been murdering citizens because of shaving or being a Christian. You claim that they are oppressive. OFFER PROOF!!!!!

    As far as the Prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim Jaafari, being the leader of an Anti-American terrorist group, he belongs to the Islamic Dawa Party. I cannot find where they are anti-American. They were banned under Sadaam and many in the party were murdered by him. They made a few attacks on Tarriq-Aziz, Sadaam and Uday. you can label that terrorism I guess, but I am curious if that is to what you are referring. I am unable to find any proof that he has committed any terror acts. Please clarify what you think he and his party has done to classify them as an “anti-American terrorist group”. As a matter of fact, Prime Minister Jaafari had a major difference with with his Iranian supporters over where the power should rest. Try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party

    You have said,”We’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of terrorists and the terrorists aren’t losing. This isn’t at all a good strategy.” and “Whatever the percentage is we’ve got massive military resources fighting a small number of insurgents and the insurgents aren’t losing. Tactically speaking that is an incredible mess.”

    First, after we defeated the Iraqi military, or captured Sadaam, should we have just left? The answer is obviously no. The fact is that after ending the hostilities, our military had to remain. Even if no insurgency had evolved, we had to stay. We would have had a massive presence there in either case. It may have been fewer trrops, but compared to the number of insurgents, it would have been massive. Therefore, by us having more troops to fight a small number of insurgents is not a “tactical mess”. Just so you know, having superrior firepower in both weaponry and numbers is a tactical advantage.

    As far as Seinn Feinn. I just offered you an example of how active terrorists can be brought into the democratic process and peace can be achieved. The fact that the United States were not fighting has no relevence. The point once again is that the beest way to defeat terrorists, and get them to quit breeding hate is through democracy. If you know another way that is a more permenant solution, please advance your theory. I am all for the quickest, cost efficient and permenant solution to the terror problem.


    You said,” Are you saying that those who fought the revolutionary war didn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence? You seem to be quite the historical revisionist.Your comparison of Iraq to our founding fathers is extreme revisionist history.”

    I didnt say that at all. People are constantly taking the position that a representative government cannot and/or will not work in Iraq because of cultural backgrounds. I am saying that in our own history there was major opposition to it and we overcame it. On November 15, 1777, the states finally established a “firm league of friendship” that became known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles, however, did not go into effect until March 1, 1781. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state remained independent, with a single vote, and there was no real power behind the central government.

    A stronger central administration was needed if the nation was going to survive. Delegates from each state (except Rhode Island) began arriving in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in May 1787. At first, only Virginia and Pennsylvania were represented. It took some of the delegates months to arrive. In fact, the last delegate to arrive showed up on August 6th. The Constitution was finally ratified and became legal on June 21, 1788.

    The point is that by this timeline, it took about 7 years from the end of the Revolutionary War to the ratification of the Constitution. The end of the war saw each State being autonomous. Our country’s democracy had not even been envisioned when the War started. Many were Loyalists, very few wanted a strong central government. Many if not most would even have settled by a monarchyor constitutional monarchy with King George I(Washington).

    I am not comparing the birth of our Nation to the politicians in Iraq. I am simply saying that our Republic was not idealized before and fought for during that War. I am also saying that there were vast differences in the peoples of the Colonies. And for someone to think that we had it all planned out and that the vast majority of Colonists were wanting to break away from England to establish our form of democracy is laughable. And to suggest that a people are not capable of experiencing freedom and forming a representative because of their heritage or religion is one of the most vile and racist statements one could make.

    Sorry it took so long to post, I had to do some research on your points. Its getting late and i can hear the sounds of a democratic process in a far away land. Sounds good to me.

    Posted by: submariner at December 14, 2005 9:42 PM
    Comment #102548

    Hi Submariner,

    “Show me where in that article the Badr Organization , the Kurdish peshmerga, or the Wolf Brigrade have committed acts of terror or ran death squads.”

    It’s been all over the news.
    “BAGHDAD, Iraq - Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari on Monday said he would not tolerate torture by the Shiite-dominated government police forces, renewing his condemnation of the practice after U.S. and Iraqi forces found abused, starved detainees at an Interior Ministry detention center.
    U.S. and Iraqi officials Sunday said they had discovered at least 12 cases of what an Iraq official called “severe torture” at a prison run by the Interior Ministry’s special police commandos.

    Prisoners’ bones were broken and their fingernails pulled out, were subjected to electric shocks, and burning cigarettes were crushed into their necks and backs, said the Iraqi official, who U.S. officials said had firsthand knowledge of the torture. The Iraqi official spoke on condition he not be named, fearing retribution.

    The cases appeared more severe than those of beaten, emaciated prisoners found in the basement of another Baghdad Interior Ministry facility last month.
    The prison-torture cases have drawn unusual public rebukes by U.S. officials against the U.S.-supported interim Iraqi government.

    Scores of handcuffed Sunni men have been found shot and killed around the country since al-Jaafari’s government took office.
    http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20051213/1065588.asp

    I can provide many more links to this sort of thing if you’re interested.

    Al Sadr is active in the Iraqi government and it would be silly to say that he’s not a terrorist.

    ” I cannot find where they are anti-American.”

    They bombed the American Embassy in Kuwait.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

    http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/dawa-party-background-aaron-glantz.html

    “Just so you know, having superrior firepower in both weaponry and numbers is a tactical advantage.”

    It hasn’t worked so far on the insurgents. They’ve grown stronger.

    “I just offered you an example of how active terrorists can be brought into the democratic process and peace can be achieved.”

    The situation was not at all similar to Iraq. Our troops weren’t fighting to support terrorists as they are in Iraq.

    “The point once again is that the beest way to defeat terrorists, and get them to quit breeding hate is through democracy.”

    What we’re doing in Iraq is likely making terrorism worse.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/22/international/middleeast/22intel.html?

    “People are constantly taking the position that a representative government cannot and/or will not work in Iraq because of cultural backgrounds.”

    Sectarian differences in the Middle East are vastly different from what was going on when this country was founded. Once again you are going in for extreme historical revisionism.

    “Its getting late and i can hear the sounds of a democratic process in a far away land.”

    Whether elected or not if the terrorists win we lose.



    Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 10:29 PM
    Post a comment