Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,

The only bleeding that has occurted is our soldiers blood at the hands of a reckless President.

If this is your political strategy, then expect Hillary as president. She’s laying back playing the same political bet as Bush. We all know who’ll make the next blunder and yield it to Hillary. How ironic. You guys screamed the loudest about Hilary and now, you apparently want to elect her.

Posted by: gergle at March 21, 2007 01:08 AM

Eric where have you been, missed you’re post’s.

So the left now has the power they so wanted since the day they were tricked into the vote. The time has finally come to show us neo-cons what real leadership is. Umm, still waiting. You all are sooooo passionate that Bush lied, people died lefties. CUT FUNDING or SHUT UP.

Posted by: andy at March 21, 2007 01:11 AM

Come on dems, have you not read, we are creating more terrorist by being in Iraq. We have uneducated criminals serving as our soldiers murdering innocent insurgents who only want thier land. Write your local representative and demand the funding for this genocide cut.

Posted by: jacques pierre lefty at March 21, 2007 01:23 AM

What nonsense is this Eric? I know of only a couple Democrats in D.C. calling for complete withdrawal from Iraq. Most Democrats want the U.S. military to remain in Iraq and the region as long as al-Queda occupies Iraqi soil. The withdrawal most Dem’s seek is from the middle of Iraq’s sectarian civil war. And on this at least, I agree with them.

Keep enough soldiers in Iraq to insure al-Queda has no spawning ground and neighboring states don’t meddle, but, also remove 10’s of thousands of our soldiers from their street corner and house to house policing responsibilities, which would in fact, save American soldier lives and limbs and taxpayers some dough.

The only reason Bush refuses this option is because he does not want to own the inevitable consequences of having invaded. His reasoning is, if we remain engaged in Iraq until he leaves office, then the consequences for whatever happens in Iraq belong to his successors, and he can, in his own mind, rationalize that if he had remained president for a few more decades his plan for Iraq would have succeeded.

But, at what cost? That’s what boggles the mind about Republican supporters of this war, (74%); no cost in other’s lives or, the future taxpayers of America is too great if, it means not having to admit the GOP bungled the Iraq management from the very beginning with inadequate force, international support, and planning for possible outcomes of invasion. Which of course is all true regardless of the outcome.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 21, 2007 02:37 AM

Military defeat in Iraq equals political victory for Democrats. Too bad that it would mean death and chaos for Iraqis and the Middle east

Eric, please, check reality: death and choas for Iraqis and the Middle East is already there.
By your own logic, that would mean military defeat.

On a side note, I wonder how many iraqi children were killed during Shock and Awe. Child killers are on both side, as in every war. It’s not because the B2 pilots can’t see their face while carpet bombing their house that they’re not as child killers as your mileage terrorist in Iraq.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2007 03:37 AM

Sorry for chaotic spelling of “chaos” word and my mileage average english in the previous post.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2007 04:37 AM

This is rubbish. The Dems don’t want Bush to withdraw from Iraq. They want him to continue to break the US militarily and financially so as to as far as possible obliterate the Repugs in 08. It’s nauseatingly cynical. Lives don’t mean anything set against their desire to hold the houses and take the white one. Not to mention the fact that they are in thrall to the lobby, who want Iran taken out also.

If they wanted to pull out of Iraq, as the purse holders, they could make it happen.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 21, 2007 05:16 AM

I’d take Eric Simonson seriously the second he enlists!!!

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at March 21, 2007 06:23 AM

Eric,

Are we still going to be hearing the same BS from you guys four years from now?

Paul in Euroland,

I don’t think the House Democrats could COMPLETELY cut off funding, at least not this year. First of all, it would be political suicide. (Why do you think the Republicans keep daring them to do it?) Secondly, even if they wanted to go on a kamikaze mission to end the war, the Republicans would only need to peel away about 15 Democratic votes to pass an appropriation for the war. I think they could do it if they had to.

It it is a political fact of life in America that it is extremely difficult to end a war after it has started. Take Vietnam. By 1968 a lot of people were questioning the war, but it still didn’t end for another seven years.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 21, 2007 07:44 AM

Gergle

It is an interesting moral dilemma whenever you are fighting a really evil enemy.

I know that you and some others want to make this all about George Bush, but the fact is that if the terrorists did not deliberately target civilians, almost no civilians would be killed, injured or driven from their homes at this stage of the conflict. If this was an insurrection, as our American revolution or the resistance movements during WWII, the civilians death toll this year would be near zero.

So what you are accusing George Bush of doing is getting involved fighting people who are so brutal that they are eager to murder their own people to make their point and obviously keen to kill children to facilitate their operations. The proposed solution is to stop fighting these guys and come back home.

The practical dilemma is that it is unlikely that our retreat would finish the conflict for us. More likely it would merely change the venue to someplace closer to home. The moral dilemma is how much we are willing to confront evil. The terrorists are essentially holding the people of Iraq hostage and they are saying that if the U.S. does not give them what they want, they will continue to murder woman and children. Theirs is the typical violent person taught, “Do you have the stomach to watch murder again and again or are you going to recoil and just leave?”

I do not know the answers to these twin dilemmas, but I think we should be debating them, not the convenient Bush hating rhetoric. If Bush left office tomorrow and Cheney followed him the day after, we would still be faced with the identical set of options and dilemmas.

Juan

That is an invalid argument. Do you care about poverty? Unless you are willing to give all your worldly possessions to help the poor, perhaps you cannot talk about the issue. It is an absurd and illogical argument. The reason people keep on making it is because of its emotional power. The extension of your argument is that ONLY active duty military should be allowed to vote on matters of war or peace. This was the case in many early societies, but that was more because the guys with the spears made all the rules.

Unless you are willing personally to take up any cause you believe in (i.e. go to Darfur, give all your money to the poor, donate kidneys etc) you have no standing emotionally or morally to make the argument, and it was never valid logically.

Besides, you really do not know what Eric has done.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 09:27 AM

When faced with a struggle against perfidious enemies, who use children as cannon fodder, do we fold like a cheap card table when faced with even the lightest resistance (from enemies who cannot even face us equally on a field of battle)?

What color is the sky on the planet you live on? This “lightest resistance” you speak of has resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 of our soldiers as well as the wounding of tens of thousands of them.

Figure it out, will you? They don’t want us there. We have no business being there. They were never a threat to us, yet we keep throwing our sons and daughters into a death mill for… remind me again just what the *#!$ we’re doing there?

JLS

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at March 21, 2007 09:40 AM

Eric-
Democrats have nothing to gain from a loss, much less a humiliating one. Republicans, however, believe they can’t afford to have started a war that they themselves have made unwinnable.

You learned the wrong lesson in Vietnam. The lesson you learned was that the American people were weak, and would not win wars if they were shown discouraging information and visuals.

In reality, the people of America are not so gullible. If the violence were going down, if Iraq was becoming more stable, and all that persisted, little that the critics and naysayer would complain about would reach people. Americans want results.

The surge will succeed in somewhat reducing violence in Baghdad. Our problem is not purely violence in Baghdad, though, it is overall the unwillingness of Shias and Sunni to settle on a peaceful political solution to their disputes and grudges.

Unless each side realizes that there will nobody like us staying around to keep the other side from getting really nasty with the other, the Civil War going on right now will persist, and get worse.

All this war on our part is doing is making things more painful. We could have acheived our aims in Iraq had our aims been better thought out, our leaders not so blindly wrapped up in their own picture what was going on and what was necessary to get the job done, but that opportunity passed a long time ago while the president and his party were busy covering their political asses and using the fear of terrorists and the American abhorrence of failure to avoid blame for one of the greatest strategical failures of all time.

America has given Bush any number of second chances to get his act together on the war, to come clean to himself and everybody else that this war had failed to do what it was meant to do: make us more secure, give America more power to confront the terrorists where they are harbored, rather than here in this country.

Republicans can bloviate about victory, about not surrendering, tell us we’re cowards and terrorist sympathizers, but the fact remains that in just about every crucial aspect, this war has failed its purposes.

This war was supposed to reduce the terrorist threat to our country. Instead, it’s increased their numbers, and has served as a boon to terrorist recruiters.

It was supposed to disarm a dictator. It in fact could never have succeeded. Whatever anybody else said before about WMDs, the Bush Administration had the power to find out for itself. Instead of doing that, instead of settling the question of whether he was still armed, this Administration went about the business of seeking intelligence and reports to build a case for what they already believed was the right thing to do.

