Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Alex,

Your article is just obscene, mere sophistry. It is a dishonest tactic to equate opposition or doubts about the war with slander against the troops. This is the kind of cheap rhetorical grandstanding engaged by many, both left and right. It does a disservice to honest debate.

Posted by: Trent at July 27, 2006 02:04 PM

ZZZZZZZ. Why should I blanket support a policy (torturing people) that I find unAmerican? Democrats aren’t the only ones, lots of Republicans too. I think its kind of sleazy the way you are positioning this as a Democrat versus Republican thing when lots of Republicans also don’t like the idea of American troops torturing their prisoners. The mostly Republican Supreme court even said it was wrong.

Posted by: Max at July 27, 2006 02:15 PM

Comparing U.S. military coercion techniques to history�€™s most sadistic murders should deeply offend every honorable serviceman and servicewoman. Posted by Alex Fitzsimmons at July 27, 2006 01:37 PM

If true, shouldn’t the abuse be the offense?

Trent, Good postings. Maybe I can take a breath and get back to some sane debating.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 02:15 PM

John McCain should just admit he doesn’t support the troops. All of his talk about banning torture is obviously just motivated by his hatred of the US military.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 27, 2006 02:22 PM

Democrats have been very careful not to disrespect the troops. I suspect the former peaceniks among them are not particularly fond of military, but they have behaved themselves. Many other Democrats are firm friends of the military. We don’t need to go after them for that.

The danger is that a central part of the Dem strategy is to use the war in Iraq to discredit the Bush Administration. It is very difficult to believe as Nancy Pelosi does that the war in Iraq has been a grotesque mistake without at some point cutting away the support for those who are fighting it. This is what ordinary soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who actually have experience think about what they are doing. Most of it is seriously at odds with the Democratic Party’s worldview.

The Democratic strategy makes our military out as victims or (according to Murtha) perpetrators of crimes. Most are ordinary people doing a tough and dangerous job. Some are heroes. As a whole, they are neither victims nor perpetrators.

I am afraid as the election season heats up, so will the mischaracterizations of our troops. We have to be vigilant against calling them either victims or criminals.

Durbin, of course, went way over the line. I lost all respect for him (and I have met him personally and liked him). I will never trust him again. But we have to castigate individual Dems, not the whole party.

Posted by: Jack at July 27, 2006 02:25 PM

Thomas Jefferson once said:

“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle.”

Don’t disagree with or debate the war policies of this administration or you may be labeled a traitor or not supporting our troops.

Although I may not agree with some of the things folks have said regarding the war; I dare say it be wrong to label the person as against our own American brothers and sisters. It is fair in a democracy as ours to question government decisions; particularly those decisions we are paying the price for in the blood of our children and parents.

Debate is a good thing for America. Even when you disagree with the other side it does a disservice to our own freedom and democracy to label the other side as “traitor”.

Regards

Posted by: Tom L at July 27, 2006 02:31 PM

Keep up the good work! the only reason some would not agree with your article is: you know the old saying “Birds of a feather-flock together”.

Posted by: Daniel Younger at July 27, 2006 02:31 PM

Alex:

Support of the troops requires more than lip service. The scene of combat troops scrounging for metal to augment under-armoured vehicles and personal armor, the fact that a mendacious and deliberately contrived policy has put the ground troops into the middle of a civil war that has been precipitated by the US, making them more a glorified constabulary than an army, and at the same time cutting VA funding while thousands of military personel are returning with PTSD, exposure to depleted uraninium weapons, and an unfriendly economy. This after serving as indentured servants by having their tours lengths doubled and even tripled because the neo-cons are too chicken-shit to even consider a draft—for the simple reason that if the load of this stupid policy were equally shared by the entire country, we would have been out of Iraq last month.

Support of this failed policy and the troops is not a package deal. That crap was tried in Vietnam, and eventually the American people wised up. The military did it’s job in Iraq, brilliantly. This Iraqi policy reeks of imperial hubris and arrogance; spreading democracy at the point of a gun is a no-win policy, and ludicrous from any angle you want to look at it.

I’m sure, once we’re out of there, neo-con revisionists will be spreading the lie that we could’ve ‘won this thing’, if ‘they’ hadn’t stabbed the military in the back. If they were stabbed in the back, it was the ne0-cons who did it, by concocting this fiasco to begin with so George could be a war president and one-up his dad and his stodgy advisors like Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. Cheney, and Rumsfeld and William Crystal will be quietly consuming beer and pretzels while millions of people deal with the aftermath of their lies and horrendous policy-making.

Support the troops? Talk is cheap, and the Right has more blood on its hands over this than anybody else.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 27, 2006 02:34 PM

So “supporting the troops” is simply finding new ways for them to be killed?

Why do you support the fact that 1/3 of homeless in America are Military Vets?

What about most of the military families living under the poverty level?

Have you ever been to a military base and seen the schools our military’s kids attend? (I’ve seen one elementary school that used a double wide trailer for their gym AND storage.)

Are you confusing Support for the Troops with Support for your President?

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 02:45 PM

I believe the comments cited are meant to discredit the policies behind the actions, and the policymaker, not those charged with dutifully carrying out those policies.

It is easy to discredit the debater by accusations of being unAmerican or Bush haters or not supporting the troops. It is much harder to admit that mistakes have been made and to learn from those mistakes, listen to the critiques, and sift out whatever wisdom is there to be gotten.

Certainly, it does not help when the critiques from both sides come in the form of venom of the most toxic variety as to purposely spur opposite but just as toxic responses. Once again, the “parties” have a politically vested interest in this argument continuing through election. They have done so little to solve this country’s ills that they need a topic larger than their own failures to distract voters.

Vote out the bad ones (which is most of them). Clear the slate. Send a message.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 27, 2006 02:49 PM

Is it my imagination or are some of these threads specifically designed to elicit sanctimonious posturing and then ultimately acrimony?

Posted by: DOC at July 27, 2006 02:49 PM

Tim Crow wrote -

“because the neo-cons are too chicken-shit to even consider a draft”

1. Crass statement.
2. Incorrect statement.
3. Bill was placed before Senate (I believe) to begin draft (was a democrat bill by a black Michigan senator I believe). The author of the bill didn’t even vote for it.

The Republicans did consider it and rejected it. So did the Democrats.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2006 02:50 PM

You reps do of course know that congressional dems have requested $10 billion more is military spending for needed equipment and resources than even GWB has requested. Realistically, you don’t think they support our troops?

You dems do of course know that congressional reps have been trying to increase spending levels for decades for the military to bring pay, benefits, living conditions for our men in uniform to a liveable level?

Learn to get along or find another job. Vote out the bad ones. Send a message.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 27, 2006 02:53 PM

Jack,

Sounding reasonable and being reasonable are two different things.

It is very difficult to believe as Nancy Pelosi does that the war in Iraq has been a grotesque mistake without at some point cutting away the support for those who are fighting it.

Why?!?! I support my troops, I want them home. I want them rested and trained and healthy for when a real threat to our nation comes along, not some some grotesque excuse by an Ivy elite Oedipal retard from Texass.

DOC,

Not your imagination, this is a Republican thread after all…

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 02:55 PM

Chi Chi,

Which party has a majority in congress and a sitting president?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 02:56 PM

How degraded must the troops�€™ morale be after being told by the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee that no matter how much blood, sweat and tears you sacrifice, you are simply an inadequate force that has no chance of returning home triumphant?

Leaving aside the fact that you are completely twisting Dean’s words into a negative comment on the troops… what do they care what Howard Dean says? They know what is going on in Iraq.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 27, 2006 02:58 PM

“Ivy elite Oedipal retard from Texas.”

I think I see a bumper sticker…

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 03:01 PM

I’m not a Dem or Rep, but can someone tell me what we accomplished in Iraq so far? Something positive I mean.

Please, I’m asking for rebuttal.

We went in Iraq, against the advice of our own military, our own intelligence, and against the advice of the United Nations and the Weapons Inspectors. Cheney confirmed in 1991 that removing Saddam would lead to Civil War that would last for decades, which the military intelligence also advised before Bush’s Invasion. That can’t be rebutted, I was there.

The Civil War that was predicted is now being waged. The situation is deteriorating everyday. That news comes directly from the embassy reports and from military that are being rotated out. The citizens have less civil rights now, extreme unemployment, infrastructure is crumbling, utilities are extremely unreliable. The people are being murdered by their own people for wearing the wrong type clothes or wearing their hair the wrong way. Women have have less access to government services and education. We have replaced a secular government with a religious based government, and the consequences are obvious. More Iraqis are being murdered by Iraqis than under Saddam’s rule.

