Surrender still an option

After the 2004 election, one liberal wrote, “The hopes of the world were dashed on Nov. 2, 2004.”

It’s true. We all mourn the passing of John Kerry’s candidacy. Not as much as I would have mourned the passing of Dean’s candidacy, but nevertheless I was sorry to see Kerry go down in flames as he did. Luckily for the 2006 election it looks like he and other Democrats are sticking to his failed campaign strategies.

In fact, on C-SPAN today, I happened to catch some of John Kerry's monotonal exposition of his amendment demanding our immediate surrender and swift retreat from Iraq. It's like watching the same campaign speech, or rather (de)moralizing lecture, over and over. In fact nothing seems to have changed in 35 years! To paraphrase star wars, 'The Vietnam template is strong with this one.'

This week, John Kerry will introduce an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that will redeploy U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006.

John Kerry is calling for the withdrawal of United States forces under a schedule agreed upon with the new government of Iraq. This will legitimize the new Iraqi government, enable the Iraqis to become more self-reliant, and undermine support for the insurgency. ~kerry.senate.gov

Exactly, and we should have never invaded France to expel the Nazi's because we would only have increased their resistance. Instead, staying out of France would have actually undermined support for them and the Vichy Government, right?

The barely disguised sophistry of Kerry and Hart and the rest is just sad to see. There's nothing new here. It's the same old and tired mantra that is literally soaked in the amoral ambition of defeating 'America's Imperialist agressions'.

The ghost of Vietnam is a not a ghost for Democrats, it is a northern star by which they navigate the cold, dark, territorial waters of war. They find one answer and one answer only.

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

Calling Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy," Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops within the next six months.

He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq.

"We cannot have our troops being targets there," he said. ~cnn.com

Welcome to the politics of Defeat and Retreat. "No, we don't want to surrender... we want to redeploy our forces" ...because we can't win.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.

As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.

And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war. ~JohnKerry.com

We can't win.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) says the United States needs to "change direction" in Iraq -- because "we can't win a war like this."

Murtha, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, said he's concerned about the financial and emotional costs of the war, not to mention the way it's being conducted:

"We're not fighting this war," Murtha said, referring to officials in Washington who sit in air-conditioned offices. "One percent of the American people, these young men and women are fighting this war, with heavy packs, with 70 pounds of equipment, with helmets on in 130 degrees. That's who's fighting this war." ~John Murtha

We can't win.

"It is not happening. We are not succeeding. ... Nothing that has transpired so far has made Iraq more stable," Pelosi, D-Calif. said. ~Nancy Pelosi

"2,500 troops killed, 18,000 wounded more than half of them permanently, the strain our military readiness and eroding our reputation in the world. Stay the course -- I don't think so. It's time to face the facts.

..."In the face of all of the incompetence and cost of this war, the President urges us to stay the course. 'Stay the course,' Mr. President, is not a strategy, it's a slogan. I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of President Bush's failed policy in Iraq.

...This resolution is one thing only - it is an affirmation of President Bush's failed Iraq policy. The American people know that. Hopefully it will dawn on the President and instead of stay the course, he will change the course. He will stop digging the hole that he is digging in Iraq and come out and see the light of day, to what is the right direction. ~usnewswire.com

We can't win.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told Fox News' Your World yesterday, "The very presence of our troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency."

We can't win.

"When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us. They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into American forces, and the people run into the crowd and they — nobody tells them where they are," he said... ~foxnews

We can't win.

Bottom line: the twisted agenda of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, Pentagon warmongers, corporate war profiteers and the U.S. petroleum industry will reign supreme. And there will be no change in that balance of power until at least 2008 and (probably) much later. ~alternet.org

Democrats can't win.

Surrender still an option.

Posted by Eric Simonson at June 22, 2006 4:27 AM
Comments
Comment #160371

mental wimp

First of all, When one starts alluding that the other is not bright, it is a sign of losing a debate.

Second, It amazes me that an organization working so closely with 8 media organizations didn’t cry foul when all 8 media organizations reported the first organizations findings wrong.

It amazes me that none of those organizations did any retracting of such wrong reporting.

Maybe you should call CNN! (and the NYT and LATimes) Tell them that all those people that were involved in this got it all wrong.