It was supposed to secure Iraq under our control. From the start though, despite their arrogant dismissal of the question, this president has not sent the forces necessary. Even now, the numbers he’s surging into Iraq are insufficient, according to military experts. Additionally, this surge only occured because the President’s former plan lost its mandate in the 2006 elections. It was his way of splitting the difference between more of the same, and looking like he was trying to win.

We have not succeeded, because of this lack of control, in rebuilding Iraq. Nor have we succeeded in preventing a sectarian meltdown, the rise of Shia fundamentalism, or the breakdown in law and order. All of these would be the objectives of a successful plan.

We will not lose because we don’t have what it takes to win. We will lose because we are already losing, and what we had to win with has been exhausted by the interminable insistence on a plan that did not produce results, yet was politically precious to our leaders. This is a failure of ego, a failure that drove a failure of planning, and a failure of logistics.

When it comes down to it, this war will be lost because those running it were clueless, and remain clueless on the necessary means required for victory. They wanted to win with cheerleading and propaganda, rather than call on the American people for the sacrifices to make it work.

Here’s the thing: as much as the Republicans want to make this War on Terrorism out to be a war of existential importance, they have been consistently unwilling to recognize and deal with problems in the execution of the war, they have been lazy and misguided in their selection of targets for it, and they have consistently refused to call upon Americans to sacrifice personally for this war they so believe in. The rank and file are left to rationalize these deficits of judgment and zeal on the part of their politicians, even as the life drains out of our efforts to confront our real, original enemies, as well as this war in Iraq.

It is not a political victory the Democrats are looking for on this war. Our victory will be finding the best way out of Iraq. For Republicans that is the first step for redeeming the tarnished foreign policy image of their party.

To do that, though, we must recognize that this war has not served the goals it was intended to, and that this constitutes a defeat. Recognizing that we have little to gain from prolonging a defeat, we should disentangle ourselves from this fiasco, and find a way to serve America’s foreign policy interests and limit the adverse consequences of Bush’s failure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2007 09:41 AM

>>Besides, you really do not know what Eric has done.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 09:27 AM

Jack,

We know one thing he’s done…make false assumptions about this stupid, so called war. One: This is not a war, because we are not fighting a known enemy.
Two: We are fighting criminals with our military.
Three: This stupidity did not belong in Iraq.

One day Eric will get it right, but as long as he insists Iraq is an enemy worth declaring war against, it ain’t yet.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 21, 2007 10:33 AM

Eric,

“Even as the surge succeeds Democrats continue to plot and plan for our total defeat and retreat from Iraq. Defeat is their preferred solution— in contrast to victory:”

It’s so true, Eric. It’s sad that the left in this country set themselves up in a position that “what’s good for America is bad for them and what’s good for them it’s BAD for America”. It’s a pathetic strategy, yet that’s the choice they’ve made.

As for the Iraq surge, that’s good news thus far. I’ve said this before, this is a sign to the terrorists and any other enemy to the US that Petraeus means business; Bush means business; Malaki means business. They are given US and Iraqi forces a chance to turn this mess around and give the Iraqi gov’t a chance to (completely) establish and govern that Nation.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 21, 2007 11:33 AM

>>It’s so true, Eric. It’s sad that the ‘right’ in this country set themselves up in a position that “what’s good for America is bad for them and what’s good for them it’s BAD for America‎. It’s a pathetic strategy, yet that’s the choice they’ve made.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 21, 2007 11:33 AM

Thanks, rah, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I did take a tiny liberty, because I think you’ve confused left/right.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 21, 2007 12:01 PM

rahdigly,jack and eric,
Thanks for representing my beliefs so well on this post. To the others this war was started against us many years ago when Carter was in office do you remember the hostages in Iran. Then Lebenon when Reagon was president, Twin towers the Cole and our embasies when Clinton was president. I do not blame any of the past attacks on past presidents or our present one, we should all democrates republicans and independents all direct our anger and energy against those that wish to distroy us. It is strange to me that so many fellow americans express much more hatred toward the president and the republicans than they do toward the terrorist who have killed our own people and would like to kill more.

Posted by: dolan at March 21, 2007 12:02 PM

You are making Eric’s point for him, Stephen!

Our victory will be finding the best way out of Iraq. Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2007 09:41 AM

I wonder if this war would be over if the media were to focus on a winning senerio instead of the constant and continuing, relentless bashing of the objective.

Would we be sprecin ze doitch if the media focused on and associated every percieved failure to that cripple that couldn’t even stand up on his own two feet who occupied the white house during the second world war?
Let’s ask the MSM to point out Roosevelt’s failings and Bush’s strengths. Let’s see how much dead air would be generated.

I was taught, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going!”
They don’t change their minds and start complaining. They don’t second guess and brow beat every concocted excuse to make our soldiers and leaders look bad. They certainly don’t use our plans and stratagies as weapons against our own soldiers.

I think Eric hit the nail on the head in this one. The whiners and complainers need to be in power to stroke their superiority complex.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 12:10 PM

Simple answers to stupid questions:

I wonder if this war would be over if the media were to focus on a winning senerio instead of the constant and continuing, relentless bashing of the objective.

No.

This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at March 21, 2007 01:39 PM

What BS.

Vietnam War Vet against the Iraqi War and Bush.

Posted by: KT at March 21, 2007 01:44 PM

ES, CIP, Rah, Andy, Jacques, Jack,

Presumably we will still be in Iraq going in the 2008 elections, and presumably the situation will not be resolved. Do you want the GOP to run on a platform of staying in Iraq beyond 2008? Are you good with that?

The Turkish government has cancelled leave for its military, and according to Kurdish media has over 250,000 soldiers on the Kurdish border. On the one hand, they have a tremendous economic incentive with the US & EU to stay out of Iraq. On the other hand, they have suffered 37,000 casualties over the past two decades or so in a running war with the Kurds. Turkey imposes a national language & culture upon all its many, many minorities, and this falls especially heavy upon the Kurds. There are also Kurdish minorities in Syria & in Iran. The Iranians are dealing with Kurdish attacks by the MEK. Turks also have ethnic minorities within Kurdistan.

So! The big prize is Kirkuk, which has a lot of oil, and I mean a lot. If Turkey invades, what do you think we should do? If they are backed by Syria & Iran, what do you think we should do? If China & Russian back them, seeking to replace the oil contracts we took away when we invaded, and awarded to western Big Oil, what should we do?

“Staying the course” runs great risks and unforeseen developments. You guys are advocating a very, very dangerous course. Are you sure this is a good idea?

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2007 01:51 PM

I know this will bring howls of protest from the dittoheads, but it turns out those of us who worried about the Bushies abusing PATRIOT Act powers were right.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 21, 2007 02:28 PM

This article made me think of an old Woody Allen(?) quote:

This guy ran into the bumper of my car. I told him to “go forth and multiply” Just not in those words.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 21, 2007 02:39 PM

Thanks for the cookie Mental Wimp. Is Salon spying on me?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 02:50 PM

When will conservatives figure out that our “enemies” are only trying to do the same thing to us as we did to the USSR? They took our lesson and are happy to use it against us. They want us to spend ourselves into oblivion. Go bankrupt. They know they cannot win militarily. So they let us just spend ourselves to death. You are playing right into their hands and are too … myopic to know it.

Posted by: jrb at March 21, 2007 03:02 PM

The lady being interview by Maxine Waters yesterday said the information gathered from financial institutions was gathered legally, that the financial institutions requested the NSLs, that the persons who’s information was being gathered were not innocent, and the information was being used in ongoing investigations.

This NSL thing is another in a long list of non-issues used to beat up this administration.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 03:04 PM

Is it true our soldiers need salmon and timber? Is there a short supply of rice in the military? Are our troops drowning in saltwater in Louisianna?
Who are you going to cite as being responsible for pork now? I suppose you can say it is GWBush’s fault the congress in in the hands of the democratics so he must be responsible for the pork being shoved into a supplemental to fund the Iraq war.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 03:10 PM

CIP-

How much have we spent on this “war on terror” compared to the last 3 months of Dem controlled pork? Give me the numbers. I dare you.

Posted by: jrb at March 21, 2007 03:17 PM

Are we using past experiences to condone present ones? Is it ok now when it wasn’t ok before? Three months and they have their hands in the cookie jar and you use past experiences previously condemned to justify it.
What an obvious double standard.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 03:20 PM

If this was an insurrection, as our American revolution or the resistance movements during WWII, the civilians death toll this year would be near zero.

Jack

Really, perhaps you should read up on our Revolutionary war.

There is only one reason for Democrats to continue demanding our surrender in Iraq— to defeat Bush.

Eric

I didn’t know Bush could run again?