I’m not a fan of Saddam. I’m Jewish and I’m glad he is gone.

I don’t let the popular news media, either left or right, control my opinions. Most Americans are too ignorant to form their own opinions so they turn of the TV and the partisan news programs tell them what to think. I examine the facts and make up my mind. I cannot see what positives we have accomplished in Iraq, someone please tell me. It’s been bad for Iraq, bad for the U.S., bad for all involved. Bad for the economic future for the U.S., bad for our foriegn relations, bad for Bush’s and Reps popularity.

I’ve been looking for positives on a daily basis, that is not just right wing confirmation bias. It seems like everything is going downhill, and

Has anything positive been accomplished?

Posted by: mem beth at July 27, 2006 03:04 PM

If we leave Iraq, we are cowards and can’t be trusted.

If we stay, we are fools.

Iraq is a true no win situation.

Kobayashi Maru?

Posted by: mem beth at July 27, 2006 03:09 PM

mem,

Maybe we should replace WWJD with WWKD?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 03:17 PM

Does anyone remember this:
“Powell was supportive of the war in public in an effort to win international support. But he was also concerned about the complications of a war. Powell used language from one of Tom Friedman’s columns in referring to the “Pottery Barn rule” of foreign policy. That is: “you break it, you own it.”“

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 03:20 PM

Just because you question this adminsrations policy and use of the military does not mean you do not support the troops. If Bush had went after the real supportrs of terroista Iran,Syria Saudia Arabia with money and teaching that all christian and jews are evil and should die. We might not be bogged down in a civil war. The invasion of Iraq had little to do with the war on terroism and more on pay back. Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 27, 2006 03:39 PM

Just because you question this adminsrations policy and use of the military does not mean you do not support the troops. If the Bush had went after the real supportrs of terroista Iran,Syria Saudia Arabia with money and teaching that all christian and jews are evil and should die. We might not be bogged down in a civil war. The invasion of Iraq had little to do with the war on terroism and more on pay back. Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 27, 2006 03:39 PM

Just because you question this adminsrations policy and use of the military does not mean you do not support the troops. If Bush had went after the real supportrs of terroista Iran,Syria Saudia Arabia with money and teaching that all christian and jews are evil and should die. We might not be bogged down in a civil war. The invasion of Iraq had little to do with the war on terroism and more on pay back. Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 27, 2006 03:40 PM

Dave1:

“Which party has a majority in congress and a sitting president?”

What difference does this make to the arguement? It would not matter which party had a majority or the whitehouse. They would both still be spewing the same gelatinous puss back and forth till the cows come home.

The fact that the dems are in the minority now is no excuse. If they really had the “right ideas” and could intelligently express it, maybe they would still be in the majority. Not to mention the fact that when Clinton was pres, he had rep majorities in both houses and still accomplished a great deal. I did not agree with all of it, but he advanced an agenda with some success.

The longer we all make excuses for our failures, the longer it will be to find and implement solutions. The longer partisans blindly defend their party without regard to truth, the worse this situation will become.

Clearly, only a select few in Congress right now have any ability to work accross the aisle. The rep leadership has its head in the sand and won’t listen to anyone without true red blood. The dem leadership can’t seem to get off the whining train long enough to learn how to cooperate.

The best thing that has happened in the last five years is the formation of the group (I have forgotten their tag) of senators from both sides of the aisle who said “Enough.” Nothing will get past us unless there is cooperation from both sides. It’s a lesson the rest could learn.

I applaud Pelosi for at least attempting to reign in the ridiculous actions of some of her members. Removing ranking members from elite committees takes guts. Now she needs to translate that to public policy, set a meaningful agenda, learn to cross the aisle for support and assistance and plow ahead. My fear is that she will get entangled in the partisan web of self preservation.

Vote out the bad ones. Send a message. Clean the slate.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 27, 2006 03:49 PM

Alex

I’ll give you my take on the situation from a different perspective.

As an avid hunter, I take personal pride in knowing that if I can remain under control, watchful, patient, that I can out manuever my prey by using his natural tendencies against him. Take the average Eastern wild turkey, his eyesight puts humans to shame, but his natural tendency to gobble, and quite loudly, are his eventual downfall. In my experience most, if not all, turkey hunters would say, “let ‘em gobble - the more they do, the easier the hunt”.If I sit tight, remain calm and stimulate his natural gobbling reflex by calling on my own, I can then locate him before he does me. The results are deadly for the turkey. Ah, there is nothing like roast turkey in November!

Posted by: JR at July 27, 2006 03:50 PM

When someone is trying to defend an indefensible position, their last option will be to label all dissent as treasonous.

How about a soldier who doesn’t supprt the war? Does that soldier in turn not support the troops, including himself? Is he a traitor?

The notion that in order to “support the troops” you must support the war is ludicrous, logically unsound and typical of the sort of argument-framing that has kept the Republicans in power. By the logic used by the Republicans, you must be in favor of every military action or be anti-military.

There is a movement on the far left that says we should not support the troops, that their conscience is the last line of defense against misplaced military agression. I cannot agree with this. I want soldiers who will fight, kill and die without questioning the motivation behind the order. However, those soldiers should have the reasonable expectation that the one making the decision to send them to war is taking their dedication and sacrifice seriously, and that the society they are protecting will act as a watchdog over any leader who will treat the sacrifice of the soldier with disrespect. This president and his administartion have shown that disrespect, and I support my troops by demanding that they be brought home, and that those whose lies caused the deaths of many brave men and women be tried, convicted and punished for their arrogance.

Posted by: David S at July 27, 2006 03:53 PM

I don’t get it. How can you “support the troops” on one hand and not support the reason they’re there in the first place? It seems to me that one goes with the other. You can best support the troops by openly expressing support for the cause.

I admit I don’t have all of the facts. But no one here has all of the facts, either. Most of us probably get our “facts” via Google, anyway, and since anyone can publish anything on the Internet without critical review, just how reliable are these “facts”? The Internet has devolved into an electronic version of an old ladies’ sewing circle. Gossip, whine, complain.

I can only speak for myself, and I support both the troops and the cause they fight for. I believe we are in the midst of a war not against terrorism, but against Islamo-Fascism. Iraq is center stage of this war, and we’d better come together as a people pretty damned quick. The Islamo-Fascist enemy may be a 7th century savage brute right out of the 7th century, but he is a true believer and totally committed.

I believe there comes a time when you have to pick sides. That time is now. No fence-sitting allowed. There are no “moderate” Islamo-Fascists! You either support the troops and the cause they fight for, or you don’t. Simple. Help win the war or get the hell out of the way. Better yet, move to Mexico or Venezuela.

Posted by: crowan at July 27, 2006 03:54 PM

Crowan, that kind of thinking scares me. Dissent is not treason; the idea that debate is essential to a democracy is enshrined in the first amendment. It is not a stretch to say your statements are fundamentally un-American, which is not to say you don’t have the right to make them.

Posted by: Trent at July 27, 2006 04:11 PM

The fraud here has been that support for the troops requires support for the politics and approval of a misbegotten war.

Our troops have been made into human shields for the very policies that have killed them by the hundreds in this war, needlessly, endlessly, and with no reasonable way out in sight. I find that to be a sickening state of affairs, and such cowardice only motivate me and others like me to oppose Bush’s policies all the more.

Our troops cannot be held hostage to bad policy for the sake of morale that the failures of the bad policy are likely reducing anyways.

Give our troops the right missions, with the right justifications, the right equipment. Pay for it with taxes so they aren’t having to outrun your overdrafts trying to get the war done right. If you fuck up, admit it so you don’t tear the country apart covering your ass, and so you can go about the business of getting it right, and then getting out.

What will hurt the troops is politics writing checks their bodies can’t cash. War is war, politics is politics, and a president leading a war effort should get that right before he even thinks of a strategy to cover his ass or claim credit for the war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2006 04:32 PM

Good post… but for clarity sake — call the Dems what they are “Liberals or Democrats” NOt “Democratic.” There is nothing “democratic” about them.

Better yet.. Why not just say Liberals and Conservatives.

ExP

Posted by: ExPreacherMan at July 27, 2006 04:34 PM

Very well stated Trent!

Posted by: Tom L at July 27, 2006 04:36 PM

I’m a fan of the Yankees, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with and support every decision the team owners and the manager make. I can disagree with a bad trade, pulling a good pitcher out in the bottom of the 7th inning, etc. without quitting my support of the team. Saying the Yankees can’t win the pennant this year because they traded their best batter away doesn’t mean I don’t support the team or want them to lose.

If I’m a fan of Star Wars and criticize GL about something in Episode 3, it doesn’t mean I’m suddenly a traitor against everything Star Wars and want it to fail.

