Disappointing Democrats

Do Democrats even want to win in Iraq? I read today that Democrats want to hold a symbolic nonbinding vote on the troop increases. They announced this BEFORE even hearing what the President had to say in his speech on Iraq. Joe Biden called this an effort to “demonstrate to the President [that] he’s on his own.” It is like driving with someone who criticizes you when you take a wrong turn, but has no idea which way to go, and instead prefers to make the situation worse so he can continue to criticize.

The Dems have been truly disappointing. It is OK to be partisan, but you should always be American first. I watched John Kerry this morning. I sure am glad that dim bulb didn't win the presidency. (His grades at Yale were worse than Bush's.) He says that we need a political solution. OK, Homer Simpson Kerry. You certainly have found the solution. Tell the sick man that he first needs to get healthy and then he will feel better. Tell the poor man that if he had money he would not be poor. Of course a political solution is required. Getting there might require something other than wishful thinking, but thanks for the insight Senator Kerry.

I was truly disappointed by the Democrats this morning when I read and listened to their comments. I expected more of them. They sure have the right to disagree with the President. But they have no right to criticize w/o offering some alternatives. They won the election. They control both houses of congress. If they really think this surge is so obvious pernicious they should do something to cut funding. They will not do this. They will complain and pretend they are impotent. Actually, they are impotent, but it is self inflicted and we should give them the respect a self created eunuch deserves. (My PC apologies to the "eunuch community." I am sure there is one and being called a Democrat may be unfair.)

Dick (American Gulag) Durbin said that 20,000 was not enough to win. How many troops should we send in, Senator Durbin? What will you vote for? You and your Democratic colleagues have the power and the Constitutional responsibility to do more than criticize. Leading Democrats have been calling for troop increases for two years. Now?

There are three options for the Democrats. They can support the President. They can oppose the President or they can work constructively with the President to improve his approach. But there is a big difference between what they had to do before November and what they have to do now. Back then, they could complain with impunity, using the excuse that they had no power. Now they have the power and they have no right to talk w/o doing.

This is the President’s proposal. I do not know which parts the Dems oppose, but I do know that they CAN do more than complain. They have the power. They are the check. They are the balance. It is time for them to grow up. It is time for Democrats to help lead, follow or get out of the way.

Oh yeah. This vote of which Biden speaks, why non-binding? If you believe it, just do it. If not, just shut up.

Posted by Jack at January 11, 2007 10:22 AM
Comments
Comment #202515

Well, folks, a preview of coming attractions in 2007 and 2008—Jack is stamping his foot, screwing up his fists and face, and throwing a big “thfffgt#@$!!! at those big Democrat meanies.

After six plus years of Republican drift, cronyism, incompetence and graft,from Katrina to Shiavo and Iraq, we have the thundering opening salvos from Jack’s considerable intellect— did I just hear a car door slam?

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 11, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #202516

The best thing the GOP could do now is call for articles of impeachment against the president. It might be the only way you save your party’s future.
Last night while Bush was giving his speech and telling us that he was going to disrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria, U.S. forces were ordered to raid the Iranian consulate in Iraq. They took diplomats and staff into custody, and they did this without telling any Iraqi officials.
Your president is trying to start World War III, seemingly with your approval. In my opinion, you need to quit writing about “Disappointing Democrats”, and start talking about your insane Neocon leaders, and how the entire Congress needs to remove them from power.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #202517

Adrienne

I saw your post in the other column. Republicans do not hate Bush. Dems can impeach if they want. They have the power. Talk to them. Bring it on. Get those chicken Dems to do more than talk.

Tim

It truly angered me to read and watch the comments. I really hoped the Dems would act better. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. They were talking smack when they were out of power. This is not a surprise. I thought when they were in charge, they might wise up. So far, no good.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment #202519

Jack,

Are we feeling a wee bit frustrated?

Of your three options, the Democrats are clearly choosing “oppose”. (That was one of your choices!) The more interesting question to me is what the Republicans will do.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #202522

Woody:
“The more interesting question to me is what the Republicans will do.”

Hopefully they’ll start listening to the voices of reason within their party:

Sen. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam War veteran:

“This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost.”

Sen. Sam Brownback:

“I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution.”

Brownback had previously supported a short-term surge of troops if it could help achieve long-term political stability, which the Bush administration has said it hopes a troop surge will help achieve.

But Brownback rejected that argument after meeting this week with several Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and U.S. military commanders.

“I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shia are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other,” Brownback said.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 11:21 AM
Comment #202523

So the only two options for dems according to Jack are to impeach the president or put their heads down and admit to being cowards? Truly remarkable BS.

Want to know the dem plan, Jack? Use hearings to gather as much info on the war as possible (which we already know will be mostly damning of the current approach), then bring home troops as soon as possible without causing complete chaos in Iraq.

Is it really that difficult to figure out? And no, there is obviously no magic formula…just two options: stay and pray, or start bringing them home. It will just be a question of timing. Where does impeachment fit absent some substantial showing of willful wrongdoing? It might be Jack’s wet dream, but it sounds utterly stupid to me.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #202524

Jack:

“It truly angered me to read and watch the comments. I really hoped the Dems would act better.”

Well, that goes double for my assessment of the GOP these last six years. We’re not even into two weeks of the 110th Congress and your pissed off. Welcome to my (and the country’) nightmare.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 11, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #202525

Adrienne,

The quote from Sam Brownback is telling because he is widely regarded as a solid conservative.

Jack,

Of COURSE the Dems won’t impeach Bush. Of COURSE they won’t attempt the impossible and offer a plan for victory. These would be stupid things to do, so they won’t do them. And that’s whats killing you…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #202526

Woody

They are not choosing to oppose. They are choosing to complain. They have the power to do more than complain. They have the duty to do more than complain.

Non-binding = no balls.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #202529

Tim

Great. The Republicans are no better than the Dems. I have learned to expect politicians to act like politicians. I do not have a problem with that.

I did not expect Dems to do much by now. What I did expect is that they would start to act responsibly.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 11:31 AM
Comment #202528

No Jack-

You’re being rediculous. Non-binding means = a place to start. The smartest thing they can do, as I’ve repeated again and again to apparently deaf ears, is to keep digging up the real truth behind the current policy in Iraq. Then they can act on credible information. I know us republicans can’t even comprehend the notion of diligent information gathering anymore (especially yourself seemingly), but that is how it is supposed to be done in our system of government: slow and steady wins the race. Your call for eratic finger pointing is childish at best.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 11:31 AM
Comment #202530

Woody:
“Of COURSE the Dems won’t impeach Bush. Of COURSE they won’t attempt the impossible and offer a plan for victory. These would be stupid things to do, so they won’t do them.”

No impeaching Bushco isn’t stupid, and there are plenty of crimes and misdemeanors to choose from. But this isn’t what the Dems need to do. It’s what the Republicans need to do (with plenty of help from the Democrats) if they want to save their party. Only an idiot or a madman would claim that adding 20.000 more troops to the 145,000 we already have there would fix this mess, and the entire country knows this.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #202531

Jack,

The preemptive non-binding resolution was appropriate, because they were warning Bush not to start a confrontation that he is likely to lose.
If you think it lacked balls, wait for the sequel…

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment #202533

The real problem here is that you want support for what most military experts suggest will be an empty gesture.

First, if you only briefly surge, like the six months Bush’s talking about, your enemies could opt to hunker down or keep on fighting, knowing that if they push you over your deadline you’ve got problems. Second, if you inadequately surge in terms of troop levels, you’re not going to have the boots on the ground to do any more good. What’s more, given our current readiness levels, this makes our presences unsustainable sooner rather than later.

The guys recommending this tell Bush he needs 30,000 troops to manage this. He’s got 2/3rds of that. They also recommend that the surge be maintained for 18 months. Bush, it seems, is only prepared to do it for six.

Additionally, this will require the assistance of Maliki. We are going to put demands on his government in the course of this that a great number of experts believe this government is too weak to satisfy. If you want to know the consequences of that, look at al-Fatah in the Palestinian territories.

We are going to call upon him to go after al-Sadr, to let us attack them. This man had trouble making an appearance with Bush because al-Sadr threatened to pull out of the power arrangement, a move that would have gutted Maliki’s coalition. The man we’re expecting to save Baghdad with is fundamentally compromised in his ability to do so.

More importantly, the numbers recommended to stabilize Iraq are not 160,000, but instead more than 200,000, and for the country as a whole, over half a million. Bush is not sending a force to Iraq that is capable of making the difference he wants to make. Because of the logistical issues of keeping the soldiers in Iraq, it’s going to make our manpower problem worse, and do so faster than the generally agreed upon increases in our land forces will be able to make them up.

This stands a very good chance of having the opposite effect that Bush has indicated to Americans that it will have. This will make it tougher, in fact, to make an orderly withdrawal, and if not successful as it’s likely to be due to the other issues, it may indeed force a much hastier departure. That, or Bush might use it to justify an even greater commitment, which will likely require a draft; our volunteer forces could neither maintain nor fill the manpower needs at that point.

Like Tim Russert said on NBC, if Bush bet his presidency on the Iraq war, he just went double or nothing on this wager with the new strategy. For all his talk about not abandoning Iraq, he just put us in a much tougher position to make sure Iraq doesn’t collapse precipitously.

That is why most Democrats, and indeed most Americans are disappointed with this plan.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #202535

Jack,

“There are three options for the Democrats. They can support the President. They can oppose the President or they can work constructively with the President to improve his approach.”

The President doesn’t seem to play well with other children, unless, of course, they accede to his every wish.
This speech, this approach, doesn’t seem to have been thought out any better than anything else we have heard so far, and with the raid on the Iranian consulate this morning, Mr. Bush appears to want the entire Middle East involved.

IMO, like it or not, Mr Bush has now stepped in it, and we will be in for a protracted conflict regardless of how many troops we send over there.

I guess Bush was right when he said we would not leave Iraq, as long as he was President.

By his recent actions, he has virtually assured it.

Posted by: Rocky at January 11, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #202540


Jack: I really don’t think you wan’t the Democrats to act responsibly. If they do, you probably won’t like the results. I believe the Democrats have got to stop the war before Bush and Cheney attack Iran.

Posted by: jlw at January 11, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #202543

You guys are completely missing Jacks point.
The left said they are the saviours of America, vote for us. The people said ok and voted them into power.
But now, when they have a chance to do what they preached, they won’t do it.
They are more worried about looking bad than they are about doing whats best for the country.

And rather than holding them to their word and demanding action, the lefty supporters jump right into defensive and excuse mode and start blaming others.

So much for thinking things might change.
Welcome back business as usual.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #202546

kctim-

delusional today?

“The left said they are the saviours of America, vote for us.”

When did they say this? I must have missed it. A simple link will do. I voted about half democrat this last election, and not one of the dems I voted for promised to be anything remotely similar to a “saviour” … instead, all they had to do was convince me that they were better than their opponant. What state or locality do you live in where they literally promise salvation in exchange for a vote? And have they ever delivered?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #202549

kctim,

The left has said all along that the war was unwinnable. Now you expect the same people to explain how to win it?! What a crock!

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #202550
Jack wrote: The Dems have been truly disappointing.

True, but so have been the Republicans.

The fact is, they both stink, but we keep rewarding them be repeatedly re-electing them.

This back-and-forth between the Blue and Red column, and the distracting, circular, petty partisan warfare is really useful … in the mean time, the nation’s problems continue to grow in number and severity.

It’s all too clear that too many (mostly, the main party loyalists) are more interested in fueling the petty partisan warfare than solving our pressing problems that continue to grow in number and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #202553
There are three options for the Democrats. They can support the President. They can oppose the President or they can work constructively with the President to improve his approach.

Jack, Democrats ARE working constructively with the President — to work out the best possible exit strategy from his failed war.