Posted by: Cube at March 21, 2007 03:23 PM

CIP-

My points were:

1) Your comments were a red herring designed to diminish the obvious truth behind what I wrote. This war is costing us quite a bit of money and the people we are fighting know that. It is part of their strategy. Why can’t conservatives comprehend that?

2) While I don’t support pork projects from either side, a) we weren’t discussing pork-barrel spending we were discussing the notion of staying in this war or not; and b) I never tried to justify anything [psychologists refer to your behavior as projection] I simply want you to show me what “pork” you are talking about, then compare those numbers to the cost of this conflict—and for good measure the pork passed by republicans.

3) I guess I am not gettin’ the numbers

Posted by: jrb at March 21, 2007 03:35 PM

This discussion is about the weak-knee double-standard “projected” by the opponents of our president.
I’ve said I welcome a democratic being elected to the white house. It will finally allow winning this war to be taken seriously by our media and government.
Given the immediate condemnation of this surge post the constant criticism of not having enough troops to do the job is just one obvious example of bitching for the sake of bitching.

The president has the power to trample the people’s rights. It’s his job to be a dictator in a time of war. The continued use of the stratagies of identifying communications and financial transactions of our enemies is a demonstration of the president doing his job and his authority to employ these strategies.

The exposure of those tactics for political expediency is a demonstration of Eric’s point. This war is being used to achieve a political victory over the current administration.

Providing numbers would be moot because pork is involved in the process. There is no absence of pork and the result would be skewed from any angle.
jrb, you brought up the strategy of spending us to death used by our enemy yet excessive spending is embedded in the process and is the primary vehicle used to garner support.
It’s bad a year ago but now it’s ok.
It’s a double standard and a lie used as a political ploy by people too arrogant to see the naked truth of it’s value.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 04:33 PM

The next time we have 270 stories of high rise dropped into the streets of an American city (and there will be a next time!), I just hope we have a president that does not urge us to “take a trip”, “fly somewhere”, “go to disneyland”. Maybe we’ll have a president who can stand up to the terrorists, not by sending someone else’s kids halfway around the world to be cannon fodder, but by fighting a multi-faceted, “sensitive” (read: intelligent) war on the people who make war on us!!
I remember the look on w’s face in the ‘04 debates when Kerry would not renounce the possible use of a draft and even suggested the expansion of the army by 40,000. Both were ideas and positions that clearly had not occurred to him.
We are at a low point in our standing, esteem, and influence in the world. The positive view of us in the Islamic world is just about zero with the result that w has guaranteed we will be fighting a multi-generational war against religious fundamentalists.
The hard-core %30, “don’t confuse me with the facts, I support my president” crowd will never let reality interfere with their world view.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 21, 2007 04:59 PM

CIP-

The president has the power to trample the people’s rights. It’s his job to be a dictator in a time of war.

NO! He does not and it is NOT. Either you don’t value the US Constitution or you can not distinguish between a dictator and a president.

This war is being used to achieve a political victory over the current administration.

Keep regurgitating your talking points. Truth be told, many of us liberals thought [before it started] it was a bad proposition to go into Iraq at all. However, once it was clear there was no stopping it, if you remember, we argued we should do it properly [i.e. We should send more troops than Bush and Rummy had decided was appropriate]. It has only been the succession of follies perpetrated by this administration with respect to Iraq that has caused public opinion to turn against them on this. It is not the fault of liberals that Bush-co is incompetent, we didn’t elect him and his cabal.

you brought up the strategy of spending us to death used by our enemy yet excessive spending is embedded in the process and is the primary vehicle used to garner support.

Could you please rephrase more clearly. I am not sure I totally understand what you are saying.

It’s bad a year ago but now it’s OK.

Again, Not what I said. Please re-read my previous post if you are confused.

It’s a double standard and a lie used as a political ploy by people too arrogant to see the naked truth of it’s value.

Again, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The naked truth of what value are you refering to?

Providing numbers would be moot because pork is involved in the process.

Pork is involved in what process? Fighting our enemies? What are you refering to?

Posted by: jrb at March 21, 2007 05:13 PM

Cube

My point is that the insurgents are not fighting against us so much as murdering Iraqi people. The civilians killed usually are not caught in the crossfire. They are usually not killed by errant bombs. They are not involved in fighting at all. They are deliberately targeted and murdered by the terrorists OUTSIDE the battlefield. I am very familiar with our history. If you are just think about it. Was it ever a strategy of the revolution to set off bombs to kill random civilians in marketplaces in Boston, Philadelphia or New York?

The civilian death toll is near zero for those caught in actual fighting. Most are murdered by terrorists. That is not an inevitable part of war. It is a nefarious strategy of our enemies. That is why we rightly call them terrorists.

I think the news media should not use the passive voice when reporting civilian deaths. They should not say, “were killed by a car bomb‎. The truth is terrorists killed the civilians with a car bomb.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 05:34 PM

Jack,
Only about 13% of all Iraqis killed die in suicide bombings. Most die by gunshot wound.

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2007 05:44 PM

Eric S,

Perfidious??? Okay nevermind, I’ll look it up later.

>>There is a flaw with your argument and I’ll point it out. The dems are not against victory, we are against, and I think I speak for all here, wasting time and money (and lives civillian and otherwise) on a venture that was John Wayne idiotic and surmountably political bounty from the get-go.

We bash in the wrong nation (and I’m still yet to get a response from republicans as to why it was the “right nation” to invade), we destroy the nation’s economy, endanger the entire population, invade without foreknowledge of what to do once we get it in reference to the insuing tribal conflicts. These are the things the dems are, atleast from the outset, pointing to, dumb stuff at nose length.

Why do something like that? Simple, the republicans did it to make this dull president more popular than his pops (Bush I) and make hand over fist boku in military holdings—finis—that’s it.

ERIC—Do tell me why it was the ‘right’ nation to invade in a long-term war on terror. There’s Syria, Iran, amongst a handful of others, why was this the top of the plate anyway in such a war???

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 21, 2007 05:45 PM

Another thing Eric—Our military has a problem in fights such as this: We swat flies with 50 lb sledgehammers. What winds up happening is we look like th ebadguy in all respects. This was the problem in Vietnam as well, we went on carpetbombing raids, when it was a groundwar front and center. Another problem we have is we don’t teach the ART OF WAR in our war colleges apparently. Bush trashed so many opportunities to make peace in the region should his military fart and darts dimwits heed such essential guidelines of useful engagement and won victories local and otherwise. We simply have not won the population over because our military war colleges are sub-par in the scope of caricula in circumspect to other nations such as China.

Our American military is too retarded for this large task as is usually the case. Vietnam was lost because the opposition knew the rules of such warfare on a close range level—we were the unwitting ninnies inundated with drugs by the Vietcong who know how to take down opponents such as us and “BUY THE TIME TO WIN” as is how such wars need to be fought. Weigh them down and give yourself time to prepare further if at a disadvantage.

We are just over there swatting nats with RPG’s and it loses us the majority of support, making us the enemy—ta da!!!

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 21, 2007 06:27 PM

Another thing too is we are not involving the people of their own nation in the quintessential set-up of their nation. We take care of everything—let them have their own trials and errors and stay clear. Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi villain in an American court. The Iraqi council is an American shill and transparently so. The whole vote was an American affair by American rules. We make them sit on their hands and take our orders—HOW IS THAT THE “Liberator”?????

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 21, 2007 06:38 PM

Another thing Eric, is we make them dependent on us in all affairs, like a puppet regime and then wonder why they can’t do things on their own, no less shifting the blame to them. Wrong, it’s our over-involvement in what is otherwise civic affairs that leads us to this crux of insolvency.

We are not a smart military led by an even dumber president with half-witted policies of “Daddy-knows best” turned into “Daddy-does-all-because you-can’t-be-trusted-wth-your-own-nation”. What is that and how does that foster trust amongst the population?

We are the a-hole in the sandpit.

Posted by: Gleep the chimp at March 21, 2007 06:45 PM

Perhaps my wording does possess a lack of clarity.
Osama bin Laden said we will spend ourselves into our demise. jlb brought that point to our attention by saying:

…our “enemies‎ are only trying to do the same thing to us as we did to the USSR? They took our lesson and are happy to use it against us. They want us to spend ourselves into oblivion. Go bankrupt. They know they cannot win militarily. So they let us just spend ourselves to death

The main objective in the supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war is to legislate a timeline for withdrawl from Iraq. The premature withdrawl from Iraq will be a defeat and for it to be blamed on GWBush the withdrawl must take place while he is in office. To get the votes needed for passage, spending unrelated to the war in Iraq is included.