So…I can support the troops and want the best for them (how about proper body armor and vehicles better armored than the Hummer at the dealer down the street?), but criticize the decisions and management of the people in charge.

Now, if the President and the GOP, who has been in charge of everything for years, really actually support the troops, where’s the body armor, armor for the vehicles, good military decision-making (rather than throwing out 10 years of planning for Iraq to go in on a whim)? Why are they upping premiums and co-pays on veterans’ benefits, closing down VA hospitals? Where is the exit strategy for Iraq? Doesn’t having a plan, equipment, and treating the troops well after they come home too count as supporting the troops? It must not, because the GOP leaders don’t care about any of that, and yet they seem to have a monopoly on “supporting the troops.”

Posted by: superboodah at July 27, 2006 04:40 PM

“This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils-a ravaged country- a depopulated city- habitations without safety, and slavery without hope- our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, *(Islamofascists?)*, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.”

Thomas Paine
COMMON SENSE. *added emphasis mine*

Posted by: JR at July 27, 2006 04:47 PM

Are there troops in Iraq that feel that they are fighting a worthless cause? The answer is yes. To answer no to that question would be declaring that a soldier has no mind of his own.

But there is one big difference in that soldier and those persons here stateside. while both may see the cause as worthless that soldier will stand beside his fellow soldier and risk his life attempting to help win the war that he considers a worthless cause. that is what is missing here stateside.

Posted by: The Griper at July 27, 2006 04:50 PM

Fighting for peace is like fu_king for virginity.

Crude, but it gets the point across. There have been lessons to learn with the years of troubles in the Middle East… all of them seem to have been ignored.

Posted by: tony at July 27, 2006 04:52 PM

Jar Jar Binks = Iraq

Posted by: cjw at July 27, 2006 04:55 PM

I can only speak from my personal experiences and those of my friends in Viet Nam. Whenever the people back home would protest and “support the troops, but not the war” it seemed to make our job that much tougher. The NVA and Viet Cong would get bolder and attack with more force, and often our rules of engagement would change in order to be more “politically correct”. I have no doubts that a lot of the names on the “Wall” are there because of the war protesters and their friends in government.

I agree that everyone has the right of dissent. That is one of the principles I was willing to go to war for and I certainly wouldn’t want to take it away from anyone. I only wish those who slam the administration and war would understand the added burden it puts on our brave men and women.

I think the democrats are in a unfortunate position now. Opposition to the war seems to be their main platform, but to oppose the war they must by design oppose our troops actions at the same time. It’s hard for me to see your support if you are constantly criticizing my job.

Posted by: tomd at July 27, 2006 05:13 PM

Trent said - “Dissent is not treason”

Yes! But most of the dissent I have heard is unnecessary, unpatriotic sounding (yes, that’s what I mean), and wrong-spirited.

Most of the dissent in the 60’s was also unnecessary, unpatriotic and wrong-spirited. Some would argue that the dissenters were right. But most people remember the dissenters as angry, anti-American, and against the troops. The image I remember most from that time is of a mother trying to get to her soldier-son’s grave, being blocked by angry protesters who were yelling obsenities at her and calling her son a murderer.

It’s hard to get the mix right when you dissent. The tendency is to go overboard. The statements at the start of this thread are examples of overboard. They go too far, therefore they are unnecessary, sound unpatriotic and definitely are wrong-spirited.

If dissent is to work, it has to be crafted to a fine focus, razor sharp in details, and incredibly well articulated. Otherwise it does make the dissenter sound anti-American, anti-U.S. soldier, anti-patriotic, and sometimes just plain stupid.

Most people do not see this issue as shades of gray. They are patriotic. They are proud of the troops. They want the troops to serve honorably and successfully. Therefore when they hear this kind of stupid dissent they are turned off. The Democrats will not win the hearts of America with stupid dissent. Mertha chose the wrong angle. Durbin chose the wrong angle. They were stupid. Their stupidity is what this thread is about.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2006 05:23 PM

It will be interesting to see what dems would and/or will do if given control of Congress and the White House. What would they do differently? Withdrawing immediately would be lunacy, not much debate there, and Iraq would further degenerate into a bloody sectarian civil war. This would probably bring about a Shiite government allied with Iran, which needless to say would be very, very bad. Given a timetable, what keeps the terrorists from just keeping there heads down till we’re all gone then blowing Iraq apart? The only other option is staying the course, in which case reps can call them on it in 2012…And if they screw things up even more then reps still have a major campaign issue.

We are not losing the war in Iraq. We give out far more than we take. Problem is the media and dem politicians don’t let anyone see how bad we’re owning the bad guys. Unfortunately, we and our allies still get hurt and thats all anyone ever gets to see. When we do get to see all the captured bombmakers, gunmen, etc. its when we’re told how badly they’re being mistreated.

Posted by: Silima at July 27, 2006 05:24 PM

tomd,

i believe you and i have just declared the essense of the meaning of the word support. a good example here in the states is the situation with joe lieberman. he has lost support because of his stance on the war, nothing else. in otherwards he wasn’t doing his job as was expected of him when it comes down to it.

Posted by: The Griper at July 27, 2006 05:26 PM

I think that Howard Dean and his Democratic compatriots in dissent taken beyond all reasonable boundaries actually don’t want the US to win in Iraq. Cause if we did then Bush and his people would have done a good job and Dean etc. would look like idiots for complaining about it and they would lose badly in the next election. If it is going badly or is percieved as going badly then Bush and his guys look bad and dems will do better.

Posted by: Silima at July 27, 2006 05:29 PM

Tomd-

I’m confused by your statements. Are you saying that you are in favor of allowing for political dissent to what is percieved by some as an unjust or unnecessary war while at the same time saying that anyone who does dissent is morally reprehensible and responsable for killing more soldiers?

You are either fighting for freedom or you are not. You can’t say that you believe in freedom and take a high ground that you risk your life to protect it, then turn around and say that certain expressions of that very freedom is bad and take the high ground that it could cost the lives of those who fight to protect it. You cannot pick and choose what freedom you are willing to fight for. You either fight for it, all of it, or you do not.

You seem to be great at finding the moral high ground, but you cannot play both sides of the fence at the same time.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 05:33 PM

Woody, you said John McCain hates the military. I don’t know what crystal ball you are looking into. If their is someone who is probably on the side of the Military it is John McCain. I don’t vote republican usually, but I would vote for John. Oh when him and bush were both going for the nomination, read how bush bad mouth him

Posted by: KT at July 27, 2006 05:44 PM

kevin23,

you have taken what tomd said totally out of context of what he meant. in otherwards your train of thought is misleading you down the wrong path not what he said.

Posted by: The Griper at July 27, 2006 05:53 PM

“Massachusetts Senator John Kerry also sided with the DNC Chairman regarding the military�€™s inability to defeat terrorism in Iraq by declaring the Iraq War, �€œunwinnable.�€

——————————————————————-

In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program “Today” shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign.

“I don’t think you can win it,” Mr. Bush replied. “But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090104Z.shtml

Posted by: Josh at July 27, 2006 06:02 PM

“Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error” Thomas Jefferson (qouted by William O Douglas in his book The Right of the People)

When we as a country realize this war was not started for honorable reasons perhaps then we can move on. To allow W and his ilk to execute their ill-conceived strategy without dissent would be much more harmful to the troops in the field than dissent itself.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2006 06:18 PM

Griper-

Since you seem to understand clearly, how about a bit of an explaination? I asked an honest question, so I’m looking for something more than: “you just don’t understand”.

Well duh…I think I said that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 06:19 PM

The Republican hoax
There�€™s a lie circulating�€”you�€™ve probably heard it�€”that Republican politicians support the troops in Iraq. They�€™ve done a laudable job stifling the truth thus far, devising politically savvy expressions to disguise the duplicity, but the deception is going to decimate them and throw them out of power sooner or later.

Granted, not all Republican politicians consistently undermine and demean the world�€™s finest army, but here are a few prominent ones who have:

Bush:
“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

“Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

“We�€™ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We�€™re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
Cinncinatti Ohio, 10/7/2002,

“The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”
3/17/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction, we found biological laboratories.”
While in Poland, 5/29/2003

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
Speech to UN General Assembly, 9/12/2002

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.�€
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003

Deadeye Dick Cheney:
“We know he has been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,”
Meet the Press, 3/16/2003

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Speech to VFW convention, 8/26/2003

Regarding the no-bid contracts for Haliburton in Iraq:
“Go fuck yourself.”
June, 2004

“I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
May, 2005

Condi:
“We know that he [Saddam] has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon.”
“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
CNN, October, 2002

Rummy:
On wmd’s:
�€œWe know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.�€ Washington Post, op-ed, 4/9/2003

“Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.”

