Back In The Saddle Again!

After a three month hiatus the Mighty Eagle returns to America and finds that the Democratic Party and those two nut cakes Pelosi and Murtha now control the House. What a revolting development! Now they want to cut funding for the war. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, this Eagle still supports the president..and I’ll tell you why….

Progress IS being made in Iraq but listening to the daily CNN "Situation Room" reports with Wolf "Blitz-Her" makes you think that this war is Custer's Last Stand revisited. According to him, an all-out civil war has taken place and the streets are awash with blood. Worse,his mantra (as well as the mantra of the network commentators) is that of a lost cause. They have brainwashed America, pure and simple.

You know why I know that?

Because what they say is NOT what the average returning vet says. Our heroes (my heroes) say that the cause is worth the fight and much good has taken place there. They puke when they watch "Blitz-Her" or worse... Murtha and Pelosi..talk the talk of a losers.

Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.

They know that, but why let truth get in the way of a good story?

The president really didn't stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are "losing" the war. Brainwashing at its subliminal best. Prime time brainwashing..brought to you CNN,ABC and the entire Democratic Party.

Thankfully, Murtha will become this election's Micheal Moore. Thankfully either Rudy or Mitt will pull the remaining sane Democrats (is there such a thing, I wonder?) into the Republican camp, and the White House at least will maintain a a semblance of normalcy.

Yes, the Eagle is back...and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at March 25, 2007 11:25 AM
Comments
Comment #213629

Sir, your post included no links to verify your point. It therefore is not considered credible.

By the way, do you know if a horse can get diabetis?

I’m joking but some on this site aren’t when they insist media bias must be backed up by media quotes.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 25, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #213631

Well then if what you speak is the truth the bill in question should be signed by W. Lets let the voters decide in Nov08. Seems the repubs should welcome this as it will be all but a shoo in for them, assuming you know of what you speak.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #213632

SE,
“In all, at least 74 people were killed or found dead across Iraq on Saturday, making it the seventh deadliest day since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the security operation Feb. 14, according to an Associated Press tally.

The toll included at least 25 bullet-riddled bodies: 11 found in Baghdad, six pulled from the Tigris River south of the Iraqi capital and eight in the Anbar city of Fallujah.

Northwest of Baghdad, a man wearing an explosives belt blew himself up outside a pastry shop in a central market area in Tal Afar, killing at least 10 people and wounding three.

A man driving an explosives-laden truck carrying boxes of new shoes also blew himself up near a Shiite mosque in Haswa, 30 miles south of Baghdad, killing at least 11 people and wounding 45, police said.

Two suicide car bombers also struck a police station in Qaim, near the Syrian border and about 200 miles west of Baghdad. At least six people were killed and 19 wounded in that attack.

The Voices of Iraq news agency said there were three suicide car bombers that hit three police stations in the Qaim area, killing at least 20 and wounding 30.”

“Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, seriously wounded Friday by a suicide bomber, was moved out of a hospital intensive care unit and was in good condition, an Iraqi lawmaker said.”

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/03/25/25iraq.html

The Deputy Prime Minister is the highest ranking Sunni in the Iraqi government. These reports represent a typical day in Iraq. It is worth these represent only the reported cases of violence. A rule of thumb is that reported violence represents about 20% of what actually occurs. Note there are no reports of kidnappings or other, garden variety violent crime. But in the recent ORB poll, reported by the conservative London Times & Fox News, 14% of all Iraqs have had a relative kidnapped, and 26% have had a relative killed. (The typical size of an Iraqi family is seven). Unemployment runs 30%, and that is a very conservative estimate. According to the same ORB poll, 59% did not have jobs. Electricity is still below pre-invasion levels, and so is oil production (although revenues are higher, due to the more than doubling of oil prices).

Have you seen the video from last Thursday, where Prime Minister Maliki is briefing the UN Secretary General on the improving security situtaion in Iraq? The blast goes off @ 50 yards outside the buiiding.

Sorry, SE, but you will have to make a better case. Saying that some guy who was there thought it was going well simply does not cut the mustard.

Blame the media? Classic example of blaming the messenger.


Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #213633

Our troubles in this war are not an illusion. The NIE, definitive statement of the Intelligence Community’s opinion about the situation, and not subject to your wonderfully convenient claims of media bias, indicates that civil war is an insufficient term to describe what’s going on.

So tell me, If the intelligence community is saying things are bad, why should the MSM be saying things are good?

The Republicans have this foolish tendency to expect neutral or favorable coverage a hundred percent of the time. Truth is, though, nobody gets that, especially when they screwed up. This is especially true when the progress you’re trying to claim is moderate in comparison to the magnitude of your mistakes.

You’re not going to get good coverage without good policy and good results.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #213634

Congress cannot dictate what the President does with his troops. Either fund the troops or don’t fund the troops. That’s the only choice the arrogant democratics have.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 25, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #213640

Snatching defeat from victory?

I almost forgot Bush declared Mission Accomplished several years ago…Why are we still there again?

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #213642

SE,

Welcome back.
I’ll bet you can’t wait to cast your faux pearls of wisdom to the great unwashed.

You’ve been sorely missed.

Posted by: Rocky at March 25, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #213643

Sic:
“Now they want to cut funding for the war.”

Actually, they aren’t cutting funding, they’re only attaching a few strings and some real accountability to all that money. The only one who looks like he wants to cut funding seems to be King George (and his courtiers) with the threat of the long-lost-now-found veto pen.

“Progress IS being made in Iraq”

Yeah, unfortunately all the progress is being made by the insurgents:

In all, at least 74 people were killed or found dead in Iraq on Saturday, making it the seventh deadliest day since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the security operation on Feb. 14

But who cares, right? It’s more important to puff out ones chest and keep madly spinning for King George’s fantasy war.

“why let truth get in the way of a good story?”

Haven’t we been doing that long enough? I think so.

“Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.”

Ha! You’re either with them or against them. It’s all black and white, which means it couldn’t be possibly be BOTH the GOP’s failed disaster of a war, and their mountains of corruption as far as the eye can see in every direction.

“They have brainwashed America, pure and simple.”

Brainwashed? Nah. Looks instead like America has finally opened it’s eyes and seen the truth about Bushco, and has digested the harsh reality of what they’ve been doing to this country.

“The president really didn’t stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are “losing” the war. Brainwashing at its subliminal best. Prime time brainwashing..brought to you CNN,ABC and the entire Democratic Party.”

R-i-i-i-ght. This failed war is all the fault of the Democrats and the damn Liberal Media! Bushco had absolutely nothing to do with it!

“Thankfully either Rudy or Mitt will pull the remaining sane Democrats (is there such a thing, I wonder?) into the Republican camp, and the White House at least will maintain a a semblance of normalcy.”

Rudy and Mitt, LOL.
What seems more likely is that a lot of former GOP voters will pull their heads out of their butts and try to restore some semblance of normalcy to the White House that we haven’t seen a trace of since the 2000 “election” of Mr. Chimpy and Friends.

“Yes, the Eagle is back…”

Welcome back, my Sic friend.

“and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends”

Looks like the blunt ends of your talons will once more be coated in your own blood as you scrape away in futile purpose …
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 2:06 PM
Comment #213647

Let me see if I understand correctly…Iraqi’s are mainly killing Iraqi’s and sometimes Allied forces. They kill each other and I am to believe that the polls indicate that the Iraqi “man-on-the-street” is pissed-off at us (U.S.) because we don’t stop the killing. Reports I’ve read seem to indicate that Iraqi forces are being trained by U.S. and our Allies at an ever increasing rate to defend their own country. Now, our House of Reps wants to pull the plug, either immediately or at some point within the next one or two years. It gets confusing for me at this point as there are so many pull-out plans floating around. As I understand, those voting in favor of pulling-out don’t care what the conditions are at the time of the pull-out or who pays the horrendous price for such an action. Folks, none of this makes any sense to me. Many in this country (U.S.) want peace at any price. The operative word here is “peace”. Is this a one-sided peace with our enemies still wanting our doom? Is this peace at any price? Not a good idea as witness the peaceful retorich of pre-WWII. What do we do? Well, my common sense tells me that when you have the best army in the world in place, among others, where global terrorism is being and has been spawned, why wait until another day and other place to kill the SOB’s. Sorry, I am having a bad spelling day.

Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2007 2:21 PM
Comment #213649

S. E.
I see the libs didn’t hesitate to jump on this one. Like I said in another post maybe they ought to go to Iraq and get first hand info instead of rellying on biased media.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #213656

Jim,
Please name the Iraqis who have launched attacks inside the United States since the invasion in 2003. Name one. No? Ok, please name the Iraqis who have attempted attacks inside the US. Name one. No?

The Democrats have settled on one option for ending the war, and presented it as a deadline for funding the war as of August 31, 2008.

You write: “… polls indicate that the Iraqi “man-on-the-street” is pissed-off at us (U.S.) because we don’t stop the killing.”

Partially correct. The majority believe we are occupying their country for our own benefit. Over half of all Iraqis believe it is acceptable to attack US troops. Only %3 percent believe we are there to establish democracy. The vast majority of Iraqis DO NOT want us in their country.

Global terrorism was not spawned in Iraq. Examples of terrorism originating in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were de minimis, no worse than other countries in the Middle East, and almost exclusively aimed at Israel. In fact, the Baathists of Saddam Hussein openly persecuted religious fundamentalists. It was a secular state. Remember? No? Oh well.

You write: “… when you have the best army in the world in place, among others, where global terrorism is being and has been spawned, why wait until another day and other place to kill the SOB’s.”

Because using the military to combat terrorism is ineffective. It is a matter for intelligence, Special Forces operations, and international cooperation- NOT the military. Afghanistan was an exception. It offered us an opportunity to attack Al Qaida while it was relatively concentrated. The opportunity to use the military to combat terrorism went away a long time ago.

Furthermore, the best troops in the world cannot be effective if they are commanded by incompetents.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #213660

phx8
Yea we found that the best troops in the world could not be effective in Viet Nam with a democrat CiC

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 2:47 PM
Comment #213661

Let’s count the events in Phx8’s first Post.

Bad - 10
Good- 1 Can you find it?



Other developments in Iraq

A bomb went off
Two American soldiers died

Those were the “Other developements”

U.S. deaths in Iraq
The Associated Press lists 3,234 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, including at least 2,607 considered combat deaths by the Pentagon.

Let’s figure that statement out. 3234 dead as per the AP, but only 2607 as per the Pentagon.

Who is correct?


Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #213662

KAP:
“I see the libs didn’t hesitate to jump on this one.”

Duh. It was addressed to us.

“Like I said in another post maybe they ought to go to Iraq”

Personally I’d love to know why all you Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors haven’t gone yourselves. If this is so important, and such a noble cause, why haven’t you joined up to fight and win it? Too old? Why you could always become one of the many contractors there…
Let’s face it “loyal Bushies”, your heart is just not in this war either, but you just love to pick on the left, calling us traitors and every other horrible thing you can think of, simply to satisfy that mean streak.

“and get first hand info instead of rellying on biased media.”

By “biased media’ you mean all media both domestic and foreign — everything except Fox”News”, right?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment #213665

CIP,
The AP number of American deaths include all causes, including accidents such as flipping a tank into a river, or suicide. The Pentagon numbers list only deaths in combat at the hands of the enemy.

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #213669

Adrienne
I have been,14yrs USN with 2 tours in Nam. ARM CHAIR HARDLY NOT. As far as biased media, I’m saying one that shows both sides of the story not just the bad and we haven’t had much of that from any media source including FOX.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #213672

KAP:
“I have been,14yrs USN with 2 tours in Nam. ARM CHAIR HARDLY NOT.”

Thanks for your service. No doubt they’d really appreciate the kind of invaluable knowledge and experience you have.

“As far as biased media, I’m saying one that shows both sides of the story not just the bad and we haven’t had much of that from any media source including FOX.”

But have you ever entertained the thought that maybe the story we’re being presented with happens to be the simple truth?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #213673

Ah…the taste of good discussion….especially blessed today with the likes of Stephen…Rocky…and the lovliest of all…Adrienne…

Let’s see…Not one word from anyone about corruption being the major issue in the last election. How did it get finnessed into the war?

By the way, this isn’t a term paper…I don’t have to quote sources…if you have concrete evidence to the contrary,show it. Don’t bother with the CNN exit poll that day by the way…it butresses my opening salvo.

74 dead today. That is a tragedy. No question.Democracy has a price,unfortunately. Check Germany post WWII..how many Allied troops died AFTER occupation?

What is the problem there? Finally, the fanaticial mullahs are are being reined in. Months ago I wrote here that radicial Mullahs, both Shia and Sunni ,hould have been eliminated. No way, you said. It would just create more enemies. Really? If you eliminate the veteran radicial leadership there, over time the replacements will be far weaker and disorganized.

Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.

Most importantly: take the kids and re-educate them just like we did in Germany and Japan.

If the military were left alone for 60 days, and if CNN and the screamers were kicked out of the counrty, the problem would disappear.

You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.

And don’t tell me that Murtha can do it. He is an absolute disgrace. He had those Marines convicted months before they were given their day in court.

That’s why it is called “war”.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 25, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #213675

Adrienne
Most news sources only report what bad is happening because that’s what people want to hear. People are not interested in the good things our military is doing because it’s not sensational news it won’t sell papers or get listeners. While the bad may be true, there is still a good part that is true to. Just like Nam people heard the bad and not the good.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #213676

SE,
In the 2006 CNN exit poll, 42% listed corruption as extremely important, while something like 39% listed terrorism, and 37% listed Iraq.

Thank you for conceding the point that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Thank you. Finally, we straightened that out.

You write: “Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.”

That specifically falls under the definition of a war crime. Any other war crimes you would like to advocate? Maybe if, instead of “re-educating” them, we just shot every tenth child, that would settle their hash.

You also write: “You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.”

Wow. Right out of “Heart of Darkness,” by Conrad. In the margin of a textbook on civilizing the natives, the character Kurtz scrawls in the margin, “ELIMINATE THE BRUTES!”

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #213677

Sic Eagle:

What is the problem there? Finally, the fanaticial mullahs are are being reined in. Months ago I wrote here that radicial Mullahs, both Shia and Sunni ,hould have been eliminated. No way, you said. It would just create more enemies. Really? If you eliminate the veteran radicial leadership there, over time the replacements will be far weaker and disorganized.

Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.

Your problem is that you have been, and obviously still are, listening to the WRONG people in your party, Sic Eagle. Look at what Sen. Chuck Hagel said today on ABC’s ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about Iraq. You mentioned the House Democrats passed their bill. Their version of the Iraq war funding bill this week which imposed benchmarks on the Iraqi government but also set a deadline for the removal of all U.S. combat forces. Can you sign on to that?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I believe this, and I’ve said this from the beginning. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. The solution to Iraq will come as a result of a political accommodation by the people in Iraq, the Iraqi people, which will result in a political resolution. I have said also that I’m absolutely opposed to a further American military escalation in Iraq. That’s what’s going on here. And it’s one of these, oh, by the way — It’s one of these gradual incremental-type oh, by the ways. We first heard the president’s announcement on this a few weeks ago, 21,500 troops.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is how do you stop it?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I think the Congress is going to play a role now like we have not played before. You’ve already seen the House play that role. We will debate it this week in the Senate. Senator Jim Webb and I are going to introduce some legislation that will, in fact, have the force of law in the future involvement of our military, in our country and what conditions that future will be.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So combining legislation, what kind of conditions are you going to try to impose?

SEN. HAGEL: It will be binding legislation, and it will be focused on deployment, redeployment, training, equipment. What we’re doing to our force structure in this country is disastrous. We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our Army. We’re destroying our Marine Corps. We can’t sustain this kind of not only deployment, but training tempo, and the consequences of that, you’re seeing at Walter Reed Hospital, for example and the consequences of that, for example, dumbing down your United States Army. We are now in a situation, we’re waiving criminal records, drug abuse records to entice people to join the Army. You are ruining a 30-year effort to produce, which we have, the best Army in the world.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m unclear on what exactly you’re trying to do. Are you going to be setting an end date for U.S. involvement? I don’t want to get too far ahead of Senator Webb on this. We have not announced what exactly those amendments will say. We will do that early next week, either tomorrow or Tuesday, but I would say that it does affect the outcome, the conditions of America’s military involvement in Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then, just to be clear, though, you cannot accept what the House passed, would you vote to strip those conditions from the legislation?

SEN. HAGEL: I would want to see what, in the end, I have to vote on. Let me put it this way, I will not accept the status quo. I will not continue to support with my vote the status quo. I am opposed to the president’s current policy. I am opposed to the president’s further escalation of America’s military involvement. We are undermining our interest in the Middle East. We are undermining our military. We’re undermining the confidence of people around the world in what we’re doing. We have, clearly, a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort. It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as far as —

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the White House has argued, Stephen Hadley was here last week, that right now we’re actually seeing the increase in forces actually start to deliver some results in Baghdad. Don’t you see that at all?

SEN. HAGEL: No, I don’t see that. In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital.

No, it isn’t getting any less dangerous, and the fact is that was predictable, the more American troops you flood into a zone, sure, you’re going to see some immediate effect of that but that has nothing to do with the long-term or lasting effect. This solution in Iraq is not going to come by continuing to put more and more Americans in there because we’re bogging ourselves down. We are further eroding our credibility and stature in the Middle East. It’s going to make it more and more difficult for us to get out because we are going to have to get out.