If democratics were serious about our withdrawl from Iraq there would not be a supplemental spending bill. There would be a BINDING resolution that stated explicitly the president must stop this war. There is no such thing. There is additional spending to fund this war. Pork is being used to get votes for what is called a spending bill to support the troops, but the real objective of the bill is to legislate a timeline for withdrawl and to lay the blame for our failure on our president before democratics take over the white house.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 06:57 PM

I wonder what effect a non-binding resolution by the HOR expressing a long term committment to guarantee a democratic-republic form of government in Iraq would have on our enemies?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 07:10 PM

JACK? OUTSIDE the battlefield? In wars like this that is the battlefield—that’s-a why they call it “terror”, isn’t it? Is your mind slipping?

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 07:23 PM

JACK, what isn’t the battlefield in a terror war?

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 07:25 PM

Catastrophy in prog, great point “we will be spending ourself into our demise” that is how the Russians lost afghanistan if you’ll recall and definitely what they are reliant on, I would suspect. I’m not sure when OBL said that but it is a poignant point to bring up as with 1980’s Afghanistan it was a factor.

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 07:34 PM

Thanks, Mr. Monkey.
I didn’t see one stupid question in that post.
Do you think there is too much focus on the federal government and so very little focus on the local government?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 07:41 PM

Gleep

You got the point. It is a terror war that the bad guys are fighting. That is why we call them terrorists. That is why they are responsible for almost 100% of the civilian deaths since the end of the major war fighting 3 1/2 years ago. Do you want to give these guys what they want so that they can kill even more?

Phx8

1. Where did you get the stat?
2. Where are the shots coming from?

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 07:52 PM

Gleep

You got the point. It is a terror war that the bad guys are fighting. That is why we call them terrorists. That is why they are responsible for the vast majority of the civilian deaths since the end of the major war fighting 3 1/2 years ago. Do you want to give these guys what they want so that they can kill even more?

Phx8

1. Where did you get the stat?
2. Where are the shots coming from?

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 07:53 PM

Catastrophy in prog,

I think at this point we are best served by dividing the nation along factional and tribal lines into states or city-states. Develop perhaps a bicameral system later and see what we can do to restore socialism and incrementally ease it towards a more capitalist system over a five year expanse so we can get those OK corral twenty-somethings running around killing each other dayjobs atleast. An insurgency is largely a body of people with nothing better to do and little to look forward to. That’s just how the monkey sees it.

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 07:55 PM

Jack,

It’s also a terror war we are fighting too, which is sort of a popular opinion affair. How do we become the good guys? They fight by a splat for popular consumption to get a retaliation and we play right into their hands. WE have to ease up and give them their own government and let them rule as we protect the periphery like a military police action as opposed to a “war”. They call more of the shots and we abide where needed so ‘they’ can get a handle on ‘their’ own nation as opposed to us always trying to snag the handle. They call more of the shots.

Posted by: Gleep at March 21, 2007 08:04 PM

My father and I have been discussing politics for 90% of our time together. We were talking the other day, he was talking, about his 150 dollar payment towards his medicare part d prescription drug program. His payment was being claimed by the government when calculating his balance.

I said it should be expected when you turn control over to someone else. He said “Hey, You’re talkin’ to someone who’s dependent on that!”
Much like Algore saying “The debate is over!”.

He also said “It’s hard when the people can’t do anything about it”.

He’s 75 years old, healthy as a horse, has his own wealth as well as his benefits, diabetis, a big heart, and a loss as to what to do about his government.

I look him in the eye and I tell him it’s his own fault because it happened on his watch. He’s reaping the rewards of his generation but his children are paying for it.

He says, “Hey, you’re talkin’ to someone who’s dependent on that!”

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 08:04 PM

David R. and Gleep,
Between the two of you I believe you both made the point. (s)

Democrats do not want defeat in Iraq - we simply want some Common Sense to be used. Common Sense says that if what you are doing isn’t working try something else. Sort of like banging one’s head into a wall. Common Sense suggests we attempt to go over it, around it, under it, or blow it out of our way - not keep banging our heads.

Mental Wimp-
Thanks for the link

Posted by: Linda H. at March 21, 2007 08:15 PM

Gergle,

The only bleeding that has occurted is our soldiers blood at the hands of a reckless President.

The same could be said of every war, including WWII. Was WWII ‘worth it’? How about the Korean war?

Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2007 09:02 PM

Congratulations for making the point. Don’t hesitate because the point is shadowed by the summit the majority of the time. You may very well freeze to death basking in your glory.

Posted by: A Catastrophy In Progress at March 21, 2007 09:07 PM

And furthermore, if you want clarification of what I have just posted, don’t bother asking questions.
Just say, “Uh!”, and then offer a solution instead of a complaint.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 09:28 PM

David,

…Most Democrats want the U.S. military to remain in Iraq and the region as long as al-Queda occupies Iraqi soil.

Huh?! I’m not sure which Democrat congress you’re watching, David. Because all the talk we hear these days in between being the ‘most ethical’ pork bill writers around is about how Democrats are ‘gonna git us out of Iraq’.

The withdrawal most Dem’s seek is from the middle of Iraq’s sectarian civil war. And on this at least, I agree with them.

Sadly, you are mistaken. Civil war or no, Democrats have been crying for retreat day after day from day one. Virtually the day after they voted for the war, they began being against it. True, it is the core left, the core left who shows up with Cindy Sheehan to protest the immorality of the United States itself— from thence the leftist meme has apparently infected all who call themselves liberals and Democrats— because they all say the same things now.

Civil war? Where exactly is this civil war happening David? Is it a full fledged civil war, or a regional civil war, or a few skirmishes between armed camps? It sounds like the definition of civil war has fell a few notches from the traditional meaning.

Keep enough soldiers in Iraq to insure al-Queda has no spawning ground and neighboring states don’t meddle, but, also remove 10’s of thousands of our soldiers from their street corner and house to house policing responsibilities, which would in fact, save American soldier lives and limbs and taxpayers some dough.

But you’re friends on the left believe that it is our very presence in Iraq that spawns al-qaeda freedom fighters to rise from the sands of the desert and fight the oppressive Imperial power of the texas dictator.

There will be an American presence in Iraq for decades. Just as there has been in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.

The only reason Bush refuses this option is because he does not want to own the inevitable consequences of having invaded. His reasoning is, if we remain engaged in Iraq until he leaves office, then the consequences for whatever happens in Iraq belong to his successors, and he can, in his own mind, rationalize that if he had remained president for a few more decades his plan for Iraq would have succeeded.

It takes as long as it takes.

But, at what cost? That’s what boggles the mind about Republican supporters of this war, (74%); no cost in other’s lives or, the future taxpayers of America is too great if, it means not having to admit the GOP bungled the Iraq management from the very beginning with inadequate force, international support, and planning for possible outcomes of invasion. Which of course is all true regardless of the outcome. ~david’s comment

On this I totally disagree. There have been misteps and decisions which turn out to be based on faulty information in every enterprise, but especially and particularily in war. The definition of a pessimist is someone who dwells only on the negative and ignores the positive. This isn’t balanced at all.

In reality, the invasion of Iraq was a textbook case of brilliance. It was faster, farther, and quicker than any invasion in history. You can choose to be critical of the decisions not to keep the Baathist army and machinery of government together but there were/are good reasons for that.

I, for one, would venture to say that the major reason, the major error that this administration made in the occupation was in overestimating the ability and knowledge of Iraqis of being ready to take over after the invasion. In this sense, not having enough troops was a liability.

We can go through every war, every American military operation and point out all the mistakes, misteps, and miscalculations, and if that’s all we concentrate on we can turn every victory into defeat, every struggle and eventual triumph into a failure.

Of course, if we apply the same level of criticalness to the liberal ‘war on poverty’ and every other program of social justice, we would really have a massive failure to talk about.

Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2007 09:56 PM

Rahdigly-
Bush emboldened the insurgents and terrorists by giving them the opportunity to take over the country and then letting them essentially do it.

Exhibit A: This current leader that you put so much trust in can’t sneeze without checking with a radical shia fundamentalist who forms a large part of his coalition.

Exhibit B: The Sunni aren’t buying in. They are maintaining the insurgency. That neat little poll you showed us? Check and see how many of the Sunni hotspots think things were better under Saddam.

Exhibit C: Just why do you think we’re having to recruit an new army, create new police forces? Without certain orders given by Paul Bremer, on behalf of this president, none of that would have been necessary. What you call a path to victory, I call a lackluster attempt to dig out of one of the many holes this administration has dug us into.