“I’m not into this detail stuff. I’m more concepty.”

“I don’t do quagmires.”
“I don’t do diplomacy.”
“I don’t do foreign policy.”
“I don’t do predictions.”
“I don’t do numbers.”
“I don’t talk deadlines”

Question:
“Is the country [Iraq] closer to a civil war?”
Rummy:
“Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is - there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it’s a - it’s a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I’m not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.”

The real traitors are these lying morons and imbeciles, the Republican Congress who will not hold them accountable for all of their lies and failures, and all of you Republicans who have continued to defend their actions while they’ve proceeded to destroy our soldiers, the Iraqi people and their country, our military’s ability to actually defend our own country, our economy, and our reputation around the world.

So, why don’t you righties do America a favor, and quit trying to shovel your crap onto the Left — especially since you’re sinking in a brimming cesspool that your own leaders created.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2006 06:21 PM

Your article is just obscene, mere sophistry. It is a dishonest tactic to equate opposition or doubts about the war with slander against the troops. This is the kind of cheap rhetorical grandstanding engaged by many, both left and right. It does a disservice to honest debate.

Trent:

Normally, in an honest debate, when you attack someone’s work, your supposed to be able to back it up. Apparently you don’t understand that concept.

Dave1:

Your right, if the US has abused prisoners at Gitmo, they should be punished. But first of alll, there are not official, credible sources affirming abuse, and all credible sources that have gone on the record deny any wrongdoing.

And even if the US military abused prisoners, comparing their action to Nazis is wholly out of line.

Tony:

The purpose of this post is not to debate the justification for the war effort.

To all:

Some people here seem to think that I believe that all Dems don’t support the troops. I thought I made it clear that only some do not. Also, I agree, there is a difference between believing in the cause and believing in the troops, and the aforementioned politicians, in my opinion, support neither the cause nor the troops.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 27, 2006 06:24 PM

Silima wrote:

“We are not losing the war in Iraq. We give out far more than we take. Problem is the media and dem politicians don�€™t let anyone see how bad we�€™re owning the bad guys.”
———————————————————————-
We don’t even “own” the good guys - e.g. the Iraqi Prime Minister as well as speaker of Parlement commenting quite negatively on the U.S.-Israeli stance in the Lebanon conflict…

As for the “bad guys”… they are rallying ever more new potential terrorists around their own flag, the Kuran. More than a hundred Iraqis are killed each day because large parts of Iraqi life are completely beyond the control of either the government or our forces.

These things, and nothing else, create a very strong perception - to say the least - over there that the U.S. is not winning. This has nothing to do with Dems. Reps are in charge. The facts on the ground prove them wrong. Most Dems are providing the necessary critique of this failing policy, not critique of the troops themselves. Alas, some Dems are overplaying their hand for easy political success and make it seem as if all Dems are against our troops in Iraq. Shooting the messenger remains the oldest trick in the book…

Posted by: Josh at July 27, 2006 06:50 PM

“I�€™m confused by your statements. Are you saying that you are in favor of allowing for political dissent to what is percieved by some as an unjust or unnecessary war while at the same time saying that anyone who does dissent is morally reprehensible and responsable for killing more soldiers?”

No, That’s not at all what I am saying. I am saying that you have every right to dissent, march, and hold sit-ins as much as you want and I have and will fight for your right to do so.
Along with the right of dissent comes responsibility. As surely as one who yells FIRE in a crouded movie theatre is responsible for any deaths or injury it causes, I think the war protesters during the Viet Nam era are responsible for more than a few added casualties of the war.
Sadly I see the same pattern today.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 27, 2006 06:57 PM

_______The HOAX on VOTERS______

More partisan warfare (sorry Alex).

The grand distraction.
Politicians love it (and fuel it).

Americans have forgotten the one simple thing they were supposed to do, always:

Posted by: d.a.n at July 27, 2006 07:08 PM

Tom D-

I can respect the emotion behind your statement, but it still seems to me to be logically inconsistent. If freedom has caused added casualties, are those not justified for the cause? If you fight for that freedom, then because you have it someone dies (causation is still an issue here), is that death not for the same greater good?

The analogy of yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater is misleading because it assumes bad intentions to begin with. Unless the person yelling “fire” is too stupid to know the result, he’d be excused from liability anyway, and we’d all have to be realistic about the fact that anytime there is a crowded theater, there is the possibility that some mentally challenged person could yell “fire” and there will be no recourse.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 07:11 PM

Tom D,

forget trying to explain what you said. for someone like kevin to understand would require he take on a totally new mindset and he is incapable of doing that. he can’t understand just how deadly words from back home can be to a soldier in battle.

if he really wanted to understand he’d just read what you said in the first place from a different viewpoint than the one he possesses now. and he would realize that it is not an emotional appeal on your part but a very logical one.

Posted by: The Griper at July 27, 2006 07:39 PM

“If freedom has caused added casualties, are those not justified for the cause? If you fight for that freedom, then because you have it someone dies (causation is still an issue here), is that death not for the same greater good?”

No! No! No!…

If I am in a foxhole in some desolate country fighting for your right to protest and your protest brings more hostile fire upon me and gets me killed, that is NOT for the same greater good.

I would love to hear you explain to the mother of a slain soldier how his death was for the greater good because you protested and instead of one fighter against him he had two.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 27, 2006 07:42 PM

“I think the war protesters during the Viet Nam era are responsible for more than a few added casualties of the war.
Sadly I see the same pattern today.”

This war protestor raised money to help get the troops the body armor they hadn’t gotten from our government — which saved a few lives more than Bushco cared to save, rather than needlessly lost them through callous neglect.

As for patterns, I think we’ve seen a new one emerge:
Republicans supporting wars with no justification, and watching while their leaders utterly fail at waging it, yet never speak a word of criticism, even as it turns into a quagmire and a civil war.
These same Republicans then turn around and start calling people on the left who didn’t and who don’t now support having our troops remain in that war (because it had no justification, and because it has been such a total failure due to the stupidity of this Republican leadership), Traitors. On top of that, and even more unbelievably, they now want to blame the left for troop casualties when all along we’ve been trying to get them to home where they belong.

Nutty new pattern indeed, but there it is.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2006 07:44 PM

Griper-

How about contributing an idea to this debate? Other than pretending you know me…lets face it, you know less about me than you do about the subject matter at hand, yet you avoid the subject matter and attack me? This doesn’t make sense, unless you are just unable to express yourself without first shooting the messenger.

I’ll repeat and maybe this time you won’t wait to ride someone else’s coattails:

“Since you seem to understand clearly, how about a bit of an explanation?”

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 07:47 PM

tomd-
Our troops are not free agents. Their actions are dictated to them by the chain of command. They are free to decide how to follow those orders, and somtimes the guidance they’re given is criminally negligent

Let me ask you: which is worse, the disappointment of not having your people support the war your fighting, or the stress of dealing with a prolonged insurgency with a government and chain of command too wrapped up in politics to give you the means to successfuly complete that mission? Is it worse to have somebody dissent against the war, or for you to fight and see your friends die to retake ground people fought and died for maybe just a month ago?

If you were to listen to people here at home, all our soldiers do is sit around the the base listening to reports on the public reception of the war. The truth is these people are out in the field most of the time, bearing the brunt of the president’s policies. They’re the ones who see their friends die when the armor fails, who feel the pressure that a lack of manpower exerts. They’re the ones who have to deal with the civilians angered and outraged by the incidents that some of their undisciplined comrades in arms perpetrated.

In short, they are right in the middle of it, enduring the results of the failure of Bush’s policies. I don’t think it’s particularly supportive to give a soldier a pat on the back then shove them out of the door for their third tour of duty into an undermanned, underplanned, underprepared war. That dishonors their sacrifice, and embrittles our defense as it saps the strength from our armed forces.

Don-
The trouble is, there’s detail after detail regarding this war, and we’re damned tired of repeating them. It’s all been documented. Go and look for yourself, if you dare.

What’s wrongheaded is thinking that you can win a war by beating down any dissent at home that pops its head up. The dissents on this war should have been taken care of, not scoffed at, duly noted instead of viciously attacked.

I don’t see this in shades of grey here. The war, now that we’re in it, must have a positive outcome. If we are to continue this war, we’re not going to do it with our hands tied behind our back by shitty equipment, and insufficient manpower. We’re also not going to to take an obvious failure of a policy and try and beat that dead horse back to life. A new plan has been in order for some time. It’s time to leave the damn failures behind and do something productive with our policy.