And rather than holding them to their word and demanding action…

kctim, Democrats pledged to “change the course” in Iraq. This is happening as we speak.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 11, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #202554

D.A.N.-

Agreed.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #202555

Woody
Ok, the left said the war was unwinnable, so what.
Whether they agreed with the war or not is no longer relevant. They are now in power and the fighting is still going on and for the good of the country, they need to work on a way out.
“Bush started it so its his problem” is not what is best for the country.
Saying “Bush is doing it all wrong” and not offering a better solution, is not what is best for the country.
Not trying to force Bush to a different plan, is not what is best for the country.
They said they would be better for the country and the people voted for them.
Shouldn’t they do whats best for the country then?

“Now you expect the same people to explain how to win it?!”

I hardly expect them to win anything to honest.
But, the left picked the poll that said Americans voted for them because of Iraq for one of the main reasons Americans voted them into power. They said the American people wanted change.
You don’t change things by doing nothing but whining.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #202556

kctim,

As I said to Jack, wait and see. You may come to miss the days when the Democrats were merely “whining”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #202560

Not if its for whats best for the country Woody.
But we all know that won’t be the case don’t we.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #202562

Yep, these democrats have blown it. They’ve been in for over a week and the Iraq problem is still not solved. I say its time to vote them out and put our trust back into the hands of the Republicans who have shown that they are the competant party. Wow what were we thinking last November?

Posted by: muirgeo at January 11, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #202563

Kctim-

“They are now in power and the fighting is still going on and for the good of the country, they need to work on a way out.”

Are you now saying that Bush is NOT the decider in chief? Or are you saying that dems should act only in extreme fashion based upon only partial and tainted information, and essentially repeat Bush’s mistakes?

“I hardly expect them to win anything to honest.”
“Not trying to force Bush to a different plan, is not what is best for the country.”

Are you saying that if dems give Bush a long leash that things will improve?

What is it that you are saying other than that you personally love demeaning and defaming democrats solely because of their party affiliation? Your comments demonstrate blind party loyalty. While Karl Rove may be impressed enough by your tactics to put you on his payroll, I’m pretty sure you are only doing a general disservice to the GOP by convincing people that they want as little to do with your brand of politics as possible. If you want to build a policy upon hateful rhetoric and childish games, go ahead as its a free country. I just see very little point outside of stroking one’s own ego. Have at it Hoss.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #202564

So the lefties, liberals, dims, etc. agree that we hastily pull out of Iraq. Then they accuse Bush of loosing the war. Then Iran can continue to build its nuclear weapons. Then we have full scale war in the middle east. Then we have an attempted new halocaust by Iran attacking Israel. That won’t succeed though. But it will still be Bush’s fault. You guys need to get a grip on real life. As one pundit said that when those anti-American forces now present, by any name they choose, come here for the next wave, they very well could choose the K-brothers from MA, the SH-team from NY, DD from IL, the P-lady fron CA, RINO’s from all over, and more to be their first candidate for what they call humble sacrifice for one of their gods. You guys on the antiwar side of things have the only solution in your hand and don’t know what to do. Your only way of fixing things is pee and moan and whine and pine. Step and come forth with a solution for victory or I will consider you prefer defeat.

Posted by: tomh at January 11, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #202565

As Bush escalates, the UK is pulling 3000 of their troops out. So we now need to recalculate the 20,000 strong “surge” into 17,000 in our heads. You might say that they’re standing down as we stand up.
Oh and I’m sure the “support the troops” crowd on the right will be proud to know that not only are these 20,000 we are sending to Iraq troops who haven’t completed their training cycle, but they won’t have decent armored vehicles either.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #202567

Tomh-

Who needs to get a grip? Do you have any idea how shitty your logic in the prior post is? Pulling out of Iraq will mean nuclear war? Wow…even Bush would wince at that line of BS.

This is a great example of the problems the republican party now faces: how do you reconcile rational thought with these BS slippery slope arguments used so religiously by some? Good luck convincing anyone with half a brain that pulling out of an unwinnable situation (according to every military expert who is not beholden to Bush for their job) will equate to WWIII. And even if this is true, the responsibility is squarely on the white house and the rubber stamp congress that passed the spending bill without reading it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #202570

Adrienne-

You mean you don’t feel like embedding a small number of English speaking American kids into Iraqi divisions will serve to instantly solve all the problems in that country that even the natives in the government can’t seem to control?

Maybe you should, as the brilliant and ever tactful Newt Gingrich suggested on Fox News last night, just hang your head and admit that you are a member of “the party of defeat.”

Nevermind annoying things like facts and truth…the above line of crap is much more biting and puts you on the defensive, so it must be correct.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #202573

Kevin,
You’re a smart Republican. Won’t you please write or call your Senators and Representatives and tell them how you feel?
You could start with Sen McConnell who is planning to filibuster any Democratic attempt to decrease funding for Bush’s new Iraq plan .

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #202575

Adrienne-

Unfortunately, I’m in CA where we have 2 democrat senators and my local rep is dem as well. I’d call Arnie, but he’s got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

McConnell is entitled to use whatever legitimate tactic he feels appropriate. But unlike a year ago, it will be his ass on the line as he is the one who will be holding up the funding for the troops. Same goes for Bush if he vetoes the package. The tables really have turned, even if Jack and the other straight-ticket voting cronies from my party refuse to admit it.

My grandmother was a nurse for a long time, and she used to tell me stories about grown men coming in and being petrified to admit that they had shoved some falic object up their ass and lost track of it. Somehow, they just never considered that it could go that far. Every single one of them had a well formulated and seemingly legitimate explaination for what had happened, and it was never their fault, and NEVER what it seemed to be.

I’m sorry for the disgustingly visual analogy, but I notice a lot of parallels to this discussion. It is human nature to rationalize, and to aquit one’s own actions due to their underlying “good intentions”, even when the objective observer can easily see through such obvious non-sense. But yet these same people will judge everyone else solely by their actions, regardless of intent, even holding them up to impossible standards.

Ah, the human element to it all.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #202576

What we have here is a president who sees everything through a political lens. He has really never stopped campaigning for the presidency, even now that he’s a lame duck.

Unfortunately, that means his priorities have been on doing whatever it takes not to expend political capital. Starting a draft or reversing a position would require him to actually go out and take a risk with that political capital. Starting the war was part of proving that he was a glorious leader. Instead of doing some non-glamourous work against al-Qaeda or mopping up the remnants of the Taliban (now on the comeback trail) He wanted a big, splashy military victory, and he wanted it quickly and without much bloodshed on our part. His advisors told him that’s what he could get, and he went along with them. It was consistent with his message, consistent with the theme of him as a war president.

It was reality that wasn’t consistent with his political wishes. When you go to war, you can’t expect to avoid setbacks, and you have to minimize the extent to which you’re caught off-guard by developments. Bush and his people turned their nose up at the thought of having contingencies in place in case they failed, and did not allow for doubt to creep into what they regarded as evidence for what they believe was going on. That was their fatal mistake, both militarily and politically. They had no respect for the battlefield, no respect for the diversity of actors and interests involved. They made dangerous assumptions about how grateful people would be to foreign invaders, and how they would respond. They made even more dangerous assumptions about who would and could secure the country. They didn’t plan for the worst case scenario, but the best instead, meaning that when bad things started happening we were no better off than a ship run aground at low tide. The defeat Bush wishes to avoid, ultimately, is his own, and that drive blinds him to the overwhelming reality that lost long ago, and that his egotism is bringing the country into defeat, rather than saving it.

kctim-
The constitution essentially says that Bush is in charge. If he wants to put all those troops in there, he can. We’ll fund what we have to.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #202579

I wish the Democrats would stop making Bush have these terrible ideas. If only they would tell him about other alternatives, like leaving. He’s probably not even aware that’s an option!

Posted by: Max at January 11, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #202578

A red-letter day! I agree with Stephen Daugherty!

The only thing I would add is that we need to change the rules of engagement more than we need more troups. If they aren’t allowed to go in and get the bad guys, they are nothing more than targets.

The biggest target of all is our good friend “Mooqi”. That guy has a serious need to meet a speeding bullet! Seriously, he has no intention of allowing Iraq becoming a stable democratic government. He has openly stated he wants Iraq to be an islamic state run by Sharia law. He should be executed for treason against the Iraqi government, but Maliki does not have the political support or the intestinal fortitude to arrest him.

Posted by: Martian at January 11, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #202580

Kevin23

What do you think Iran is going to do with the nukes? They ceertainly are not going to use them for public display. They intend to use them on Israel. They call that excercise nuclear war. So your castigating me as some stupid dolt is over the top. You do not know anything about enemy warfare or the psychology of an enemy. Even so, when an unfriendly country says they are going to destroy a neighboring country, one must examine what they say. If you do not take the Iranian threat seriously, they GOD help your soul. Calling my logic shitty is intrepreted to me that you have no argument and disagree with mine but your only response is to same something nasty. That is called coming from your character. I will not respond to anything else you post because of that approach.

Posted by: tomh at January 11, 2007 1:56 PM
Comment #202581

Republicans are already vocalizing that decreasing funding for the war would leave our soldiers vulnerable “taking away their bullets”. What a crock is that? Already new talking points being made.

That said, how many advisors has Bush already gone through? He has disregarded so many, and in his speech he kept saying “we” decided. Did he ever say who they were?

Just some questions I have.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 11, 2007 1:56 PM
Comment #202583

Folks,

20,000 troops is too little and too late.
It will take a lot more troops and a lot more time to secure Iraq.

That’s why this new plan is doomed to fail.

Iraq can be secured, but at what cost?

Is that the proper use of our military?

One of the clever deceptions being used now is that some of the U.S. soldiers on the ground are asking for more troops. That’s not a fair assessment or justification, because it does not represent the majority of U.S. troops, and it does not qualify the number of troops required to secure Iraq.

Also

  • Most Iraqis polled want us to leave. 82% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the continuing occupation. 45% of Iraqis feel attacks against coalition troops are justified! The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost! This is what is meant by “too late”.

  • A poll of U.S. troops in Iraq (released by the Zogby International polling firm) finds that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should leave Iraq.

  • In March of 2006, 25% of U.S. troops said the U.S. troops should leave Iraq immediately.

Our troops deserve better.
It’s not right to subject our troops to danger for nation-building and baby-sitting civil wars, or trying to salvage George Bush’s failed legacy with a “stay the course” mentality no matter how many have to die to prove him right.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #202585

Martian,
You must be kidding. If Sadr dies, all hell will break loose. At this point, the Sadrists would probably win elections if held today. Moqtada al-Sadr is a nationalist, intensely opposed to foreign intervention, whether US or Iran. He might actually be preferable to the current government, where the parties of SCIRI & Dawa have strong ties with Iran, and are tainted by their collaboration with their occupiers. We lost the hearts and minds of most Iraqis already. Going against Sadr is a recipe for disaster, a full fledged war pitting the US against the Sunni insurgents AND the Shias.

Posted by: phx8 at January 11, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #202587

“The constitution essentially says that Bush is in charge. If he wants to put all those troops in there, he can. We’ll fund what we have to”

I don’t think myself or anybody else was trying to say Bush isn’t in charge and the one who is responsible Stephen.
But, even if the new Dem leadership cannot stop Bush, they should at least offer up what they want done. They say the majority of Americans voted for them because they wanted change, why don’t they give us change then?

I personally was really hoping the Dems would come out and say “here is our plan, different than the Presidents, that we believe would be a better option and here are the “experts” who agree with us. We want to work with the President to resolve this situation.”

They have been placed into a hard situation, kind of a damned if they do, damned if they don’t one really. But if getting us out of Iraq is what would be best, they should do more than just talk about it.

For some of us, its not about shuffling blame, its about doing what is best for the country.

Thanks for a rational response Stephen D., I was hoping and waiting for one.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #202589

“What do you think Iran is going to do with the nukes?”

Same thing as us. Its called respect. They want it. Simple.

“They ceertainly are not going to use them for public display. They intend to use them on Israel.”