Exhibt D: Neither the loss of Fallujah and Najaf to hostile forces nor the sectarian violence would have been possible if the insurgency had been kept from developing

And so on and so forth. You and this Administration have been so focused on preventing moral and propaganda victories for the enemy by fighting a political war to keep your war going, that you’ve failed to see that the material failures of this administration’s policies have served much better for those ends than mere words and quibbling ever would.

Worse yet, both angles have gotten you into losing fights, because the effects of the war’s material progress make both convincing people at home difficult, and attaining actual success.

You worship victory as some epic goal, but in reality it’s a whole lot of getting your hands dirty in the facts and paying attention to the way things are actually moving in the war, and then keeping your ego in check enough to ask and figure out what you need to do.

You guys weren’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to win this war when America was not exhausted and disillusioned about this long war. Now you really can’t ask much of people any more, and you’ve put yourself and America in a position where there’s not much good left that we can do.

Quit talking about emboldening the enemy by retreating or surrendering, because you folks have done just that by not showing up with the right numbers or planning, and we are at the point were staying only does both our countries more harm. Let’s walk away. Let’s wrap this up, do our best to keep this country stable as we leave it, and then just walk away.

I think in the end, my point is this: it wasn’t the Iraqis that defeated us, it was the way Bush politicized going to war, and fighting a war that got us. He might have been lucky enough to figure out a brilliant plan to win if he had been willing to be schooled in the realities of warfare, if he had been willing to check his ego at the door as to what do next, but that didn’t happen. Bush lost this war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2007 10:18 PM

Exhibit A: This current leader that you put so much trust in can’t sneeze without checking with a radical shia fundamentalist who forms a large part of his coalition

Please provide proof and links to support your assertions that someone’s current leader is (1) in so much trust (2) can’t sneeze without checking with a draical shia fundanmentalist who forms a large part of his coalition.

Could you do that for me Stephen? Can you do it right away before you comment again?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 21, 2007 10:50 PM

Exhibt D: Neither the loss of Fallujah and Najaf to hostile forces nor the sectarian violence would have been possible if the insurgency had been kept from developing

Please provide documentation and links to support your assertion that Fallujah and Najaf have been lost to hostile forces.

Or perhaps, since you are a democratic and you have the support of the msm and you can just say stuff without being questioned.

Posted by: A Total Complete Catastrophy Is In Progress at March 21, 2007 10:58 PM

Stephen

The war is not against the Iraqis, so the Iraqis didn’t defeat anybody yet. Iraqis and Americans are having trouble with terrorists & insurgents and run the risk of being defeated by them.

The surge seems to be working. I do not mind giving the Dems their due on this. This policy is exactly what the Dems claimed to want Bush to do all along - put more men on the job. As soon as it looked like he might take their advice, they moved on.

Some Dems honorably want to win this. Ironically for Republican Clinton haters, Hillary is probably among them. Others were looking for reasons to get out and have been w/o regard to actual outcomes. Their reasons range from the naive to the craven. Some honestly think we can never win. Others think we do not deserve to win. It is the latter group I despise. They like to point to the intelligence errors or mistakes in the execution of the war as a kind of original sin for which defeat is just punishment. That is unpatriotic.

I hope we all can agree here that the best outcome would be for the U.S.and our Iraqi allies to prevail and that we are merely disagreeing about whether that is possible and/or how it can be accomplished.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 10:58 PM

Exhibit B: The Sunni aren’t buying in. They are maintaining the insurgency. That neat little poll you showed us? Check and see how many of the Sunni hotspots think things were better under Saddam.

This is too easy and is redundant.

Please provide links and support to your assertion that the sunni aren’t buying in. And also proof that the sunni are maintaining the insurgency.

That was B, right? Which one did I miss?
Should I even bother?

Posted by: A Total lack of attention when they said we should build a bomb shelter at March 21, 2007 11:04 PM

There is not a question whether we will win this war or not.

We are going to win this war by providing the Iraqi people a democratic-republican form of government.

I won’t accept any other conclusion to this truly American Farce.
We all can afford to look like fools if our objective is true. We must achieve our objective to save ourselves from truly being fools.

Posted by: A Catastrophy being thwarted at March 21, 2007 11:14 PM

andy,

Eric where have you been, missed your posts.

I’m back working for ‘the man’. I have less time these days to write. You know it’s time consuming helping to keep everybody down, (with great emphasis on keeping down women and minorities of course).

Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2007 11:25 PM

If we were really interested in this Iraq war we wouldn’t have a dead playboy bunny on tv every night.
osama had it right when he said we would kick our own ass when we were put to the test.

Isn’t it a shame some skinny ass would tell us we’re done for, and we would nod and agree and just assume it’s our own fault?
Isn’t that mindset a pathetic way of looking at our conduct in this war?
I think so.

I have a hard time believing that GWBush is an “Idiot”, “Dumb”, “Incompetent”. Everything that is considered a current event is the result of GWBush being stupid and a dullard.

I refuse to believe that a person who is elected to a position considered the leader of the free world has not the intelegence of an elementary grade student.

How many times have you tried to discuss this Iraq war and the counter-point begins with “Bush is an Idiot!”, “Bush is Stupid”, “Bush is Stupid and an Idiot, He must be incompetent!”

And “THE DEBATE IS OVER!”
No one can be elected to the highest position in our government and be an idiot at the same time.
Someone has to be lying to us.
I’m a cynic, but I think it’s the media.

Posted by: A Catastrophy in Progress at March 21, 2007 11:46 PM

gleep,

>>There is a flaw with your argument and I’ll point it out. The dems are not against victory, we are against, and I think I speak for all here, wasting time and money (and lives civillian and otherwise) on a venture that was John Wayne idiotic and surmountably political bounty from the get-go.

Many if not most everyday democrats who are not mindnumbed leftists are not against victory. But many others are infected with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Just as many of us *cough* were under the influence of CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) during the nineties. The policies and rhetoric of elected congressional Democrats is in fact pro-defeat. Bush’s military defeat is their political victory. They have chosen this as the path of least resistance. The evidence is overwhelming.

We bash in the wrong nation (and I’m still yet to get a response from republicans as to why it was the “right nation‎ to invade), we destroy the nation’s economy, endanger the entire population, invade without foreknowledge of what to do once we get it in reference to the insuing tribal conflicts. These are the things the dems are, at least from the outset, pointing to, dumb stuff at nose length.

The wrong nation? Didn’t we invade Afghanistan first? Then we look around the neighborhood and think, “Hmm. How can we change this?”

Why do something like that? Simple, the republicans did it to make this dull president more popular than his pops (Bush I) and make hand over fist boku in military holdings—finis—that’s it.

A cliche. A tired leftist cliche at that. Why not just say it was a, “War for Oil?” It’s simpler, easier to say, and more to the point. It’s also 100% wrong.

ERIC—Do tell me why it was the ‘right’ nation to invade in a long-term war on terror. There’s Syria, Iran, amongst a handful of others, why was this the top of the plate anyway in such a war???

The answer is: You have to start somewhere.

Why did we need to invade Iraq?

Remember that after we invaded Afghanistan Saddam Hussein was still not complying with the sanctions. Not only that but he was making all the right noise to say, “Look at me! Look at me!” (I personally think that he was psychotically deluded, but there you have it.) He was paying suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians. That needs saying again…

Saddam was paying suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians — after 9/11.

A decade plus of sanctions arguably killed thousands of Iraqis but left Saddam as rich and as defiant as ever. All of our intelligence as well as common sense said that he was willing and able to produce WMD— and he was willing and able to use them and or pass them on to others who would use them.

We already had a peace treaty which Saddam was violating. Saddam violated numerous sanctions and UN resolutions. He attempted to assasinate a U.S. President after accepting a ‘peace treaty’.

He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Torture and dissappearances were ongoing under the repressive and oppressive regime. (I know, I know… this is only important to hold against the United States when they fail to do something to stop it somewhere in the world.)

There’s more, but I think you get the idea.

Posted by: esimonson at March 21, 2007 11:56 PM

CIP-
I would think you would have guessed I was talking about Maliki and our friend Moqtada al-Sadr.

Jack-
Being defeated is not the same as giving up. One can be defeated despite fighting to the very last. One can even be defeated in a war, despite the fact you’ve won most or nealy all the battles.

Why? Because winning or losing along these lines is about purpose, ends, and objectives. I don’t see objectives being fulfilled.

It wasn’t the Democrats who moved on when Bush suddenly, after the election, saw the light. History did so.

