The Day After We Lose, What?

Our options in Iraq are limited. We cannot choose to end the war in Iraq. We may choose to withdraw our troops, but that will not end the war either for Iraqis or Americans. Our enemies in Iraq are despicable even compared to many of our nasty opponents of the past. Are we in the middle of a civil war or are we fighting Al Qaeda and global terrorism? Yes.

Al Qaeda policy was to provoke sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, they succeeded. Whenever things begin to calm down or life improves for ordinary Iraqis, they stage high profile acts of terrorism. It does not take many fighters to blow up people in markets and it makes a big impression on local people and world opinion.

Establishing security in Iraq is a key U.S. priority. If Democrats believe this is no longer possible and that we have lost in Iraq, I can understand if they want to act on that belief and try to get out as fast as they can. But if they believe we can just call it a day and go home, they are crazy.

As Michael O'Hanlon - a well known Democratic analyst - writes, "... even if Mr. Bush began this war, America as a nation is now fighting it. And Americans, along with our allies and with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want a peaceful life, will be the ones to lose it to a collection of thugs and ruthless killers if we withdraw."

Dems need to think about the consequences of defeat. Reid and Pelosi may be convinced that America has lost. What does that mean to them? Besides pulling out, what do we do? What happens when the last American in Iraq turns out the lights? When you are defeated it means that you are leaving the enemy with the initiative. It means that the enemy has prevailed over you and gets to make the decisions. We face one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty enemies ever. If the decision will be in their hands, what do Democrats like Reid and Pelosi think they are going to decide for us? What is our next move the day after we lose?

Posted by Jack at April 29, 2007 10:20 AM
Comments
Comment #218718

Jack,

The day after we lose, all of the Islamic terrorist world will claim victory. The U.S. will be thought of as a weak nation once again, subjecting us to innumerable further attacks. If there happens to be a Democratic President, his hands will be tied because retaliating against such attacks will fly in the face of Democratic foriegn policy and the American people will be defenseless and left unprotected.
As for regime change in other countries, the world will know that we abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan. They will never cooperate with us again on regime change of any leader that threatens the U.S. or our allies like Israel. Israel will also know that it is now on its own in regard to defending itself against terror in the Middle East. So much for the argument that a Democratic President will create for us a new leadership role and perception in the world. Some leadership; abandoning the new democracies that we helped to set up. Real smart diplomatic move, don’t you think? Unfortunately, removing our defensive forces for the people of Iraq is not looked upon as “diplomacy”. Well, our surrender is the “diplomacy” that Democrats think will end the Iraq situation. What a bunch of ignorant fools the Democrats are!!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 29, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #218719

Apparently alot of groups thought the United States was weak in the pre-9-11 world. It doesn’t matter what others think of the United States. It is important what we think and believe in ourselves and what are capablities are. The day Americans soldiers leave Iraq, even under the best scenario, this will cause instability and lead to violence. As far as the arguement, … they will only follow us home,” is bunk. They will be too busy fighting among themselves to be concerned with us. This rationale is the modernday version of the old Cold War era “domino theory.” They will be as worn out as the US when this is finished. The longer the US stay in Iraq the more we guarntee it will be a failed state for years to come. A terrorist cesspool of our making.

Let some of the Americans who will die if we stay, live.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at April 29, 2007 11:19 AM
Comment #218721

Danny

I hope your optimistic scenario is correct, but I do not think you have properly assessed who we are fighting in Iraq. Most of the chaos is the result of sectarian strife. The danger here is “merely” a failed state like Afghanistan in the 1990s. But Al Qaeda and related terrorists provoke most of the suicide attacks. There are not very many insurgents in relation to the population. Brookings estimates them as only .01% of the population, but those are the ones provoking most of the trouble.

Only a few Al Qaeda (such as Zarqawi) were in Iraq before the U.S. arrived. But they came to Iraq to fight us. They come to the places where we are. They have no stake in Iraq per se. They are there because they want to hurt the U.S. They will move to a different place if they can no longer hit us there.

We can argue whether or not Iraq is worth it and I assume Dems are sincere in their belief that we have already lost. If that is true, the best course would be to get out as quick as we can. But they are not facing reality if they believe they can vote an end to the war. They can just vote to move it someplace else.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #218722

Jack
Blameing the Dems for defeat is Orwellian doublethink. The defeat occurred tragic years ago.This list of failed opportunies is long. What the Dems are doing is faceing reality and what they were put in the majority to do by the American people,like it or not.You might consider what General Odom has to say on the matter.
The budget sent to Bush is well considered and gives a chance for the Iraqis to come forward with their own solutions.Yes there is a flexible timetable. A timetable IS an exit strategy. We are one signature away from ending this war.The blood of every soldier killed after the veto will be on Bush’s hands and America knows this.