Snore. Proof please? I know you must be an expert on Iranian society and all, but I’ve yet to hear one credible person on either side agree with that assessment. Its just another fear tactic. Reality check: if they wanted a nuke, they’d have one by now. They just want us to know they can build them whenever it pleases them. Why? Because it carries a lot of weight. See Pakistan.

“You do not know anything about enemy warfare or the psychology of an enemy”

Assumption with no basis in fact.

“Even so, when an unfriendly country says they are going to destroy a neighboring country, one must examine what they say.”

That’s right. EVERYTHING they say. No cherry picking. And you do realize that in the middle east, extreme rhetoric is all the norm, right? Or have you not been following the Palestinian situation for the last 40 years?

“If you do not take the Iranian threat seriously, they GOD help your soul.”

Or Allah, or whoever. Maybe even, gasp, no one!

“Calling my logic shitty is intrepreted to me that you have no argument and disagree with mine but your only response is to same something nasty.”

What does that say about your ability to read and interpret? If you think I’m being nasty by calling you assumptive and off base, then imagine how you’d feel if I was like you and argued my assumptions as facts in addition to pointing out the very real holes in your position. Your taking such offense to my post tells me and others a lot about your ability to defend it. But this is your MO isn’t it? Nothing new here. Same old, same old.

“That is called coming from your character. I will not respond to anything else you post because of that approach.”

Really? I thought it came from my ability to think for myself. And I could really care less if you choose to stop embarrassing yourself, and your party by not responding with more irrelevent or misguided falacies. That would be a net positive from my perspective.

On the other hand, if you want to try and actually have a substantive debate, I’m more than game for it. Experience tells me to not hold my breath.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #202590

Kctim:

They have been placed into a hard situation, kind of a damned if they do, damned if they don’t one really.

Is this #3? :)

But if getting us out of Iraq is what would be best, they should do more than just talk about it.

Any suggestions? Because you stated the problem already in the first line of this post.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 11, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #202593

kctim,

The left is not missing Jack’s point, well…maybe.

However, the Dems did not ever call themselves the savior of the U.S.! They simply called G. W. Bush a bigot as in Katrina, homophobe as in Gay marriage, incompetent boob as in the War on Terror, King George as in wiretaps, Curious George as in no intelligence, draft dodger as in Vietnam, etc., etc., etc.! Democrats can not be saviors unless they have something positive to add which would actually help the United States.

Somewhere along the way you must have misinterpreted. The liberal posters are simply defending what they expect from the Democratic Party.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 11, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #202595

Kctim-

Too cute. Anything worth doing is worth doing haphazardly, right? Spoken like a true Bush supporter.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #202599

JD-

“Democrats can not be saviors unless they have something positive to add which would actually help the United States.”

HAHAHAHA.

Thanks buddy. I needed that. Spoken like a true hypocrite. Or do you consider your posts to be positive?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #202606

kctim-

“I personally was really hoping the Dems would come out and say “here is our plan, different than the Presidents, that we believe would be a better option and here are the “experts” who agree with us. We want to work with the President to resolve this situation.””

Oh, I see. Rome was built in a day. Well, that explains everything.

Look, no one can wield power until they actually have it. And your expecting them to have some kind of backroom hearings going on well in advance of their having the authority to do so suggests a lack of basic knowledge and/or common sense.

A “change in direction” simply means an admission that the current strategy failed, something that was not done until very recently, and a willingness to correct obvious mistakes. No one should propose a new plan until they are absolutely certain it is the correct one. And no democrat was elected because voters felt they had the perfect solution to the Iraq problem. So to suggest that a plan should have been presented immediately to be credible is bunk.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #202607

WomanMarine
The only suggestion I’ve got is that they produce a better plan and give it to us so that we can see that they at least tried.
While Bush may not give it the time of day, they could still say they tried to do what was best for the country.
Shoot, I don’t know.

JD
“Somewhere along the way you must have misinterpreted

I was just having a little fun with words JD.
Some people have no sense of humor and get their panties all bunched up over everything.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #202610

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/08/bush-more-troops/

Posted by: muirgeo at January 11, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #202611

Kctim:

Shoot, I don’t either. And I bet the congress folks don’t either.

How many military folks, and study groups have there been? All with different ideas.

Right now, Bush has again changed Generals, has disregarded the study group and others (admitted to in his speech) and stated “we decided”. I want to know who “we” is.

And, for myself, I don’t believe it is a job of congress to make war plans. At least not strategy. And would Bush listen? He may listen, but would he REALLY take any of it into consideration?

And in the meantime, Republican senators who oppose this new “strategy” are also saying that to defund the war by congress would be “taking away the soldier’s bullets”. What kind of picture is that? It implicates that the democratically led congress would leave our troops defenseless if they went that route.

Sometimes there is no easy answer. I still stand by my idea that we backup and regroup. Of course I could be wrong, there are no guarantees for any of the proposed strategies, as we have already seen.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 11, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #202613

kctim-
We will fund what we have to. That doesn’t mean letting Bush keep this charade up. He showed his hand when he started talking about his strategy. Now we know what hand he has, we can put it to the test. I think we can use our power of oversight to provide the knowledge base necessary to come up with a new solution. In fact, that could be the express purpose of new hearings.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 2:59 PM
Comment #202619

WomanMarine
“And would Bush listen? He may listen, but would he REALLY take any of it into consideration?”

Don’t know for sure. But it sure would put him on the spot wouldn’t it.

“I still stand by my idea that we backup and regroup”

You know, I went back and read that again and it wasn’t my intention to say I thought you were wrong yesterday, only that I had a different view.
As you said: “Sometimes there is no easy answer”

Great posts ma’am. Thanks for giving me a few more ideas to consider.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #202627

Woody

If the Dems help us succeed in Iraq, I will be happy. If they just try to score political points I will not.

It looks like they are more interested in being Democrats than solving problems. I hope I am wrong. I hope they do not use something as important as Iraq to punish the president, but many of them will certainly see the logic in doing just that. It is the biggest stick they have and the easiest to swing. Unfortunately, when they break it, our country will suffer.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #202632

After the last 6 years you are blaming Democrats of being blindly partisan and playing political games??? Just as any sort of bi-partisan efforts are starting? Where in the world was your outrage while Bush flushed this country down the toilet and locked Democrats out of the decision making process? Seriously, you make my jaw drop.

Posted by: Max at January 11, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #202636

Jack,

When they break it?

Hell, it’s already broken. It’s up to them and GW to glue the pieces back together into something that can hold on its own and resembles a country called Iraq.

Posted by: Tom L at January 11, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #202637

Jack the problem with your post is that the Republicans are not in favor of the surge either. Are they as equally with out balls?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/against_the_surge.html

Posted by: 037 at January 11, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #202638

Max:
“After the last 6 years you are blaming Democrats of being blindly partisan and playing political games???”

It’s easier than acknowledging his own party’s failures.

“Just as any sort of bi-partisan efforts are starting?”

But not with Bush. He’s in this only for himself and his nutty neocon pals.

“Where in the world was your outrage while Bush flushed this country down the toilet and locked Democrats out of the decision making process?”

Jack had no outrage over that. He crowed about it here in this blog.

“Seriously, you make my jaw drop.”

Definitely gag-worthy. All of it. Jack’s and others arrogant and impatient posturing after not holding their own party accountable for anything, and Bush’s dangerous and illogical actions.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #202639

Jack,
Republicans have spent the past four years using Iraq as a way of scoring political points. Nearly every move has been calculated to maximize a positive domestic political impact. Feingold, Biden, & Murtha have all presented reasonable options for partition, withdrawal, and so on, and these have been subverted, rejected, dismissed out of hand, all in a way calculated to give Republicans an illusory, political appearance of being “tough on security.” Not only that, the rejections have been couched by many Republicans in the most insulting terms. Meanwhile, despite having oversight through the legislature, virtually no questions or investigations have been raised by Republicans, even as the most egregious lies are foisted upon the American public.

Republicans brought this upon themselves. Democrats will not share the responsibility for “staying the course,” nor should they. If the Bush administration rejects reasonable proposals for withdrawal, well, there you have it.

I am already excited about 2008. If current trends surrounding Iraq continue, there will be a Democratic supermajority for DECADES to come, a Dem in the White House, and the conservative voices which have done our country so much harm will not be heeded again for a long, long time.

Posted by: phx8 at January 11, 2007 5:03 PM
Comment #202640

Good thread here, but I have some picking to do:

Get those chicken Dems to do more than talk…Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 11:03 AM
Good try. Are you referring to chickens like Murtha and Kerry? You know, people with medals and combat experience. Unlike your chickenhawk GOPers, like Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and just about every other single member of the inner sanctum.


Unfortunately, when (the Dems) break it, our country will suffer….Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 04:25 PM
Give it a rest boy. Your Bush smashed it into a thousand pieces; Humpty Dumpty is dead. Don’t blame the clean up crew.


Adrienne did a good job with the serious points

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 11, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #202641

Adrienna

Its not Bush’s fault, he made no mistakes. Iraq is going great…its the liberal mainstream media you see, they just won’t print all the great things happening in Iraq.

Posted by: 037 at January 11, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #202642

Pull troops from around the world. The citizens back at home here couldn’t organize a pick up game of football, much less a war. Please just pull our well trained troops home and stop the embarrassment. We should have been done with this, but thanks to the spineless american will, we look like Barney Fife trying to make a decision. The WW2 generation looks at us in disbelief. Now that was a generation of hard working americans. We aren’t allowed to carry their jock straps.

Posted by: ed at January 11, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #202643

Adrienne

Dems certainly can play political games if they want. But they cannot simultaneously claim they have no power. Until November, they had the luxury of implying they had a better way w/o having to give details. Now they can unveil it. Wanting to end the war is an aspiration we all share. It is not a plan.

When you are seeking power you can say that you are the alternative. When you get it, you ARE the alternative and you have to do something.

Have fun with that.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #202644

“I am already excited about 2008. If current trends surrounding Iraq continue, there will be a Democratic supermajority for DECADES to come”

At least there is one person who is willing to admit what its really about.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #202646

Dave

I was referring to the specific case I mentioned. You can try to bring in the other things, but they are invalid in this context.

phx8

We will see. News of the deaths of both parties has been exaggerated before. Are there more Democrats or Republicans in the Senate? I know that is a trick question, but think about it. And in the House, isn’t that the numbers the Republicans had just a few months ago?

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #202647

Jack:

“It truly angered me to read and watch the comments. I really hoped the Dems would act better.”

I don’t think you were angered. I think you expected these comments. Furthermore, you are using these comments to find fault with Democrats when the ones who screwed up BIG are Bush and the Republicans.

So you want victory? See my article, which will be up later today or tomorrow.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #202648

Jack:
“When you are seeking power you can say that you are the alternative. When you get it, you ARE the alternative and you have to do something.”

That’s right. And you’re about to see plennnnnnnty of alternative actions and ideas from the left. As I just commented to David in his center column thread:
The way I see it, in the months to come, Democrats could begin to severely frustrate Bush’s insane plans by setting a whole bunch of conditions on the use of tax dollars for this war — exactly as Congress did in the past during the Vietnam War, and in Lebanon and in Central America. I think it’s very important to remember that we’ve been in this kind of situation before in our history.
After listening to the speech last night, I was reminded of the clips I’ve seen of Nixon on TV telling the American people that he was going to expand the Vietnam War. That was just as unpopular a war, and Nixon also used the same exact excuse as Bush did in his speech. When trying to explain why it was a good idea for us to invade Cambodia in 1970, Nixon claimed he HAD to expand the war in order for us to ever see a withdraw of our troops. This reasoning is as hopelessly bass-ackwards now, with Bush’s claim that we will win if we add 20,000 troops to the 145,000 that are already in the Iraq quagmire, as it did back in 1970 in the Vietnam quagmire.