You know, we had the Inspector General testifying, our Inspector General, Mr. Bowen, he was testifying before the Congress this week. I met with him alone for an hour and a half. He reminded all of us that we have now spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq. We have put at least 40 billion in economic development there. Which we don’t know what we got out of it. There’s still no oil law. Billions of dollars have been ripped off, unaccounted for, and one more point on this — over $12 billion of Iraqi money still sits in the accounts of the Iraqi government that they haven’t spent. So something has to give here, George.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: It is clear to me that you are angry about this and you also gave an interview to “Esquire” magazine this month, the April edition of “Esquire” magazine where you were quoted as saying, “the president says ‘I don’t care’, he’s not accountable anymore, he’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment.”

SEN. HAGEL: Well, any president who says “I don’t care” or “I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else” or “I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed,” if a president really believes that, then there are, what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that. This is not a monarchy.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you think that would be appropriate in this case?

SEN. HAGEL: I didn’t say that. I didn’t call for it. I didn’t predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here. No president can dictate to this country, nor should he. This is a constitutional form of government. We have three equal branches of government. No president is bigger than the other two. There are three co-equal branches of government. Article 1 of the Constitution is not the presidency. It’s the Congress.

So what I was pointing out, George, is that there are ways to deal with this and I would hope the president understands that. I mean, his comments this weekend, yesterday in his radio address were astounding to me. Saying to the Congress in effect, you don’t belong in this. I’m in charge of Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re talking about the U.S. attorney controversy?

SEN. HAGEL: No, I’m talking about what he was referring to specifically in his radio address about what the House of Representatives did on Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Friday on Iraq, okay.

SEN. HAGEL: And essentially dismissing them. Now, he can disagree, of course. I understand that. That’s his responsibility. But to dismiss them, the Congress by saying, “you don’t have a role in this, you’re irrelevant to this,” he’s getting some bad advice and I would suggest they all go back and reread the Constitution.

Now, I don’t agree with most of Hagel’s positions or with his votes, but nevertheless, I can see that he is a Republican conservative who has America’s best interest at heart.
Rather than talk about GOP clowns like Rudy and Mitt, you should be talking about a guy like Hagel as being the kind of candidate that can restore some real integrity to the GOP.
It has become painfully obvious that if your party continues off the non-conservative Neocon cliff — flushing this country right down the toilet as a result, you are going to be history for a long, long time to come.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #213680

phx8

I forgot to welcome you…your comments always are insightful and passionate, and I appreciate that.

War crimes? Don’t think so. If a mullah is preaching that America should burn and if his mosque is harboring criminals and weapons, he is fair game. He should be elominated. Not talked to,reasoned with, cajoled…eliminated.

Same with family of suicide bombers. They give aid and comfort to the enemy. Their assets should be seized too.

Adrienne

Hagel sucks. He was in the first wave of Republicans who lost his gonads to the polls. Believe me, Rudy and or Mitt won’t flinch. That is the ticket I am predicting ,by the way…Guilliani/Romney vs Clinton/ Obama.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 25, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #213682

Sic Eagle:
“Hagel sucks.”

So, you’re saying that everything Hagel said in that interview is completely wrong, simply because you don’t like him?
That’s a serious problem I see with you “with us or against us” Bushie loyalists — every subject is always all or nothing with you people.
Folks on the left don’t tend to be like that. For instance, I personally can’t stand Hillary Clinton for being a Republican Lite, corporate protectionist and sleazy opportunist, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t sometimes make good points, and say things that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

“That is the ticket I am predicting ,by the way…Guilliani/Romney”

Well, I hope you’re right. Rudy is such a blowhard and an idiot, and has so many embarrassing skeletons in his closet, he should be incredibly easy to take down.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 25, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #213688
SEN. HAGEL: No, I don’t see that. In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital.


Hey! Wait a minute!!

“Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, seriously wounded Friday by a suicide bomber, was moved out of a hospital intensive care unit and was in good condition, an Iraqi lawmaker said.”

Which is it! Mortally wounded or in good condition.
I guess Senator Hagle couldn’t find the ONE GOOD THING in Phx8 ‘s article.


Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 25, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #213690

SE,
Punishing the families of insurgents (most suicide bombers are foreign jihadists, btw) by razing their houses specifically violates the Geneva Convention. The Israelis do it, using American bulldozers. Nevertheless, the US & the international community recognize it as a crime.

Fighting an insurgency is normally seen as a battle of hearts and minds. Killing people, so that there are fewer hearts and minds lieft to win, is usually counterprodutive. A scorched earth policy might work. However, I do not want to see my country scorching the earth. Is that why we are in Iraq? To eliminate all the Iraqis who do not want us in Iraq? The majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country. The majority approve of attacking US troops. Is there some sort of upper limit on how many people we are supposed to kill?

Posted by: Phx8 at March 25, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #213692

Would someone explain to the fleeing Iraqi’s that everything is just fine?

Happy talk reminds me of the tower of Babel.

Somehow if this were Israel, I get the feeling that some of these folks would be bemoaning those horrid evil Palestinians. Not that Israel or the U.S. has anything to do with the violence going on. It’s just one of those things.

I thought the video of the Japanese diplomat cringing while the Iraqi barely blinked as a shell landed close by was very telling. Just another day of brightness and sunshine, in Bagdad. Ho-hum. No news here.

Posted by: gergle at March 25, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #213695

KAP-
With all due respect to your military experience, don’t bring up bias unless you can demonstrate actual distortion. You can claim that the media’s getting it all wrong, but when the Intelligence community comes back with an NIE that says that “civil war” doesn’t begin to describe the situation, I think the claims of bias need better support than just this axiomatic treatment.

CIP-
Yeah, that’s right. Good call there. You’ve got total proof that things aren’t as bad as the Democrats are saying, because, geez, the bomb only nearly killed him.

What amazes me sometimes is how blase the supporters of Bush and this war get over these kinds of “minor” developments. I mean, imagine if the Bush’s chief of staff got blasted in his own home. Whether he died or not, somebody was truly trying to kill him. This in the Green (read: secure) zone. Reportedly, the guy who did this just walked up to him, through security.

SE-
I always get a little annoyed when people compare casualties between WWII and now. Why?

1) War was larger. Iraq, despite the bloviation of various parties, is not WWIII. With the Second World War, you had a conflict on two fronts, through many different countries, and most of Europe. Here we have… Well, Iraq. It’s the Iraq War. The world, versus one country.

2) 1940’s military technology. limits to communication, airpower and targeting make precise and thereby low casuality war-fighting difficult.

3) Equivalence and even superiority of enemy military technology. The Germans had some weapons that were even better than ours.

4) 1940’s medical science. Antibiotics were just beginning to be used. doctors were only beginning to learn how to deal with battlefield trauma. I think the figures are something like forty percent of the wounded dying. Now we see only ten percent. That’s two and half times less than even Vietnam.

5) The Guerilla Warfare aspect. Asymmetric tactics rely on surprise, deception, and ambush tactics. They are meant to cripple armies in other ways than just outright casualties. Figures can be extraordinarily lopsided. They killed 50 thousand of us in Vietnam, we killed millions. We still lost, because we couldn’t get the South Vietnamese to the point of being able to stand on their own. Vietnam would have been problematic, but not a loss, had South Vietnam held together.

In the end, body counts don’t tell much of a story, much less the whole story. What’s important is whether we achieve what we set out to do. The truth about Iraq is that we haven’t and will not likely be able to do that. Even the commander on the ground says that part of this is political, and judging from events on the ground, that’s not working out too well.

Oh, and welcome back. I’ve missed training with my dragon style debate kung fu against your eagle style.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #213696

Nothing new here. Just more of the same old neocon jealousies in the wake of a party which has all but lost it’s sense of credibility. And of course another round of posturing to somehow put the blame for Bush’s uninsightful and failed policies on anyone but themselves. Unless you can come up with something new and credible Eagle you might as well go park it in the same hanger as the rest of the neocon losers.

Posted by: ILdem at March 25, 2007 5:50 PM
Comment #213700

Welcome back SE!

I see your vacation still didn’t clear up your thinking on BushCo…………sigh :-/

I look forward to future arguments, but I’m just too disappointed at the moment. I still think there’s a chance you and Jack might come around :~)

Posted by: KansasDem at March 25, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #213701

SE,
You referred to it twice, so here is another chance for clafification. According to the CNN poll, was Iraq the dominating issue of the 2006 midterms, or were Iraq and terrorism two separate issues?

Posted by: phx8 at March 25, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #213702

1Ldem

So,you either a first lieutenant or a first year law student. Either way, both good professions. But I don’t park in a hangar. The Republican Party really has no one to blame but itself. The Dems won the last election by default…the Repubs lost it.

Is cutting off funding really an answer? Better still is attaching a million amendments ,all of them pork barrel by the way, not corruption? Isn’t that what happened last week?

Has the un-indicted co-conspiritor Murtha suddenly changed his stripes and become honest? Ya,right.

Look at that idiot Jack Delahunt from Massachusetts for example. Last year he was crowing about all that cheap oil that he and Joe Kennedy brought here from Venuezula. Chavez played him like a guitar. He is now heading a committee. Look at Marty Meehan. He is cashing out by accepting a plum job as a university chancellor…and still has over 3 million in his campaign chest. Is that Jefferson guy still in the freezer? How about Gore? What was the haul from that pay per view movie? Was it enough to pay his house electric bill this month? Corruption has no politicial affiliation,my friend. The sad part of the matter is that folks like you see only a one sidedissue. You are being fleeced right now, and you don’t realize it.

Stephen
I am time stressed now to answer. I promise that I will in a manner befitting my favorite leftie poster. (Next to Adrienne,that is)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 25, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #213703

Stephen D.
I didn’t say the media was getting it all wrong. I said that they only reporting half the story and that being the bad half because it sells more papers and gets more listeners. If the media would report that the military built a school somewhere in Iraq or 100 soilders donated blood to a Iraqi Hospital you think that would be reported. NO. Why because the media is only interrested in what sells and it is usually the bad because that’s what people want.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #213704

Let me see what was the last thing I remember the Eagle writing?? oh ya here it is…

“It now appears that the GOP has weathered everything that the Democratic Party has thrown at it…including the kitchen sink…and is still in a position to keep control of both the House and the Senate despite withering media criticism of the administration”

Sorry pal you have about as much credibility as Colin Powell

Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it.

Posted by: 037 at March 25, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #213712

I have never been able to figure out how it is that with the Internet, the likes of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Faux News, etc., etc. that all the fantastic news about what great progress we’re making in Iraq is suppressed.

C’mon Eagle, where’s your specific information about all the great progress we’re supposedly making over there? I realize that the VLWC has enormous powers to prevent any good news from escaping from Iraq, but geez, why can’t some of the fine journalists listed above come up with just one measly story a day about how great things are going there?

Posted by: Torus Lindvalds at March 25, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #213715



December 02, 2005, 8:19 a.m.
The Winning Side
Fox tells some of the mostly untold stories from Iraq.
By Stephen Spruiell

But any close observer of the media knows that, as one Marine memorably put it, the media tend to show us the sacrifice that Americans and Iraqis are making, but act perpetually confused as to what that sacrifice is for. Palkot and other journalists stand out from the rest by going beyond the casualty counts to show us that untold story.


People building new homes provide a motif that runs throughout the documentary. There is a theme of renewal and reconstruction. Perhaps the most promising statistic of all those Palkot presents is that by some estimates marriages have doubled since the fall of Saddam. That indicates optimism about Iraq’s future. It’s an optimism that is not shared by a majority of the top brass in the American media — an optimism that is largely an untold story. For one hour on Saturday night, however, Fox tells it.

Easy Sailing Along Once-Perilous Road To Baghdad Airport
Army Steps Up Presence to Quell Attacks
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A15

The turnaround was owed to simple, boots-on-the-ground military tactics, Army officials said.
“Presence is definitely a key to our mission,” said Pfc. Justin Wildey, 23, of Marietta, Ga. “In order to make everyone else safer, we’ve got to take chances. I don’t have any problem with it; most of us here don’t.”


Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 25, 2007 7:51 PM
Comment #213718

Uhhh, is that the best you can do? One story from November 4 2005 and one from December 2 2005? My goodness, why are we still there if things were so peachy over a year ago?

Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #213719

KAP:

If the media would report that the military built a school somewhere in Iraq or 100 soilders donated blood to a Iraqi Hospital you think that would be reported. NO. Why because the media is only interrested in what sells and it is usually the bad because that’s what people want.

Including Limbaugh? Including O’Reilly? Faux News? Why aren’t they reporting all this good news? Are they part of the liberal media you seem to be blaming for failing to report good news from Iraq?

Nevermind the fact that, although it would certainly would be good news and should be reported if we built a school or donated 100 pints of blood, those kinds of things are orders of magnitude less important that something like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_soldiers_dc;_ylt=Ar7JDSHfKVki3w8Zq4gKAGoDW7oF

Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 8:19 PM
Comment #213720

Torus
Your a prime example of those who thrive on the bad side of the news. If something good happens you throw out 10 bad things. It’s not FAUX IT’S FOX news

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #213721

If there weren’t 10 things to cite in opposition to the good that’s been reported, I wouldn’t cite 10 bad things.

The point is that if there were so many good things happening, why wouldn’t Rush and Bill and the FAUX news crew be reporting that? It’s a yes or no question. Answer it.

I don’t thrive on the bad side of what’s happening in Iraq, I was against us going in to begin with. The feeling of utter powerlessness I have with you and the rest of the sheep who think ignoring the bad and publicizing the good is all it will take for Iraq to end successfully makes me sick.

Posted by: Torus Linvalds at March 25, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #213722

Torus
The answer is bad sells good dosen’t. So no not even fox reports the good things or human interest stories.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #213724

Torus
Nobody wants to ignore the bad. You got it turned around they are IGNORING THE GOOD.

Posted by: KAP at March 25, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #213726

Uh……..duh, what is our objective in Iraq?

Saddam is gonzo! So we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, right?

We let many Al Qaeda members escape to Pakistan including Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is even bragging now about creating new training camps in Lebanon.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was led by a Jordanian (Al_Zarqawi) and most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. Saudi Arabia and Jordan our both our allies and now Condi is pissing in Egypt’s bowl of Cheerios.

You bet. We’re doing just fine. We need just a couple more really stupid people to join BushCo so we can blow the whole damn world all to hell. That’s the only way Bush can save himself from a legacy of shame.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 25, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #213728

Argument about balance have a fatal flaw: in the real world, things are usually going one way or another.

Arguments about the sensationalism of news avoid an important fact victory is sensational to cover. Victory was great television. Had Iraq succeeded, it would have simply dropped off the radar in favor of something else.

Some want the media to be to blame. I guess it’s easier than being wrong yourself. Nobody likes to deal with these things, so the temptation is great to chalk it up to perception.

It’s a dangerous game, because often enough, it’s not mere perception. If that is the case, one is simply making one’s moral and practical failings chronic by failing to address them.

That, in my opinion, has been the downfall of the Republicans. When everything’s somebody else’s fault, one might feel the temptation to stay as you are, to not grow or develop, to not allow criticism or reform to change you. After all, it’s everybody else trying to pull you down.

The consequence of such an attitude is decadence and corruption, as one relieves oneself of the motivation to improve oneself. As painful as it is to be censured, it’s motivation for improvement. To block off all negative comment, to rationalize away all criticism is to isolate oneself from corrective influences. Nobody, not Democrat, not Republican, does very well when they don’t have to deal with outside criticism.

In a very real way, American Democracy is about being forced into the inconvenience of answering to everybody else for your behavior. Rather than privilege one set of people to do what they want, regardless of its ill effects, America stands behind them and whispers into their ear: Remember, thou art mortal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #213730

So let me get this straight, the good news is schools are bring built, the troops are giving blood, and the road to the airport has been opened and is an easier drive for the past year. Did I miss anything? Now in my mind if the evil MSM did report this on a daily basis, I think most people would be thinking something like “We’re getting our troops killed and spending billions for this?” Have all the repubs completly lost their sense of perspective as well as their business sense? Seems the repubs are hell bent to prove the myths they spread about the ineffiencies of the Federal Government. I knosw they have proved the CEO as President ideology to been bogus.

One more question does the good outweigh the bad? Is staying in Iraq indefinitly, with no plan for ever leaving?
If I was the repubs I would take their oil buddies Iraq bargaining chip and put it on the table for the American people or sit down and shutup about the deadline.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #213737

Sic

So,you either a first lieutenant or a first year law student. Either way, both good professions. But I don’t park in a hangar. The Republican Party really has no one to blame but itself. The Dems won the last election by default…the Repubs lost it.

The repubs didn’t lose an election. They squandered away the trust of a nation. They lost all credibility and left their supporters looking like well trained fools. The trust at this point is the dems to lose, time will tell.

Is cutting off funding really an answer? Better still is attaching a million amendments ,all of them pork barrel by the way, not corruption? Isn’t that what happened last week?

In light of republican obstinance, cutting off funding is the means to an end. The amendments are for good causes and obviously additional leverage. Since when are amendments considered corruption? I don’t believe any of them are for bridges to nowhere.

I will not dispute the character of the myriad of people you mentioned. I really do not see what any of them other than Murtha have to do with ending this charade in Iraq. Once again you folks are trying to place blame for a failed conflict by insinuating that the problem is somehow the result of a corrupt dem party and a lack of support from everyone except the neocons. Well my friend seven out of 10 people in this country have decided that it is not a cause which is any longer worth pursuing. And you know what, all of these people are capable of making their own assesments. We honestly do not need a bunch of demented die hard Bushies trying to convince us of the errors of our ways. This president, his administration, and his congress are an embarasment to this nation. The sooner we get out of Iraq and replace Bush and his cronies the quicker this nation can begin healing and heading in a sensical direction.