If we cannot do so, then we should withdraw, and the ones who should be blamed for the failure are the people who started the damn war in the first place, the administration that thought it was smarter than everybody else on the matter, and couldn’t bear to be told different.

If I sound a bit angry, a bit bitter, it’s because I don’t really have any shades of grey on this matter. It’s cowardly not to fight a war like this right simply because it presents a political or ideological problem for you. We don’t need self-absorbed politicians running this country whose egos won’t let them take the counsel of others, even from their own party.

Silima-
We will end up going eventually. We can pretend things are nice until we can’t stay there any longer and leave them to their devices, or we can set a timetable, during which we set goals, such as beating the shit out of the insurgency, establishing reliable police and Army presence, improving the infrastructure, etc. The point is not to give them a schedule to tell them how long they have to hide, it’s to give them a deadline as to how long they have to live, and how soon we’ll take the country back from them. If it encourages them to hide and keep a low profile, all the better; we can build up the security presence around them as they get lax and flabby, and when they try to pick up their old bad habits, they’ll get smacked.

The point ultimately is not to get complacent ourselves, to have both parties know that there is a point where the umbilical cord gets cut. It will encourage both sides to get their act together.

If that is an impossibility at this point, then we’ve lost the war for our part, and should leave; the whole point was to have a nation that could stand on its own two feet. If that isn’t possible, victory, at least for our part, isn’t either.

crowan-
Like I told tomd, the troops aren’t free agents. We can support the Coast Guard members who go to great lengths to rescue people after Katrina without having to praise the Bush administrations response.

I admit I don�€™t have all of the facts. But no one here has all of the facts, either. Most of us probably get our �€œfacts�€ via Google, anyway, and since anyone can publish anything on the Internet without critical review, just how reliable are these �€œfacts�€? The Internet has devolved into an electronic version of an old ladies�€™ sewing circle. Gossip, whine, complain.

Textbook argument by ignorance. What do we know? On the internet you can access the text of bills before congress and laws they’ve passed. You can access many online editions of newspapers, opensecrets.org’s databases on campaign finance, polls, PDFs, etc, etc. With a little patience, prudence, and critical thinking, one can discern the good from the bad.

We are in a war against the terrorists. Islamofascism is a made up concept created by people too lazy to distinguish between Saddam and the Ayatollahs, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Hosni Mubharak, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, Bin Laden and the Saudi Royals. It’s a concept that fails to distinguish these bitter enemies and their traditions from one another, in the interests of smearing them into one simple enemy against which we can employ a kneejerk response to.

This is not a time to pick sides; it’s already clear to most Americans that the terrorists aren’t on our side. It’s a time to pick approaches, to choose how we will wage the fight. The choices we make will succeed and fail base on our ability to match our strategies to the realities already in place. They will also succeed and fail based on whether they’re compatible with a Constitutional Republic like our own. To make Fortress America into Prison America would please Bin Laden to no end.

The question for you Right-Wingers is who do you want to defeat more badly: the Liberals, or the terrorists. I’ll give you a clue to the right answer: Americans should stick together against an unquestionably common enemy.

It’s time for eht

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2006 07:53 PM

I guess these troops over in Iraq are traitors too?
‘Waiting to Get Blown Up’
Some Troops in Baghdad Express Frustration With the War and Their Mission

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2006 07:54 PM

“If I am in a foxhole in some desolate country fighting for your right to protest and your protest brings more hostile fire upon me and gets me killed, that is NOT for the same greater good.”

They are firing at you more because they percieve weak support back home right? But that weak support is due to people having the freedom to express their true opinions right? And their opinion is that they do not support the war right? So would you now advocate eliminating people’s freedom for a victory? What have you won? Certainly not freedom…MAYBE the opportunity for freedom. But that is a downgrade.

I realize there is grey area here, but you seem so sure of yourself that the two are consistent that I want to know HOW they are consistent.

“I would love to hear you explain to the mother of a slain soldier how his death was for the greater good because you protested and instead of one fighter against him he had two.”

I would say that the enemy was trying to exploit weakness…which is exactly what they are supposed to do. Why does this mean it is my fault for protesting and exercising the very freedom you fight for?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 07:56 PM

Charlie Rangle, who represents Harlem in New York City, introduced draft legislation in 1993.

Old Charlie thought too many rich white boys were not doing their share of the fighting.

Statistics at the time indicated that blacks made up about 30 percent of the military, compared to about 21 percent (I think that’s the right number) of the U.S. population.

The problem is, it wouldn’t have worked. The rich white boys would still find a way around the draft, just as they did in the Vietnam War era, when the majority of draftees were blacks and poor whites.

Rangle knew the bill wouldn’t go anywhere. It was just a lot of posturing on his part.

Posted by: ulysses at July 27, 2006 07:56 PM

We are a country split in two. If you don’t support the troops its as if you don’t support American freedom. How can that be you ask? Well, look at it Israel. Everyone is supporting the war. They are 50 times smaller then us and they are more nationalistic then we are. The loss of a few men sends the whole country in rage. You sicken me. Democrats against the war need to take it somewhere else. If you want to all die feel free. I mean who needs an army anyway, right? Who needs to protect themselves when they are attacked? no one right?

As for Iraq. I have spoken with people in the army, and does anyone even know what is going on. The media doesn’t tell you anything. They are building schools, hospitals, wells, houses not just fighting a war to DEFEND the UNITED STATES.. and what are you doing? Ha yes I forgot NOTHING BUT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT! Get over yourselve’s and support. Otherwise you shouldn’t be called an American.

Posted by: Kate at July 27, 2006 08:19 PM

The fact of the matter is that the opposition does not pay any real attention to what protestors in the US are saying. Do an of you really believe that some insurgent in Iraq is watching tv, thinking, “hmmmm, I was going to plant this roadside bomb today, but now that I see the new poll numbers from the AP I’ve changed my mind.” ????? This is the most ludicrous excuse for the poor handling of this war I’ve seen yet: “We’d be doing better, but all these dissenters keep strengthening the enemy.” Keep trying.

Posted by: David S at July 27, 2006 08:20 PM

Wow Kate-

So your point is support the war or you can no longer be American? All dissentors must leave? Does this apply to all issues?

Israel is extremely nationalist and reactionary, therefore we should be too?

We are doing good things in Iraq, so none of the attrocities matter anymore? They certainly matter to Iraqi’a who want us out of THEIR country. And what is the point of building schools if everyone is afraid to go?

What am I doing? I’m raising a family, working 3 jobs, just so the borders can be wide open, record debts can be accumulated, rich can avoid taxes, etc, etc, etc.

“Get over yourselve�€™s and support. Otherwise you shouldn�€™t be called an American.”

Wow. I mean, WOW!

Posted by: kevin23 at July 27, 2006 08:34 PM

Kate-

Nothing you just said makes any sense at all. I’ll start at the beginning and work my way through:

If you don�€™t support the troops its as if you don�€™t support American freedom

Thats quite a leap. No real logic backing that up, either. First, the best thing for the troops is to not be at war. I think everyone can agree to that. Second, Iraq was no threat to American freedom, so how are the troops there defending it?

Well, look at it Israel. Everyone is supporting the war. They are 50 times smaller then us and they are more nationalistic then we are

The war between Israel and Hezbollah is a bit different from the war between the US and Iraq. First, and most obviously, Hezbollah repeatedly attacked Israel. Israel has a legitimate claim taht they are defending themselves. Second, they have a plan for the entire war, including how it will end, which they have not hesitated to make public. Still haven’t heard that from Bush. And since when was being “nationalistic” a good thing??

Who needs to protect themselves when they are attacked?

We weren’t attacked by Iraq.

They are building schools, hospitals, wells, houses not just fighting a war to DEFEND the UNITED STATES..

All those things are great, but they are not worth the cost of American lives. And they are not fighting a war to “defend the United States”, because as I’ve said a few times already, WE WEREN’T ATTACKED!

and what are you doing? Ha yes I forgot NOTHING BUT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT! Get over yourselve�€™s and support. Otherwise you shouldn�€™t be called an American.

This one gets me the most. This country was built on the idea that everyone has an equal voice. If your position is so weak that even questioning is un-patriotic, maybe you need to re-think your position.

In summary, lets see what we have: pro-war, nationalism, silence all dissenters, pro-torture, anti rule of law…are you guys sure you’re not Nazis?

Posted by: David S at July 27, 2006 08:36 PM

If you look at the polls, most Americans essentially agree with Howard Dean about the war:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

So if Dean doesn’t really “support the troops” in your mind, you could say the same thing about most Americans.