Yes, Bush has thrown down the gauntlet on the Democrats with his speech, but he’s also gambling here and the odds don’t look too good if you ask me. Because the truth is, if the Republicans on Capitol Hill have any brain at all in their heads, and want to survive politically, they’re going to have to start jumping ship and begin speaking out very strongly and forcefully against this president. A few of them already have today. Who knows, they might even end up supporting impeachment, just as they once did with the equally unpopular and crooked Nixon.
I just hope they’ll be jumping ship before Bushco and their nutty neocon pals start yet another pre-emptive war with Iran.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #202649

Kevin,

Since Tomh has decided responding to you is worthless, I will. However, I reserve the right to decide that Tomh was correct in his assesment (he probably is).

Your responses are typical of many on the left, and a few on the right. Can’t argue with the points, so attack the person. (Look up “ad hominem”).

As for Iran using nukes, when a politician (or tyrant) says he’s going to help me, I can safely assume that he’s lying. However, when he says he’s going to kill me, can I still be safe in that assumption? A rational man cannot. That sumple. We simply cannot safely assume that Iran is lying when they say they want to nuke Israel & the US. It may be true that all they want is respect. But why take the chance?

“Mexican stand-offs” have always puzzled me. If I were ever in the situation of having a gun pointed at me, I would pull the trigger without hesitation. I couldn’t take the risk of being shot first and being unable to respond. That’s why I have so much respect for cops. Takes bigger ones than I have to do that job! Anyway, it seems to make good common sense to take out the nuke facilities before he has one and face the condemnation than be in the situation we are with N. Korea in yet one more place.

Posted by: Martian at January 11, 2007 5:33 PM
Comment #202652

Jack,
In 2008, 22 Republicans seats will be up v 12 Democratic seats. I like those odds.

Kctim,

What it is all about is withdrawing from Iraq. That is what the American people want. The political price for ignoring what the American people want will be paid again in 2008.

So it is not up to Democrats to get on board with the Bush plan. It is up to the Republicans to reject Bush. Failure to do so will be mean profound disappointment for the Republicans.

Democrats want what is best for the country, and the majority of the American people side with them.

Posted by: phx8 at January 11, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #202653

Martian-

First, I attacked the man’s argument, and you should know better than accusing me otherwise, let alone pretend that I was doing so for any other purpose other than to show the weaknesses and flaws. Ad hominum is when you attack the person to make an unrelated point.” Maybe you skipped that day of class.

As for the argument itself: you lose me at having to respond to every threat simply because its a nuclear one. I agree with the republicans from the 1990’s and current democrats in that we are not a 9-1-1 service for the middle east or anywhere else. When a tactic is found to work every time (using the word “nuclear” before a threat), it will be over-used. Especially in the middle east. You should know that, too. I really don’t think you want to advocate such an easily manipulated poolicy at the expense of lives, security and tax dollars. Do you?

And as for standoffs, do you realize the most successful war in the last half-century was purely a standoff? In the era of easy global networking, simply marching an army into the town square isn’t enough to make a determined foe bow down. So there is another assumption from the extreme right gone.

You like the pre-emptive war doctrine? Really? Because I’m not sure you have much security with a plan like that. And that is supposed to be what this is all about. But again, my whole point all along is that many of you extremists often take your eyes off the real prize for the sake of victory.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #202654

Martin,

“Anyway, it seems to make good common sense to take out the nuke facilities before he has one and face the condemnation than be in the situation we are with N. Korea in yet one more place.”

Did it made “good common sense” to invade Iraq as well?

Lobbing bombs at Iran for no other good reason than they “may” be developing nuclear weapons, doesn’t protect anyone, and may ratchet up the tensions in the entire region.
Iraq is a country with a population of 25 million, Iran if pressed could put that many troops on the battlefield.
Threats are only useful if you plan to back them up.
Mr. Bush hasn’t even followed through with security in Iraq, even after 3.5 years. 21,000 more troops is a small drop in a very large bucket.

Posted by: Rocky at January 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #202655

Jack-

“Until November, they had the luxury of implying they had a better way w/o having to give details. Now they can unveil it. Wanting to end the war is an aspiration we all share. It is not a plan.”

Just curious to see if you can back that one up. Name two democrats who claimed to have a substantive plan before the election (there were many: Murtha’s being the most discussed I believe), who has now backed off of that position publicly, replacing it with complacency or timidity?

And you can’t say that silence means anything…especially when the information gathering and stategizing meetings are still far off.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #202656

ed-
We have stuck with this war longer than my Grandparent’s generation had to stick with WWII, and for our troubles have not been able to control one medium-size country, where our forefathers took over half a continent, and in far less time.

You attribute it to a lacking will, as if Bush had been chomping at the bit to put more soldiers in, to go with a bolder, more aggressive campaign, when in fact that’s exactly what he’s been refusing to do, and what many of his critics, myself included, have been advocating, with all the effect of whisper on a brickwall.

So you tell me how tough this president really is. Tell me where the draft to get the soldiers he actually needs is. Tell me where are the victory bonds and the sacrificed tax cuts. Tell me where he’s acknowledged the truly snarled state of affairs he’s dealing with.

I’ll tell you what’s really the case. The American people are more than equal to the challenge. They are more than willing to take on this country’s enemies.

We’re just not willing to help them. Iraq has become a nation in civil war, and our presence there only teaches al-Qaeda members how to mount operations, and allows them fuel for the fires of hatred they wish to stoke everywhere else. Our presence hasn’t calmed down Iraq. Total war has never been an option, especially since we intend to leave a nation and not a stretch of ruins behind. No, our problem is that this was war that has to be fought with intelligence and wisdom, and this president fought it with force and arrogance, somehow believing he could succeed where we failed in Vietnam: playing the game of attrition in the backyard of our enemy.

No, the reality is that no nation’s strength can compensate for a leader’s stupidity. If you hit your thumb instead of a nail with a hammer, the strength you employ does not lessen the damage. Bush has decided if he hits our thumb harder with the hammer, the results will improve.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 6:09 PM
Comment #202657

With my 20/20 hind sight I would say it was a mistake to go into Iraq. You can agree or disagree with that but that is not the question at hand. The question is that now that we are there and in this fix where the situation is not getting better what should be our next move? Its tough to figure out exactly what the dems think but it seems to me that they want to keep their position somewhat vague so they can continue to use this situation for political gain. I think that most of them seem to want us to pull out but offer no explaination of what they think the cost or consequences will be once we do. To say that we need a political solution has to be the biggest non answer I have ever heard. Its like saying that to end global warming we need to have a dialog with industry.

Posted by: Carnak at January 11, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #202658

“The Dems have been truly disappointing.”

Jack,

I’m not at all disappointed. Russ Feingold had the balls to call for using the Congressional purse strings to end this atrocity. Senator Kennedy is using a different strategy. Senator Biden has the grill turned up from simmer to broil.

Speaker Pelosi is keeping the house focused on her 100 hour promise.

I’ve counted no less than five Republicans speaking out against Bush’s plan and, as Adrienne pointed out, one of those was none other than Kansas Senator and Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback!

Short of a plan to begin immediately redeploying troops or the beginning of impeachment proceedings I just can’t picture a much better day. And it was 56 degrees fahrenheit today, yeah 56 degrees in mid January in Kansas!

On the down-side there’s this damn drought, and Fort Riley, Kansas is being forced to redeploy troops to Iraq earlier than expected and to some degree with inadeguate training, but Bush will now be held almost personally responsible for every life lost.

Not a great day for the USA, not a great day for most Republicans, but IMO a pretty dang good, and proud, day for Democrats. I’m proud to be an American and a Democrat.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 11, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #202663

tomh, martian-
The real question is what we can do without creating another fiasco. Righteous causes, even necessary causes, do not add up to success without the appropriate means.

One of the key points I remember from reading Clausewitz is that you don’t split up your forces if you can help it. Bush has split them two ways, and now might have them going in four different directions, with our forces going it alone for most part. Just how does this make military sense? They act as if WWII was some kind of model for how wars should be fought, and forget that we fought on so many front’s out of necessity, and did not hesitate to spend what we needed and recruit and conscript as needed to fight the war. Eisenhower did not decide to go cheap and invade Europe with a single wave. He overwhelmed that beach at Normandy.

You don’t fight big complex wars without being willing to put in the forces necessary to do that. Bush didn’t, for various reasons.

So can we strike at Iran? Sure, of course we could. Could we prevent the situation from getting out of control with what we have? No. The Iraq war has been an exhausting burden on our forces, and Bush is wringing our logistics dry for that war. Victory at any cost sounds nice, but as the term Pyrrhic victory indicates, winning or trying to win at all costs can sometime cost you the ability to win in the future.

Iran’s forces are fresh, they’re committed, and their reinforcements and replacements are close at hand. If it comes to fighting a ground war, we’ll be running through mountainous terrain with equipment already in shoddy shape. Additionally, the enemy will be well aware of the measures that proved effective in the Iraq War, the IEDs, the ambushes, the guerilla tactics.

If we have to fight a battle like this, we do what we have to. Unfortunately, the reason that Bush supporters would fight this war would be too keep Iran from getting the bomb.

First, lets consider something. if they’re just now making the bomb, then it’s unlikely that they’ve made enough to present a real deterrence effect. One nuke at Israel, and it’s all over for them. As much as some might hate Israel, it’s most likely that these people want to be around to savor the victory.

If we do attack, we cannot do things in half-ass manner like we’ve done with Iraq. We cannot expect to take the easy way out. What’s more, if we do it now, we do it with enemies potentially at our backs, which is never a good military position to be in. The land war for taking on Iran and securing it would be a feat of WWII proportions, not something to be done on the cheap, and certainly not something to be done before forces are mobilized and capable of fighting.

Recall, if you will, how long we spent putting soldiers into Kuwait to prepare for the war. Then consider that Iran’s going to require far greater force to crack.

I don’t think these folks know what they’re doing. They’re fools who think they can manipulate the course of world history by starting all these wars, and unfortunately they don’t count the cost or really look at the practical necessities of fighting these kinds of campaigns.

We need to get out of our Iraq, and find smarter ways to deal with Iran than the idiotic plans the neocons have cooked up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #202673

Kevin

So they did not have a plan or ideas? I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Kansas

Russ Feingold can call for what he wants. Now the Dems have a chance to do something. Let’s see if they do.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 7:23 PM
Comment #202674

Kansas Dem:
“I’m proud to be an American and a Democrat.”

Damn straight, and me too, Kansas Dem!

Here is an article you might want to read:
Bush war plan draws fire on Capitol Hill

Here are some highlights from it (and a few of my thoughts):

“I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out,” Sen. Chuck Hagel

I agree.

At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, “I would confess I’m no expert on Iraq.” Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was “no expert on military matters.”

Oh, well isn’t that just great. Probably means he’ll be doing a “heckava job!”

Committee members pressed Gates, who replaced Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, on an exit strategy for the U.S.

After the previous comment, it sounds like he’s Rummy’s successor in more ways than one. And no exit strategy, of course.

Options for critics of the war to try forcing its end are limited, given the slim margin of Democratic control, especially in the Senate. But votes stating symbolic opposition to the troop buildup could embarrass many Republicans leery of supporting Bush’s plan.

Yes indeed, and it is that embarrassment that will ultimately lead them to jump ship en mass at some point.

Rice appeared in the morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the afternoon before the House counterpart. She was grilled sharply by members of both parties.

Grilled sharply? Well that’s a change!

Not a single member of the Senate panel expressed outright support for the president’s plan. One after another offered skepticism on various points — from the rationale for the war to al-Maliki’s sincerity and resolve, from the need for additional troops to the administration’s ruling out talking to Iran and Syria.

No outright support. My, my, times they really ARE a-changing!

“You’re going to have to do a much better job” explaining the rationale for the war, “and so is the president,” said Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. He said Bush could no longer count on his support for the war.

Smart move, Sen. Voinovich.

Rice engaged several tense exchanges with members, including with Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy. She disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an “escalation.”

“Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?” Hagel asked. Responded Rice: “I think, senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in.”

“Would you call it a decrease?” Hagel asked.

“I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,” she said.

What no more “surge?” Hmm, augmentation is it — sort of like a boob-job, I suppose? Well, Bush is certainly a boob, so augmentation it is.