Now the facts:

The PDF file I you sent me from the American Statistics organization you sent me to says the exact same thing I have been telling you. (and yes I could read it. I done graduated clean out of college, I even done graduated that there High School in the middle of my Senior year after only 3.5 years.):

The only ballots up for the debate are the ones nobody could read. NOBODY! Thos ballots have never been counted in any election in the history of our country. Why, you may ask. Well, simply because no-one can read them.

If the Supreme Court had let the recount go on and on and on. Then GW Bush would still be the president of the United States.


Again I would encourage all doubters to research for themselves.

The CNN atricle:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

Mental Wimps PDF File from AMSTAT.ORG:
http://www.amstat.org/misc/PresidentialElectionBallots.pdf

Mental wimp…just cry uncle! You are wrong and I along with seperate mediea organizations who have not made any retractions.

Posted by: scott at June 22, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #160372

sorry about that folks. Too many windows open I guess. Too much copy paste.

But speaking of not winning. we wont win in a debate on this subject. But like Reagan, give it 20 years and all the truth about Iraq will be solid. As much as they want us to lose, we are going to win!

Posted by: scott at June 22, 2006 5:57 AM
Comment #160376

btw - the reason we will not win this debate is they will never see the truth. But their children will.Time to go to sleep!

Posted by: scott at June 22, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #160383

I like this argument, some where far into the future beyond all the obvious failures…we will prevail. Just wait we won’t look like the doofus’s we are now. Great argument.

Posted by: gergle at June 22, 2006 7:38 AM
Comment #160393


It became obvious last week, when President Bush was in Iraq, that the new government are not going to play ball by our rules. Both the president and vice president of Iraq told our president thet they wanted the U.S. to set a timetable and leave Iraq. We should disband their Democratically elected government and install Chalibi as the new leader of Iraq.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #160416

Eric,
I have a few questions. I hope you take the time to answer.
Why is it that you fail to mention the fact that Murtha and Kerry are just a couple of the almost 75% of the American people who feels Iraq was a mistake? Why do so many people feel we were led into war by this administrations “flawed” intelligence and we need to pull our troops out?
Are we all wrong?
Are you saying that that large of a segment of this country are seeing a different war than you? Or could it be that your continual support of this war may be based on something other than reality?
Why do the loyal supporters of this war attack individuals like Cindy Sheehan, Murtha and Kerry?
When will the all out attacks against the 75% of the American people begin?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at June 22, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #160446

Andre,

Why is it that you fail to mention the fact that Murtha and Kerry are just a couple of the almost 75% of the American people who feels Iraq was a mistake?

The Democratic position has the support of 75% of the people? I wonder why Democrats won’t actually vote for Kerry’s amendment then. Surely Democrats care about the will of the people?

Why do so many people feel we were led into war by this administrations “flawed” intelligence and we need to pull our troops out?

You’re asking me why so many people believe liberal propaganda? I’m certainly not a psychologist but I’d venture to guess that after so many years of believing essentially marxist fantasy that they cannot tell reality from fabrication. But that’s just a guess.

Are we all wrong?

Yes.

Posted by: esimonson at June 22, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #160448

Kerry’s cut and run amendmant just lost out. Only 13 of his fellow Democrats voted for it. The rest joined the Republicans and shot it out of the water like the lame duck it was.
Reckon that the rest know something Kerry and the liberal media ain’t tellin?

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 22, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #160449

Gergle, name one war that didn’t have failures. Just one! Back up your sources (w/ credible history facts) and we’ll see what you come up with…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 22, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #160457

You guys must have Liberals all figured out right?

Acually, that is wrong.

Many of you use the “World War II” reference when discussing Iraq. There is a severe difference for me. I DON’t CARE ABOUT IRAQIS. Sorry, if you are an Iraqi reading this post. I empathize with you, but we are not your nation builders. We did it ourselves, so should you. This is NOT Europe! It is not a continent being taken over by a madman. It is an area in the world that needs to be solved by the people who live there. That is the only way for this nation to be free.

Still think you know liberals?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 22, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #160463

You know the Right’s arguments would be more believable if they were willing to actually volunteer to Serve. As it is, they just sit back and whine while real men go on their THIRD TOUR.

Call for a Draft. Let us see how many GOPs flee to Canada. Considering the track record of the Republican Leadership, I expect they would all join the Boy Scouts to avoid it.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #160466

Vincent

Isolationism has been a strong, a dominant, theme in American policy since Washington wrong his farewell address. We could get away with it easily in the 19th Century, when the British gave us defacto protection (much like we do for the rest of the world today). It got harder in the 20th Century and after WWII we decided that we just could not be safe behind our oceans.