I, for one, think we are a nation of realists. Sometimes the truth can sound unpleasant.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 27, 2006 08:38 PM

Sorry Jack,they are victums. Victums of an unnecessary and poorly managed war. The best way to support them is to get them home. Yeah,we are going to blame every body bag,every lost limb, every tormented youg soul on that egomaniac cowboy you guys forced into the Whitehouse. Blame Bush? Damn right. He did it,and lied to pull it off. If the war is so great why doesn’t he get his daughters to inlist? They might be targeted?No excuse. Every ones sons and daughters in Iraq are also targeted. I bet their unit would get all the armor they needed.

Posted by: BillS at July 27, 2006 08:49 PM

Alex, honestly, the fallacies, over generalizations, and downright hypocrisy in your article are so manifest I feel a line-by-line refutal a waste of time. I freely admit I don’t take you seriously, and it has nothing to do with your specific politics, it is with your rhetoric. And no, I don’t think Democrats are innocent of the same tactics. Some of the rhetoric that the DNC sends me via email is just as ridiculous.

Perhaps you don’t think I am capable of ripping apart your overheated rhetoric. That’s your perogative, and you can tell yourself whatever you wish. I prefer to engage seriously more reasonable people, of whom there are plenty on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: Trent at July 27, 2006 09:05 PM

�€œSince you seem to understand clearly, how about a bit of an explanation?�€

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 27, 2006 07:47 PM

alright kevin here is a start. if you wish to understand his viewpoint the first thing you need to do is forget this idea of a “just” war vs an unjust” war. until you do you cannot see another viewpoint on war.

if we are to accept the principles of the concept of “human rights” then no war can be justified for in the waging of any war we must violate every principle of the concept of human rights. and each participant waging war violates those human rights.

now, from the above i have justified the pacifist ideology of wars and i am no pacifist. so, if what i said above is true than wars must be seen from an entirely different set of principles, principles that most of us were never brought up to live by. that is my first thought.

as for the subject you refer to one thing must be understood. words have the power to influence both good and bad. this is the principle behind politically correct speech. and behind this thought is the fact that it is not the intent by which words were spoken but how the one that hears the words takes those words to mean that determines how one should choose their words.

this same concept is true here. how would a soldier in Iraq take your words to mean? would he see it as words of support? Tom D has said that from his experience in viet nam the answer would be no and that the soldier in Iraq would most likely say no.

now, if a person who was fighting our soldier in Iraq was to read what you say and think of this war what would his reaction be? would he feel you are supporting him thus give him greater incentive to fight on thus kill more soldiers?

in other words, protest the war if you feel it an unworthy cause but choose your words carefully as you would while being politically correct.

in world war II there was a poster that read “loose lips sink ships” that is the idea behind what Tom D was saying.

Posted by: The Griper at July 27, 2006 09:14 PM

Kate
Your comments are as insulting as they are ignorant. Stop for one moment and think for yourself. dont run to the Radio to get your opinion, think for yourself.
We are divided as a country primarily because of people like yourself. Yes its on you, its your fault. Why? because when you think the Iraq debacle is worth the people of this country giving up any rights and freeedoms then you become the enemy. You play into the arms of the enemy when you think that by restricting rights you are fighting terrorism or WW3 or islofacism or whatever you think we are fighting.
You allow bad policy,bad judgement and bad idealogy to go unchecked. You worship false idols.
Yet you refuse to see the light, instead you choose to insult and demean anyone that doesnt agree with the stupidity you have fallen prey to.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2006 09:21 PM

Silima
You seem to think we are winning the war but the media doesn’t want to report all the great things that are being done. Rush limbaugh has 15 hrs a week on the radio. Mike savage 10 hrs a week, Glen Beck 10 hrs a week. that is just three of the many, right wing radio hosts. Why don’t they spend their time filling the American people in about all the great things that are happening in Iraq?

I have yet to hear any right wing people mention more than just a few things that are going well in Iraq. Please fill us in.

Posted by: 037 at July 27, 2006 09:22 PM

Kate-
I will call myself American and be proud of my dissent. I’m not dissenting to stop a war, I’m dissenting to win one. The Iraq War, if we can; the war against global terrorism, without question. I cannot stand by a president whose policy kills soldiers unnecessarily,. I consider the possibilities of hurting their feelings or the possibility of discouraging soldiers to be a small price to pay for saving their lives and increasing the chances that they’ll succeed in their mission to make Iraq’s freedom permanent.

You talk about schools, hospitals, wells… Unless that accompanies a strategy to wrest control of the territory from insurgents and expand the peaceful territory, it’s just window dressing. Not that I think its bad for the soldiers to do that, mind you. I just don’t think this should be your argument for success, not when the terrorists and insurgents strike at will, and low-grade civil war soaks the country in blood.

As for the enemy, I think we should take a second to remember that these people’s lives don’t necessarily revolve around us. I would venture that much of what emboldens or discourages them is local. When they can strike on us again and again with great effect, when they can bomb as they please, does that not embolden them? Does our lack of manpower and our alienation of the people not embolden the terrorists? The GOP’s obsession with wrestling with the so-called liberal media has turned their attention far to domestically. The Arab media shows what we won’t on our stations. They show our soldiers getting killed, their people getting killed.

If you take a broader view of what’s going on, you might find that everything centers on the execution of the war, not on the media picture of the war. It’s the tail wagging the dog to care more for the media presence of the war than the war itself. Get your people to stop fighting the dissenters, and start getting this war fought right. The further excuses only serve to make things worse. Your choice: fight the media war in addition to the real one and lose both, or fight the real war by itself, but with our help, and win it.

America will remain divided as long as its leaders are more interested in perpetuating their hold on policy than they are in getting it right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2006 09:48 PM

War is evil. It destroys lives, families and nations. It wastes money and resources that could be utilized in better ways.

The only reason to go to war is to prevent a greater evil. War should be a last resort after all other means have been exhausted to relieve tensions. Or, war is a defense after a nation has been attacked.

However, once war has been declared, it should be waged with every means available. There should be overwhelming force applied to end the conflict as quickly as possible. The Israelis understand this, our present administration does not.

We must also realize that the conflict in Iraq is not a war. At best, it is a police action. In this country, only Congress can declare war and it hasn’t. As a historical reminder, this is but one of several undeclared wars that we have been involved in. Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War 1, Bosnia, none of these were declared wars.

Having said all this, I maintain that we owe the military personnel doing the fighting and dying our respect and support. They have a tough, dirty, frightening job to do, and for the most part, perform that job well. My hat is off to them even as I abhor the lack of honesty and honor that put them in harm’s way. We may protest the war and the administration that got us into this mess without disrespecting the men and women who are fighting. I support our troops and pray they will be safe and home as quickly as possible.

Posted by: John Back at July 27, 2006 10:09 PM

Trent:

Fair enough, if you don’t take my opinions seriously, then don’t even bother reading my articles, and certinely don’t bother leaving a post. Don’t waste my time, and I won’t waste yours…

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at July 27, 2006 10:25 PM

Think out of the box people.
Forget your partisan programming.
Bush started an unnecessary war.
Now, Iraq is now in civil war.
How many people will die before someone finally says it was a horrible mistake based on flawed (possibly criminally negligent) intelligence.
Bush and his administration have made a very serious mistake. Tens of thousands have died unnecessarily. There was no WMD.
Bush may go down as the most irresponsible, most arrogant, most narrowminded, religiously motivated U.S. president in a long, long time.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 27, 2006 10:29 PM

99 blunders

Posted by: d.a.n at July 27, 2006 10:32 PM

Griper-

There are a lot of assumptions in your argument, and a whole lot of surrounding circumstances unaccounted for which might make all the difference. But let me go through it, because I don’t necessarily disagree with a few of the principles in there.

I’ll be the first to argue that military rules are very different than civilian rules. The army should never have to act as a police force. I’m not sure where this distinction between just and unjust wars applies to me, but I do not pretend to know the difference anyway. I do know when I feel I have no other option but to fight. And that is when I would advocate fighting. “Just” and “Unjust” are labels decided, usually by the victor, after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. However, there is a difference between reasonable judgements and irresponsible judgements, and even soldiers must be accountable.
I do not believe “war” justifies every bad act.

Your saying that words have influence both good and bad…well, of course. If you go looking for something, you will find it. It is not the job of Americans to shut up, but rather the role of military leaders to understand exactly what they are getting into when they put people’s lives in danger. If a soldier is fighting an unpopular war, his enemies will exploit this, but it is not the root cause of the fighting, nor does it necessarily mean anything other than any other weakness.