When Rice disputed Hagel’s contention that Iraq was in the throes of civil war, Hagel shot back: “To sit there and say that, that’s just not true.”

A refreshingly honest man, is Sen. Hagel.

Hey Kevin, what do you think? You like Hagel?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #202675

Jack-

A plan comes from ideas. But what do you expect at this point? A written master plan? Wouldn’t it need constant revisions as things on the ground change? Then what’s the point until it becomes necessary? When is it necessary? Whenever they start legislating the underlying spending bills and can actually inject their ideas into a meaningful and formal written bill…thus making it, at that point, a formal plan. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #202676

Adrienne-

I have nothing against Hagel. I’ve liked him when I’ve heard him speak out against the president’s lack of direction, but isn’t he among the reps who are trying to regulate video games? I know Hilary is. That I wouldn’t like. But I could be wrong on that.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 11, 2007 7:32 PM
Comment #202679

Kevin

I would expect some ideas.

In spring of last year, I asked if Dems had any ideas. Some people said that we should wait until fall. In fall I asked about ideas. I would told after the election. After the election I asked again. Wait. America is stil waiting. There really is not much left of the Dems but hate and negativity.

When I said Dems had no new ideas, I thought I was exaggerating for emphasis. I regret that I was too right about them.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #202681

There are lots of responses to my initial post, so excuse me if I missed it, but did anybody object to my question about Dems not wanting to win in Iraq. I heard a lot about that we cannot and I heard a lot about blaming Bush for not, but will somebody please tell me that Dems WANT to win in Iraq (without obfuscation)?

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #202684

Jack we did that. Our goal was to get rid of the leadership. I don’t buy the safe haven crap. Al Qaida is Sunni. I don’t think they will have a safe haven in Iraq when 80% of the people want them dead. I think the Shia will spend the next 20 years kicking Sunni butt for the Saddam years.

Posted by: 037 at January 11, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #202694

Jack
There was a chance to win back when Bremer just got there. Rapid interim elections and a withdrwal of US troops before an anti-American coalition could have fully developed. The opportunity was blown by neo-con idealogy once again. Bremer chose to wait until government industries could be privatized. That was the last really good chance at success. It is no longer a question of wanting to win. We lost. We lost through incompetence. Now success will be the least destructive exit .It is not just Dems that have come to this sad conclusion. Some of the brighter lights of your party have also read the writing on the wall although the more patisan are actively trying to blame shift.A hard sell seeings as the Dems have only held congress for a week.

Posted by: BillS at January 11, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #202713

Jack

“There are lots of responses to my initial post, so excuse me if I missed it, but did anybody object to my question about Dems not wanting to win in Iraq. I heard a lot about that we cannot and I heard a lot about blaming Bush for not, but will somebody please tell me that Dems WANT to win in Iraq (without obfuscation)?”

Don’t be foolish Jack. Of course dems would prefer to win in Iraq. However there appears to be no clear definition of a win in the Iraq conflict. There does not appear to be a clear course in achieving the win. There has never been offered a clear course. Only a stay the course for whatever reason happens to be convenient at the moment. A win is desirable, but in the eyes of dems and at last count eight out of ten voters in this country, it is no longer reasonably achievable and the cost is not worth the effort.

Bush and his cronies have been wrong about the Iraq fiasco from the begining Jack. Last night he admitted mistakes and accepted responsibility only to say in so many words that we will continue to stay the course but on a larger scale. Admitting mistakes and accepting responsibility while making no credible changes and continuing in the same direction, rings of hollow words. This is not what the american people wished to hear. Tony Snow said a few days ago that Bush would not write policy based on public opinion. Too bad for him and the republican party. They still have not come to the realization that they represent us.

Why would the dems bend over backward to work with a leader who’s credibility has been badly tarnished over the last few years? Too be honest Jack, it is very questionable as to wether he and his admisnistration can be trusted. I am not being sarcastic in the least. It is very hard to take anything they say to heart because of the shroud of secrecy, dishonesty and lack of accountability which permeates around them as a result of questionable past actions.

I would be truly dissapointed if they simply said yes to his every whim. He clearly has not earned that sort of respect. For those that would be offended by the latter, the position demands respect. However the man has to earn it.


Posted by: Ildem at January 11, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #202717

Adrienne, Kansasdem

“Kansas Dem:
“I’m proud to be an American and a Democrat.”

Damn straight, and me too, Kansas Dem!”

Kudos to that. Without us the neo-cons would have run this country into the ground. It is a good time to be a democrat. (:

Posted by: Ildem at January 11, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #202718

Ildem

They should bend over backwards because it is their country. I always have believed that it is my job to protect my boss from his own bad decisions and I expect my colleagues to do the same for me.

I do not want them to say yes to his every whim. They have promised that they will not. But when they made that promise, I assumed they would actually use the checks & balances they have in their power and not merely vent or complain.

Dems promised they would provide a check on the president and help guide our country. If they wanted to stay in complaint mode, they did not need to be elected and gain control of both houses of congress to do that.

If my wife and I have a disagreement about how to raise the kids, I have no right to complain to anybody if I do not like the way things are going. It is my coresponsibility.

The same goes for my professional life. I never complain about my employees because their mistakes are my mistakes. I never complain about my boss because I am working with him.

Before the recent election, Dems could claim (with a little justification) to be powerless in the face of Bush. They could claim (with no real justification) to be led astray by that master of deception, GWB. Now they are in control of the Constitutional check and balance.

They have the right NOT to give Bush what he wants. They have the right to cooperate with him. What they do not have the right to do is carp and complain and pretend it is not their fault.

Gingrich reined in Clinton on the budget and the country benefited from it. Can the Dems do the same or will they just get in the way?

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #202720

“Russ Feingold can call for what he wants. Now the Dems have a chance to do something. Let’s see if they do.”

Jack,

That’s a tough call. What can we do beyond pulling the purse strings? Impeachment is a lengthy process. I personally believe Bush is deranged, nutty than a fruit cake, one flew over the cickoo’s nest…………but what are the legal repricussions? What can we actually do?

I believe that there must be some way of removing the COC if he shows mental incompetence or severe infirmaty of some kind. Yet I can find no precident for such a move. I’d like some feedback from sic eagle.

While I know you disagree, I think Bush should be removed from office by any legal means possible. Cheney scares me much less than Bush. Unlike most Dems I believe that Bush and Cheney are miles apart on many issues. Cheney simply knows his place and always plays the “good soldier”.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 11, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #202725

Jack-
I believe it was Pelosi who put it aptly: Bush’s offering of the plan was a notification, not a consultation. He’s never felt it necessary to ask any other Americans than the ones who blindly support him what should be done. They he likes because they don’t get in the way of him making all the decisions he wants to make.

The tragedy of Dubya is that he actually thinks he can lead the free world by himself, that governing with everybody’s involvement is a negative.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 11, 2007 11:29 PM
Comment #202727

Kansas

You are right that I disagree with your opinion of Bush, but I do agree that IF people feel that way, they should take steps to correct it.

If they believe Bush is that bad, they have the duty to stop him. That is my point in this article. If Dems think he is so bad, act. If they think he is okay, act in a different way. Just stop making useless trouble.

Posted by: Jacl at January 11, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #202729

Jack and friends,

Do you guys know how to win the war, or are you just going to bitch about how the Democrats don’t have a plan to win the war? I’m sure Madame Speaker would love to read your ideas. Here is her address:

Nancy Pelosi
2371 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Or if your prefer to work with your own party, I’m sure you can find George Bush’s address.

What? You don’t have a plan to present to win the war? I guess you don’t WANT to win! That is your logic, anyway.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 11, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #202749
Non-binding = no balls.

I guess all american “balls” are already (over-)deployed in Iraq, as ordered by Bush since years. Sadly, it seems having “balls” is not enough.

Since when “huge balls” matter more to americans voters than “have a brain” in politics?

Maybe it take today more balls *and* brain to say “we lost in iraq” than saying “let’s do more of the same” (more force and money).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 12, 2007 4:47 AM
Comment #202757

Jack,

“They should bend over backwards because it is their country. I always have believed that it is my job to protect my boss from his own bad decisions and I expect my colleagues to do the same for me.”

If your job is to protect your boss from his bad decisions, and he continues to make those same bad decisions, he shouldn’t be the boss, and all you’re doing is enabling his ineptness.
The President of the United States is looked upon as the leader of the free world. His decisions affect billions of people.
Mistakes happen, that is acceptable, it is part of being human. Making the same mistakes over and over is insanity, and somebody has to say something.
You seem to suggest that the Dems have been in power since the election, baloney.
Change isn’t going to happen over night, or even in a week.
A fully loaded freight train traveling at full speed sometimes takes miles to stop.
Sooner or later the grousing will abate.
Whether it takes weeks or months, depends more on the President, than Congress.
If Mr. Bush is only paying lip service to the American people about working with Congress, we will know soon enough.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #202758

To add a thought to my last post;

The American people chose who Mr. Bush gets to work with.
The ball is now in his court.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #202763

Interesting analogy of Joe Biden, NOT!!! Jack, what’s your strategy for “victory” in Iraq? I’m sure it is positively bone chilling—but not to worry—you are not elected to a damn thing (Praise God!).

There is NO SUCH THING AS VICTORY IN IRAQ. There was no such thing BEFORE even one American soldier stepped foot in that country to look for and destroy these “famous” weapons of mass destruction. Other than Isreal, name one “stable” democracy in the region? Name one “empire” in history since the 7th century capable of stabilizing this region with it’s many cultural and religious factions.

Bush, AND BUSH ALONE, is responsible for the mess that he had made of this region and, indeed, the strife and burden he has placed on the international community—not to mention the potential “terrorist” threats to American security, which is a consequence of his decision to invade Iraq that DID NOT exist before he implemented this ill-fated “mission”. BUSH is responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 American lives. You can dance around all you want the history and the facts of the disaster that BUSH created; you can use the same kind of “polarizing” rhetoric used by the BUSH administration to avoid facing the truth of this needless senseless abuse of the American armed forces. Not all the American people are as tunnel-visioned as you, Jack. We can discern the false bravado and rhetoric from the truth of the Iraq situation. Unfortunately, for American troops and their greiving families, we did all we could do by NOT VOTING FOR GEORGE W. BUSH for president in the first place back in 2000!!!!

Jack, I know you will focus any comments you make regarding this post on personal attacks, you will ask me if I “feel better now.” You will no doubt ask if “I could do a better job than GWB?” (I damn sure couldn’t do any worse). You are as incapable as the “president” (more so perhaps given that your blind support of this moran is unwavering) in bringing intellect into this political debate—a political debate, mind you, that should have happened before troops were sent to Iraq—oh that’s right, troops were sent to invade Iraq under false pretences and lies concerning WMDs. Well, too bad for the 3000 dead American soldiers, they volunteered for the job.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 12, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #202790

Jack

“Before the recent election, Dems could claim (with a little justification) to be powerless in the face of Bush. They could claim (with no real justification) to be led astray by that master of deception, GWB. Now they are in control of the Constitutional check and balance.

They have the right NOT to give Bush what he wants. They have the right to cooperate with him. What they do not have the right to do is carp and complain and pretend it is not their fault. “

Jack, the entire world was led astray by GWB and his administration. For all intent and purposes it most likely can be assumed that they are still leading us astray. Their past and recent actions give us no reason to believe otherwise.

You are wrong in that they have the right to not give Bush what he wants. At least where Iraq is concerned. As we all know what happens in Iraq is the commander in chiefs call. Yes the dems can curb funding. But to be honest Jack I can not believe anyone wants to take that road unless absolutely necesary. Could it be they are maybe giving him a chance to do the right thing. Or perhaps you would like them to take responsibility for his collosal mess. I am not sure where you are headed with this whining about the dems whining. I believe the whole world realizes that this fiasco has eroded so badly that there is no quick and easy fix. Perhaps no fix at all. If all that is bothering you is a little whining then you need some real problems to deal with.