Or put another way…

There was a period of time two or three years ago where people were practically begging Bush to do what he’s doing know, where the experts and the public had hopes of its success. Bush refused at that point to raise the numbers to a sufficiently level.

Because he refused, the war got more and more desperate, and things got further out of control. That in turn both dropped the morale in the war and the trust in Bush here at home, while over in Iraq, it let the situation become more aggravated. As the incipient civil war gutted people’s trust in the Bush Administration, it drained the Republican’s political capital until such poing that people started throwing out Republicans in 2006.

Then, and only then, after everything had gone to hell politically and militarily, has he done as he was originally asked. Even then, few military experts expect it to work at the duration and the numbers he’s indicated, and practically nobody thinks it can be sustained.

In short, too little, too late. He’s trying to salvage things from the repudiation of the 2006 election. He’s trying to make out like he’s changed his course. Instead, he’s found another way to stall for time to dump this in the next president’s lap so he doesn’t have to take credit for the failure.

He should look at history, though. Nobody blames Gerald Ford for losing Vietnam. It’s Nixon and LBJ who get most of the blame, with LBJ carrying the worst of it, since he essentially made Vietnam a major war when it didn’t have to be.

Iraq was a war of choice, and history knows whose choice it was to invade. It knows how poorly they justified the war, how much they succeeded at talking the talk, and failed at walking the walk. It will show that he emphasized staying the course and keeping the troop levels constant, even as violence inexorably increased, and only changed his tune once he was handed the defeat of 2006. And again, he will not admit the error, but instead confounds thing by digging us deeper into the hole when public sentiments want us digging out of it. He uses the powers of the executive branch like a hammer, trying to force his will on the American people.

Do you know what he’s doing to your party, to your chances of getting a Republican elected? Why should Americans elect a president who is unwilling to listen on this important subject, who is unwilling to admit how strained America’s patience is?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2007 12:10 AM

gleep,

Another thing Eric—Our military has a problem in fights such as this: We swat flies with 50 lb sledgehammers.

The one thing our military is really good at is adapting. I wouldn’t underestimate our troops ability to adapt to any enemy.

The following is what I expected from the start. And I thought that we had been doing this. Or had done it in areas, but perhaps not in Baghdad.

What tactics are working? “We got down at the people level and are staying,” he said flatly. “Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.

“More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were “scraping” for intelligence information, they now have “information overload,” the general said. “After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they’re not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can’t process it fast enough.

“In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, “have had enough.” Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. “All of the sheiks up there are businessmen,” Petraeus said. “They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it.”

A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it’s back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.

One side effect of allowing Al Qaeda to do what they do so well is that those who might have supported them at first will get sick of them.

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad’s Sadr City: “We’re clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood.” Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been “dramatic.”

“We’re using ‘soft knock’ clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side,” he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out “by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold.”

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. “We initiated Operation Safe Markets,” Petraeus said, “and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets.” Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them.

As a result, “The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place.” With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally.

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - “acting like a politician,” Petraeus said, without malice. “He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots.” ~nypost.com

Posted by: esimonson at March 22, 2007 12:18 AM

Eric-
That stuff sounds good. They waited too late to do all that, though. One big reason was our friend Rumsfeld, who Bush kept in place until the 2006 elections convinced him that Don was an albatross around his neck.

Of course, you folks were defending that particular albatross until Bush got tired of him. You just kept on defending what Bush said, never thinking what kind of picture it all painted together, how the facts really lined up.

You support the surge now, but if I had suggested it to you a year ago, you would have told me that I was sending more soldiers into harms way, that we had all we needed. Even now, if I brought up readiness, you would sneer at me that I was trying to get in the way of your war, but still, you would not acknowledge that Bush has had to beat the crap out of the Army’s readiness to keep the soldiers in Iraq, and that he has to ignore necessary guidlines of refreshing, reequiping and resupplying troops in order to keep them there. Now we hear of wounded soldiers getting sent to the front.

Am I skeptical of your conclusions, of the conclusions of others here? Yes, because I don’t see people thinking things out. I see people putting out the well-honed rhetoric of supporting the war for moral reasons, without the fine-tuned perspectives on the needs and realities that would otherwise be brought up. The GOP is on autopilot in terms of this war. It’s arguing it’s way around, rather than through the realities of the war.

That’s why I remain unconvinced.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2007 12:40 AM

Why would you have thought I would guess what you were talking about? Are you making assumptions based on your arrogance?

You don’t see objectives being fullfilled because you don’t want to see objectives being fullfilled.

The only objective you value is a retreat, and I fail to see a motive behind your values other than what eric stated in his original post.

You want power and you could care less what you have to do to get it back.

You really should reconsider your position because our way of life depends on our cooperation amongst ourselves. Obama bin ladon isn’t going to influence our everyday life. You and your influence will. Your opinion carries more weight than osama’s does. Petty politics will defeat us before we go broke.

Take a reality check. Evaluate the next 20 years, not the next 20 days.

Just for the hell of it, perform an extensive research on gurgle to see what the effects of a free Iraq would be on the free and european world. Do a post on that. See if Remer will help you make it democratic. I mean bi-partisan.

Yea, fat chance.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 22, 2007 12:40 AM

CIP-
I would suppose that a person would be up to speed on who’s doing what in the Iraq war if they are arguing on the subject. It’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t caught uninformed if I can help it.

We set the objective of taking control of Iraq. That failed, despite what seemed like spectacular success in Iraq. Basic military objective in an invasion: control of territory. We set the objective of disarming Saddam. We found nothing to disarm him of.

We set the objective of removing the terrorist threat from Iraq. Instead, the failure to secure complete control of the country lent the terrorists the advantage, allowing them to infest a place they didn’t have the opportunity to head into before.

We set the objective of bringing peace to Iraq. That did not work.

We set the objective of preventing sectarian strife, of bringing the Sunnis into the new government. That failed.

That’s what I mean by objectives. Simple goals. The execution to meet them might not be so intuitive, but these were measures of our ability to win this war. These are the genuine reality checks.

If we don’t get those objectives by hanging around, by continuing the war, then cutting those efforts short is not only the smart thing to do, it’s the thing that easily takes more guts.

I don’t think we’re really preventing terrorism by remaining there. I don’t think Iraq will come under control with what we’re doing, or what we can do. I think the people who have to come to terms with the state of things are them, and I’m not sure how our standing around refereeing a civil war helps.

In short, I don’t see how our presence does anything more in the long run than inspire dependence. We need to apply our efforts elsehere where.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2007 01:35 AM

CIP-
I would suppose that a person would be up to speed on who’s doing what in the Iraq war if they are arguing on the subject. It’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t caught uninformed if I can help it.

We set the objective of taking control of Iraq. That failed, despite what seemed like spectacular success in Iraq. Basic military objective in an invasion: control of territory. We set the objective of disarming Saddam. We found nothing to disarm him of.

We set the objective of removing the terrorist threat from Iraq. Instead, the failure to secure complete control of the country lent the terrorists the advantage, allowing them to infest a place they didn’t have the opportunity to head into before.

We set the objective of bringing peace to Iraq. That did not work.

We set the objective of preventing sectarian strife, of bringing the Sunnis into the new government. That failed.

That’s what I mean by objectives. Simple goals. The execution to meet them might not be so intuitive, but these were measures of our ability to win this war. These are the genuine reality checks.

If we don’t get those objectives by hanging around, by continuing the war, then cutting those efforts short is not only the smart thing to do, it’s the thing that easily takes more guts.

I don’t think we’re really preventing terrorism by remaining there. I don’t think Iraq will come under control with what we’re doing, or what we can do. I think the people who have to come to terms with the state of things are them, and I’m not sure how our standing around refereeing a civil war helps.

In short, I don’t see how our presence does anything more in the long run than inspire dependence. We need to apply our efforts there elsewhere. Iraq needs to stand or fall on its own. America should not be force to a much worse defeate become some politicians simply won’t admit what they’ve done wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2007 01:43 AM

Stephen,

I usually don’t read most of your post’s because of length. I did happen to read your last couple and although I personally don’t agree, you do actually seem sane, didn’t expect that. My question is if this is how the left really feels then why can’t you all force your newly elected representitives to cut off funding and bring the troops home. I’ve heard because it would be political suicide but if we are doing more harm than good in the left’s opinion I can’t belive that.

Honestly just want a belivable answer.