Posted by: ILdem at March 25, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #213738

Eagle, Eagle, Eagle, there you go again. You state that corruption was the driving force behind the 2006 election results, and they were, but remember that a lot of the corruption has to do with the execution of the Iraq occupation (ain’t a war, we’re just occupying the place, there’s no “enemy” that we’re trying to “defeat,” unless you say the Iraqi people are the enemy, in which case you are clearly the nut case), pallet-loads of cash that disappeared, arms and munitions left unguarded, Halliburton et al. given no-bid contracts then turn around and overcharge and underserve, insufficient body and vehicle armor, unserving wounded veterans upon their return, cherry-picking facts to get us into the invasion, lying about known location of WMDs etc., etc., etc. The country is fed up with the ineptitude of this administration and the so-called conservative movement that has so far proven every one of it tenets to be false and furthermore that it fails as a philosophy of government.

But go ahead and caw like you’re some victorious bird of prey, and when the last American dies for this failure you can preen and fluff your feathers and say that we “lost” because of the liberals and Democrats and keep saying it until history repeats itself again (just as Vietnam is being repeated now). Look at what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and think about what we’re doing. How long does it take to “win” in these situations? How long, Eagle? Answer that and win an American flag from GW.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 25, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #213739

Just out of curiousity, what “pork” do people object to in the emergency spending supplemental bill?

Here is a list of items some consider pork:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/189150/house_democrats_pass_pork_bill_with.html?page=1

Personally, I do NOT think spending $969 billion for preparation, response & development of vaccines by HHS for an avian flu epidemic to be a bad move. In fact, that sounds like a pretty good idea.

Some spending goes to farmers for losses incurred recently due to natural disasters- drought relief, the e-coli problems for spinach growers, freezes affecting citrus growers, and so on.

$1.3 billion goes to the Army Corps of Engineers for levee repairs in NO.

Is anyone seriously opposed to these?

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #213740

Correction: $969 million for Avian flu prep.

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #213747

Let me see what was the last thing I remember the Eagle writing?? oh ya here it is…

“It now appears that the GOP has weathered everything that the Democratic Party has thrown at it…including the kitchen sink…and is still in a position to keep control of both the House and the Senate despite withering media criticism of the administration”

Sorry pal you have about as much credibility as Colin Powell

Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it.
Posted by: 037 at March 25, 2007 06:26 PM

Hallelujah and praise Jesus! And I was beginning to think that I had imagined this character called the mightly sparrow who was spewing empty and pathetic forecasts last Nov. In fact, I though he had just gone to ground until fading memory would facilitate his return to punditry.

Welcome back Sic, you make the world more colourful with your delusions of reality. All part of life’s rich tapestry!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 26, 2007 6:41 AM
Comment #213749

The New Congress in DIM control is a cut and run defeatist crew lead by piglosi and her pork mobile.

The new name for the Democratic Party is American Islamist Party of Death to America.

It seems to fit their actions since forever, only now they can be a religion. They are the new threat to America and they are a radical bunch.

Posted by: im at March 26, 2007 7:40 AM
Comment #213752
They have brainwashed America, pure and simple.

How ironic, american’s brains will have been *cleaned* by MSM at both start *and* end of this iraq war adventure…

Instead, if these *cleaning* forces could have been put at work to clean the actual mess created/added in Iraq…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #213753

SE,

The president really didn’t stand a chance with this crew, and that is why we are “losing” the war.

He got FOUR (4) years!

He agreed that 120,000 soldiers will be enough.
It was not.
He agreed that firing all Iraqis in army because few of them were high-ranking Sunni leaders/Saddam Hussein loyalists was a great idea.
It was not.
He agreed to use torture as he want, whatever US image/values damage could get.
It gets a lot.
He agreed that this war was necessary, that pre-emptive doctrine is legal, that Iraq had many WMDs threating the US.
He was wrong.
He agreed that US military power should be used to spread bullets democracy in the Middle East.
It doesn’t work.
He agreed that Iraq War cost will be paid by Iraq oil.
It’s still not.
He agreed that US taxpayers money should be offered without any bid to private contractors, that these will cut the cost.
It doesn’t.

And, still, the US mainstream medias gave him a blank card during FOUR years!

I call this a gift made to your president. Without the 9/11 patriotism reflex, he won’t have so much time.

But, now, it’s time for accountability. Alas, it’s not Bushies best skill, indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 8:28 AM
Comment #213754

Some general comments:

1. Yes, it is good to be back. Despite our political differences, I regard all of you highly…and good Americans too. Some are merely mis-guided, and my job is to get that course correction on track. :)

2. Regarding war crimes: I cannot think of a single war where war crimes did not occur. Weren’t Hroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate in war crimes? Didn’t innocent women and children get obliterated? How about the firebombings in Germany back then? Argueably (and I would definately have defended Truman in a court of law for those actions by the way) any killing of innocents is a war crime.

Here, (Iraq) I am talking about something different. Had strategic mullahs been blown away ruthlessly, along with their protegny months ago,only lightweights would remain. I still would like to see one strategic bomb dropped on a crowd of fanatics the next time they dance on the street . Just once. That would give them something to think about.

Honestly, I would like to see a few car bombs and IEDs placed close by some of these fanatical mosques too.

If a list were put together of say the top 1000 idiots there,and every time an American died a bomb dropped on someone on that list, I would feel better. Imagine one of those mullahs and how he would feel if he knew that his name was on that list. I would post that list everywher too, and update it.

The property of these suicide bombers should be confiscated and sold too. The proceeds go to the decedents survivors. Call it a form of Iraqi personal injury settlement if you will.

I also think that in every village surrounding Baghdad that three camps should be formed and in one camp the childen are placed,the other camp the women are placed,and in the third camp the men are placed. Then,every house should be searched,and then guilty arrested.

In the meantime,a standardized education system should be implimented. The cocept of jihad should be banned and criminilized. Those espousing the philosophy should be jailed or killed. (I prefer the later). In other words, the young should be programmed..brainwashed….just like the Japanese were. In a generation or two, this violence would have been breeded out of them.

I bet that if five villages were torn apart in this manner,and every rock searched,every man strip-searched,every vehicle torn apart, a strong message would be sent.

This winning the hearts and minds bullshit is exactly that. A swift kick to the gonads is in order, then a boot to the neck. We are dealing with dogs here.

My view is that we have to be much more animalistic with this crew. We are trying to fight a war according to the Geneva Ruls,while they line the kitty litter box with the same rules.

Alexander The Great said that they were the worst. The Romans finally threw up their hands and partitioned the country into three,forbiding both travel and trade.

phx8

I have been thinking about your queery. Here is my response:

I think Iraq and terrorism are now intertwined.Initialy, the reason for the invasion(WMDs) was the fear that they would be sold to terror groups. Bush’s was inncorrect due to faulty intelligence (Mossad, British Intelligence,Russian Intelligence,Egyptian Intelligence all confirmed WMDs,along with the CIA). Since then,Iraq has kinda been like a piece of discarded food attracting vermin from everywhere. I am happy about that because the worst of the worst from all over the place now flock there in the name of jihad. The Iraqis can do one of two things; they can help us kill them (these are the same scumbags whose philosophy caused over 3,000 deaths in September of 2001),or they can do nothing. If they do nothing, then they should be punished, re-educated until they do something,or destroyed.

Honestly,I hate..really hate…this fanatical element and hve concluded that like a cancer they must be destroyed.

Of course, I am castigated by my views. Well, tough. I see a nuclear holocost down the road…Iran…maybe a suitcase bomb by Hezbollah or Hamas..maybe a nut cake from a maddras in Saudi or Pakastan…something.

If we have to fight, mind as well win,that is what I say. The victors re-write history. Our history books say the the bombs in Japan prevented many more deaths of Americans. Guess what? I am saying that here now,today.

The defense of necessity in a homicide case says that in order to save 2, if one other must die,so be it. Here, if a few thousand (fanatics) must die
in order to save perhaps millions,well….

I decided to post again after much thought. Yes I am a hawk.Yes my views on some issues are off the wall, and I probably don’t believe all that I write either. However, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between your thought and mine..but I present these views anyway because maybe one or two kerrenls will provoke discussion.

I love Watchblog and the writers on the left. However, I love guys like Jack too. We balance things off,I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #213755

catastrophyinprogress,

Let’s figure that statement out. 3234 dead as per the AP, but only 2607 as per the Pentagon.

Who is correct?

Who works for the White House?

Damned, I answer with another question!
Sorry. Okay, so here my answer: the deads are correct.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 8:54 AM
Comment #213756
The defense of necessity in a homicide case says that in order to save 2, if one other must die,so be it. Here, if a few thousand (fanatics) must die in order to save perhaps millions,well…

Could you share with us, SE, what high technology weaponary actually sort out the fanatic iraqi kid from the usual one?
Thanks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #213757
Democracy has a price,unfortunately. Check Germany post WWII..how many Allied troops died AFTER occupation?

Could you, for one time, focus on the iraqi deaths, not only US soldiers!
Iraqis didn’t want this war, when your country did.

It may shock your belief system, but some people actually still focus on civilian victims count as well as on the aggressor’s troops deaths counter.

Iraqis didn’t start this war. Germans did start the WWII. That’s a (big) difference.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 9:09 AM
Comment #213758
Same with the suicide bombers. If every one of their family members were arrested and their houses bull-dozed, I bet a lot of those idiots would think twice.

The israelis are trying this.
Since… 60 years.

If the military were left alone for 60 days, and if CNN and the screamers were kicked out of the counrty, the problem would disappear.

Oh, I see. Like a final solution. Yeah, great strategy. BTW, since when violence stop spawning violence in favor of solution?

You foolishly think that animals can be reasoned with. They can’t. They must be kicked and beaten into submission,no ifs,and or buts.

Every animal trainer will tell you that beaten animals are the most dangerous ones.
See above why (nothing left to lost, rageous force, etc).

Anyway, how nice to you comparing iraqis with animals. I failed to remember when such comparable image was last used during/for a war. Could you help me?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #213760
Regarding war crimes: I cannot think of a single war where war crimes did not occur. Weren’t Hroshima and Nagasaki the ultimate in war crimes? Didn’t innocent women and children get obliterated? How about the firebombings in Germany back then? Argueably (and I would definately have defended Truman in a court of law for those actions by the way) any killing of innocents is a war crime.

Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions take place *after* these, indeed, blatant war crimes during WWII.
All the countries who signed the conventions said “never again” to these kinds of behavior during war.

You’re advocating “there again”. Great to you. Here a procedure to ease this move:

1) ask your favorite president, whoever it is, to resign US from whatever Geneva Convention where a previous foolish/utopist/humanist/weakest US president agreed that the US will NOT commit war crime.

2) Do it again.

3) Don’t be surprise many nations will soon do it. Against americans, eventually.

4) Write a book titled “Why WMD lies torture Gitmo Jack Bauer Bush God world moral high ground world warming deny war crime protected us”.

5) Check which US’s president signed Geneva Conventions.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 9:44 AM
Comment #213762

Sic,
woulda, coulda, shoulda but didnt. There does not appear to be a move towards the tatics you propose. This administartion has had plenty of time to get the job done, they chose to stay the course. To continue in Iraq serves the terrorist not the US nor the Iraqi people. The financial drain on our children will be considerable. Its time to refocus, get our priorities in order and to re-think our approach to fighting terrorism. Lets get this mess cleaned up so the next president can focus on the real issues and the terrorist. Its the least the Repubs can do for this Country.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 26, 2007 9:48 AM
Comment #213763

Philippe Hudon

Honestly, I care only about US casualities. Those folks have been killing each other for a millenia…and it won’t stop once we leave either.

Let us say you are driving your car and it goes suddenly out of control and you are swirving all over the place. On one side of the street is a mom pushing her baby in a carriage. On the other side is an old man walking . Necessity says that if order to save the two (mom and baby) if control of the car is regained and the old man dies, it is not a homicide.

Actually,have you ever been on an Isreali plane? I have. I remember the pilot saying during take off,I think “If you get out of your seat,you will be shot” Something like that. About six years ago.

Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit.Don’t appease it.

As far as a comparison, the French lopping off heads during the Reign of Terror was animalistic to me…or how about what we did to the Ammerica Indian? Better still,how about the enslavement of an entire ract here? How about what the Spanish did to the Astecs and Mayians? Want more? The Turks to the Armenian. The English to the Scots. Thge Muslim to the Hindu. The Chinese to anout 15 different ethnic groups. Animals. Man is an animal.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #213767

SE,

“Man is an animal.”

But man has choices. Man thinks and acts, animals merely react. That is what separates us from them.
We’re supposed to be the good guys. Rome ruled by fear, Rome fell. England ruled by fear, and the English empire crumbled.

What’s next for America if we take the same road?

“Honestly, I care only about US casualities. Those folks have been killing each other for a millenia…and it won’t stop once we leave either.”

Surely the Iraqis care about their casualties. You seem to want to put the “casual” back into casualties.
Regardless of the fact that violence is a known factor in the Middle East, it is their choice to make it so. Our ratcheting up the violence solves nothing, and only helps to convince those on the fence that we are who our enemies say we are.

“Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit. Don’t appease it.”

You see, that’s where you are so very wrong. If you break the spirit of an animal, you get a broken animal, useless for anything but fear, and no longer trainable.
A fearful animal will not lick your hand, it will turn on you in a heartbeat, if only out of self preservation.

Your’s is a very foolish tact, that will only lead to more and more violence, with even more extreme consequences for America in the future.

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #213768

“Yeah, unfortunately all the progress is being made by the insurgents”

Not really. That’s just all that our media shows.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html

“Personally I’d love to know why all you Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors haven’t gone yourselves. If this is so important, and such a noble cause, why haven’t you joined up to fight and win it?”

Probably close to why all the left supporting arm-chair generals don’t pay for their “noble causes” themselves, but instead would rather have govt force everybody else to do it for them.
Of course, military service is voluntary, which is why such a large majority of it are more supportive of Republicans, so in all truthfullness, it is the “Bushco-supporting arm-chair warriors” who are in the military.
They do not want govt to force people to join either. They believe people should have the right to think for themselves and they serve to protect that right.
Can this “practicing what the preach” be said of the other side? Not at all!

“But have you ever entertained the thought that maybe the story we’re being presented with happens to be the simple truth?”

People know it is the truth, its just not all of the truth. Most of us believe all of the truth should be given to us.

“Hey I got an idea, why don’t you tell us all the great news from Iraq?? Or at least point to a conservative source that is publishing it”

How about an honest source? Or are you guys still being told to ignore facts?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html

“why can’t some of the fine journalists listed above come up with just one measly story a day about how great things are going there?”

Because it doesn’t sell and because it doesn’t help with their election desires.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 11:23 AM
Comment #213769

SE,

Honestly, I care only about US casualities.

That’s fair game. Let’s play it too. I don’t care one bit about US casualties. You country is the agressor in this war. You want it. You have it. Deal with its consequences. You and all chicken hawks deserve your casualties.

What? I’m unpatriotic traitor? I’m outrageous?
And?

Okay, in fact I can’t play this game because it’s too unfair. Your soldiers didn’t all choose to go (again and again and again) in Iraq. Most of them choosed to enter army, not necessarily violence. They don’t deserve this war, their commander in chief incompetence, but they pay the consequences of their career choice.

Iraqis civilians never got this choice. Violence was released over them (Shock and Awe), and between them since.

Honestly, I care about pretty much all casualties. Death is hardly a peace tool. Death of US moral and superpower high ground is also one of the casualties I’m worried about…

Let us say you are driving your car and it goes suddenly out of control and you are swirving all over the place. On one side of the street is a mom pushing her baby in a carriage. On the other side is an old man walking . Necessity says that if order to save the two (mom and baby) if control of the car is regained and the old man dies, it is not a homicide.

LOL.
You lost your car control, you kill one or more people, you’re responsible for homicide(s). Period. If you can’t control you car, don’t drive it.

I guess many elders will watch you your car very carefully now, BTW.

Viscious animals can be trained. First, break their spirit.Don’t appease it.

Never EVER turn your back on a beaten animal. Or you’re dead, its spirit broken or not. And, please, tell me you don’t train animals!?

Animals. Man is an animal.

Congratulations, I actually agree on this claim.
An easy and incomplete one, but still, that’s an agreement.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #213770

SE,
When you advocate assassinating religious firebrands, you are advocating the same practices used by Saddam Hussein.

It works, after a fashion. It is possible to drive the religious fundamentalists into exile, or shoot them. It is possible to suppress the population through violence & intimidation. At that point, a secular government promoting western values can be impressed upon the culture.
No more Islamic family values, no more repression of women. Saddam Hussein brought secularism to Iraq, and promoted a degree of equality for women. Ironically, empowering the people of Iraq now results in the resurgence of values and practices which we find repellent.

It is not our culture, and it is not our country. It would be one thing if we were invited into Iraq to referee, and keep the various factions of the civil war separated. But we were not invited. We invaded. And we are not welcome there.

It only makes sense to leave. Give them time to make the adjustment. Give the Iraqis a deadline. Offer them as much help as they need in the meantime. And then leave.


Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #213771

kctim,

How about an honest source? Or are you guys still being told to ignore facts?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html

I guess the USAID guys don’t have enough humor, because their “A Year in Iraq” report should have been title “4 Years in Iraq”.

Anyway. It’s hard to find such site an “honest” news site about Iraq war as 1) it’s funded by US government, not an independent body 2) many links goes to US State of Departement web site and 3) they seems to report only good news, which is strange isn’t it?

However, I occassionnaly stop and read some of their reports as, indeed, there is some progress in rebuild what was destroy, in particular what was destroy by the US invasion. Very limited progress, but at iraqi kid scale, some of them are actually big.
At Iraq scale, that very deceptive. 4 years and only that!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 26, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #213772

Philippe
No, it is not strange. The USAid group set up to report their accomplishments. They are not a media outlet.
If you do not like the facts simply because of its funding or links, then prove the facts wrong and publish them. Just about any msm outlet would love that.

Yes, indeed there is progress being made. Orgs such as USAid and our troops over there say so all the time, but they are ignored.

And yes, we are rebuilding because of the US invasion. We went to war with them, won and now we are rebuilding their country. I do not agree with rebuilding it, but its what we have done in the past.
It is “very limited” progress only because you need it to be in order to support your views.
Much good and much bad is going on over there. Some of us concentrate of both and some of you concentrate only on the bad, mostly for political reasons.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 11:56 AM
Comment #213778

Eagle

Welcome back. We missed you.

J2t2

I have a couple of friends running PRTs. They are more optimistic than the media would have you think. I usually think that the truth will come out, but sometimes it takes a long time. If you have been to the movie “the 300” you see the Greek spin has survived 2500 years. My worry is that sometimes the spin sticks. I do not have personal experience in Iraq, so I take as my example the economy. The economy is great, but the Dem spin has stuck on this one. In Iraq it makes more difference. If we believe the economy is worse than it really is that means is we will eventually be pleasantly surprised. In the case of Iraq, we could make serious policy mistakes.

Phx8

Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew? The difference would be it would not be on the news. That is all.

The President’s policy is to bring American troops home as soon as possible. There are many things that could cause that. That the bad guys are killing lots of people should not be among them. That is why we call them the enemy. That is what they do.

Philippe

We are not fighting the Iraqis. We are fighting terrorists, Baathists, sectarians and others who are killing Iraqi civilians to make their points.

Re “war crimes” the bad guys are uninterested in following the rules anyway. Surely cutting the heads off civilians with dull knives is not provoked by any lack of due process on our part.

Re Man is an animal

Some people are good; some are bad; most will adapt. That is why we need to create institutions that discipline the bad guys and encourage the good. Security is the first imperative. Some people want to give peace a chance. There can be no peace until the bad guys are beaten or sufficiently immasculated to prevent them from doing so much damage. We certainly are not there yet. But we will not get there by ignoring the necessity.

Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #213781

kctim,
you’ve obviously found some very well-hidden news source to dig this out…

And yes, we are rebuilding because of the US invasion. We went to war with them, won and now we are rebuilding their country.
Most of the rest of us are far from seeing anything close to a win.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #213780

Eagle,

Welcome back!

Now, is there really nothing you will not blame on the “left wing media”? Bush didn’t send in enough troops and didn’t plan for the occupation. He made many more mistakes, but those two alone are big enough for him to get all the credit for screwing up this war.

As for the rest of you that doubt we are losing this war, or think we’re doing really well I have to shake my head in disbelief. If you can’t accept that Bush made some major screwups at this point than you’re delusional. You’ll rationalize anything to believe it’s not his fault. Why???

Posted by: Max at March 26, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #213785

Jack,
“Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew?”

That is a great question. On balance, I would say yes, few people would be killed if we withdrew quickly.

Some of the civil war between factions will continue regardless of our presence or lack thereof. For example, the infighting between Shias in the south will continue, and the conflict between Arabs & Kurds in the north will also continue whether we are there or not.

The attacks against the US and the casualties suffered at our hands would end. The insurgency would be over. So it would be a certainty less people would be killed in this part of the conflict.

But will the Shias and the Sunnis make amends? Personally, I doubt it. At most, US troops slow the pace of the killing. Eventually it will have to be resolved by the Iraqis, and no government imposed by the US will change the nature of this part of the civil war.

Would other nations invade? Some, like Syria & Saudi Arabia, would continue arming the Sunnis. The Iranians would probably step up their support of the Shias. But neither is likely to directly intervene. The biggest concern would be the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan. However, this may happen anyway, whether the US is present or not.

Considering the cost to the US, withdrawing seems like the most sensible choice. Setting a deadline of 8/31/08 seems reasonable.

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #213786

Jack,
“Do you believe fewer people would be killed if the U.S. quickly withdrew?”

That is a great question. On balance, I would say yes, few people would be killed if we withdrew quickly.

Some of the civil war between factions will continue regardless of our presence or lack thereof. For example, the infighting between Shias in the south will continue, and the conflict between Arabs & Kurds in the north will also continue whether we are there or not.

The attacks against the US and the casualties suffered at our hands would end. The insurgency would be over. So it would be a certainty less people would be killed in this part of the conflict.

But will the Shias and the Sunnis make amends? Personally, I doubt it. At most, US troops slow the pace of the killing. Eventually it will have to be resolved by the Iraqis, and no government imposed by the US will change the nature of this part of the civil war.

Would other nations invade? Some, like Syria & Saudi Arabia, would continue arming the Sunnis. The Iranians would probably step up their support of the Shias. But neither is likely to directly intervene. The biggest concern would be the possibility of a Turkish invasion of Kurdistan. However, this may happen anyway, whether the US is present or not.

Considering the cost to the US, withdrawing seems like the most sensible choice. Setting a deadline of 8/31/08 seems reasonable.

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #213788

Jack,

“There can be no peace until the bad guys are beaten or sufficiently immasculated to prevent them from doing so much damage. We certainly are not there yet. But we will not get there by ignoring the necessity.”

There will always be bad guys, and there will always be even badder guys that foment the hate that drives the merely bad.
If we wish to “rule the planet” through Democracy we cannot do it through fear. Fear will not stop those that wish to do us harm, it will only delay the inevitable.
We need to establish what exactly drives men to hate and bring it out into the light of day for all to see.
Force or violence isn’t the way to do that.
Call me naive, but I have always been proud that America was able to defend itself without the intimidation used by despotic regimes throughout history.

We’re supposed to be the good guys, let’s act that way.

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #213792

Sandra
“Most of the rest of us are far from seeing anything close to a win”

We won the war. It is the rebuilding that has been so much trouble.
I didn’t have to “dig” anything up to find it either. Our army destroyed the Iraqi army and their leader no longer leads.
The now famous “mission accomplished” line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President.
But the troops accomplished their initial mission and they won the war. To try and take that away from them for political purposes is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #213798

kctim, by any rational measure, we have lost the Iraq war. In terms of lives lost, treasure spent, post 9-11 goodwill thrown away, we have lost. I say this with great sadness as I supported bush’s effort to overthrow the regime and promote a democracy. As a nation that has always operated in a behind-the-scenes, Machavellian way to promote its own interests, the United States efforts here were one of the most direct, honest things it has ever done.
Going to war is either worth it or it isn’t. We either have a net gain or a net loss out of war and, considering all that we have spent, what have we gained? Did we replace on tyrant with another?
w, as commander-and-chief, had a small window of opportunity to make all this work and he has failed miserably.
Do you really think that all this can be turned around in a few months?
Do you really think that the republican party is going to allow w to bumble along with this into the ‘08 elections?
It’s over, and we have lost.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 26, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #213799

SE, Pelosi doesn’t even have the fortitude to cut off funding for the war; instead, she has to bribe the anti-war causus with our money, by the way! It’s a joke.

We will complete the mission; it looks like we’ll have done it inspite of the Democrats. Either way, we will complete the Mission and the world we be better off for it!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 26, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #213800

SE:

Well, this Eagle still supports the president..and I’ll tell you why….
and
Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.
and
Yes, the Eagle is back…and itching to convince you of the error of your ways,my leftie friends

You have convinced me. Like you said, this President and his admin. are corrupt. I am wondering, however, why do you support this corruption?

KCTim:

We won the war.

and
The now famous “mission accomplished” line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President. But the troops accomplished their initial mission

Would it not follow that if “we won” and the “mission is accomplished” that it is time to bring the troops home?

To my fellow liberals who support the recently passed war funding bill in the House:

If you agree that it was wrong to go into Iraq from the beginning, why continue to do, and fund, wrong actions? Would it not be better to end inappropriate acts now rather than later? It seems to me that, regardless of how quickly we leave, there are certain inalienable truths about Iraq.
1. We must engage in a political solution in Iraq. Because,
2. at some point, our military must leave.
3. When it does, a regional conflict will ensue. And,
4. having created this situation, WE must be prepared to bear the burden of the inevitable repercussions.

I welcome your thoughts on this.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #213801
The now famous “mission accomplished” line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President. Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 02:31 PM
Please enlighten us. What exactly was that mission? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 26, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #213803

Charles
No, I don’t think it will turn around in a few months, but we are no longer in the “war” phase, we are in the rebuilding phase and I do not believe in rebuilding nations with our money.
I did not support going to war with Iraq. I knew our troops hands would be tied again and that it would end up being nothing more than our troops babysitting another crappy country and another political issue used by politicians to get votes.

I do not worry about what the world thinks of us and I do not worry about our enemies loses. I worry about our own troops and to say they did not win the war is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #213804

jrb
“Would it not follow that if “we won” and the “mission is accomplished” that it is time to bring the troops home?”

Yes, which is why I support bringing them home yesterday.

Dave1
Enlighten you? Puleez! You know what the mission was but your partisan bs doesn’t allow you to see anything that doesn’t bash the “other side,” even at the expense of our troops.
Our military destroyed and conqueored the enemy. They got rid of the enemies govt. They won the war. They accomplished their mission to that point.
Now, if you want to argue that the rebuilding phase has been poorly managed and nothing but a disaster, fine. But, we WON the war, no matter how bad the left wants it to be a loss so Bush looks bad, saying we lost the war just isn’t the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #213805

I have read repeatedly here and in comments on other posts that the msm is biased against conservatives, against the president, and against this war. I have read peoples’ contention that the media doesn’t report all the good coming out of Iraq. I remain unconvinced but, maybe that is because I don’t know where to find the unbiased media.

So, could any person who supports this war and this argument show me this plethora of unbiased good news coming out of Iraq? Use any news source, even biased right-wing sources. Just get a count of how many different stories [not three on the same incident] you find and what the topics are. I would assume if there is good news coming from Iraq then conservative news sources would be printing it, right?

Maybe, in order to educate and inform us regarding the mountain of progress in Iraq, conservative news sources should, for the next two months, only utilize stories that highlight the good news. Though, I wonder how long that could realistically last before there was only dead air. Otherwise, wouldn’t it be happening?

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #213806

The insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are now using chemical weapons by blowing up deadly chlorine trucks in highly populated areas of Baghdad. It’s a strange thing though; they are targeting the people that were supporting them only a year ago. The Iraqi government has reached across the aisle and have taken aboard many who were once aggressively in opposition to the new government, however, the Press seems to fail to mention that in its reporting.
Since insurgents are using poison gas warfare to spread their destruction, and trying to keep the Iraqi people from turning to the other side, perhaps the U.N. wouldn’t mind if the U.S. decided to retalliate in kind with weapons of mass destruction of our own to protect those who were once opposed to the new government. Let’s end this thing quickly with the weapons that we have. We certainly now have the moral highground to do so!

JD

Posted by: JD at March 26, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #213807

Kctim, I guess my point is that a few months is all we have to turn this around. I’m at a loss to understand why the republicans in congress did not jump on the dem’s proposal to begin withdrawl of troops in summer ‘08. I do not understand it because this is exactly what they and w will be doing if the “surge” does not show complete success. The republican party will not allow this to continue. It’s that simple. If affairs continue to Nov. ‘08 largely as they have we will be approaching the six years mark with 5,000 military dead, 40,000 wounded and a trillion dollars expended.
The republican party and their supporters will not let their institution go down the drain with the war in Iraq, it’s just that simple. A non-binding vote in the Senate with 57 votes means nothing. A non-binding vote with 85-90 supporters means everything and that vote with that margin of victory is coming.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 26, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #213808

kctim… who the hell is going to be the one to tell our troops over there that they can lay their weapons down now and pick up a hammer, ‘cuz they need to stop shooting and start building??????
I’m sorry, but your statement makes no sense !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 26, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #213809

KCTim-

Our military destroyed and conqueored the enemy. They got rid of the enemies govt. They won the war. They accomplished their mission to that point. Now, if you want to argue that the rebuilding phase has been poorly managed and nothing but a disaster, fine. But, we WON the war, …

I agree that we “won” the military battle in Iraq. Yet, that is not always the same as winning the war. Also, I think we must distinguish between what OUR objectives as citizens are and those of our political leadership, also defining those objectives would be a good start, before we can discuss if our military successfully completed the objectives or not.

no matter how bad the left wants it to be a loss so Bush looks bad, saying we lost the war just isn’t the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments.

I strongly disagree with both your points here. First, I would suggest that, at least with respect to Iraq, I don’t WANT Bush to look bad, he just does. Also, I feel I can speak for the vast majority of, if not all, liberals when I say it is categorically false that liberals want us to loose this war. I have conversed with you before and I know you to be reasonable and thoughtful. Yet, your argument is just wrong here. Finally, simply saying we have not won the war does not demean the troops. In my opinion, since the troops merely follow orders, those comments are more of a reflection upon the leadership—both military and civilian.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #213810

jrb
It is not about only reporting good news, not many people ask for that. They ask for at least some equal reporting.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html


Charles
Its all about politics. IF the surge works and things start turning rosy, hillary (blah) and others like her will be for the war again and Reps will quit distancing themselves from it.
If it fails, hillary (blah) and others like her will say they have been against it from the beginning and the Reps will start up with blame game.

Sandra
War phase. Rebuilding phase.
The war phase was much easier than we thought and the rebuilding phase has been more difficult than we thought it would be.
The initial objective of war is to destroy the enemy and we did that.
My statement makes no sense to you because saying our military fought a brillant war and that we won the war would eventually have to trickle up to Bush getting credit for part of it and we all know that can not happen until at least after the 08 election.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #213812

KCTim-

I appreciate the link. However even the bold text below the title is telling. It reads:

$3.3 billion in U.S. aid fixed schools, vaccinated millions of children, restored electricity and created Iraq’s first democratic councils.

First, this was done in 2004. It isn’t very recent good news. But, O.K. Good news nonetheless, right? Well, the vaccinations are. However, what is the state of electricity availability now? Still less than before we invaded. How are those schools? Many of them already destroyed or going unused. And, I don’t think anyone needs reminding of the current state of Iraq’s first democratic councils.

My point, even this “good” news isn’t all that good. Certainly, you’d agree, wasting $3.3 billion on unsuccessful endeavors isn’t good news.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #213813

kctim, I’m pretty sure that the “re-building” phase is more difficult than we expected, because all those still shooting at us and blowing up vehicles and launching chemical bombs haven’t gotten the word yet that WE WON !!!
You’re delusional ! and no matter how hard you try to spin it, or what you want to call it, this war is not over! As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 26, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #213814

jrb
my statement: “saying we lost the war just isnt the truth and demeans our troops accomplishments”

I did not say the left wanted us to lose the war. I honestly believe most of the left wanted us to win the war, which we did. But, in order to say we won the war, the left would have to give Bush and our military credit for a job well done and they aren’t going to do that. Instead, they lump the rebuilding effort in with the war and say everything has failed.

I agree that Bush isnt looking all that great with the rebuilding effort in Iraq. But the war itself is a different story.

“Finally, simply saying we have not won the war does not demean the troops. In my opinion, since the troops merely follow orders, those comments are more of a reflection upon the leadership—both military and civilian”

No disrespect intended here, but have you ever served or been in combat? You do recon, you plan, you fight war phase is over and you begin on the rebuilding phase.
Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #213816

kctim,
“Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.”

You assume the enemy will fight a war the way we want them to fight. You assume a war will involve Third Generation war, like in WWII, and that will settle the matter. But what we are seeing is Fourth Generation warfare. We developed the Powell Doctrine to avoid this type of warfare, which negates our strengths and even turns our strengths into weaknesses.

It was not a good strategy, not at all, and the war did not end when Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” In fact, it entered a new phase, and there are a number of reasons for that, including lack of planning, very poor decisions, and incompetence among the leadership. There were also unforeseeable circumstances.

Saddam Hussein always considered the Persians and the Iraqi Shias greater threats than America. As a result, he placed paramilitary Fedayeen in all the towns, with huge amounts of small arms stored in each town, in order to keep the Shias under control. As it turns out, America was the biggest threat to him after all. Without intending it, the elements for a guerrilla war were perfectly placed, and the US did not have enough troops to guard all the ammo. Why did we not have enought troops? We failed to develop an adequate international coalition, and using a limited number of troops was a decision made by Rumsfeld, superceding the Powell Doctrine.

It was a colossal screw-up from the moment we invaded.

If you have not already, read “Cobra II.” I think you would like it.

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #213817

Sandra
“You’re delusional ! and no matter how hard you try to spin it, or what you want to call it, this war is not over! As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!”

There is nothing to spin on my part.
Did we defeat the Iraqi army? Did we remove saddam? Do our troops use the same tactics fighting these cowards as they did fighting the Iraqi army? Are those shooting at us members of an organized Iraqi army?