That does not mean that we should go everywhere and do everything. Iraq, however, is both a threat and an opportunity. The threat obviously is that Iraq can degenerate into a terror state and if the U.S. pulls out the terrorists will feel emboldened. They sure did when they (as they thought) chased us out of Somalia. Iraq is many times that. The opportunity is to establish a reasonably democratic regime in the heart of the Arab world, a place where democracy has not been viewed with much enthusiasm. There are no Arab democracies. Iraq is currently the most democratic among them. If this takes, we could be looking at a paradigm shift almost as great as the fall of communism.

You know ALL The Arab countries combined have a GDP less than Spain alone. Oil gives them money, but doesn’t make them rich. It sure makes them troublesome, however. If excess Arab energy can be used to build rather than bomb think of what might be accomplished. There is no reason why this region should be among the most backward on the planet.

We will probably look back on the Iraq war as a turning point. It is in OUR interests that it is a turn in the right direction, whether we care about Iraqis or not.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #160471

Could we win? Maybe. Will we win? I don’t see how. As in Viet Nam our military is not allowed to take off the gloves and pummel our enemies into submission. We have to play nice while our enemies have no rules. Why isn’t the cost of this war not being offset by taking a certain % of Iraqi oil revenue? O that wouldn’t be nice. Also, our enemies know that they can play a waiting game. Time is on their side as the cost to the US mounts in terms of dollars and lives. At some point a Democrat will get elected President, whether the next election or not doesn’t matter and on that day our pull out will be announced. The bad guys don’t need to win they just need to not lose. I am a conservative Republican and would love to see a democratic Iraq but at this point I do not believe the Iraqi people will ever want democracy bad enough to insure it will last after we leave. That being the case I would prefer we leave now. I might sound defeatist but am I wrong?

Posted by: Carnak at June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #160472

Funny how the phrase “We will probably look back…” is the basic justification for everything the GOP does.

We will probably look back… on the deficit spending as the smartest thing we’ve ever done.

We will probably look back… on the trillion dollar debt and laugh.

We will probably look back… on all those crippled veterans as freeloaders milking the Goverment for their free money.

We will probably look back… on Iran and North Korea and be grateful only Israel and Japan got nuked.

We will probably look back…

We will probably look back…

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #160473

Carnak:

So its the Iraqi’s fault now, eh? Typical Republicans blaming everyone but themselves.

Guess what? We broke it. We bought it.

I say we cannot leave Iraq until EVERY TERRORIST there is DEAD!!!!!!!

GOT THAT!!!!!!

If it has to be 5 years or 20, we must get the job done.

Whatever the cost, I am sure our soldiers are willing to do Tours of Duty repeatedly to get the job done.

We cannot let the Republicans buckle now.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #160475

Aldous

I registed to go but couldnt serve because of a medical condition. And im college educated and make a good 6 figure income.

Can you please be quiet now? BTW I was really bummed that I couldnt enlist…

Posted by: b0mbay at June 22, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #160484

Bring back the draft! I would love to see the sons and daughters of elected officials go to war. That alone would do more good than all the logic in the world.

And you know, as much as I resent Bush, I have to admit that the democratic party seems to have a culture of pessimism to it now that is going to be exploited by republicans.

They need a rallying cry that goes above and beyond pointing out that Bush is inept. That point was taken years ago. Now the Bushies are allowed to promptly point out everything that is going well and say “in your face!” Well, despite the fact that these are merely token victories (calling these things WMD’s may make them feel warm and fuzzy for the moment but it’s not the WMD’s that had people freaking out), the dems screwed up first by making their focus Bush’s complete failure in Iraq. Now that the failure is not a complete one, they’ve now been relegated to playing defense…again…as usual. Maybe one day they’ll have a meaningful platform to fall back on.

On a side note: this is freaking hilarious. At first I thought it was going to be stereotypical, but I was amazed by the similarities in rhetoric.

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #160499

Stay and Fight or Cut and Run. It dosen’t matter, they are both losing strategies.

What the democrates recognize that the Republicans have not is that there is no militarty victory. The solution is now political.

What the Republicans recognize that the Dems don’t, is that a political solution cannot be gained without security. SO the troops are needed.

Both are right and both are wrong. We cannot get a coherent strategy becasue both sides are positioning themselves politically. Meanwhile the fighting and dying continues.