Posted by: andy at March 22, 2007 03:29 AM

Three small points , One this war is not bankrupting us ,it is costing 1% or less of are GNP, and in human terms even though the loss of any one is tragic this war is pretty low. Two are enemies want us to leave so they can take control , their own words not mine. Finally as a solider in Iraq I want to finish and not have our country pull another Vietnam and leave before the job is done,I do not understand how people can simply walk away from a fight against an enemy who’s stated goals are so barbaric sicerly Sgt Steven Boucher Iraq

Posted by: Steve at March 22, 2007 06:17 AM

Eric,

Once we contained Kim Il Sung, we did not invade N. Korea. Truman was not reckless. Surely, you are not comparing this fiasco to WWII.

If you believe this is about securing oil, then there may be U.S. strategic interest. However, to date, we have not had that national discussion. Is the oil worth our soldiers blood? Perhaps that has a lot to do with waning support. The lies aren’t working anymore.

We have not and will not be spreading democracy in the region. Tell me again why our soldiers are dying. We are not fighting terrorism, we are an occupying army in a civil war. Rather than acknowledge our oil interest, there has been shifting sands of foundation for this war. There has been purely political positioning of troops and military advice ignored that has resulted in a propped up failed state and enough casualties to erode political support.

Meanwhile, the time bomb of Afghanistan and Pakistan continues to tick.

Recklessness, Eric. Were mistakes made in WWII and Korea? Yes. Was there commitment and forthright political goals? Yes. Truman faced similar choices in Korea, he made a wise choice. Nixon recognized failure in Vietnam. Bush chooses to ride out the political clock. Reckless.

Posted by: gergle at March 22, 2007 06:21 AM

esimonson, that’s what you hear about Democrats because you don’t listen to Democrats, you listen to Republicans. The advantage to being an independent is one can tolerate listening to both sides. I watch the Congress on C-Span a good couple hours a day, and I can only count 6 Democrats from memory who are calling for a complete pull out.

There are that many Republicans who have come out against the strategy now being exercised, not the least of which is the venerable Sen. John Warner.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2007 08:16 AM

ERIC,

You’ve proved my point entirely—we are doing all the groundwork, footwork, intel work, intel gathering work, raids and so on and so on. Let’s be the deputies and let them be the sheriffs in their own nation. We are the war—they stand aside as the stand in as it is now and we have to do the whole run-around, it smacks of puppetry. Let them do their own fighting and we help them maintain the peace—screw it. That’s what I mean by being the deputy. I want our forces to be the “yessir boss” to their “Go get this or that”. This way we always maintain the goodguy position, regardless which will lead quickly to a drawdown in force levels over the course of a year or two. THAT IS NOT A LOSS IN ANY RESPECT, DON’T YOU AGREE?

I think the step n’ fetch role is not a bad placement, a military police action while they do all the tactical designs for what we should do next and we design it from there on out. It’s called helping out hte country INSTEAD OF TAKING OVER, which is where we are now.

We go in take over their country and wind up doing ALL of their fighting. They should give us the tasks and opposed to us doing it all all of the time.

Here’s a scenario—imagine if you were to help a neighbor rake leaves, but instead of raking leaves you took over all the duties 0of htat person’s house—THAT IS NOT HELP—THAT’S A SEIGE, GET IT?

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 08:55 AM

ERIC, Another thing—if they are going to have sectarian fighting—they are going to do it anyway and it is THEIR problem to sort out. WE are in a snare because we put our dumb asses there from the start. We do too much of the work, give the Iraqis and their gov their sherriff star and we run the needed errands and raids when neccesary. Upstart nations have in-fighting so let them be the ones to sort all that crap out as THEIR fight. Why do we have to be th ewhole show—it’s more a bane than a boon to our prestige to keep it up as it is.

Posted by: Gleep at March 22, 2007 09:06 AM

Eric

Democrats express policy is to, “slow-bleed,” the troops in Iraq so that Bush is forced to surrender. They have no desire to effect their own policy of appeasement and surrender. It is the defeat of Bush which is paramount. It is the elevation of political victory over domestic enemies which trumps all other priorities. Something unprecedented in the history of our nation.

To hell with Bush. He and his administration are their own worse enemies. They have done a fine job on their own of discrediting themselves. In lieu of the latter there is no clear dominating victory to be had by anyone. Bushco has taken that possibility away all on their own because their problems are the result of inept leadership and foolish mistakes.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps our views on the merits of the Iraq conflict are simply different than yours and indeed genuine.

The real controversy here is about who’s views concerning the conflict are actually right or wrong. The neocons or the dems. Only time and outcomes will determine the latter. This ploy of trying to suggest that the dems are somehow on a private agenda to smear an allready self destructing president via forcing exit from Iraq is foolish and provacative at best.

Posted by: ILdem at March 22, 2007 10:22 AM

The real controversy here is about who’s views concerning the conflict are actually right or wrong. The neocons or the dems…
Posted by: ILdem at March 22, 2007 10:22 AM

Actually, I think you should have said
“The neocons or everyone else”

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 22, 2007 10:40 AM

A Catastrophy in Progress uses a well honed method of right-wing bloviation, and that is to basically throw dust up in the air. As soon as you point out one problem with his counterargument he quickly lobs another red herring in your direction. That he is incapable of talking in coherent, linear logic, note his description of his father (emphasis mine):

He’s 75 years old, healthy as a horse, has his own wealth as well as his benefits, diabetis, a big heart, and a loss as to what to do about his government.

Do horses generally have diabetes? Also, does his father have cardiomegaly or is he just a very generous fellow?

I try to follow the thread of his dancing around all the issues. He is already convinced of his own position and doesn’t try to argue it, only to fling little half-truths in the direction of his straw-man liberal. I, for one, wouldn’t bother trying to discuss anything with him until he agrees to stand in one place and address the issue at hand.

Posted by: mental wimp at March 22, 2007 11:06 AM

“Quit talking about emboldening the enemy by retreating or surrendering, because you folks have done just that by not showing up with the right numbers or planning, and we are at the point were staying only does both our countries more harm. Let’s walk away. Let’s wrap this up, do our best to keep this country stable as we leave it, and then just walk away.”

Walking away would make that country worse, no question about it. The mission is to leave when they are capable of taking care of their own nation. They’re not ready right now, yet we are on the right path with this surge.

“I think in the end, my point is this: it wasn’t the Iraqis that defeated us, it was the way Bush politicized going to war, and fighting a war that got us. He might have been lucky enough to figure out a brilliant plan to win if he had been willing to be schooled in the realities of warfare, if he had been willing to check his ego at the door as to what do next, but that didn’t happen. Bush lost this war.”

We weren’t “defeated” and won’t be! And, we won’t be defeated, either!! That’s the problem with the anti-Bushies/War crowd, completing the mission will mitigate their criticisms of Bush. Hey, newsflash: “OUR TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THEIR COMMANDER IN CHIEF!”. And, those “criticisms” aren’t helping the US.

We will win this war with you, without you or inspite of you. So, “figure out what side you’re on and (then) get on it!”

Posted by: rahdigly at March 22, 2007 11:16 AM

Dave-1

Actually, I think you should have said
“The neocons or everyone else‎

You are correct Dave. I thought about stating it as such. But I did not want to be accused of thinking I have the right to speak for eveyone else. :)

Posted by: ILdem at March 22, 2007 01:17 PM

Rahdigly

We weren’t “defeated‎ and won’t be! And, we won’t be defeated, either!! That’s the problem with the anti-Bushies/War crowd, completing the mission will mitigate their criticisms of Bush. Hey, newsflash: “OUR TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRITICISMS OF THEIR COMMANDER IN CHIEF!‎. And, those “criticisms‎ aren’t helping the US.

I admire your passion and dedication. However I am not in agreement with your assesment of progress in Iraq.

First off we are not involved in a war. We are there as the result of a preemptive invasion gone horribly wrong. The Iraqi people are at war with themselves. We are merely involved in a conflict and have no business picking sides in their civil war. Our not so competant commander in chief has self perpetuated the criticisms he so justly deserves. Lets face it we have had much better commander in chiefs in the past. As to whether or not we have had worse is debatable. I think it is apparent that most of us have picked sides at this point. Your problem is that not enough of us share your viewpoints on the issue.

Posted by: ILdem at March 22, 2007 01:32 PM

Ildem,

“First off we are not involved in a war. We are there as the result of a preemptive invasion gone horribly wrong. The Iraqi people are at war with themselves. We are merely involved in a conflict and have no business picking sides in their civil war.”

We are “there”, though and that’s what the anti-Bush/War haven’t grasped, yet. Why we went to War was something for the 2004 election; Americans didn’t believe in the “Bush lied us into War” crap, if they did, he wouldn’t have been re-elected.