“As long as our troops are still in conflict and dying, we are at war !!!”

Thats an interesting point. There are many other places which our troops are in conflict and sometimes die. Are we at war with those countries too?
And some could argue that you make a good point about this being a part of the war on terror with that statement. Our troops are not fighting an organized army which represents a country, they are fighting terrorists.

And lastly, I thought the left swears that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists before, but now Iraq is a terrorist training ground.
Which is it? Are we at war with a newly found Iraqi army who is defending their country or are we at war with terrorists that flooded in after the Iraq war?

There is no spin on my part Sandra, just a refusal on your part to distinguish between the different enemies our troops faced during the war and in its aftermath.

Posted by: kctim at March 26, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #213818

All

Bravo to all posters on this thread. Civil discussion on a flashpoint topic.

That’s what Watchblog is all about.

Glad to be back!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 26, 2007 5:51 PM
Comment #213819

KCTim:

No disrespect intended here, but have you ever served or been in combat? You do recon, you plan, you fight war phase is over and you begin on the rebuilding phase. Our strategy for war was actually very well planned and executed. Our strategy for its aftermath sucked.

None taken. To answer Q1) no. Military family though. And you are right, the military portion of the plan went fairly well. Yet, in my opinion, we cannot separate this “strategy for the aftermath” from the larger strategy to win the war. After all, just like with baseball, it is impossible to “win” without closing properly. I don’t think one can rightly say, “Well, the first three innings were great, it was the rest that were an aweful loss.” and call that a win.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #213820

Should read: awful loss

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #213821

KAP

“I have been,14yrs USN with 2 tours in Nam.”

my daughter was discharched from the navy @ 2 yrs. ago. my son in-law is a sgt. in the marine corps. thanks for your service. god bless and SEMPER FI

Posted by: dbs at March 26, 2007 6:16 PM
Comment #213825

kctim,
As Hagel pointed out in his interview:

We have put at least 40 billion in economic development there. Which we don’t know what we got out of it. There’s still no oil law. Billions of dollars have been ripped off, unaccounted for, and one more point on this — over $12 billion of Iraqi money still sits in the accounts of the Iraqi government that they haven’t spent.

Do you see where 40 billion tax payer dollars have been spent in Iraq? How about 20 billion? You can’t do it, I can’t do it, and most importantly the administration cannot do it!!!
I find it absolutely INSANE that you people want to focus on a few schools they’ve built, and all this supposed “good” that is being done when all over Iraq the basic infrastructure is practically non-existent and there is violence everywhere. If water and electricity wasn’t still a problem, and if there was a measure of peace in a few parts of the country, perhaps I’d be willing to be impressed by what they’ve done with schools and such, but that simply isn’t the case. Furthermore, we know that we’ve been collosally ripped-off by contractors in Iraq — this is common knowledge. Maybe that sits well with you Bushco apologists, but it sure as hell doesn’t with the rest of us. Just the other day Murtha mentioned how he had been asking the GAO and the inspector general of Iraq about the number of contractors we had working for us there — they couldn’t even answer that simple a question!!! There has been nobody minding the bloody store — and we’ve been ripped off royally as a result.
You give us a link promoting the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Coalition Provisional Authority and try to claim it’s honest? I happen to find that a huge f%^king joke. This administration doesn’t know from being honest. They don’t know from being competent. They don’t know from accountability. They’ve proved this over, and over, and over again and thus, I and many many other Americans no longer believe a single word or statistic they claim to be correct.
Those of you who are willing to actually believe what that link claims, I feel sorry for. But then, I’m always sorry to see people suckered in by BS because of their own naivety and gullibility.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 26, 2007 7:08 PM
Comment #213827

dbs
Thank You and much of the same to your daughter and son in law.

Posted by: KAP at March 26, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #213828

Adrienne-

you wrote:

You give us a link promoting the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Coalition Provisional Authority and try to claim it’s honest? I happen to find that a huge f%^king joke.

To be fair to kcTim, he was responding to my post in which I said:

So, could any person who supports this war and this argument show me this plethora of unbiased good news coming out of Iraq? Use any news source, even biased right-wing sources. Just get a count of how many different stories [not three on the same incident] you find and what the topics are. I would assume if there is good news coming from Iraq then conservative news sources would be printing it, right?

Now, I do think it is somewhat telling that there is only this story that has [so far] been provided. And, that the story is almost three years old. Interesting …

That said, in reference to your larger argument from that post, I would say you make some good points. Those are some of the reasons why I am really concerned about all of the support by my fellow liberals for the recent house appropriations bill. It seems like we should just get out. IMO, It was wrong to go in and it is wrong to stay.

Posted by: jrb at March 26, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #213830

kctim,
You seem to be so much about semantics. “We” got Hussein. After that, your argument becomes so convoluted that it’s difficult to address. One of our tasks in Iraq was to be working (supposedly) alongside the Iraqui Army, then to train, and prepare them, help them recruit and ready them to stand in for us.
Part of the time, our troops can’t identify who is truly Iraqui army, or insurgents wearing the uniform. Not fair to try and answer that one, and even less fair for our guys to try and figure it out.
Outside of Afghanistan, I’m not sure what other places you think we’re involved in a conflict, and where we have troops dying. We do have military presence in a lot of places, and occasionally military personnel may become a casualty, but not because of any conflict.

And lastly, I thought the left swears that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists before, but now Iraq is a terrorist training ground.

It isn’t just “the left” but anyone who will face and accapt reality when we say that it wasn’t Iraquis who masterminded 9/11, for which SFB launched this fiasco. Then by your own admission, you are asking if we are at war with the Iraqui army, or the terrorists???? Obviously, you’re conceding the fact that we ARE AT WAR. Any way you twist it, we are still there, we are still getting killed, there is no “plan” in place to secure an exit, and let us get our troops out and allow the Iraquis to carry on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 26, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #213832

We cry the moral outrage of a woman with a century of experience and wisdom and health, beaten brutally for a pitance. No arrests were made. We cry the massive manhunt stimulated by this beating and the moral outrage it has generated in the city of New York. The thug is still at large.
Where is the same example of outrage portrayed when


Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 02:05 PM

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004928.html#213786

That one sucks. Is that a link or a STINK? Let’s count the bad against the good.

Posted by: phx8 at March 26, 2007 02:05 PM

I’m sorry, I apolozise. I didn’t mean that. My sarcasm and emotion clouded the issue. I should look at if from your perspective so we can have a productive discussion.

Holy shit, that was sarcasm too! I need some rehab. I need a 300 dollar movie to tell me the downside of what I’ve done.

My god, I cannot deny I am in denial.
Help me Mr. And Mrs. Government!

See!!! That was sarcasm too!
I hate it when that happens.


and

The now famous “mission accomplished‎ line meant just that too, but for political purposes, people who don’t even have a clue as to what a mission is, have used it to mock our President. But the troops accomplished their initial mission

Would it not follow that if “we won” and the “mission is accomplished” that it is time to bring the troops home?

Who ever wrote that. Thank You.


I’m creating my own little environment. It’s my little ball on the cat’s collar!

It’s all mine.

Hold on, let me find a link that proves it’s mine.… . .

Hey, People are dying day after day!!! Do you have the link or don’t you!!!


I’m looking….

I’m actually educating myself. I may not be able to spell it out, but I can read. My problem is that I am bias. I try to look for good things in the media when it concerns Iraq, or the economy or the southern border or the mexican attorny general we have now.
I try to look for the good things in Iraq and they’re not there. gurgle Iraq, count the word bomb. count the word good.

I Dare you!

Let’s have a reality show called: “CSI-Iraq.”

If I were to make a movie… and stand behind it, leaving myself alone to blame for it’s images, would produce a movie called CSI-Iraq, and I was just a journalist in the green zone….
Remember, I’m just dreamin’ here.

I would say, “You, Iraqi journalist! Go out and find story. Come back with story.

Iraqi journalist - another one.
Front page- Another journalist has given his live to bring us the bloodshed that is Iraq. His sacrifice exemplifies the useless and futile conduct of the Us President in this war. Another wounded troop, Many others killed again today in this effort portrayed as a “War on terror” Words that will live on in infamy.


Posted by: catastrophy at March 26, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #213835

I have a link to that.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 8:15 PM
Comment #213839

Huh?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #213841

Let it be known that Lawnboy is deaf and must be accomodated.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #213842

Do I need a link to that?

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #213846

No, not deaf. I simply couldn’t make heads or tails of that trainwreck jumble of words.

Was there a point there? If so, it was completely lost by the disorganized mass of letters without coherent form.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 26, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #213847

Please discribe the disorganized mass of letters.

I’m not sure which disorganized mass of letters you are refering to. And please provide a link that proves the mass of disorganized letters are indeed a disorganized mass.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #213848

People I work with would hear this conversation and they would laugh and then they would provide a litany of disorganized letters that everyone around me would understand. Everyone around me wouild laugh because they understood what was said. I wouldn’t because they are speaking a different language.

Then they would look at me and wait for me to say something else.

Whether I did or didn’t I would be laughed at again because I said something that wouldn’t relate to the conversation.

I hate it when that happens too.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #213850

Lawnboy,

Don’t feed the trolls.

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #213852

Do yo know what pisses me off the most?

That I am speaking English. And none of you are listening. You’re all listening to yourselves.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 26, 2007 9:21 PM
Comment #213858

You know what pisses me off the most?

You’re not making any sense.

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #213860

Catastrophy,

I’ve been impressed by lawnboy and rocky in the past, they have good heads between the shoulders. I think watchbloggers are not used to poetry being used here; poetry used loosely and there have been too many years since college to remember why I know how to read what you wrote. I think a little more attention to grammar and proper and/or consistent use of tenses would go a long way. Try also to remember to whom responses such as by phx is being made.

By the way, interesting points. (Well, not points, critisims?) Probably both. I happen to agree with what you said. Surprising since your first posts were (I thought) rather supportive of the administration (which I am absolutely not).

I don’t get the “ball on the cats collar” thing, except for “(MIB) the galaxy”?

Guys,

he’s basically critisizing that there have been no debates here. Simply a titlink for tatlink yelling match. He’s been at it since his first post on this thread.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 26, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #213865

SE-
Folks who went back and looked over the effects of Strategic bombing found that until you had the nuclear bomb at hand, which could simply destroy a city outright, bombing of cities and civilian centers tended to raise rather than lower morale and resistance

As for targeted assassination, the Israelis have been doing that for years. They’re living in peace now, right?

We always think we can control people if we get enough of a hardline system sitting on top of them, but that really doesn’t tend to work. Terrorists didn’t get less vicious as Israelis took them out, they got more vicious.

The history of such tactics is one of blowback, as the tough repression ends up radicalizing people, giving them the motivation to be every bit as brutal back to their oppressors.

In essence, if you read your history, you would be repeating the tactics employed by the regimes and the old colonial powers who have run the Middle East. You would be repeating their mistakes.

The point is not to become more vicious. As a civilized country, we have limits to how ugly we can get before we lose our stomachs, or lose the advantages of being civilized.

The thing is, we can’t get more savage than a bunch of people who are willing to kill thousands of innocent people over a religious difference, who flout even their own religious laws to do this and are willing to die to manage their crimes.

You don’t try to outcompete them on the atrocities. It’s stupid to bring yourself down to their level. There are all kinds of things that can be done to make sure these people have a tougher time of things, that they don’t get the glory they’re looking for.

These people could have been stopped on multiple occasions. They’re not superhuman. Others from Al-Qaeda have given up credible information for nothing so much as our government giving their mothers operations. These people have their weaknesses, and we can use those against them without becoming animals ourselves.

JD-
Retaliate against who? Was this Sunnis who branded these people collaborators, or Shia who believe they’re oppressors who should have no place in the government. Also, consider: WMDs. As in Mass Destruction. As in kill a bunch of innocent people. That will do wonders for the government we support.

Fact is, unless we get a government in there that the Iraqis support without presence there, nothing we do will last. If we can’t get such a government in there ourselves, we should step aside and let the Iraqis and their neighbors worry it out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2007 10:44 PM
Comment #213868

kctim-
We flunked the recon phase, going in without having first confirmed a single WMD site. We flunked the planning phase, and though we had a spectacular initial victory, we had a plan that was poorly suited to bringing the peace, giving the lack of soldiers and the lack of anybody with real counterinsurgency or nation building experience running the proceedings. You can say these are different things, but one runs into the other. Even so, such failures are not final. Trouble is, the middle of the war is not the best place to do a course correction.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t do it if it’s necessary, that’s to say it’s better to come up with Plan B while you still have time to think it through.

To understand the nature of our failure in Iraq, you have to understand the way that failures compounded each other. Or put another way, how do you respect America and Americans when the most powerful country in the world can’t give you security, can’t even fix your sewer.

We imported our workers into the country to do jobs unemployed Iraqis could have been hired to do. We brought in businesses from teh states, like Halliburton, to do jobs that local contractors could do for themselves.

Our problems with security compounded our problems with getting the infrastructure back in shape. Our purpose in post war Iraq was to put a stable democracy in place. That’s not how its shaping up, thanks to the other problems.

The destruction of the enemy’s ability and/or willingness to fight is more important than the deaths of the enemy themselves. A captured army is as useless to an enemy as a dead one. The point is to be able to coerce the enemy into doing something you want them to do. Have we been able to coerce the parties in this Civil war to stop fighting? No. Have we been able to regain the trust of all that we have alienated through our occupation and our failures in restoring basic services? No.

We’re not losing the war because we’re losing battles, we’re losing it because they are not doing what we wanted them to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #213873

jrb:
“To be fair to kcTim, he was responding to my post”

Actually, he gave us both the exact same bogus link as “proof” of how 40 billion of our tax dollars have been making things “good” for the Iraqi’s.

“Those are some of the reasons why I am really concerned about all of the support by my fellow liberals for the recent house appropriations bill.”

I support it because: 1. It FINALLY gives us a timeline for getting the hell out of Iraq. 2. It will bring plenty of our troops home after the military has been forced by Bush to break their own guidelines about troop rotations, leave home, and training before being sent to Iraq.
And 3. It gives desperately needed funding and assistance to our troops after YEARS of the GOP cutting troop benefits and funds for what they need.
If you are talking about the supposed “pork” in the bill, I don’t see it. There are no bridges to nowhere or big-time lobbyist kickbacks in it. And it seems rather silly to me to talk about the money for the troops, some aid to Katrina victims and some other small amounts of crisis-driven spending, and completely overlook the fact that we are discussing a president who has overspent by ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS on the Iraq War, the Republican Congress who rubberstamped that overspending, and who are now asking for more money, with no strings attached, and no demands for accountabilty.
Really, it’s complete bullsh*t.

“It seems like we should just get out. “IMO, It was wrong to go in”

I agree. I’m one who four years has been out protesting and writing letters to my representatives, and the White House about this illegal war and occupation. You, and I, and many others like us know we never should have gone in the first place.

“it is wrong to stay.”

Yes, it is wrong to make our troops fight Iraq’s civil war, while being targets for violence from every faction there. And it is especially wrong to keep them there when we don’t treat the troops with respect by giving them the support, armor, training, medical funding, troop rotations, leave home and lots of other things that they both need and richly deserve.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 26, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #213889

I have to work tomorrow.

I will return.

You will never leave.

Thanks Dave, but I don’t need an attorney.
I do apreciate you’re trying to protect me. Being as I cannot communicate with your co-patraites.

Did I spell that wrong? Is that why they can’t understand it?

Good night, Adrienne. You’re lovely because you’re here, not because you’re right.


Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 12:31 AM
Comment #213895

Never feed a troll, or a nutcase.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 27, 2007 1:01 AM
Comment #213898

Adrienne,

-so true

Also, re: 213873

Actually, he gave us both the exact same bogus link as “proof” of how 40 billion of our tax dollars have been making things “good” for the Iraqi’s.

Didn’t realize that was the case …

“If you are talking about the supposed “pork” in the bill”

I wasn’t. Most of the items aren’t all that problematic to me. As you pointed out, there are no ‘bridges to nowhere.”

And it seems rather silly to me to talk about the money for the troops, some aid to Katrina victims and some other small amounts of crisis-driven spending, and completely overlook the fact that we are discussing a president who has overspent by ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS on the Iraq War, the Republican Congress who rubberstamped that overspending, and who are now asking for more money, with no strings attached, and no demands for accountabilty. Really, it’s complete bullsh*t.

O.K., I know you are a fellow agie. but, can I please get a big fat James Brown style Amen?

My real issue with the legislation is that by supporting the bill I feel complicit in a war that I have been vehemently against from the start. I don’t think any justice is served by creating a timetable for withdrawal … unless the timetable is now.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #213907
That I am speaking English.

Using English words and communicating effectively in English are two very different things.

Comment 213832 is incomprehensible. It’s like you’re having an argument with yourself, but you’re not sure what side you’re on.

One of the biggest problems is that it’s really hard to tell when you’re talking for yourself and when you’re quoting someone. You successfully use blockquote tags sometimes, but not all the time. What’s left is an incoherent jumble.

Perhaps the people with whom you work have spent enough time with you to know how to decode such a message. I haven’t, so I don’t.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2007 6:02 AM
Comment #213913

Phx8
I have been saving up to get that book.
You make some valid points in your post but I do not believe they prove the war itself was a failure. The Iraqi army had already proved to be unloyal to saddam and would not fight for their way of life. The best strategy to use was the all out assault to get rid of saddam, IMO.