Bush has just dealt his last hand. If it is not a winner then dems and republicans will have to take steps to deal with it. I personally do not advocate impeachment, but it may be necesary before all is said and done. Right now the ball is in
Georges court and all the dems can do is watch and complain while conditions in Iraq continue to erode. That is until he shows signs of wanting to work with them where this matter is concerned.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #202798

Ildem

What was the point of electing the Dems if all they can do is watch and complain?

It is interesting to hear all the Dems arguing that they have no power, that they were tricked by Bush (if Bush is so dumb, and he tricked the Dems, what does that make them?)


Kim Sue

Where do I start? I do not think you really need me for your dialogue. Suffice to say, I do not agree that my, “blind support of this ‘moran’ is unwavering”, but some people’s hatred is, even to the extend to sacrificing their principles to get at him.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2007 12:38 PM
Comment #202814

Jack,

“Use your mentality, wake up, step up to reality.”

The line about Democrats just hating Bush is getting beyond old. Prominent Republicans like Chuck Hagel have been no less critical than the Democrats. Is he a hater too?

And the Democrats aren’t whining that they have no power. Nobody said that. If you haven’t noticed, the Democrats are actually passing legislation. The haven’t done much about Iraq yet, but, sheesh, they’ve had like a week! Jumping the gun is what got us into this mess.

Your rhetoric is stick in the pre-2006-election era. Time to hit reboot.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 12, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #202833

Jack-

“What was the point of electing the Dems if all they can do is watch and complain?”

You know what? Even if your assumptions and predictions are 100% accurate, the nation is better off now that there is someone actually watching and complaining in a substantive and meaningful way. It’s a million times better than what we had with the 109th. If you can’t at least acknoledge that the public debate has taken on new life since November, and that that, in and of itself, is already a huge step forward.

This president is frantically backpeddling, so even he recognizes what I’m saying to be true.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #202838

Jack

Instead of using the verb “win”, it would be helpful if you guys who profess concern about staying in Iraq with military force would instead say exactly what it is you want to accomplish. I’m afraid your use of the word “win” makes it seem like the US is fighting an enemy and can defeat them, but just hasn’t yet.

But if I understand your position, which if I’m right remarkably echoes exactly that of our president, it is that we are “fighting” to make Iraq stable. Is that what you mean by “win?” Because what’s standing in the way is predominantly the internecine (civil, if you will) war between Iraqis and, er, Iraqis. The Kurds hate the Sunnis, the Sunnis hate the Shia (and I don’t like anybody very much). Now the Shia, at least those aligned with Iran, presently control the government, generally, although al Sadr’s Mahdi army sort of makes up much of the government’s army as well. They also staff the Shiite death squads who seek to kill Sunnis they feel threaten their hold on power. The Kurds have their own death squads to attach Sunnis, mostly in reprisal for Saddam’s persecution of them during his reign. By the way, John Negroponte was responsible for encouraging the creation of these death squads during his term in Iraq. Great idea, that.

In addition you have the US, Iran, and Syria involved, the US with direct troops, the others with proxies they fund. The proxies are foreign “terrorists” who have come to Iraq to oppose the US interests. The US troops of course don’t really know who they are fighting much of the time, since they are ostensibly supposed to support the elected government, but since much of the violence is perpetrated by splinters of Iraqi government forces, they sometimes are fighting the very troops they theoretically support. It must be maddening for them. Stability could be attained by wiping out all the nettlsome Sunnis and achieving an uneasy rapprochement between the Kurds and Shia. Of course, this would really anger all our other Sunni friends in places like Saudi Arabia, for instance. So this is not a practical solution. It is unlikely that in the presence of an occupying force that the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shia militias will lay down their arms. They might if the US leaving were part of the negotiations, but the US has signaled it has no intention of withdrawing.

So, Jack, tell me how we’re supposed to “win”. I’m all ears. And don’t give me this garbage that we can send another 21,500 troops and that’ll solve it.

Posted by: mental wimp at January 12, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment #202844

Jack:
“What was the point of electing the Dems if all they can do is watch and complain?”

To protect and help restore our Constitutional rights. To get to the truth after all of the lies. To stop Bushco from having a blank check for everything. To end their secrecy and ass-covering measures. To investigate their abuses of power and all the corruption. To shame and embarrass GOP Congressmembers into remembering to act like public servants, rather than Bushco’s goon squad or rubberstamping yes men.

Don’t you worry your head Jack, in the coming months, we’ll be doing a lot more than merely watch and complain. Of course, by then you’ll have another set of complaints as YOU watch it all unfold. That’s just how it is when ones party is in the minority.

“Have fun with that.”

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #202845

Nicely done, Mental Wimp.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #202846

Adrienne

I try, I try, so thanks. I fantasize that we can change minds by presenting the facts and the options they permit. Maybe it’s just a dream.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #202847

“This president is frantically backpeddling, so even he recognizes what I’m saying to be true.”

I agree. Bushco had it much too easy with the incurious, kid-glove style treatment they were receiving by the 109th. All that changes now.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #202852

Mental Wimp:
“I fantasize that we can change minds by presenting the facts and the options they permit. Maybe it’s just a dream.”

No, it’s not just a dream, it can sometimes happen. Keep in mind also, for every one person like Jack who debates you, there are probably three or four lurkers who only read and never respond here. And truthfully, I don’t think it matters whether we totally change someones mind with our arguments. What seems more important is the fact that we’re making people think and respond to ideas they might never even hear otherwise.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #202859

Mental Wimp:

I just love that song!!

Posted by: womanmarine at January 12, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #202861

Kevin

“This president is frantically backpeddling, so even he recognizes what I’m saying to be true.”

You have these sorts of discussions with President, do you? I am glad he is finally recognizing what you are saying is right.

Posted by: Jack at January 12, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #202864

John Kerry is a “dim bulb” and “homer simpson kerry”????
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Kerry who suggested in the ‘04 debates that the military needed to be expanded by 40,000 troops and that a draft needs to be left on the table?
Your reference to dimness and offering as proof grades at Yale grades that suggest he is stupider than bush is faint praise, indeed, of the man who has been leading us in the last six years.
When bush was in the “country club” unit of the texas National Guard he filled out a questionairre that asked, among other things, if he was willing to go to Vietnam. He checked “NO”.
Perhaps this is the area where you give bush some smarts, the area of the brain that promotes self-preservation.

Posted by: Charles Ross at January 12, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #202867

womanmarine:
“I just love that song!!”

Darn. Did I just miss a lyrical reference? Care to clue me in?

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #202868

womanmarine

Ah, you noticed. Randy Newman is one of my favorite song writers and composers. He not only nails the zeitgeist in his pop songs, but does it with rich musical depth, evoking the history of American music. His lyrics are sly and complex (e.g., “God’s Song”). His more formal work for movie scores is equally rewarding.

And “Political Science” seems to be eternally relevant in this country.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #202869

“A fully loaded freight train traveling at full speed sometimes takes miles to stop.”

Man, after a big Thanksgiving meal with all the trimmings, that’s certainly true for me.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 12, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #202871

Adrienne:

“What was the point of electing the Dems if all they can do is watch and complain?”

“To protect and help restore our Constitutional rights. To get to the truth after all of the lies. To stop Bushco from having a blank check for everything. To end their secrecy and ass-covering measures. To investigate their abuses of power and all the corruption. To shame and embarrass GOP Congressmembers into remembering to act like public servants, rather than Bushco’s goon squad or rubberstamping yes men.”

You forgot one: to kick Cheney out of his cush corner office on Capitol Hill and give it to Charlie Rangel.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 12, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #202873

Jack-

“You have these sorts of discussions with President, do you? I am glad he is finally recognizing what you are saying is right.”

I don’t need to, and you should know that. He’s on TV every day telling us and that is all that matters. Now I must have an interpersonal relationship with a public figure to be able to repeat their own words? You’ve gone off the deep end. And all the smug and snippy comments in the world don’t change the fact that you avoid substantive debates on this topic at all costs. I’m still waiting. Or would you rather play the soundbite game?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Comment #202874

wm

Or…

Were you referring to this song? I forgot I had more than one reference.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #202875

Mental Wimp:

I don’t know who wrote it, but I have the Kingston Trio version.

Adrienne:

The Kurds hate the Sunnis, the Sunnis hate the Shia (and I don’t like anybody very much).

They’re rioting in Africa
They’re starving in Spain
There’s hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain.

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles,
Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch,
And I don’t like anybody very much.

But we and be thankful and tranquil and proud
For man’s been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud,
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off
And we will all be blown away.

They’re rioting in Africa
There’s strife in Iran
What nature doesn’t do to us
Will be done by our fellow man.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 12, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #202876

Mental Wimp:

I got all but one word right, that’s how much I love that song!!

Posted by: womanmarine at January 12, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #202878

mw

Bravo!

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #202879

mw

er, Brava!

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #202881

Thanks womanmarine and Mental Wimp — I like all kinds of music, but I’ve never heard that song before. I’ll have to do a net search and try to find that Kingston Trio version so I can hear it.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 4:36 PM
Comment #202884

Adrienne:

Right click and save as

Posted by: womanmarine at January 12, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #202887

Thanks woman! I loved it. The Kingston Trio’s harmonizing is always a delight.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 12, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #202899

Jack,

“Now success will be the least destructive exit.” BillS

Well, Jack, there is your answer. Defeat is success!

End of discussion!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #202900

It was written by Sheldon Harnick, the same guy who wrote Fiddler on the Roof. When I was 11 my older brother gave me a Kingston Trio record he was tired of and I played it until the grooves were smooth. It had that song on it and I loved it, too.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #202903

Mental Wmp,
You really should refer to yourself as “Mental Strongman”. You made your points in a very succinct, clear and readable manner.

I totally agree with both you and Adrienne, as well as WomanMarine. I like the words of the the song as well - Now all I have to do is find the tune!!!

I do have to wonder what does ‘winning’ in Iraq ?

Anyone?

Posted by: Linda H. at January 12, 2007 5:57 PM
Comment #202906

Linda H-

The official answer is that victory will be achieved when the nation is “stable” and when we have “defeated the powers of evil”. In other words, victory is a state of mind.

The honest answer would be that we should stay only as long as we were wanted there.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #202911

Jack

“It is interesting to hear all the Dems arguing that they have no power, that they were tricked by Bush (if Bush is so dumb, and he tricked the Dems, what does that make them?)

Trickery Jack? You make it sound like a school yard game or two children in an endless battle of “you did” “no you did” He and Cheney did not trick anyone. They deceived all, even those in their own party who were not in the loop. Deception is a much stronger word and definately more appropriate to the matter at hand.

It is because of that percieved deception that the american people decided they have had enough. They are seeking an honest government working on their behalf with their best interests at hand. That is why they put the dems in a position of power. They no longer believed those goals were attainable under republican control. Nothing more or less than that Jack.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 6:38 PM
Comment #202914

Way to go Jack!

You are so awesome! JUST JOKING! I would say that your “hatred” response was original, but you know that it isn’t. I neglected to include that excuse in my list of “avoidance” responses that you would give. If I had lost relatives or even friends in this Iraq disaster, I might hate G.W Bush. Say and “think” what you want about me or anyone else that refuses to mince words about the utter ignorant, careless, reckless character of GWB, as a person and a “polititian.”

That is your only choice, avoidance, since you clearly lack the knowledge and intelligence to address and discuss even one question of historical or political significance concerning the Iraq war—not at all surprising from a GWB devotee. Why don’t you go volunteer to serve in Iraq under the “president’s” new strategy? I suppose “age” may be you excuse, but they raised the minimum age for enlisting!

This “Jack” individual epitomizes the 2004 BUSH ELECTORATE. (GWB was appointed by the supreme court in 2000). This electorate, hardly constitutes the majority view, so please please please, get out and VOTE!!! You can see how important it is. Don’t leave the future of our nation to those individuals that would support someone as reckless, as greedy and as intellectually barren a person like GW Bush as leader of what used to be the “free world”.