I understand that the soldiers want to feel supported, but is this not the responsability of their leaders to not put them in such an uncomfortable position to begin with. They are fighting on behalf of the American public. If we do not like a war, then we, as democratic entities, need to voice our opinion or nothing will ever change. It is our democratic duty. Where a REAL threat is percieved, as Israelis are doing now, we would all support the war just as the Israelis do. Support at home is not a necessary part of war, but when you have it, you feel justified. Again, it is not the responsability of free thinkers to do anything but think freely. This is why I think most of us love this country enough to fight for it. In a war like WWII, people were more than willing to give things up temperarily for survival. This is not the case today.

As for choosing words carefully, this is the job of leaders and politicians. My role is to be true to myself, and part of that may be to feel bad for the troops enough to silence my dissent. But it also may not be, and the fact that an enemy could use it to recruit and intensify attacks says nothing more than they want to win. Well of course they do. We dropped 2 atomic bombs to win in 1945. And I’m guessing you find it to be justified. Our history books glorify this action because almost all americans agreed with it. If they did not, then it would have ended differently. Maybe Japan doesn’t surrender (hoping American discontent forces an early withdraw) and a million lives are lost invading Japan. I fully understand that this is a scary thought. But reality is that there was support, and it does not exist for the Iraq war. Leaders need to plan accordingly. Forcing everyone to be sheep is the tail wagging the dog…or fascism. Either way, I’d go to Canada at that point as my free nation would no longer exist.

Posted by: kevin23 at July 27, 2006 10:35 PM

John Beck,
Very eloquently put, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 27, 2006 10:44 PM

It is probably because the “In Party” is the Republican party, but the rose colored column is by far the most partisan column of all.

Sure, it will change soon, as Democrats soon recover a majority, and the same [explicative] will come from the new “In Party”, but the slant over here is so, so obvious.

Both are bad, no doubt, as they continue to take turns being irresponsible.

Here, it’s “Democrats ….”, and in the blue column, it’s “Republicans …..”.

Does any one ever get tired of this petty partisan [explicative] ?

Nothing good can come of it.

We can not move forward because of it.
It is very effective.
It distracts voters from substantive issues.

There will come a time when we will wish we had not succumbed to the petty partisan warfare. That time may not be far off. Congress is fiscally and morally bankrupt. It may not be much longer before an economic meltdown due to $42 trillion of nationwide debt finally catches up with us.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 27, 2006 10:47 PM

Stephen D. responded -
“What�€™s wrongheaded is thinking that you can win a war by beating down any dissent at home that pops its head up. The dissents on this war should have been taken care of, not scoffed at, duly noted instead of viciously attacked”

Since I was referring to the original article posted by Alex, in which he clearly shows the stupidity of Democratic leaders in their dissent, I don’t get your response. For instance how can the Bush administration “taken care of, not scoffed at…” this statement by Durbin:

�€œIf I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime�€”Pol Pot or others�€”that had no concern for human beings.�€

This dissent was wrong in the facts, it was ignorant, it was stupid, it was anti-troop, and in the end it was anti-American. What else can be done about this but to scoff.

I stand by my post.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2006 10:54 PM

Griper,

“in world war II there was a poster that read “loose lips sink ships” that is the idea behind what Tom D was saying.”

Sorry, “loose lips” was about spies and the locations of loved ones, or the “ships” they were on.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lslips.htm

“Millions volunteered or were drafted for military duty during World War II. The majority of these citizen-soldiers had no idea how to conduct themselves to prevent inadvertent disclosure of important information to the enemy. To remedy this, the government established rules of conduct. The following is excerpted from a document given to each soldier as he entered the battle area.”

What tom seemed to be saying is that our dissent strengthens the morale of those we fight.

Posted by: Rocky at July 27, 2006 10:56 PM

Don,

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others that had no concern for human beings.”

“This dissent was wrong in the facts, it was ignorant, it was stupid, it was anti-troop, and in the end it was anti-American.”

If you actually feel the need to be factual, where in the above quote does Durbin mention American troops?

Where does he say that he saw this with his own eyes?

Posted by: Rocky at July 27, 2006 11:03 PM

I find it troublesome, at least for me, that when dissent is mentioned it’s mentioned with an almost otherworldly overly dramatized, breathless aura of supreme goodness and light on the left. Equally troublesome is the overzealous, obtuse demeanor put forth by those on the right who feel any dissent in a time of war is treacherous.

Both overstate. The greater part of what I read here is partisanship, sometimes political, mostly ideological. That division, I believe, is the heart of the issue. One side holds dear the tenets of peace without, if possible, the shedding of one drop of blood. The other abides by the virtue of self preservation, self defense, war for the sake of peace.

Passion on both sides enflames the rhetoric, names are called and the ratcheting up of attacks, some personal, begins. The declarations of treason on one side, immorality or warmongering on the other becomes a kind of white noise - nothing is really being said, nothing can being heard.

The foundation of the country you are blessed to live in? The constitution. Both agree that it’s the foundation of our country? Then discuss the issues as americans talking to americans, not as enemies eyeing each other suspiciously through a barbed wire fence.

Put aside the declarations of evil intentions by either side of the debate, forgo any defeatist mentality or claims of treachery for speaking freely. Speak freely indeed, but know that your speech is not truly free, it came with a severe price attached.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: JR at July 27, 2006 11:12 PM

DON
Do you know what the report Durbin was refering to actually said? I don’t. Maybe it was that bad to have sounded like something the Pol Pot would say. I’m not saying it was accurate. But does anyone know what the actual account said? Until we do how would we know ir Durbin is out of line?

Posted by: 037 at July 27, 2006 11:13 PM

Alex, I guess the intent of ALL of the statements you quoted are a little too complex for you. All of the statements have to do with the heirarchy of the ranks of the military, most pointedly at the President. Maybe your idea of the “troops” differs than mine but to me the troops are the men and women on the ground fighting the war not the policy makers at the pentagon and in Washington. All of the statements you cite are referring to the policy-makers.

Regarding Durbin’s statement: Are the “troops” in charge of interigation?

Regarding Dean and Kerry: This may be a shock to you but the “troops” do not win wars. It is up to politicians. The “troops” are not in charge of defineing what or when we decide to say, ‘We won the war. Let’s go home’. That is up to the President.

On top of all of this, I think it is you who is disrespecting the intelligence of our troops.

If you were to ask the troops if the statements by politicians effects the morale of them, they would say, ‘No’. Morale is based on the perception of the progress they are making in the region from day to day. Without well defined goals to acheive, it is difficult for our troops to see any progress. I think that is what would lower morale more than anything, not the statemnts of Congressmen. Again, thanks to Bush not the Congress, those goals are not well defined.

Posted by: Matthew at July 27, 2006 11:41 PM

I remember when my Mother used to say, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”. It seemed she was always completely surprised when I’d respond by flipping her off.

For anyone who has any loyalty to a political group, you understand how it feels to be catagorized by the insane actions or comments of someone else that proports to speak for your group. Conversely, when you consistently attack an entire group for the idiocy of one member, there comes a time when the routine gets so irritating and tiresome that you begin to be ignored.

In the few short months that I’ve been exposed to this venue, I’ve seen viable bi-partisan solutions that I’d back to Congress, but I’ve primarily seen a set of brilliant minds, wasting their time acting exactly like those who are creating our problems.

This is an excellent vehicle to collaborate to the effect of positive change. It’s also a perfect outlet to point fingers and complain.

The room is getting darker by the hour. Who wants to light some candles?

Posted by: DOC at July 27, 2006 11:50 PM

DOC,

My heart goes out to your mom. It sounds like she would be a perfect example of the sprit of your statement.

You want some ideas about Iraq?

Simply, I think the best result of where we are at NOW is a 3 state solution. Meaning a united 3 states with Bahgdad as their Washingtion DC and all oil money being distributed equally. Basically it’s along the lines of the Biden idea. I think this is the best way to stop the sectarian violence and hopefully over time the factions can come together.

Okay so it has some holes but I’m open to listening to other ideas.

Posted by: Matthew at July 28, 2006 12:09 AM

037 asked -
“Do you know what the report Durbin was refering to actually said?”

Answer: Yes. Durbin read it on the air during an interview in 2005.

He eventually apologized (sort of) for his comments, however not before Al Jazera reported on his comments and his unwillingness to retract them. The result of Durbin’s words includes the following from an active-duty soldier:

“Senators,

I am currently deployed to Kosovo as a member of Task Force Falcon, Multi-National Brigade-East, NATO KFOR….I have served in the U.S. Army, Army Reserve, and California Army National Guard for 24 years….

The recent comments of Senator Durbin in reference to the conditions for inmates at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are as detestable as anything I have ever heard or read concerning members of the of the United States military. By now these comments have been quoted or aired enough that I need not repeat them here.