Adrienne
I totally agree with you concerning the money and how govt spends it. It is an everyday problem that the people ignore.

“Us people” do not want to focus only on the schools, we would just like to see some of the hard work and accomplishments being made. Focusing only on the good or only the bad is done for political purposes only.

There is violence everywhere in Iraq? Or is the majority of the violence in a few areas? Peace is not found anywhere in Iraq? Thats a much different picture than what is relayed to me by friends currently on the ground over there and for some reason, I will believe them over that of the dailykos, sheehan and others.

You do not want to believe USAid and other positive news because it does not agree with your beliefs. You and many others happily agree with govt data which supports your claims, but not data which does not. Seeing the good being done over there is not a bad thing and you should not be threatened by it.

“Those of you who are willing to actually believe what that link claims, I feel sorry for. But then, I’m always sorry to see people suckered in by BS because of their own naivety and gullibility”

Then please show the facts which prove the information wrong.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 9:21 AM
Comment #213918

Catastrophy,

I’m not an attorney, nor was I wasn’t “protecting” anyone.
Perhaps I spent too much time trying to understand what is said.

Kettle you are not.
More like a black pot you are
Waste of time this is?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 27, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #213919

jrb
There is later information and a timeline through 2008 on that site.

Sandra
Call it semantics if you wish. I do not have a political point of view to support either way so my point of view is based on what has actually happened and not what I want people to believe has happened.
We defeated the Iraqi army and removed their leader. We won the war. You do not rebuild a country’s infrastructure, give it money and help train its army if you are at war with it.

Do troops need to die in order to be part of a conflict or is it just a presence as long as none die?
Our troops have been in Bosnia for 10+ years now but I’m sure that action is ok isn’t it. We also have troops in many African and South American country’s.

“Then by your own admission, you are asking if we are at war with the Iraqui army, or the terrorists???? Obviously, you’re conceding the fact that we ARE AT WAR.”

Boy, that one went way over your head didn’t it.
We are at war, with terrorists. Not the Iraqi army that we destroyed.

“Any way you twist it, we are still there, we are still getting killed,”

I’ve twisted nothing. I fully accept that we are at war with terrorists now. I am not the one claiming we are still at war with a country whose army and govt has been destroyed and removed.

“there is no “plan” in place to secure an exit,”

I’ll just have to take your word on that. I am not privy to intel meetings and military planning that goes on in the Pentagon. Glad you have the inside scoop.

“and let us get our troops out and allow the Iraquis to carry on”

Amen. We won the war, our troops should be home by now.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #213922

Stephen
I am not saying we have not had failures in Iraq and I am not saying things are all bright and rosy. I am saying that from a military standpoint, we won the war.
While yourself, Adrienne and others are told to look only at the bad, I am not told what to believe. I look at both sides of the situation and come to my own conclusions.

jrb
“Didn’t realize that was the case”

Yes, I did post it earlier on in the thread and I can’t wait for Adrienne to provide proof that the site is bogus and dishonest.
I have a feeling that it will be as it is with military members who speak up and other sites though. The few who support the lefts position will be hailed as heros and the ones who do not will be dismissed.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #213925

kctim,

“I am not saying we have not had failures in Iraq and I am not saying things are all bright and rosy. I am saying that from a military standpoint, we won the war.”

I don’t think that anybody can debate that the military hasn’t done the job that they were sent to do.
However, I do think that our original blitzkrieg tactics can be pointed to as the main reason that we are in the situation we are currently in.
Yes, we defeated the Iraqi army in what could be considered record time.
Yes, we captured Saddam, and as he has been executed, he won’t be an issue anymore.
In our rush to Baghdad, we neglected to hold what we took. We bypassed pockets of resistance, we neglected to secure ammo dumps, we didn’t do the things that would have assured us the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.

Rebuilding schools is a good thing, but it pales in comparison to supplying the basics like jobs, reliable power, and clean water, while building a palatial “green zone” that the Iraqi people don’t even have access to.
Before our invasion, for example, Iraq’s second largest export was cement, yet we eschewed the local product, and imported cement to supply our largest projects.
That’s money, and jobs out of the local economy that can’t be replaced easily.
I would guess that, to this day, we still have Mercs (who BTW, don’t have to play by the same rules as our military), as a security force in Iraq.

It is said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Well, we have supplied the good intentions, and while Iraq might not be hell, you can certainly see it from there.

Posted by: Rocky at March 27, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment #213928

kctim:
“You do not want to believe USAid and other positive news because it does not agree with your beliefs.”

Well you’ve got a point there. I don’t believe a word of that USAid website due to the fact that I know it is nothing but Neocon propaganda. Maybe you don’t realize this, but to believe that website, you have to put your trust in what the Coalition Provisional Authority claims. I don’t, because they are the reason we’ve been so severely ripped of by contractors in Iraq. They’re the ones who took money that was intended to finance large reconstruction projects such as power, water treatment and sewage plants, and then just used it to provide for the day to day operating expenses of the Iraqi government. The billions they were given is gone. Ripped off. And nobody knows where it went.
Remember that 12 billion in cash that was dropped from C-130 planes in shrinkwrapped pallets of 100 dollar bills? The 12 billion that basically dissappeared? You can thank the Coalition Provisional Authority for that brilliant move.
Do you know who is the Director of Private Sector Development for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq? That’d be Michael Fleisher, Ari Fleishers brother. Indeed the CPA is chock full of Neocon ideologues. CPA hiring policies have been solely based upon partisanship and everyone is vetted for Bushie loyalty. In fact the people who work for them are even asked what their religious background is, whether they believe in capital punishment, and what their thoughts on Roe vs. Wade are.
Lots of these CPA people are still in their twenties, and this is their first job straight out of college — recruited through the Heritage Foundation and other influential GOP channels. The dishonesty of the Neocons and the lack of experience of the staff is glaring, and the whole thing is a disgrace.
Like I said, I feel sorry for anyone who is putting their trust in that website.

“I can’t wait for Adrienne to provide proof that the site is bogus and dishonest.”

And I can’t wait for you, or anyone else to provide proof that billions of our tax payer dollars have been well spent in Iraq. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 27, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #213929

“I don’t think that anybody can debate that the military hasn’t done the job that they were sent to do.”

Very well said Rocky.

“However, I do think that our original blitzkrieg tactics can be pointed to as the main reason that we are in the situation we are currently in”

Phx8 alluded to the same earlier and I do believe it is a valid point. But we both know it is easier to lead when looking back and harder when looking forward.

That is not what has led to all of this though. People say we have lost the war with Iraq and that is not correct. IMO, the war stage and rebuilding effort are two seperate missions and should be treated as such.
It could be semantics like Sandra says, not sure why she got so riled up about it though. Or maybe being a vet and having been there gives me a more accurate view, unclouded by politics, I don’t know.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #213930

Adrienne
“And I can’t wait for you, or anyone else to provide proof that billions of our tax payer dollars have been well spent in Iraq. But I won’t be holding my breath”

Why would you be waiting for that when myself and many others, that you so freely label as neocons and bushies, don’t believe our tax dollars have been well spent?
You are so intent on believing that everybody who does not believe exactly as you and who do not take your opinions as facts, as being part of some mythical right-wing group deadset on taking over the world, that you willing ignore everything which does not support your position.

NONE of what you posted has any bearing on whether the progress posted by USAid is true or not. It is all based on your fear of everything not coming from leftists. Hell, even Jack says he agreed with some of the stuff clinton did.
Are you not a big enough person to admit that some good things are happening in Iraq? That not all Iraqi’s are wearing vests and intend to kill American troops? Or that our troops don’t go around killing innocent civilians just for the fun of it?
Or does your desire for total liberal control of America cloud even the most obvious of common sense?

“Like I said, I feel sorry for anyone who is putting their trust in that website”

This coming from somebody who takes the dailykos etc… as gospel?
If I try to refute one of their stories and tell you its more socialist propagands, trust me. Are you going to? OR, are you going to ask me for facts which back up my story?
We both know the answer to that don’t we. I’ve seen you and others ask for the facts many times. Why is this different?

So show us Adrienne. You said that site was bogus and dishonest. Don’t just tell us its just neocon propaganda and expect us to believe it. Show us the facts which support your words so that we will no longer be misled.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #213936

kc,

Why not just ask the Iraqi’s what they think? (Use factcheck to verify this if you doubt)

A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm — and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.
Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It’s worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there. The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who’s been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed.
Things are just f’in great there, all thanks to Rummy and that wonderful post war planning he and Dick and Bush did. Wahoo! Oh wait, that’s right!
rummy:”You go to war with the army you have”,
Boehner: “the generals are responsible”…
It’s not Bush’s fault after all, it’s the Armys! So sayeth your leaders. Feel better? Feel justified now? Feel forgiven yet? Open your eyes and see the propoganda you’ve swallowed whole and unquestioningly.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 27, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #213939

Dave1
What propaganda have I swallowed whole and unquestioningly?
I have read that article and do not dismiss it. I just choose not to dismiss all articles which do not paint all doom and gloom as you all do.
Basing your happiness on which party is in control? What a sad way to live ones life.

“Things are just f’in great there, all thanks to Rummy and that wonderful post war planning he and Dick and Bush did. Wahoo! Oh wait, that’s right!”

Again, just because somebody says good things are happening, does not mean they don’t believe the bad is not happening nor that it should be ignored. You see, the left needs everything to be negative so they can take control. I don’t see any difference between the left and right on this matter, so I don’t choose to ignore the good or the bad.

BUT
“and that wonderful post war planning”

Thank you. Finally, somebody who knows the difference between the war and post war.

Do I feel better? No, our troops are still fighting and defending a crap country and its crappy people.
Do I feel justified? About what?
Do I feel forgiven? I have nothing to ask to be forgiven for on this matter.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #213951

kctim, I don’t know what I might have said to make you think I was, or am “riled up”. We are obviously on opposite sides of the fence on what to call what is going on in Iraq (

war(wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
a. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
b. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
intr.v. warred, war·ring, wars
1. To wage or carry on warfare.
2. To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.
Idiom:
at war
In an active state of conflict or contention.

Without firm legislation or direction to get us out of there, we never will. Each day, the attacks, bombings and killings continue…it isn’t weakening at all, which can, and has been verified by multiple posts. It’s way past time to be home !!! and according to a couple of quick bits I caught on TV this morning, we may be getting some support from the Senate in the next few days through bill(s). We have to win the war against Chimpy before we can win the rest!



Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 27, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #213952

When you pull the puppy out of the buring house then learn that the family of 12 died, do you give still the guy who lit the match a medal? Do you think that saving the puppy deserves equal time on the front page to the loss of twelve humans? When you find that the puppy was put down do you still cling to the article where it was saved? Do you still defend Bush for this war and his failures to plan for the ‘insurgency’ after the war?

Sorry, but in the end pointing to small bits of “not sh!t” in a massive pile of “really bad sh!t” makes the criers call sound more like a clowns bad joke.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 27, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #213953

Sandra
For some reason, I could not come up with what I think best describes what is going on in Iraq. DAve1 jogged my brain and provided it for me though. Post-war.

Our biggest difference is where we draw the line.
We had one enemy in our war with Iraq and now we have a different enemy during the post-war stage.
We won the first war and are still fighting the second.
Probably just the way I look at the situation based on my military experience rather than from a desire of political outcome.

And I agree with most of the rest of your post. As I said before, I too believe our troops should be home by now.
I don’t agree with us being at war with “chimpy” though. We are at war with terrorists, they are the true enemy.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #213954

kctim, I think we could stretch this out forever, because there are a couple of points neither of us are willing to budge on. We are obviously on opposite sides of the aisle and have strong opinions about issues. We do have one common opinion and that is the welfare of our troops and the belief they NEED TO COME HOME, and tomorrow would not be soon enough (my opinion). Time will show that your choice of parties wasn’t the best..;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 27, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #213958

My choice of parties? Thats a good one Sandra.
Care to take a guess as to who I voted for?
I am pro-choice.
I was against going into Iraq.
I strongly support gay-marriage.
I am an atheist.
I strongly support individual rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Now, going by all except for the last one there, many would call me a liberal, but you place me on the “other side of the isle” than you. Why?

Its not right vs left Sandra. Its us vs the govt no matter which party is in control. I just choose to stay awake no matter who is in control.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #213962

kctim,

It’s always interesting to debate with you, because you don’t fall neatly into the boxes that so many of us fall into (myself included).

As you say, many of your beliefs align with what is considered liberal in America today. However, I seem to see you criticize the Democratic party much more than the Republican party. Do you think that’s accurate? If so, why do you have have or display a shorter patience with the Democrats? If not, it could just be that I’m reading the wrong threads or am more sensitive to statements that disagree with me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #213966

LB, great to hear from you again my friend. Seemed like I had pissed you off when I gave my opinion on the KC school board and you didn’t wish to converse anymore. Just my opinion, hope I didn’t offend.

“However, I seem to see you criticize the Democratic party much more than the Republican party. Do you think that’s accurate?”

100% accurate.

“If so, why do you have have or display a shorter patience with the Democrats?”

I was basically raised as a Democrat. What many refer to as Conservative Democrats today I guess.
The hard shift to far left ideology by the Democrat party has really pissed me off. I want the old party back. The one that represented the everyday guy.
Hell, even my grandfather, a farmer and Democrat for 60+ years has even left the party. He is now around 82 and still hasn’t gone back. He usually vote Dem for local and Republican for national he says.
Republicans represent the average guy better than liberal Democrats do.

When and if the Dems ever realize that there is more to this country than the big cities, northeast and west coast and that each part of this country has their own lifestyle, I might go back.
Until then, I will continue to call them on their hypocrisy, double standards and different sets of rules they use. That is not a party which represents the people and it is not the Democratic party which I was raised to believe in.

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #213969

kctim,

No, I’m more disturbed that you’re a Packers fan than anything said in that debate :)

Actually, I’ve been out of commission for the last few weeks due to a vacation with my wife and son to Singapore and Malaysia. Otherwise, I’ve been less engaged with WB than I used to be, but a thread on the right topic will pull me back in.

Thanks for responding to my questions. I have a different perspective on the parties, but I can see where you’re coming from.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #213970

LB-

Don’t be badmouthin’ the Pack.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #213973

Glad to hear that LB.
But, it looks like you may have two Pack fans to deal with now :)

Favre for President!

Posted by: kctim at March 27, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #213975

Uh oh…

This could be trouble…

:)

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 27, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #214024

catastrophyinprogress

please pass the cough syrup, or whatever it is your having, and make mine a double.

Posted by: dbs at March 27, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #214042

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Go to page 14 in that file and check out the number of bombings in Iraq during the timeframe before, during and after the 04 campaign and election as well as to the present.

If you’re as biased as I am you will see a coorilation between the escalating number of bombings during the campaign/election and the escalation of bombings after the change of power.

Is it just me or is there a relationship between the bad media during the election and the increase in bombings?

Could the efforts of the people who voted for it before they voted against it be a calulated effort to win the election and regain power? Could those people have calculated their victory on a weak president caving into preasure, but underestimated the President’s resolve? The result being an increasing cycle of bombings and bad media feeding on each other?

Could the people who voted for it before they voted against it be responsible for the enemy perceiving the bad critism as a weakness and exploiting it to their benefit?

How could it not be used as a weapon against us? How could a constant drumbeat of criticism help to end this?

Are the people who voted for this before they voted against this really expecting a failure in Iraq to be a victory? Perhaps yes, if the goal is a return to power for the democratics. They still think G.W.Bush is going to cave in and pull the troops out before he leaves office.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #214053

kctim:
“everybody who does not believe exactly as you and who do not take your opinions as facts,”

Point out what was merely opinion in my post. Everything I wrote about the Coalition Provisional Authority happens to be the outrageous/sad/disturbing truth.

“NONE of what you posted has any bearing on whether the progress posted by USAid is true or not.”

Sure it does. The Neocon Republicans have proved themselves to be Ideologues and Liars all the way. The progress posted by USAid is something I must automatically take as false, because it was “information” produced for this Neocon administration who lies constantly and does everything for show, rather than worry about what is truly vital and important. Indeed, even the fact that they were building schools when there wasn’t enough electricity to light them, and when the water the people are drinking is crawling with germs and parasites, and when there are rivers of sh*t running down the streets due to the lack of functioning sewage facilities is an obvious demonstration of doing everything for show. It’s also a good example of how incompetent and bloody nonsensical they are. But the idea of building schools sounds so nice and fuzzy, and they know that some foolish folks are sure to be totally enraptured by the heartwarming thought of schools for all the little kiddies.

“It is all based on your fear of everything not coming from leftists.”

You are wrongly and unfairly characterizing me here. It is not that I fear everything that doesn’t come from the Left, it’s that I fear and distrust everything that comes from the Neocons — and with excellent reason. They are utterly untrustworthy and have proved this time and time again.
This is why I always make a clear distinction between True Conservatives and Neocons in my posts here — I feel there is an enormous difference between the two.

“This coming from somebody who takes the dailykos etc… as gospel?”

This is also an untrue and unfair characterization — and I think that you know this and are only saying this to try to smear me. The truth is, I am a very infrequent reader of Kos, and I rarely take opinions which are posted as facts on any blog without following up with my own factchecking. Over time there have come to be several blogs I trust more than others to give me the true facts as they post them — but Kos isn’t one of them.

“So show us Adrienne.”