Posted by: stefano at June 22, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #160507


I am still waiting on an answer as to why our president is defying the will of the Iraq government, the people of Iraq and the American People.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #160522

I look at the Republican approach and their tend to be a lot of “if’s” involved, but not a lot of hows. They’re always telling us that the point is to make a Democracy in Iraq, but the GOP leadership on actually getting the country stable enough for a Democracy to function without our help (which is the only way it will be a true Democracy) has been abyssmal.

The real opponent these people seem to be facing is the realist school of foreign policy, where spreading Democracy and destroying tyrants took a backseat to maintaining balances of power and focusing on America’s interests. Although legitmate criticisms can be wrought on those points of view, the trouble is that this is not the point of view that most people are actually adopting. Most people were willing to entertain the idea of shifting policy towards encouraging Democracy, especially in the Democratic party, where previous support for tyrants and fascists have left a bad taste in our mouth. That said, the reasons we got to war cannot simply be the establishment of Democracies, because that, in and of itself is a contradiction of what Democracy is: unforced government.

Only when a government leaves us no choice but to invade and take over, or at least to play a strong hand in proceedings, should we entertain that option. War should not be our primary means of spreading Democracy.

Now we’re in this situation, though, we should recognize that we’re not going to get away with doing things halfway. I know there are those in my party who believe that we’ve missed our chance to have any good influence on the new Iraqi state. I do not agree with them, but if I had to chose between people who would keep us indefinitely in this war doing things half-assed, and those who would have us withdraw and let things go, I would pick those who would have us withdraw, because at least they are clear on doing what it takes to see their goal through.

I would therefore advise the Republicans that if they don’t want to make withdrawal the ultimate consensus position of our nation, then they should push for more soldiers, a more comprehensive effort, the repair of the infrastructure, and everything else. The longer they stay the mediocre course this president has charted for this war, the longer the GOP will strain America’s patience, and encourage people to just pull the plug.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #160560

I DON’t CARE ABOUT IRAQIS.

That says it all! Quite a few pople in this country only care about human life when caring about it will benifit the Democratic Party.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 22, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #160614

Andre

We will attack when the 75% become the 75%. Until then Cindy, John, John, John, Ted, Dickie, Russ, Diane, Barbara, Hairy, Nancy, and well you get it. I have not even reached one tenth of one percent and there are others.

Posted by: tomh at June 22, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #160615

Vincent Vega

“I DONT CARE ABOUT IRAQIS”

“I empathize with you”

Is this part of the liberal way of saying and thinking? Is this how a liberal does his thing?

Help me out here. I need to understand this doublespeak.

Posted by: tomh at June 22, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #160626

Aldous,

I think we need to differenciate between what we would like to see happen and what we think realistically will happen. Do you disagree with me that the next time a democrat is elected President they are going to pull us out of Iraq regardless of whether the job is done? Do you disagree with me that once we leave the changes of Iraq not falling into chaos are pretty slim?
Even If we killed every terrorist in Iraq I’m still not convinced democracy will work there.

Posted by: Carnak at June 22, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #160774

Carnak, I’m agreeing with you more and more. I’m not sure if that is good or bad, but it does seem that a foundational assumption here is that democracy will not fail in Iraq when we leave. If it does, then I’m afraid all of that fluff about liberating people, and we are their savoirs, etc. is fundementally wrong.

This will only be known in hind-sight, but it does seem like a hell of a gamble considering the costs of this war. Again, another reason to question your “decider” every now and again.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #160812

Call for a Draft. Let us see how many GOPs flee to Canada.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 01:08 PM


I’m willing to bet a lot more liberals would run to Canada than conservatives.


Even If we killed every terrorist in Iraq I’m still not convinced democracy will work there.

Posted by: Carnak at June 22, 2006 06:27 PM


I’m not either. In order for democracy to work folks have to want to be free. The picture I’m getting is that these folks want to put themselves under religious tyranny.

The Iraqis have held two elections. They have installed a new elected government. This is all well and good.
But I’m wondering if the new government will hold elections when they’re due. Or will they just become dictators. Only time will tell. But I’m almost willing to bet that ten years from now there won’t be any democracy in Iraq.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 22, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #160924

Rahdigly,

Sure, I’ll come up with that list when you come up with the one where we solved a centuries old ethnic conflict by forcing a phoney political structure on them.

My only point was that saying somewhere down the road is dreaming not a defense. Aldous said it better than me.