Just so you know “Jack.” I find it reprehensible and alarming that some of the democrats, which I support, would disregard their good sense, their integrity, and their intellect to avoid potential political backlash when they “voted” for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. A political maneuver that is positively chilling and spineless—especially when the reality of what we now call the Iraq War was so predictable—that is to say when false bravado, avarice, and stupidity are NOT the cornerstones or foundation of ones character and leadership potential. Nonetheless, many of them have accepted responsibility for that WRONG decision to support GWB—admissions which require true character—GWB take note! It won’t bring back the 3000 dead American soldiers, but at least no more blood will be on their hands and conscience, only on the hands of GWB and his minions (or is it Dick Chicanery and his minions?)

AL QUIEDA in America—The GW Bush administration, past and present!!!!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 12, 2007 6:53 PM
Comment #202919

Kim-

I have the nagging feeling that a speech that sounded like your last post would clear the room at any Democratic function. Especially the last line.

There is just nothing that can come from throwing flames other than to ignite more flames…nothing good. What is making you feel so passionately extreme?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #202931

Kevin23,

My name is Kim-Sue first of all. I’m passionate because I care about human life. Call it extreme if you wish, you don’t have any more explanation for this recklessness in Iraq than anyone else does. My convictions come from caring about the senseless avoidable loss of American lives—NOT about politics, the fantasy of a “free and democratic” Iraq, the execution of a murderous sociopathic dictator, and the like. Rather than try to attack me personally for having strong convictions and the intellect to back them up, why don’t you think the 3000 plus dead American soldiers and how you have benefited from their loss and the tragedy their survivors now endure.

You can make post after post after post, and I bet you and those of your mind set will never be able to intelligently, let alone, adequately address even a single issue that I continually raise. You must also be a Bush devotee, I surmise, from your avoidance of the real issue. BUSH, the younger, the idiot screwed up big time! His avarice and ignorance and those of his minions are responsible for more deaths of Americans then the combined 9-11 attacks and it will continue until this administration is finally put on the trash heap of American history where it belongs. Deal with that rather than trying to paint me out to be something that I am not. If I am an extremeist, what the hell do you think George W. Bush is? Your response to that last questions should be humerous if nothing else!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 12, 2007 8:31 PM
Comment #202932

Kevin23,

I have the nagging feeling that a speech that sounded like Kim-Sue’s last post would be met with a standing ovation at any Democratic function! That is the typical Democrat of today’s Democratic Party!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #202933

JD,

Thank you for the complement, especially if it sets me apart from the intellecually barren GW Bush and his like-minded devotees!

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 12, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #202935

Kim-SUE-

Have you read ONE of my posts prior to the one to you?

And you accuse ME of going on the offensive?? I merely asked why you sounded so passionate and why you felt it necessary to sound so extreme in your tone. That’s NOT an attack, Kim-sue…it’s an honest observation, and an honest question. But your response tells me a lot about what you really hope to achieve here.

WOW!

JD-

If you think Kim-sue is representative of the democratic party, then I have no trouble understanding why you believe your extreme views to be representative of the conservative movement.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #202938

Kevin23,

Just what views of mine do you find extreme? Perhaps I could clarify!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #202940

JD-

You should be well aware by now as I post to you a lot. But there will undoubtedly be another more appropriate time and place for each disagreement to unfold rather than have me painstakingly put together a laundry list. It mostly revolves around our view of foreign policy (real politik v. minding our own business until directly attacked, etc.) and our view of the power of the executive (I believe that it takes two branches of government to see any policy through…you believe in the 51% mandate, etc.). And I’m sure we disagree plenty on the role of government in shaping behavior…I say keep the hell out of it. But its all for another time and place.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #202944

JD

“I have the nagging feeling that a speech that sounded like Kim-Sue’s last post would be met with a standing ovation at any Democratic function! That is the typical Democrat of today’s Democratic Party!”

In reality most of Kim-Sue’s observations are probably right on. Some of the descriptives may be a bit over the top, but you do have to admire such conviction.

I do agree with Kevin23 that the last line is way off base. It reminds me of why I have such a hard time fathoming the barking of sensationalistic neo-cons. But never the less I am able to look beyond the last to find the good in the rest.

The republican party before the most recent election thrived on such hateful tactics with regard to their descriptives of dems. The american people were able finally to see thru the hollow guise of their speech induced tactics. And it backfired big time. No, Kim-Sues speech would not raise a standing ovation in all but the most extreme dem funtions because the dems are smart enough to know that such hate tactics are non-productive and futile. Plus the voters are in need of and seek intelligent level headed and honest direction in government.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #202948

Is it just me, or are JD and Kim-sue perfect for one another? Same exact tone, tactics, logic, emotion, etc.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #202959

Ildem,

“but you do have to admire such convictions”.

As well, I’m sure you and Kevin23 also admire mine!!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 12, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #202960

Kevin23

At the first reading of Kim-Sue’s posts I had the same thoughts as you. But after looking again I get the impression that this is a very angry person who simply writes in that manner.

JD is merely a sensationalistic antagonist still crying in his beer over the past elections.

Posted by: ILdem at January 12, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #202964

Ildem-

I had the impression of anger right off the bat. If you read my immediate response to her, I specifically inquired as to where the anger was coming from. She took it as a personal attack. Then it spiraled downwards from there with the help of a certain neo-conservative antagonist.

I STILL want to know what provokes such emotion. In JD’s case, I’ve got a pretty decent idea. His refusal to have a debate with a anything but a democratic caricature is quite revealing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #202969

Kevin23,

I don’t know if I have read your posts prior to your inquisition regarding from where my passion comes. I gave an answer to this enquiry. If I lumped you in with the Bush devotees incorrectly, I will apologize because I would be insulted if someone mistakenly put me in that group!

With regard to the issues surrounding this Iraq diaster, let me state it plain and clear without the firey rhetoric and negative Bush characterizations (which I whole-heartedly believe nonetheless). 3000 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL THE POLITICAL ISSUES AND DEBATE SURROUNDING THIS NEEDLESS BUSH MISSION IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

The posting of your assumptions regarding my character will not deter me one bit from holding the “president” accountable for his incompetance in instigating this reckless and senseless mission. (oops! went back on my promise) He is responsible for more American deaths than those people behind the 9-11 attacks—a mission he abandoned, by the way, to further his ill-fated Iraq “policy.”

As for your attempt at match-making me with JD. I don’t do the on-line dating thing anymore, but thanks just the same for trying to help.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 12, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #202977

Kim-sue-

I would never argue that you have no grounding for your emotion, but I must warn you that in forums such as these, you want to avoid giving the extremists on the other side of the isle more ammunition against your cause. It might feel good in the short-term, but it emboldens extremism rather than encouraging them to use their brains.

Look, I really do not like Bush. In fact, I can’t think of too many people I’d like to kick in the balls more than him. But I cannot feel good about calling him a terrorist. He may very well be indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, but to suggest he did so with innocent deaths as a goal is taking it a step too far. It assumes the absolute worst, and without proof, that’s just not right.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 12, 2007 11:40 PM
Comment #202982

Damn, this blog is sparking some heated exchanges tonight!

Kevin re: Bush
“He may very well be indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, but to suggest he did so with innocent deaths as a goal is taking it a step too far. It assumes the absolute worst, and without proof, that’s just not right.”

I agree, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that their deaths were the goal. Yet, Bush had to know he was sending soldiers to their deaths (and disfigurements) needlessly because he wasn’t being honest with the facts or the reasons for the war from the beginning. Also, his incompetence and mismanagement in waging the war, and the fact that he never wanted to listen to his generals, did lead to more deaths for our troops as well as for a great many Iraqi civilians. And, when it became a civil war, he should have immediately pulled our troops out — because the inescapable fact is, that isn’t the job of our military. Now, he’s sending 20,000 more into that civil war, and without proper armor. This, I feel, makes him DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of our troops that have occurred, and that will occur, since the civil war began in earnest.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #202984

Adrienne-

I understand that view completely. I personally believe that this president was convinced that he was doing the right thing. I think he hid information to sell the war to the American people, but I’m not convinced he did so for any other reason. He is sending more troops, but I think he is convinced that it could work. Its amazing what the human mind can do. I’m convinced that he is both more intelligent than most liberals think, and at the same time more eccentric. His continuous use of extreme rhetoric and unnecessarily unprecedented tactics has really put the left on the defense…all without having to prove his own actions were anything more than the least bit substantiated. This thread provides a great case study of the same thing.

But in the end, he has lost his credibility, his ability to continue his spending aims unchecked, and now he’s losing his base. He lost me in 2003, when he effectively gave a free pass to the true culprit of 9/11. Trust me, a smart republican isn’t going to sit back and let all the anti-Iraq war sentiment be monopolized by the democrats. They will abandon Bush whenever they find it convenient. His support is shaky at best. Rightfully so.

A terrorist, murderer, or sadist? No. Narcissistic, belligerent and incompetent? Yes.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 13, 2007 12:50 AM
Comment #202987

Kevin23

I appreciate the comments of your last post. I certainly can understand you point of view. I disagree with your assessment of my rhetoric and the potential consequences, but you, as I, are entitled to your opinion. I think misinterpreted some of things I said, perhaps because, as you said, a message can easily get lost within firey rhetoric. However, I cannnot control, nor would I even attempt to try to control the inferences made by any audience, this one in particular.

It is not my goal to get the opposition to use their “brains,” especially when I doubt the fact that they possess “brains” worth using. Also, whether or not you or I or anyone else “like” GWB or not—not my concern. GWB needs to be held accountable for the mess that he created and the lives he is responsible for ending. Examine his proproganda over the past 4 year concerning Iraq, examine his conduct, his failed policies, his totally misguided ideology. Compare all that to the actions of people you would consider “terroists”, I think you will see some very chilling similarities—if you can bare to do the research.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 13, 2007 1:11 AM
Comment #202995

Kim-sue-

That sounded much more reasonable.

And I have done the research. I’ve read the Patriot Act. And if you read some of my posts, you’ll notice a vocal distaste for the same qualities you loathe in Bush. And I too even notice “chilling similarities” in the same way you mentioned. But I don’t believe in good men and bad men. I believe in humanity and circumstance. And demonization is a selfish tactic that should be reserved for those with no other option..that way their easier to blow off as crazies.

Really, I respect the emotion because it’s real. Same goes for Kctim, JD, Tomh, etc. But without a pre-existing emotional attachment to you, it really is not very valuable to others. Mix that emotion with a solid base of credible information, and you’ve got yourself a great point. And did you notice when I pushed you to defend yourself, you answered much more coherently? I appreciate that ability. Most emotional posters here don’t have it, I’ve found.

The next few weeks of hearings ought to be interesting, eh?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 13, 2007 1:50 AM
Comment #203004

Adrienne

I believe that Bush and his administration knew exactly what they were doing when they manipulated the facts. How could anyone enter into such a serious affair knowing that they were doing it under false pretense even if they thought they were doing the right thing. What they did is immoral and as far as I am concerned criminal. Perhaps he believed that it would be quickly over, all would end up rosey, and the world would applaud him. If so it had to be a very large and foolish gamble on his administrations part. I am not a big fan of gambling with human life.

I am not holding anyone accountable until the facts are in. But if it looks like crap and smells like crap it probably is.

Posted by: ILdem at January 13, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #203014

ILDem,

Agree 100%.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Comment #203058

ILdem-

I agree with that opinion. But I also agree that it is not fact. And you still ignore the very real human tendency to rationalize even the most extreme acts. Remember Himmler?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 13, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #203064

I’m curious—where are the Right-wing hymns to John McCain and his ‘maverick’ myth? That he has so competely attached his political wagon to a falling star—(what is being called ‘surge’), it makes me wonder what he could be thinking. It wasn’t enough that he went hat-in-hand to Liberty U. to suck up to the evangelicals; he now has put his presidential aspirations firmly into Bushco’s hands. And we know their track record, don’t we?