All you and anyone else has to do to see the reality of Iraq is look at some of the pictures of the country. That’s all. A few token schools doesn’t make up for the enormous amount of catastrophy and chaos that can be seen in literally any picture that can be shown, nor does it make up for the fact that many many billions of our tax dollars have been wasted and stolen from us. USAid wants only to talk about accomplishments but they utterly ignore talking about how when we have payed for things that are actually produced, more than half the money alloted for any given project has been simply ripped off. That’s what makes that site transparent propaganda — that they don’t want to talk about the enormous mountain of bad news surrounding “reconstruction”.

“You said that site was bogus and dishonest.”

Yes, I think it is.

“Don’t just tell us its just neocon propaganda and expect us to believe it.”

You can believe whatever you like Tim, I’m not twisting your arm. But when the awful truth is staring you right in the face, I have to say it seems very pathetic to me that you would cling to a handful of feel-good lies cranked out by this totally incompetent and dishonest administration.

“Show us the facts which support your words so that we will no longer be misled.”

I have. So has Hagel. And Murtha. And plenty of other people. The vast majority of the money that we’ve payed out for Iraq’s reconstruction has literally disappeared with nothing to show for it but a handful of nice sounding stuff like a few schools. We’ve been totally ripped off — look at ANY picture coming out of Iraq — this is more than OBVIOUS.

Now, that’s really all I’ve got to say about that link. Tim. If you would rather continue to cling to propagandized delusions and tiny scraps of “good news” rather than face up to the harsh reality of what has occurred in Iraq there isn’t a thing I can do about it — except feel a little bit sorry that you haven’t managed to grasp what I and many other people have been saying, and share a little of our outrage about it.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 27, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #214059

CIP-

By, “the people who voted for it before they voted against it” do you mean all the Republicans who now think Iraq was a bad idea?

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

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #214070

All of us are an example of people getting swept up in the tide.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #214073

Let’s look at the number of bombings right now and compare it to the people who have changed their minds.
Bombings up, quiters up.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #214076

CIP-

Let’s looks at the number of bombings over the last few months and compare it to the temperature over the last few months. Bombings up, temperature up. Good logic? No. While there may be a correlation there is no indication of causation. The two are very different.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #214079

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Go to page 16 and compare the highest and the lowest figures of the nationality of journalists killed. If they hate us so bad why are those numbers as they are? Do the terrorists recognize the need for an audience?

Holy cow, dude! I was going to make a joke about the polling number in jrb’s link.
If I add up all those numbers and average them I would get the global temprature!
What a hoot!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #214082

CIP-

HMMMMM, let me think about this. Could it have anything to do with the fact that most US journalists that have gone over there have either been embedded with our military or do not leave the green zone for fear of dieing. If the terrorists “needed an audience” why kill journalists at all? Wouldn’t they be giving interviews?

Finally, make a joke if you like. The fact is my link is not to a partisan “think-tank.” Rather I have provided you with a list of polls conducted by various reputable mainstream organizations. If you don’t understand how to read it, just say so. People will help you.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 11:12 PM
Comment #214083

Sorry, I meant fear of dying.

Posted by: jrb at March 27, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #214088

Not one bomb went off in this article.

Posted by: catastrtophyinprogress` at March 27, 2007 11:49 PM
Comment #214090

No bombs here. Just building a dam

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #214092

Drilling for new oil with international help!

Jeesh! Maybe this is why Iraqi Journalists are getting killed. Too much good news coming out of Iraq

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #214093

What’s this?

More international help with electricity supply! No bomb or body count included.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 27, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #214097

Moderator, why have you blocked my last post?

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 12:06 AM
Comment #214100

CIP-

Same site, how about these:

story 1
story 2
story 3
story 4
story 5
story 6
story 7

Shall I keep going? What is your point?

Do you want to keep changing topics or shall we have a coherent discussion re: an issue?

Posted by: j.r.b at March 28, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #214101

What is really sad is that all of CIP’s links outline our failure at reconstruction.
In the links listed as “Not one bomb went off in this article” and “No bombs here. Just building a dam” are both describing areas that have become completely dominated by Al Qaeda control during our years in Iraq. Areas where our troops have been totally slaughtered by insurgents.
As for the rest, I guess we’re supposed to believe that we’re responsible for the international help they are seeking — when all the money that we’ve bled out should have covered most of what they’re now looking to get from elsewhere.

jrb — could it be that you had too many links in it? More than three links at a time will get your post automatically blocked.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #214105

Adrienne,

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of that.

CIP-

Same site, how about these:

story 1
story 2
story 3

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 12:24 AM
Comment #214106

Or these:

story 4
story 5
story 6

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 12:26 AM
Comment #214107

story 7

Shall I keep going? What is your point?

Do you want to keep changing topics or shall we have a coherent discussion re: an issue?

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #214124
Areas where our troops have been totally slaughtered by insurgents… Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2007 12:17 AM
Let’s remember who those “troops” are. They are our soldiers, our cousins, our nephews and nieces, our neighbors… They are people. One of the ways the neocon is continuing to dehumanize us and desensitize us to the cost of this conflict is the use of neutral words such as “troop”. Let’s not fall into a trap and instead commit to using terms such as “soldier” and “servicemen” to remind us that they are in fact people and do in fact die. A “troop” never dies or gets wounded. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 28, 2007 9:02 AM
Comment #214129

Ms Adrienne
Nobody is trying to “cling” to anything and nobody is ignoring the harsh reality. Nobody but you. Dismissing their work because you think they are a right wing neocon network or whatever, is being narrowminded. One should always look at all the facts.
But I agree, enough about the link.

I wasn’t trying to smear you either. I clearly put “dailykos etc…” I suppose I could have put moveon or any other leftest opinion based sites, but kos seems like the most popular and one I try to visit often.

And finally ma’am. This is not about trying to say nothing bad goes on in Iraq. Anyone who tries to say that is in denial and I have yet to meet such a person.
This is about wanting the accomplishments to be covered along with the bad news. Some of us actually enjoy good news and are not threatened by it.

“except feel a little bit sorry that you haven’t managed to grasp what I and many other people have been saying, and share a little of our outrage about it”

But I DO! I just don’t ignore facts and info because it does not support my views.
Feeling good about infrastructure success does not mean I am not “outraged” by the negatives.
It is possible to be openminded enough to see the good and bad in things, no matter which party is in control or who is President.

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2007 9:32 AM
Comment #214137

Dave, I didn’t intend to sound disrespectful or dismissive with my comment. You’ll note I did say “our troops” rather than “the troops.” That being said, I believe you’re making a very good point there though, because the word “troops” has become rather synonymous with “soldiers” these days. The way we use words is important and can easily shape our thinking, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this term is being so frequently used as an intentional way of distancing America from the fact that these folks are our relatives, friends and neighbors — so that it doesn’t seem like a personal loss to this country when we hear of their deaths in Iraq.

kctim:
“This is about wanting the accomplishments to be covered along with the bad news.”

The problem is, in every accomplishment achieved there is a mountain of incompetence and bad news that goes right along with them. In the fact that our tax dollars are being stolen and ripped off — which has made, and is still making, yet more accomplishments impossible, because we can’t afford their cost. We need accountability regarding how the money is being doled out to the contractors and to the Iraqi government, and how and where every one of our dollars is being spent.

“Some of us actually enjoy good news and are not threatened by it.”

I think America should not only feel threatened, but actually horrified by the incompetence that has gone hand in glove with every tiny scrap of good news we are told about.

“It is possible to be openminded enough to see the good and bad in things, no matter which party is in control or who is President.”

Don’t you think that if there were areas of great success in Iraq — places where there was little violence, well restored infrastructure, and much good reconstruction to film and take tours of that an entity such as Fox”News” would be doing extensive focus reports on them? The fact that they aren’t doing so is very telling, don’t you agree?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #214144

Adrienne
Nobody is saying we do not need accountability or to ignore the bad. Hell, I think every US soldiers picture should be part of the report on his/her death.
But, according to the news, every part of Iraq is a war-zone, every Iraqi hates the US and every US soldier rapes and murders innocent Iraqis for fun.
If people rely only on the news and do not go out and search for info themselves, they do not know what is really going on. There would be no harm in actually talking with soldiers who can tell them of the positives they see. Instead, we only hear from the few with negative feelings and the media makes them out to be heroes.
Would it be so wrong to report on the schools, power plants, govt etc… maybe once a week? I’m sure they could slide it in somewhere in between how the latest nut blew up 30 of his countrymen.

“I think America should not only feel threatened, but actually horrified by the incompetence that has gone hand in glove with every tiny scrap of good news we are told about”

Don’t worry. In 09, the Republicans will once again feel threatened by an incompetent, rights violating and corrupt administration. To bad the left will go back asleep while its happening.

As far as your last paragraph, the answer is obviously no. The bad news sells better and helps push a certain view of whats going on.
And as for FOX News, they too only worry about ratings.

And who said anything about there being such “great success” in Iraq? I am not naive enough to believe that there is really a Utopia over there and I do agree that the bad out numbers the good. But, just as we do not ignore the gifted child surrounded by idiots, we should not ignore the good that our troops are doing and trying to do.

Obviously neither of us are going to change our minds.
I have friends over there who tell me what they see happening and I am open enough to read and learn about the bad AND the good that goes on.
You choose to see only the bad and I really don’t think you will choose to change your mind until the new Dem congress, which is going to save the country, does something over there or until 09 when the new Dem president is sworn in.

Posted by: kctim at March 28, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #214169
I didn’t intend to sound disrespectful or dismissive with my comment…Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2007 11:11 AM
I didn’t think you were, which is why I didn’t address the comment. Anyway, I’ve become very sensitive to the appropriation of language since the days of Reagan and Atwater. In fact I came across that problem just recently here in a debate with ‘cliff’ about faith based legislation. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 28, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #214208

I’m not sure I will be able to make my point with this point at this point in our discussion. I’ve viewed the information presented in the Seven Stories informative. I found the presentation of the seven stories also supports my point and the point of the Eagle’s talon.



Every day the entire main stream media continues to slobber away and say that the war cost the election, when every exit poll showed that corruption was the flash-point issue.

They know that, but why let truth get in the way of a good story?
Posted by Sicilian Eagle at March 25, 2007 11:25 AM

I had the luck to be the first to respond and I did. With thick, dripping, I didn’t forget, sarcasm!

j2t2 rang in with W and repubs and something about a bill and shoo

assuming you know of what you speak.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 25, 2007 01:25 PM


Then phx8 comes up with this link

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/03/25/25iraq.html

Statesman, 20 killed blah blah.

Stephen rings in next with an acronym.

You’re not going to get good coverage without good policy and good results.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2007 01:30 PM

I then chime in with a fact that congress cannot dictate to the President what he will do with his command. I present the only alternatives available to the Congress, and I throw in some dripping, stinking, sarcasm to top off my 3 sentences.

gergle and Rocky take a few pot shots at the passing train.

Adrienne…

Adrienne has secured the wordcount bonus. Her victory would have been enhanced if the quoted comments of others would have been enclosed with the HTML code. Adrienne has indeed inclosed a link. On it’s face it is a “bad” link.

The frontrunners as of now are Adrienne, and phx8. Stephen is third, in the word-count/link catagory.

Let’s take a commercial break.


**************************

You guys looking for a drink that’ll nock yer sox off?

I got it!! Koff syrup and koolaid. It’ll nock yer sox off!

I got’a link to that!
*****************************


Honey, baby doll, Honey. Wake up baby, my leg’s asleep.

Let’s get back to the post.

**********************
So far, it’s really hard to see the point of the Eagle’s talon.
gergle is asking more questions then he almost forgot.

Rocky is offering platitudes.

AND ADRIENNE SCORES BIG IN WORD COUNT. Adrienne is maintaining her lead in links. Let’s look at Adrienne’s successes in the wordcount catagory.


Adrienne has clearly utilizing the “”“quote”“” stratagy. This flies in the face of the standard insisted on by the Watchblog site. Adrienne is clearly bucking the trend in this regard.

Yes CIP! Adrienne is clearly using this stratagy to confuse her perspective. It’s a gamble that will pay off if the support is there! But what about answering the questions that Adrienne poses?

Adrienne is maintaining this lead with an impressive word count. It cannot be ignored and will be a formidable obsticle in the progression of this thread.

*****************

We have an email from Jim. He has a paragraph asking to see the point that has been made so far.

Well look! He has questions. He has questions about Iraq, the congress, our future. He’s questioning what he’s hearing and seeing on the news every day. He’s taking this episode in his life very seriously and he doesn’t think anyone in charge is.

Do you have a problem with Jim’s post, Mr. Watchblog Editor?

********************

Kap’s libs are jumpin’! He has a one-liner.

BUT phx8 LAUNCHES A SALVO OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT MAY WELL CHALLENGE ADRIENNE’S QUESTION/ANSWER STRATAGY!!!!

What’s up with that, CIP?

The first thing I noticed is the obvious lack of using the link stratagy. That make’s it clear that none of these contenders are on solid ground. They have introduced a new stratagy into this game but the stratagy is not new. It’s called confusion.

**********************


You know we have to pay a few bills and take a leak every now and then.
BUT WAIT!


catastrophyinprogress has challenged all the catagories of word-count, 30%, blockquote html, 100%, He seems to be in control of his facts and that makes him a contender in this fight!


Adrienne weighs in with a question!

phx8 challenges CIP. KAP challenges Adrienne. Adrienne challenges KAP.

The Eagle soars overhead. Eat, or be et.
*********************
Kap challenges Adrienne

woah! Look at this guy run!!!! phx8 is kickin’ some Eagle butt. He’s using stats. He’s using bold print, flattery, HE’S TAKEN THE LEAD IN QUOTES! He’s reinforcing his lead with definite opinion and outlandish solutions that wow the heart of darkness!!

He’s really appealing to the press and those who are standing by the sidelines! I’m going to have this event influence my opinion.

**********************

Adrienne has used someone elses words to gain the lead in word count. She also has the lead in quotes and the use of the blockquote html tag.

***********************
See how boring this ends up? I haven’t even started to make my point. I’ve spent all of this time trying to understand you people.

I’m only saying this because I’m tired and I’m tired of seeing the same thing over and over.

I will make my point when I make my point. The sad part about it is that you people won’t be listening and you won’t even care.

You wouldn’t even know if you missed out on an opportunity. You are too busy fussing with yourselves.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 28, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #214212

OOps. I did it again. I destroyed a plan with a one-liner.

Honest, it was only sarcasm.

Posted by: catastr0phyinprogress at March 28, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #214218

Adrienne.
An assumtion of your gender is not based on your comments.

Posted by: CIP at March 28, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #214219
I will make my point when I make my point.

I’m glad we don’t have to point out to you that your comment was completely pointless. It’s much easier that you admit it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2007 9:44 PM
Comment #214220

CIP-
Wonderful. Brilliant. Now tell me how this alleged liberal bias in the media gets the intelligence community so pessimistic in a document that has nothing to do with the media’s reporting?

Argument does not equal reality. You can claim media bias, and eloquently write a fifty page essay on its evil effects on society, on the war in Iraq, but if you can’t support your notion by an examination of the facts at hand, your beautiful argument and all your hand-wringing about its implications are worthless.

Arguments are like shoes. The question of their fit to reality cannot be determined without facts, no more than a shoe’s fit can be determined without a foot.

In terms of Iraq, the question I’d have for you in terms of the coverage is “Does the shoe fit?” Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

As for what Congress can dictate to the President? Well, let me let you in on a little secret. Strike that, something that’s as obvious as a stick in the mud: The job of the President is to carry out the laws that the Legislative branch writes and passes. The Executive Branch executes the law. Congress determines appropriations. Those appropriations are the law. Bush cannot legally spend the money except as appropriated. It is literally against the law for him to do so.

The Congress not only can tell him what to do, it’s their freaking job to do so. Then, it’s their job to turn around and see how well he’s done his job. Now, his power is that within the law, he can decide the way the law is going to be carried out, within the bounds of the Judicial branch’s interpretation of that law.

Bush does have command over the troops, but he can’t lead those troops into battle without money. As much as we like to talk about our volunteer army, they aren’t that kind of volunteers, and defense contractors who make their guns, their ammo, and their vehicles aren’t running a charity. No mon? No fun. If we don’t give him the cash, he can’t continue the war.

You think that’s an abridgment of his power? Good job! You’re exactly right. That’s how it’s supposed to be. There’s supposed to be a check and balance here. America wants Bush’s war put in check, and him with it. Having control of congress, We’re the ones who decide how the check is written, both the one that’s paying for the war, and the one that’s putting an end to it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #214226

Why are you ignoring my basic premise?
I have to work a real job tomorrow. G’night gracey!

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 28, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #214229

CIP-
I’m not ignoring your basic premise, I’m just not buying it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #214230

I’ll see ya in tha marnin darlin

Posted by: A really huge catastrophy in progressifstephenisincharge at March 28, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #214231

CIP,

Are you referring to Stephen or to me in 214226? That I can’t tell is just one small example of an overly-loose style makes a message incomprehensible.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #214233

Meanwhile, you must watch this Spectacular political meltdown to believe it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 28, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #214237

Stephen, your straws you grasp should at least be lip sync-ed.
Shame on you.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 28, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #214238

Does anyone else feel like we’re watching a nervous breakdown in progress?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 28, 2007 11:00 PM
Comment #214241

I thought it was shock therapy in progress.

Posted by: jrb at March 28, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #214243

Lawnboy:
“Does anyone else feel like we’re watching a nervous breakdown in progress?”