The senator’s remarks, while apparently intended to apply to only a small number of us, actually hit ALL of us squarely in the heart. To compare any member of the U.S. armed forces with the murderous thugs who ran Hitler’s camp system, the Soviet Gulag, or who gleefully slaughtered entire populations in Cambodia, is an affront to all men and women of our military.

Does Senator Durbin really mean to imply that WE are thugs and murderers? Does he really mean to imply that WE treat our prisoners in the same manner, as say, the totenkopfverbande treated prisoners at Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka, or Auschwitz? Does he really mean that?

If the good senator really does intend to convey this message, then I suggest that he read Eugen Kogon’s excellent and heartbreaking study of the Nazi camp system, titled “The Theory and Practice of Hell.” I think he should read it, and then decide whether or not his comparisons are entirely accurate. I would also like to suggest that Senator Durbin read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago,” or “Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields” by Kim DePaul and the late Dith Pran.

We men and women who serve in the armed forces are NOT the jackbooted tyrants that some people seem hell-bent to depict us as. We are many things, but we are not evil. Implications to the opposite effect serve only to undermine and demoralize us as we try with all our hearts to carry out our missions to make the world a better place. If Senator Durbin or any other lawmaker would like to see evidence of, or hear testimony about what we really do, then I suggest a trip to Kosovo. Ask the people here what they think of America and our soldiers. You might be surprised.

In conclusion I would like to remind you that many of the men and women currently running the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay come from the California Army National Guard. They are upstanding and honorable citizens of the state of California, and the United States of America. They are members of the greatest force for peace, or war, that the world has ever seen. I personally know many of them, and they are absolutely not as Senator Durbin portrays them. Senators, I beg of you, stand up for them. Do not allow these reprehensible statements by one of your colleagues to go by the board without censure. He must be called to task on this.

SSG Stephen Pointer
S-6/IMO
432nd Civil Affairs Battalion (-)
Camp Bondsteel
APO AE 09340”

I think this soldier hits the nail on the head.

Posted by: Don at July 28, 2006 12:40 AM

kevin,

thank you. your rebuttal affirmed all i said in my comments. funny how someone attempting to discredit another’s arguement ends up doing nothing but affirm it.

rocky,

thank you for the history lesson but i already knew what the purpose was in wwII in regards to the poster. i never said it was for the same reason but only the idea behind it was relevant. that idea being that a person should be careful of what they said. and the reason being is that what they said may end up inadvertently being the cause of the death of men. and that person may never realize it.

Posted by: The Griper at July 28, 2006 12:55 AM

Kevin 23-
I don’t believe anything has changed in Americans to preclude the self sacrificing sort of conduct we saw in WWII. The trouble has come as we’ve mixed politics more with war, to the point of placing higher priority on the political campaigns involved, than the nature of the war itself.

Since the beginning of the Cold War, all too much emphasis has been placed on the politics. That’s how we got into Vietnam, really: Kennedy did not want the GOP to charge him with “losing” Vietnam the way we “lost” China. Because of the politics, people did not question so much whether these places were ever ours to keep much less lose, and people who warned of the fall of these nations to the communists were often label sympathizers, and accused of wanting these things to happen.

Until we shake this notion of realism and defeatism being one and the same, we can’t shake the ghost of Korea and Vietnam. We must not approach war as if getting what we want is simple or easy. In that, I think we are agreed. We fight for objectives, not for political milestones.

Don-
I would call the new “torture-lite” to be no better than the regular torture, anymore than child abuse inflicted without evident bruising is morally superiot that which leaves the kid black and blue. It is both wrong in the moral sense, and in the operational sense, since what torture does is make people suggestible. Your torturer, whether he leaves a mark or not might lead their subject into a pack of lives with one poorly phrase question.

The more productive interrogations have involved building relationships with the sources, deflating the picture al-Qaeda gave of rough treatment. According to the book The One Percent Doctrine, by Ron Suskind, one guy actually flipped after we got his mother an operation. If we get a reputation for being generous to those who give us information…

It’s your decision, really. Do we want to follow the example of the idiots we’ve fought and destroyed throughout history, or do we want to act in the best interests of our country?

Support for our soldiers should not mean the rationalization of illegal and immoral actions they may take on their own, or be commanded to take by others. Durbin, if you actually follow his comments, was speaking of behavior. Such comparisons are not unreasonable, given all the people we’ve stuck in the gitmo black hole.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2006 01:12 AM

Forgive my poor spelling:
1)morally superior to
2)lies, not lives

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2006 01:15 AM

Nice to see where you stand as well griper. You’d cut off nose to spite your face, right? Daring and decisive, but possibly unnecessary and pointless.

Let me just tell you, a soldier has so much less to fear from those who are reading and communicating back home than you do those who would send kids 6000 miles away to build a “democracy” in the midst of a civil war they allowed to happen between people they have no substantial relations with. Your solution? Shut up the kids back home, and keep shipping them off to die. I’m being extreme here, but this is what happens if I use your argument as truth.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 28, 2006 01:19 AM

David S,

You are ignorant my friend. Being nationalistic is a good thing. When wouldn’t it be? I think you don’t know what you are. I don’t think you even really stand for anything. You must stand by your country in bad or good. I stood by Clinto while he was in term.. that did not mean I liked him. The one who bombed an asprin factory. Ha what a joke. As a matter of fact I still stand by what I said.

You are uneducatd if you said Iraq did not attack us when indeed they did. They harbor terrorists who attacked us. They are connected. How could they not be? I agree maybe we should of started in North Korea. Are you saying we should of just left he middle east alone for them to attack us again? Oh my that sounds like a great idea. Let’s have more unarmed civilians die then have armed men/woman defend the freedom that we have.

Everyone does have an equal voice, but sometimes other people are right. I am sorry for you if you think we should just leave Iraq alone. Who needs to defend their country anyway, right? My brother is indeed in the army. Its tough for me to see him go, but most of them fight with pride. Support them because they are risking their life for YOU!

You are a Dick Durbin WANT TO BE! How could you call me a Nazi. We are trying to have PEACE for the world. Not go around and take over other countries. We are treating the prisoners well. Better then the Nazi’s ever did. Israel is going to have more problems then Lebanon. They have Syria and Iraq to deal with right now. Sure they may rid the Hezbollah in Lebanon, but what will happen next? I am sorry you want us to not defend ourselfs and do this diplomatically. When was the last time that worked? Ha yes look at North Korea. When was the last time the UN did something? O yes the Oil For Food Act? Look how well that turned out. I am not a Nazi. I am thinking with my head on straight unlike you.

Posted by: Kate at July 28, 2006 01:26 AM

Matthew - Mom and I had a reverse, On Golden Pond - Fondaesque moment, where we were able to laugh at our inability to admit that we had always listened to each other.

I like your idea. I think if the U.N. represented countries could commit and seriously assist in mediating and acieving this, it would seem less like the structure was being unilaterally imposed (which is a big sore spot for Islamic fundamentalists). Get representatives from other countries with predominantly Islamic culture to back the effort and you have a winning solution.

The Al Qaeda element will not be swayed by the effort, and my impression is that it will rile them into action, which is perilous, but needed if we are still interested in subdueing them. It’s hard to hit a target that doesn’t present itself.

Excellent!

How do we use others’ expertise to take it further?

Posted by: DOC at July 28, 2006 01:26 AM

kevin,

nice try, my friend but you missed the ring once more. tis time i put this hot and tired body to bed now,,good night all. enjoy the debate.

Posted by: The Griper at July 28, 2006 01:43 AM

Stephen-

I really do believe in the power of a popular mandate, and I think this country would unite exactly as we did in WWII if we felt a direct threat. For some, 9/11 was direct. I lived right next to the Empire State building at the time. I felt the full range of emotions as I watched first a buring tower, then a second plane hit, then felt the tingle up my spine as I realized the likely third target. Compound this with the fact that my wife worked at the mall in the bottom of the trade center at the time and was scheduled to work two hours later. I lost cell phone reception as everyone in manhattan did. Then Me and six of my friends from law school (which was located in lower manhattan) stood with a few dozen other residents on the roof of my building and watched, debating the causes and consequences of what was potentially unfolding. We all knew something big should happen, and for the few hours we thought we might be under a broader or more sustained attack on our own soil, we were all pro-war.

Then fear and anger gave way to a more informed sense of tragedy. EVERYONE supported the war against Al Quiada. But then came Iraq, and NYers felt betrayed…I among them. I went through a lot of personal hardship following that event which I can say is directly related to the attacks. Regard