I don’t think it is in America’s interest to spend the next 20 years fighting an Iraqi/ Middle East civil war for blood oil. Changing US energy policy seems much more sensible to me. In the short term we may have no choice, but long term we could, if our government had a clue or care about Americans.

Posted by: gergle at June 23, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #160926

Democracy is a form of Government, not a measure of freedom. For example, do you have any idea what the Tianamen Square protesters wanted? We claim we live with freedom yet each year those freedoms disappear.
We have no privacy right according to Roberts and Gonzales.
The police are no longer required to announce themselves to enter your house also according to the SCOTUS 5.
The president can detain anyone, anywhere, for as long as they want, in secret and without trial in the name of “the war on terror”.
The president can violate any law because “if the president does it, it’s legal” (That was Nixons defense created by Atwater, by the way)
Voting fraud is not prosecuted so even the “democracy” part is in doubt.

We must remove the Republicans from office or we might as well live in N. Korea. I don’t see any great Demo to root for, but I see a ton of failed King-wannabe-Repubs.

Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #160944
I’m not either. In order for democracy to work folks have to want to be free. The picture I’m getting is that these folks want to put themselves under religious tyranny.

Ron,

I think you are right. It makes me wonder what would happen in the U.S. if our government were disbanded and we had to start from scratch. Would we fall into sectarian violence and civil war? Sometimes I think the religious right in this country would prefer we lived under religious tyranny (as long as it is their religion, of course).

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 23, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #160955

Ron, JJ,

The missed perspective, I believe, is that the religious don’t view theocracy as “tyranny”. To them, being held accountable to Sharia Law is the same as we being held accountable to our current foundation of Olde English Common Law.

Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #160958

All those who use the phrase “religious right” need to define the terms. Not one of you can come up with a rational definition of the “religious right”. It sure gets tiresome to hear some people who when they can’t come up with factual, rational information to rely on the pet of liberals and leftists “religious right”.

Posted by: tomh at June 23, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #160973

It is good that we are free enough to have spirited public debate. In many country’s this very thing would have people disappearing or losing their heads. We seem to lose focus on the fact that this U.S.A. is the safest and greatest country in the world!

I wonder if we would be this secure if we would have left Japan or Germany the minute we arrived. Why can’t we learn from history that was proved correct as well as the past failures?

What about genocide can we just turn a cheek?

How about the statement conservatives should volunteer to go to Iraq. Last I looked it was a volunteer military and I believe a large group of these brave men and woman are conservative. I offer as proof the attempt to block military votes in Florida.

We as a nation will all be volunteering soon enough on the home front (sooner rather than later if we pull out of Iraq and let what progress we have achieved collapse.) as evidenced by arrests in Florida and California. Should we surrender these states next? That should be a question!

I consider Afghanistan an example of what can be achieved (flaws and all) and think Iraq may settle down as terrorist’s realize we will not surrender. If we have a political in Washington then I do believe surrender would be the best option. I just hope the left doesn’t take the 2nd amendment away so we as individuals can defend ourselves.

Sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the rest of the world would’t have worked during the American revolution and it has been proved wrong when it has been tried and applied since. shouldn’t the debate be about the best way to achieve the success that’s nessesary to keep our own homeland safe for every American, Conservatives and Liberals alike?

Posted by: Jim at June 23, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #161012
Not one of you can come up with a rational definition of the “religious right”.
Hey TOM ; How’s this?: Religous Right n : United States political faction that advocates social and political conservativism, school prayer, and federal aid for religious groups and schools

Americas particular “conservatism” is usually based on fanatical Christian religious teachings such as homophobia, school vouchers, and xenophobia. As opposed to the islamacist version of homophobia, madrasas, and misogyny.

Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #161036

Dave,

Republicans are king wannabes huh? What about John Murtha and Ted Kennedy? They have been in Congress a LONG time. The reason the conservative agenda isn’t getting far is because the libs hold us back and stall. Gov. Schwartzenegger can’t do his agenda because of the liberal majority in CA. Bush had a hard time putting in judges because of the libs that tried to stall it off.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 23, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #161151

stub,

Yes, king wanabees.
The religious right slowly putched :-) the party until they could declare “seig heil”. Meanwhile their leaders got their obedient littlegoose steppers to slime anyone who stood in their way. Your references to Murtha and Kennedy play only to people with your type of beliefs. I’ve been disappointed that the Dems and honorable Reps didn’t stand up more to Bushes abuse of power.

Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 10:20 PM
Post a comment