I’ve been thinking it must be a steady stream of Robotussin Shandies, and beside the computer, a big bowl of popcorn dripping with psilocybin mushroom butter.
:^)

Btw, “Weary Willie” and Catastrophy are the same person. Exact same MO — totally nonsensical, obnoxious, rambling posts, lots of anger and hostility toward liberals.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 28, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #214253

CIP is very elitist and Straussian in his rants. They make sense in a wierd sort of way… but not much content per word.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 29, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #214272
Btw, “Weary Willie” and Catastrophy are the same person.

That’s my suspicion as well, though I think we’d have to see the IP addresses to be sure.

Very strange.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 29, 2007 8:00 AM
Comment #214292

CIP-
You can tell me that, but can you tell me why I’m wrong? The NIE isn’t grasping at straws. It’s a primary source. It’s not some amateur production. This is the CIA and the other agencies handing out their opinion when our government asks for it. This, without one Dan Rather in sight.

You ask for balance. All too often, it seems, when Republicans seek that kind of balance, they’re looking for a story that suits their beliefs, and when they find it, they disregard the non-partisan information as biased. All too often, balance just seems like a codeword for escape from challenges to your beliefs.

The current Republican party is contracting, both in its perspective, and in its membership, because increasingly people are finding it much more difficult to reconcile the parallel world many supporters live in with the world that leaks around the corners of that propaganda.

You and others like you are looking for a way out of having to admit that it’s more or less all gone wrong, that this is largely a reflection of what the party’s done to itself.

You know what the difference is between us? I can tell you with a reasonable degree of confidence, the sequence of meaningful events that took us down this road. You can’t. You claim the dissent and the doomsaying did it, but your story is just a vague, perceived trend without concrete events and failures to tie it down to reality. You can’t answer the basic question: was it the discouragement that was followed by the failures, or the failures followed by the discouragement?

I think the evidence is that people didn’t get seriously discouraged until Fallujah and Najaf exploded into violence and remained outside control. Democratic leaders were not out in front criticizing the war. The sentiments of their voters went far ahead of them at this point. Dean rose to popularity by tapping into that. Even then, the other party members were reticent to take his withdrawal position, instead supporting what amounted to reforms of the war. Public sentiment was still largely in favor of the war during those crucial first two years.

The cause of a problem should precede it, not come after it. Democrats and the MSM were not aggressive during that time about their activities. Your beliefs, therefore, don’t make much sense. You want to believe that bias against the war caused the problems, when in fact people, due to 9/11 and the 2002 elections, were not quick to criticize it. You can’t explain the rise in violence in Iraq with the overall public disapproval that only really came after such crucial breaks with civil order like Najaf and Fallujah.

Instead, the evidence illustrates an early breakdown in order that fed on itself and magnified itself in the absence of the troop levels or reconstruction policies capable of inhibiting it. The timeline makes better sense with this cause, than with some feedback of media discouragement.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #214316
They puke when they watch “Blitz-Her” or worse… Murtha and Pelosi..talk the talk of a losers … Yes, the Eagle is back…and itching to convince you of the error of your ways, my leftie friends
Wow, you got your work cut out for yourself.

Hmmm m m m … speaking of … losers.
No wonder voters are abandoning the Republican party in droves. And it ain’t over yet.

Unfortunately, the other party ain’t much better, and BOTH are still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems.

Congress is no longer limiting earmarks, pork-barrel, and waste. They’re back to their same old nonsense, as we get farther and farther away from any kind of common-sense, no-brainer reforms.

That’s why we need an Article V Convention, as is our right as spelled out in the Constitution, but Congress ignores despite 568 requests by all 50 state legislatures. But, that ain’t likely either as long as voters keep rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians (in BOTH parties) by repeatedly re-electing them; giving them a cu$hy 90% re-election rate.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 29, 2007 2:45 PM
Comment #214323

Dan-
The Constitutional convention was called for within a single year, and ratified within a single year. Those 568 requests have been over the past two centuries.

There are no shortcuts in politics, especially when you seek big changes. A lot of the trouble we’re in now is because one party got too much power, and an ideology rode roughshod over a practical reality.

It’s the ideas you must change, the culture. That’s where the real power lies. The way a culture changes is very subtle.

I think you haven’t given Congress the chance to really shine. I think you’re so focused on incumbency that you decided before the congress was even sat down that it was all going to be the same. True, the party isn’t perfect, but I’ll take an improvement over a promise of improvement anyday. The problems will not be solved overnight, but they are being solved today.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #214351

Stephen and all. I apologize for my last post. It was hasty and needless. As for the play by play, well I thought it would be funny.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 29, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #214369

CIP-
Apology accepted.

Like the old song says, one thing leads to another. What leads to what is the center of any good argument. I ask myself how hard it would be for somebody to knock the inference I’m making down. String good inferences together like that, and the logic itself, properly presented, is compelling itself. I try to make what I write persuasive on those grounds.

Too many get caught up in juicy partisan rhetoric on both sides, and they don’t realize how generally useless it can be. If you’re trying to out-argue and persuade others, you must win in a way that at least your audience, if not your opponent will find difficult to deny.

I insist on facts because it’s far easier to hold people to them than to the kind of easy to deny insults that seem to predominate many debates. How many liberals are so far gone that they would agree with folks like Coulter and Hannity?

The Republicans need people who can, with reliable facts and decent objectivity, sell their values in a positive manner. There’s long been too much alienating and off-putting about the cynical, arrogant way that Republican pundits deal with those not of their party.

Things can’t continue with the attitude of “How to talk with a liberal… if you reallymust” for the Republicans. They’re defining themselves out of an audience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #214378
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n The Constitutional convention was called for within a single year, and ratified within a single year. Those 568 requests have been over the past two centuries.
Article V does not set a time limit.

Besides, it’s time for another Article V Convention. Otherwise, Do-Nothing Congress will continue to ignore numerous common-sense, no-brainer reforms.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you haven’t given Congress the chance to really shine.
The past 30 years ain’t long enough?

Of which Democrats controlled most of Congress for over half of that time? Congress controlled Congress for most of 70 years prior to 1996.

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
I think you’re so focused on incumbency that you decided before the congress was even sat down that it was all going to be the same.

I’d rather be focused on ousting irresponsible incumbent politicians than blindly supporting one PARTY and constantly trying to make excuses for it, and constantly saying nothing is perfect, as if that makes it all OK.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: True, the party isn’t perfect
That’s an understatement. It’s only very slightly better than the Republican controlled Congress was. Day by day, the new IN-PARTY becomes more and more corrupt. It will abuse its power too. They ALWAYS do. Already, I see they’re voting on a lot of pork-barrel again. So much for limiting earmarks, 5 day work weeks, and the first 100 hours. Little has changed.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: but I’ll take an improvement over a promise of improvement anyday.
Me too. I haven’t seen it yet. How could it be when 90% of the same bunch is still there. Congress is still:
  • the same teams (merely taking turns being the IN PARTY and OUT PARTY)
  • the same players (90% were re-elected)
  • the same old game
  • the same old results (the nation’s problems still go ignored)
The politicians don’t care, because they still believe voters will still keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing 90% of them.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problems will not be solved overnight, but they are being solved today.
Yeah? What? Minimum wage? That’s a joke when few (if any) in Congress are willing to secure the borders, and enforce the existing laws to stop illegal immigration. In fact, many want to let illegal aliens participate in Social Security (mostly Democrats).

Also, I see Congress just voted itself another raise. That’s 9 raises now between 1997 and 2007. Yep, Congress can vote themselve cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$ faster than you can say pork-barrel.

  • Posted by: d.a.n at March 29, 2007 11:59 PM
    Comment #214493

    Article V does not explicitly call for a time limit, but if we take the precedent of the first constititutional convention seriously, a period of a year or two is the most reasonable timeframe.

    The longer you draw out a vote, the more you make the convention, an accident, a technicality. That should not be the reason to declare a convention. If you can get people to get enough states to declare a convention, you’ve got more than the formality of the call, you’ve got the political momentum behind it.

    If the reforms are truly no-brainers, you should have no trouble, if the people agree with you about congress, in getting what you want.

    You concentrate on incumbents, and read back to me your standard rhetoric as if I hadn’t heard it the first hundred times. I’ve got my reasons for thinking the way I do.

    Will throwing the same rhetoric at me again and again change that? Not really. I’ve complained to you about this, which should be a sign to you that your approach is not working. If you are to be an effective advocated for your political point, you must choose the better working approach.

    I’m not going to accept unfounded sentiment against incumbents as proof that the same things are happening again. If you’re right, you have the facts on your side. Find those facts, make sure that you’re not reading the wrong things into them, then send them my way. See what happens. If I don’t quite get it, find more information that backs you, or that undermines my objections, and try again. Don’t expect final victories. I’ve had few outright wins. The political debate is a process, an ongoing, dynamic discussion, and should be treated as such.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2007 10:09 PM
    Comment #214628
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Will throwing the same rhetoric at me again and again change that? Not really. I’ve complained to you about this, which should be a sign to you that your approach is not working.
    Oh … you have complained, eh? Well then, that makes all the difference in the world. No Stephen, all your comments demomonstrate is blind partisanship, and the repeated statement, “we’re not perfet”. Posted by: d.a.n at April 1, 2007 9:29 PM
    Comment #214743

    Dan-
    As a writer, I can tell you how easy it is dream up ideals, and how hard it is for ideals to become or even sometimes reflect reality.

    I remember you starting this claim that nothing would get better right after election day. You got what you consider airtight reasoning to that effect, and you haven’t changed your position since. And you know what? It was your assessment before. You simply won’t accept any new facts as moderating influences on your notion that nothing has changed. You won’t give any time for changes that need time, you won’t give the new congress, with its change of leadership, the opportunity to rise or fall before you make your verdict.

    I do care how my party is seen. To that end, I ask my party to act in such a way that is worthy of defense. In some parts, they’ve done admirably, in others not. I’d like to hear the bad news. I don’t want to be stuck defending obnoxious crap. Some partisans believe that the ideology and party are worth defending at all costs. I’m of the sort who believes that a good, well-earned reputation is critical to the good fortune of my party.

    It’s insulting to be summarily dismissed, to see my party judged as no different from a bunch of people whose actions are hateful to me, whose policies are abhorrent to much of what I stand for.

    You can’t win me over by knocking me over the head with what you think about me. I already know. Reality is, I’m a Democrat for reasons that extend beyond pure politics. I’m not giving up on the idealistic part of that for your sake, at least not that easily.

    You and I, though, do not necessarily part ways, there, without some room for compromise. Start filling me in on things, start relating recent events. Start learning the history of the political battles going on. It’s been my experience that politics is very difficult to understand if you only approach it from the abstract angle. It’s too fraught with human complexities. There is good and evil in politics, but it’s not a matter of black hats and white ones.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2007 10:32 PM
    Comment #214784
    I agree with Sicilian Eagle when he says:

    Same with family of suicide bombers. They give aid and comfort to the enemy. Their assets should be seized too.

    If the families of suicide bombers are accepting money as payment they are as guilty as the bomber. I see this statement being presented as a SOLUTION. A quick and painful solution to this problem. But phx8 responds with negativity and sarcasm:

    That specifically falls under the definition of a war crime. Any other war crimes you would like to advocate? Maybe if, instead of “re-educating‎ them, we just shot every tenth child, that would settle their hash.

    This debate has become one of an optimist providing solutions and pessimists knocking them down.

    To clarify: Punishing the family of a suicide bomber is within the definitions of “collective punishment” within the Geneva Conventions. There is only a matter of scale when comparing to executing 10 male members of a town for every dead nazi soldier in a resistence attack. (BTW: I am a supporter of Israel but am abhored by that particular policy of destroying bombers homes) The sarcasm might harm the debate but phx8 is right. Do you want to be like the nazis and kill everyone in your way?

    Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 3, 2007 9:20 AM
    Comment #214802
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Start filling me in on things, start relating recent events.
    OK.

    How about:

    • these pressing problems that Congress is still ignoring?

    • Congress just voted itself another raise (the 9th raise in the last 10 years)?

    • Congress is still FOR-SALE and still ignores campaign finance reform?

    • What’s up with Rep. Jefferson Williams? And Pelosi recommending him for the Homeland Security committee? What’s up with the voters that re-elected him?

    • What happened to that 100 hour clock? Did it finally run down after a few months?

    • What happened to 5 day work weeks?

    • The last pork-laden BILL? Bush will veto it, but for the wrong reasons?

    • Congress is ignoring the approaching entitlements/77 million baby boomer iceberg; soon to start becoming eligible for entitlements at the rate of 13,175 per day?

    • Federal Reserve printing too much money? (incessant inflation over 1%)

    • Congress still ignores wide-open borders. Homeland Security is a joke?

    • Congress voting on a fence without any funding?

    • Democrats are trying to get amnesty for illegal aliens. How about these Congress persons (mostly Democrats) that voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits?

    • What good is a minimum wage when the borders are wide open, cheap labor (i.e. illegal aliens) flood across the border by the millions, and immigration laws are ignored?
    • Congress still refuses to enforce immigration laws; Congress is essentially (and despicably) pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other? 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare. 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. In a GAO Report 5646, a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens commited 5992 murders, and were repeatedly arrested on average 8 times.

    • Congress growing the $8.8 trillion National Debt ever larger?

    • Congress still plundering Social Security surpluses (Social Security is now $12.8 trillion in debt)?

    • Congress refuses to reform the absurdly complicated tax system?

    • … more … ?

    Republicans blew it.
    No doubt about it.
    And within a relatively short time too (about 10 years).
    But, Stephen, you are dreaming if you think Democrats are gonna be much better, since Congress is still:

    • the same teams (90% of them were re-elected; each merely taking turns being the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY)

    • the same players

    • the same old game

    • the same old results (the nation’s problems still go ignored)


    Posted by: d.a.n at April 3, 2007 11:31 AM
    Comment #215215

    Without the bullet points. Try talking about one thing in detail. People are creatures of overall impressions. Such lists are better for powerpoint presentations than they are for persuasive writing.

    Go look at the way good commentators and pundits write their column. The more you repeat, the less you have to say.

    And for heaven’s sake, link to some other site than your own. Even ivory tower intellectuals are expected to cite sources they can’t control, so as to enable their readers to make their own interpretations. If you don’t give people that chance, then your logic can’t be put to the test, and the stuff that survives that test can’t boast the virtue of having survived such scrutiny.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2007 1:54 PM
    Comment #215405
    Stephen Daugherty wrote:Without the bullet points. Try talking about one thing in detail. People are creatures of overall impressions. Such lists are better for powerpoint presentations than they are for persuasive writing… . And for heaven’s sake, link to some other site than your own. Even ivory tower intellectuals are expected to cite sources they can’t control, so as to enable their readers to make their own interpretations. If you don’t give people that chance, then your logic can’t be put to the test, and the stuff that survives that test can’t boast the virtue of having survived such scrutiny.
    Stephen Daugherty,

    Don’t you ever get tired of telling other people what to do?
    You asked for facts, and I provided them. A whole lot of them. Yet you say you want more facts? Pure nonsense.

    BTW, my pages link to many other sources, but you wouldn’t know that because you have already admited to never looking at them.

    I think what bothers you most is any criticism of YOUR party that is now the IN-PARTY. You have this ridiculous illusion that the 110th Congress is different because YOUR party now has the majority. Well it ain’t, since 90% of the 110th Congress is from the previous 109th Congress. It’s the same old players, teams, parties, and do-nothingness. If not, then tell us why Congress is still ignoring the nation’s most pressing problems?

    So, what has your new 110th Do-Nothing Congress accomplished since 7-Nov-2006 ? Oh … that’s right. They need more time, and they’re not perfect, and excuses, excuses, excuses. By the way, Israel denies that they gave Pelosi any message to deliver to Syria. So, whose lying? Are you even able to be objective? Or is fueling the circular, divisive partisan warfare more to your liking (as evidenced by one of your last articles in the blue column: Celluloid Scapegoats)?

    So, which of those do you want to discuss in detail?
    (1) illegal immigration and the despicable politicians that are pitting American citizens and illegal aliens agianst each other?
    (2) or pressing problems that Do-Nothing Congress is still ignoring?
    (3) or the National Debt ?
    (4) or excessive money printing ?
    (5) or pork-barrel?
    (6) or waste and bloated government?
    (7) or blind lever-pulling ?
    (8) or the circular, distracting partisan warfare?

    Take your pick. Your claims of lack of facts and links are pure nonsense, since I provide lots of independent links, articles, government reports, GAO reports, studies, etc. In fact, my web-pages are full of several hundreds of links to other sources.

    Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2007 12:23 AM
    Comment #215750

    Weary Willie-
    Every department, every agency, and its ability to issue regulations that have the force of law depends on an enabling act. Each agency also requires appropriations to fund it.

    So, Congress has every right to ask how well each agency is doing its job, and what it’s doing with the Taxpayer’s money.

    The powerpoint presentation needs explanation because agencies are not supposed to work on behalf of parties, using their resources to get one party or another elected. Parties are supposed to do that for themselves, without robbing the taxpayers of money to serve the perpetuation of their power. The presentation in question was on company time, and one of the things discussed was how the General Services Administration, which is basically tech and logistical support for the other agencies was going to act on behalf of Republican candidates.

    In case you think I’m just being overwrought about this, it would be helpful for you to know that such work on the Republican Party’s behalf would not merely be unseemly or unethical, it would be out and out illegal.

    You wouldn’t be siding with others regarding illegal conduct, now would you?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2007 5:37 PM
    Post a comment