Maybe, like Hillary, he’s counting on the non-existent political memory of the American voters. Others in the GOP are starting to bail on Bush—why he hasn’t is beyond me. I think it will cost him dearly.

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 13, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #203069

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8490962512827460940

Here is the song “Merry Minuet”
Or “They’re rioting in Africa”
as song by the Kingston Trio.

Posted by: Linda H. at January 13, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #203086

Linda:

I posted it above a long time ago: #202884

You must have missed it.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 13, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #203108

If Bush and his administration are immoral”, “criminal”,” “beligerant”,incompatent”,”directly resposible for the deaths of our troops”,”ignorant”, “careless” reckless”,dang you guys are way smarter than me to come up with all that verbage!Then again I quit school went in the army and ya know what Kerry says….And if 60% of the public disagrees with Bush and the american public has finally came to its senses and now wants democrats in office, seems to me a slam dunker that the dems could impeach Bush and the administration! Nawww I know Ill get crucified here I do agree with what you have to say Jack you make alot of sense. But what scares me the most is the overeducated,self rightious,pacifist,better than anyone people will give this country away before they fight to protect it. Then they will blame others for not protecting them. And before you can say it Kim-Sue if they raise the age to 52 and take 1 legged vets like me Id go back in.

Posted by: old paratrooper at January 13, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #203133

old paratrooper,

God Bless You! And thank you for your service. You remind me of my Grandfather who served and had several brothers in the military as well. He served in WWII with his brothers and one of them lost a leg just below the knee. They were all close, but when we got together they rarely ever talked about the war. But, they were the toughest men I ever knew, and they loved their country. I will never forget them. I do not know in which war you served, but your passion for America brings back fond memories. Hopefully, like my Grandfather, I will be able to pass along a love for America as well to my kids, rather than the cynicism and disdain that I hear so often from the left.

JD

Posted by: JD at January 14, 2007 12:53 AM
Comment #203165

JD,

I have often wondered how distaste for a poorly planned, poorly funded, over-reaching attempt at creating Democracy out of thin air in the Middle East, equates with “hating” America.

I have been here at watchblog for a few years, and have never read a post where someone wrote they “hated” America, yet, I have read that accusation here all the time.

Does one need a secret decoder ring to understand this hate?
Or, do I need a special interpreter such I might need to read the Koran a certain way and see the “world domination” passages?

Truly, I don’t get it when people use the words treasonous, or traitorous, or America haters, when describing those that disdain an ill-conceived, preemptive war.

America has troops sharing equipment while training here at home, we have heard how troops in Iraq are scavenging to make do with equipment shortages, yet there is a depot, here in America with hundreds of thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, and other assorted useful equipment rotting for lack of repair.

Who hates the American military more, those that don’t want soldiers to die needlessly, or those that would send them into a war ill-equipped to fight it?

Posted by: Rocky at January 14, 2007 8:50 AM
Comment #203171

Kevin23

Point taken. I did do a search on Himmler and found it to be fascinating reading and good insight into the maligned psyche of such individuals.

Not being educated in history or having much serious interest during most of my life, I now find history and its comparisons to modern day events fascinating. Please forgive me if I sometimes seem a bit slow in my responses. It is that lack of historical education which is not nearly as advanced as most here which tends to advocate that I sometimes respond in more generalized views mostly of opinion. I am not willing to put myself on the bubble where I am not confident in presenting facts.

Getting back to the discussion I did find this information which I believe does suit the discussion at hand.

“Himmler appears to have had a completely distorted view of how he was perceived by the Allies; he intended to meet with US and British leaders and have discussions “as gentlemen”. He tried to buy off their vengeance by last-minute reprieves for Jews and important prisoners. According to British soldiers who arrested Himmler, he was genuinely shocked when treated as a prisoner.”

The last sentence validates your point nicely. And yes I am aware of such tendencies in people. As to whether or not these tendencies apply to Bush is still to be determined and a matter of opinion. I do hope that determination is made sometime in the near future. It is a necesary step towards detering such criminal activity, if there was indeed any, in the future.

Posted by: ILdem at January 14, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #203173

Rocky

“I have often wondered how distaste for a poorly planned, poorly funded, over-reaching attempt at creating Democracy out of thin air in the Middle East, equates with “hating” America.”

I have not been around nearly as long as yourself. But I too have noticed that this so called treasonous hatred of America accusation is a very common proclamation made, I think mostly, by neo-cons and people of shallow views.

To be honest I find it a bit disturbing that these types of people would so blindly and thoughtlessly follow a leader into an unknown abiss. I believe some of them are genuine. Meaning that this is simply that they are a product of their immeadiate environment and this is what they have always been taught to believe. Do not question your leaders motivations. Unending and unquestionable loyalty is the proper direction and anything else is un-american.

And then there are those who simply know no better or have no better line of defense. They are jumping on the hatred bandwagon because it is convenient and easy. It is also an easy attempt at belittleing anyone who opposes their one directional views.

Unfortunately for us all such banter is non-productive and tends to create more discussion out of anger and hatred than open ended intelligent discussion. You may as well be beating your head against a wall as trying to hold logical discussion with them. It would probably more productive and much less frustrating.

Posted by: ILdem at January 14, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #203179

ILdem,

I have no doubt those that believe this way do so out of a sense of hyper-patriotism, however misplaced that sense is.

I have been on this earth for 54 years, gone through the protest years of the Vietnam war, have travelled to many foreign countries, and as of yet, never met anyone, at home or abroad, that “hated” America.
Is it serendipity, or just dumb luck?
I don’t think so.

America was born from dissent, it is part of it’s heritage, and those that equate dissent with hate are just plain wrong.

Posted by: Rocky at January 14, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #203184

Rocky,

I have been here 54 years mysef, fifty five in a few days. I have only been out of country for one year of my life. I have lived in the mid-west south and west. To be honest I also can not admit to personally ever knowing anyone who actually hates America.

I find the realization that a combined 108 years of existance can not come up with one memeory of true hatred for American a bit remarkable. I wonder if we are the norm or as you say is it the result of serendipity or dumb luck.

Perhaps this realization may be one of the strongest bonds all americans share regardless of our views and opinions.

Posted by: ILdem at January 14, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #203213

ILdem-

Himmler is indeed a fascinating historical figure. I think it wasn’t until the Nuremberg Trials that the general public really began to question how such a seemingly normal, mild-mannered, and relatively non-threatening person could have been responsible for a mass extermination project. Some answers were found in later sociological studies.

If you are interested, look up the Milgram experiments which were directly influenced by the Himmler puzzle. At Yale in the 1950’s, a few scientists were able to convince 2 out of 3 people to administer what they believed to be an incredibly painful electric shock to another volunteer simply because someone in a white lab-coat told them to do it. The experiment was set up as a study in whether people can learn faster when punished for wrong responses to questions. But in reality it was a study to see how far people would go in an official setting when all reasonably visible signs pointed to it being a “bad act”. These people even kept pressing the shock button when the respondent pretended to pass out from the pain. It was truly a shocking study. When people are made to feel something is “official”, they cease to use common sense.

Explains how many people who listen to talk radio every day have such a warped view of reality doesn’t it?

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 14, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #203286

Geez! Some people got up on the wrong side of their rock this morning!

I thank a veteran for his service to, and his love for his country and you guys take it as a personal insult.

Kind of thin-skinned, are you not?

JD

Posted by: JD at January 14, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #203312

Kevin23

“Explains how many people who listen to talk radio every day have such a warped view of reality doesn’t it?”

Thanks for the Milgram insight. The study was pretty amazing. The one question that immeadiately comes to mind is why no participant steadfastly refused to push the button before the 300 volt level.

I have at certain times in my past wondered why we so readily accept at face value the orders of an authority figure. I have to believe it is the result of being raised in a regimented lifestyle from day one. We are taught to obey and not question authority figures as soon as we are able to understand the concept. We put all our faith into the idea that a person must know what he or she are doing, and that validates the reason for blindly following. I believe it is the rare person that actually questions and stands up to such authority. In the military disobeying an order can be considered treasonous and in civilian life those who buck the system are generally considered rebels and trouble makers by those who unquestionably follow.

I once had a boss who told me at my annual evaluation that I was a fantastic employee. My biggest problem was that I question his motives too often. He would have preferred that we all just blindly follow. The problem I have with that analogy is that it tends to make people fill that their input is worth nothing. As a result they end up thinking what the hell, no one cares what I think so I will always do as told, be it right or wrong. In the end the employer ends up suffering thru a lack of morale and careless work becuase of an indiffernce to quality of work. All this simply because the employee is made to feel that they are not a valuable asset and nobody really cares what they think. The latter was a bit of base but I think it does help explain in part why some people so willingly always do as told.

I personally do not listen to talk radio with the exception of NPR. I find the right and left wing talk radio programs to be tabloid propaganda at best catering to the easily managed mindsets of the teacher types in the milgram experiments.

Thanks for the thought provoking information Kevin.

Posted by: ILdem at January 15, 2007 10:20 AM
Comment #203345

ILdem-

No problem. Thanks for your feedback. I agree about talk radio, generally.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 15, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment #203365

Kevin23 and ILdem,

Thanks for those last posts!

Now I understand the thinking of those who get too much of CNN!

JD

Posted by: JD at January 15, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #203509

JD

Too be honest the latter posts were not written with you in mind. However I guess if they are making you think, then your response probably validates the consensus.

And for the record I rarely watch CNN. They are most definately biased, however not as extreme as talk radio. In any event I do not find such shallow views to be an assett in trying to see the big picture.

Posted by: ILdem at January 16, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #203527

JD,

Rush, Hannity, right, left, et al, it doesn’t matter. These guys are merely commentators/entertainers.
They are actors.
Their shtick is in the realm of ideas, and opinion, not journalism.
They couch their opinions to what their perceived audience expects, and they make a lot of money doing so.
Please notice that they do not report facts that would go against that perception otherwise they would lose their audience.
Talk radio is all about money. A lot of money.
That is one of the reasons that broadcast networks like CNN, Fox, NBC, etc, all now have more commentators than reporters.
It’s all about the money.

There was a time when the news actually had a segments that were commentary and they were identified as opinion. Cronkite, and Huntley, and Brinkley, for instance, used these segments very effectively.

That fine line doesn’t exist anymore.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #203529

JD,

Look up the term “panem et circenses”.

Posted by: Rocky at January 16, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #204099

Well Robert Redford said we are owed a great big appology from our leaders for our war on terror. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan the way we did. On lies perpetrated on us by our leaders and mislead us to believe a lie. After all it was the Clinton CIA and such that was providing us with intel.

Well he is “right”, no pun intended, but I believe we should start with Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted the head Kennedy and other former leaders who said the same things we now hear today. WMD’s exist and should not be allowed to terrorist like the late Sadam Hussien.

Man it is only bs when it serves their purpose.

And if Bill Clinton had any cahones he would have snuffed Sadam when he fired his first sam at our jets enforcing the no fly zone.

He never did show much in the way of National Security execpt that time he made a tactical error and smoked the Chinesse Embassy in Serbia.

What a hoot, he was such a joke, and maybe Bush is his counter part on the right.

Maybe Redford is “right” after all just going after the wrong administration.

Posted by: im at January 19, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #215322

It’s funny to rea repuglicans calling Democrats dim! Saddam Hussein was contained. He was our foil with the Iranians. Why do you think ronald reagan, daddy bush, dick cheney, don rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz, richard perle and the rest of the neocons gave Saddam Hussein WEAPONS of Mass Destruction and then gave the Iranians Missiles. When Saddam used those weapons on the Kurds no one said a peep. Their has been so much scandal in this administraion it will go down in history as the most corrupt. Repuglicans believe more in their party and leaders than in their God (religion). All the repuglicans want is money. I can’t wait for the day when their children will be going outside with surgical masks on, so as not to breathe the polluted air. They are so brave, I don’t see a rush by them to join our Armed Forces. Come on Repuglicans serve your country instead of yourself.

Posted by: Richard at April 6, 2007 9:23 AM
Post a comment