“I think it is apparent that most of us have picked sides at this point. Your problem is that not enough of us share your viewpoints on the issue.”

Good, I’m glad people picked sides; this way, when we “complete the mission”, we’ll know where everyone stood on the War. It’s going to be an eye-opener for some.

And, by the way, I don’t need anybody to be on my side to have my convictions and beliefs; I leave that to the left to waver with theirs.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 22, 2007 02:10 PM

Rahdigly,
I’ll be d*#Med!!! You sited a source!!!! Thank you!!! I’m not quiet sure just what you meant by the source, as it doesn’t totally back up your points, but at least it is there!!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at March 22, 2007 02:20 PM

Jack,
“Washington Post [4]: “Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.”

This is from Wikipedia, citing the Lancet Report of 2006.

So, 31% of Iraqi deaths by violence are caused by coalition forces, and 69% by Iraqis/foreign jihadists.

Car bombs are spectacular, and putting children in the back seat is horrifying, but while it makes the news, terrorist attacks account for a minority portion of the violence.

While the majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country, and a majority approve of attacks on US troops, Iraqis dislike the foreign jihadists even more- to the tune of 95%.

In the recent ORB poll, only 26% thought there would be serious problems in the immediate aftermath of a US withdrawal.

We are not solving the problem. Our very presence in Iraq is part of the problem.

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2007 02:31 PM

Ildem,
“

We are merely involved in a conflict and have no business picking sides in their civil war.”

The majority of Iraqis don’t believe there’s a civil war; and, they live there!

“Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.”

Linda,

“You sited a source!!!! Thank you!!! I’m not quiet sure just what you meant by the source, as it doesn”t totally back up your points, but at least it is there!!!!”

Would (actually) help if you cited the comment that you’re referring to.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 22, 2007 02:58 PM

ILdem & phx8,

If our presence in Iraq is the problem please explain why your reps. in Washington will not lead and defund the war, or at least take more aggressive steps than a silly nonbinding resolution which only disappointed both sides.
I mean you have both houses, if you truly believed all you’ve been saying the three years or so, why do you only use this substantial power to tie the military’s hands and embarrass the president. I might disagree but I would at least have respect.

Posted by: andy at March 22, 2007 03:00 PM

The question “why don’t we “just de-fund the war if we are against it” is every bit as ridiculous as suggesting that if you support the war then we should just go ahead and use tactical nukes. Why not? Don’t you believe the war is worth winning?
Why rely on this incremental b.s., go for victory!!! What’s throwing a few more thousand troops into a crowded city of six million people going to do?
w has been just about as timid as he could be in the conduct of this war. We are a country of three hundred million people facing what, twenty thousand hard core insurgents? W has attempted to fight the Iraq war with the nation’s little pinky while urging the rest of us to take a vacation!!!! The objections, by both conservative and liberal politicians, as well as %70 of the American people come largely, not out of our decision to initiate the war, but our CONDUCT of the war. Does anyone really think that there would be a debate here or anywhere else about what has happened HAD WE BEEN SUCCESSFUL????
The conduct of the war will be taken out of our “commander and chiefs” hands and it will not be done by the slight Democratic majorities in House and Senate but by conservatives who have only one date certain in mind: November 7th, 2008.
And, Andy, your comment about others attempting to “embarrass the president” is especially laughable. I wonder how many more Americans will have to die to save w’s dignity?

Posted by: Charles Ross at March 22, 2007 03:30 PM

Andy,
The supplemental spending bill is being debated even as we speak. The plan is for the bill to include benchmarks, & a pullout by August 08. Far from perfect. Far from perfect, no question. I think we should begin withdrawing now, and be out of there completely within three months, which is about as fast as it could possibly happen. But if this bill is the best Congress can do, I would gladly back the compromise.

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2007 04:07 PM

No Charles actually there is a vote on Friday on the funding of the war. The best alternative the dems can come up with is full funding but with a fall ‘08 withdrawl (Hilliary’s got her fingers crossed), but dems can’t get enough votes to even pass that. The way I see it is there must a very small majority who want us to leave, so the dems need to just be quiet and let the military do it’s job if they aren’t going to do anything usefull (ie nonbiding, rules of engagement, stupid public quotes…). It is absolutely within the dems power to put a stop to the war, it wouldn’t happen overnight but they could do it and, if I held the same views of the left, it would save American lives. There are a lot of pissed off actors trying to put on pressure for this.

As far as embarrassing the president I was talking about the ridiculous confrontation they want over the firings.

Posted by: andy at March 22, 2007 04:13 PM

phx8,

Far from perfect? That’s quite an understatement from the left’s perspective. You can not look at that bill and then listen to the soundbite’s over the past years, and seriously tell me that the dems are not playing politics with this war.

Posted by: andy at March 22, 2007 04:21 PM

How silly of me to think my opinion should have any credibility when I don’t even know if a horse can get diabetis. What was I thinking?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 22, 2007 04:35 PM

Andy,
What is your point about “playing politics”? Is it playing politics to oppose the war? To support the war? The Republicans pushed for a vote on the Iraq Resolution right before the 2002 midterms, all the while throwing around fear-mongering phrases like “mushroom clouds.” Was that playing politics? Remember that statement by Chief of Staff Andrew Card, about why the administration began calling for an invasion of Iraq in September 2002”?

” “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

So, Andy, so sorry about the political repercussions of Iraq. Conservative Republicans should have thought of that in the first place. Well, actually, they did. Their first thought was how to use the war to enhance their domestic standing, time after time. They just never thought beyond domestic politics. So many mistakes, so many fundmental misperceptions and misunderstandings about Iraqis, all colored by the oil tinged lenses of domestic politics. Too bad.

I have a great idea: if people want the US to withdraw, vote Dem in 2008; to stay, Rep in 2008. Surely, surely, you would be happy letting voters decide, right?

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2007 05:05 PM

phx8,
Playing politics to slow bleed a losing outcome so to look good in ‘08 (by the way it will backfire).
I’m confused what you meant by vote dem in ‘08 and then they will withdrawl? That is exactly what my point is. Why would you wait two years to save lives? You stated above they could be withdrawn within three months time, you’ve had control of the houses for about that amount of time already. If the military is able accomplish a victory in Iraq under these absurd conditions it will be in spite of dems. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: andy at March 22, 2007 05:27 PM

Andy,
“Thanks a lot.”

You are welcome. Believe me, we could not have done it without you.

Posted by: phx8 at March 22, 2007 05:35 PM

What about Isreal? Are we suppose to bring them home with us? And the people who support us and a democratic form of government in Iraq? Do we bring them home with us also?
Or do we pick up our marbles and come home alone?
Rest assured that is what we will be if we leave without making this work.
Vote Dem in 08 and we stay in Iraq. Vote Rep in 08 and we stay in Iraq.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 22, 2007 05:41 PM

CIP-

Let Israel defend themselves.

Posted by: jrb at March 22, 2007 05:46 PM

What is it with conservative Americans thinking the world can’t go on without them? Do conservatives realize the world was happy without them interfering for thousands of years?

Posted by: jrb at March 22, 2007 06:04 PM

I’m sure when we digress a thousand years in our way of life they will go on without us.
That is their plan you know.
How can anyone think we can just walk out of that place without any repercussions?

So simple a caveman can do it!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 22, 2007 06:25 PM

Ego will be the death of this great nation.

Posted by: jrb at March 22, 2007 06:32 PM

Andy-
I don’t think anybody wants to do an outright cutting of funding. As bold is it might be, it leaves no other options. I think Murtha’s plan of requiring that the President meet certain thresholds if he wants to keep the soldiers in Iraq is a good approach, because if Bush really wants to keep the war going, he can call for and make the sacrifices necessary to do what he wants to do. If not, we will know the truth of what his level of commitment really is.

Bush, as I recall it, asked for funding without strings, but I think we’re long past the point where he’s proved himself capable of making good judgments without the rest of us looking over his shoulder.

Sgt. Steven Boucher-
What’s going to kick us in the ass is that Bush took LBJ’s guns and butter approach, increasing national debt in order to avoid giving people second thoughts by asking for an economic sacrifice. You’re right in that the expense of the war isn’t going to bankrupt us. The real problem is what the debt he’s racking up is going to do to our currency and economy. The economic aftermath of Vietnam is a good indication of the perils of that approach.

On your second point, it is true. However, most of our enemies are Iraqis, the people who are supposed to have control of Iraq anyways. Our problem is that these groups have been radicalized and pit against each other. Do we have the soldiers to keep them apart, to enforce a peace over all the country? The military experts I hear back home, including some high profile four-star generals a