Posted by: BillS at April 29, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #218723

JD
You have absolutly no historical evidence that the the next president,a Dem,will not retaliate strongly to any attack on the US. Quite the opposite.All the front running candidates have stated exactly that. The last time a Dem president retaliated against terrorist attacks the Reps accused him of “wagging the dog.” Shameful. Did FDR respond to Pearl Harbor? Did JFK stand firm in the Cold War. Do not kid yourself. It is the same party. No ,we will not use an attack on us as an excuse to attack countries that were not involved where we have terrortorial ambitions. You will also see the recognition that we cannot win an idealogical conflict with bombs.

Posted by: BillS at April 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #218724

BillS

I am not blaming the Dems. I just want to point out that they are not facing the consequences of what they are saying. Maybe Democrats are right when they say the war is lost in Iraq. But their rhetoric implies that they can “end” the war by pulling out. This they just do not get to do. When you lose, your oponent makes the decision about whether or not to continue.

O’Hanlon is a Democrat. Read his article that I linked. He makes good points re what it might mean to lose.

Losing in Iraq has serious consequences. You can blame George Bush if you want, but the American people will suffer the consequences and it is wise to consider what they are and how to mitigate them. The facile Democratic rhetoric that we have lost the war and now can take our ball and go home is not helpful.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #218725
We may choose to withdraw our troops…

Jack, you’re just peddling uninformed opinion. Nobody is suggesting we withdraw all our troops. The Democratic position is that we transition our troops in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training and force protection while Iraqi forces take the lead in quelling their sectarian fueds.

We don’t need 160,000 troops to hunt down a few al-Qaeda operatives that Gen. Petraeus just numbered in the “dozens”. The highest total figure I ever heard for foreign fighters was 1,200.

Do we really need 160,000 troops — the vast majority of them totally untrained for counter-terrorism operations — to hunt down a few hundred foreign fighters?

The danger here is “merely” a failed state like Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Highly unlikely, as I pointed out in a previous post.

The notion that a Shiite-Kurdish-dominated government would tolerate Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda is improbable on its face. Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq’s population…

At best, al-Qaeda could hope for a tenuous presence in predominantly Sunni areas of the country while being incessantly stalked and harassed by government forces – and probably hostile Iraqi Sunnis as well. That doesn’t exactly sound like a reliable base of operations for attacks on America.

When you look at the facts and become familiar with Iraq’s cultural and political dynamics, Jack, it’s fairly easy to discount the bogey-man fear tactics thrown around by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove for GOP political purposes.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 29, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #218726
their rhetoric implies that they can “end” the war by pulling out.

Nobody’s pulling out of Iraq, Jack. Democrats want to refocus on hunting down al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, rather than referee sectarian violence.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 29, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #218729

Let’s pretend…………..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HxOJPj59-g

………we’ve won!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 29, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #218731

By your logic, Jack the terrorists should be attacking us again and again here in America, or hitting the same places in Europe again and again. The trick is, we have working states in place that can keep law and order.

Iraq hasn’t really had that since we invaded. What’s more, at this point, much of the power that should have been concentrated at the top has devolved down towards a tribal and sectarian level, and neither we, nor the government we’ve backed, has shown the ability to keep that failure in the nation state from continuing. That being the case, we have no real voice in how Iraq shapes up.

Most Democrats and Americans support giving the Iraqis a soft landing, but if that’s not to be, it will have less to do with how we’re coming out, and more to do with how we went in.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 29, 2007 2:13 PM
Comment #218733

AP

The Dems in congress are calling it a timetable for withdrawal. Harry Reid says that we lost. I heard him.

If Dems want to keep a force in Iraq for a longer time and respond to conditions on the ground, they should say so and then explain how it differs from the Bush proposal.

Your proposal sounds very practical. Maybe you need to talk to Reid, Pelosi or Murtha about this.

BTW - how many troops do the Dems propose leaving in Iraq and do they envision them being there indefinitely? As you state it, the proposal sounds like something we can all live with. I know you are reasonable, but I am not so sure about the Dems in congress.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #218735

Jack,

No one’s saying terrorism will disappear if we leave, however, many are questioning whether or not this war is the best way to fight it. To date, the war has united terrorists by giving them a shared purpose and a platform, and won us no friends. Even a majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Why should we continue to throw good money after bad? There are smarter ways to fight terrorism. Personally, I like OBama’s idea of funding an international policeforce that shares data and works together. This is a world problem not an American problem, and the issue is how to prevent and find terrorists, not waging war against another nation.

Posted by: Max at April 29, 2007 3:09 PM
Comment #218736

Jack:

We lost a long time ago. When the government of Iraq said they favored Hezbollah, we lost. When Shi’a decided to work for an Islamist state, we lost. When Sunnis and Shi’a began fighting, we lost.

We already know what would happen the day after we lose. We see it today in Iraq.

Leaving Iraq now and getting Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’a Iran to take over the job of reconciliation, is one way to improve the situation. It will demonstrate to the world that our main interest is a peaceful Middle East. If we can do that, then we will be able to say we won.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 29, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #218737

Max

This international police force would work as well the UN does now, much like Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, or even Iraq. Obama is a smart guy; this is a silly idea.

Paul

I do not agree with you, but as usual respect your integrity in stating your position. I just do not think it will be over or better if we withdraw too soon and I do not think we lost already.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #218738

We cannot pull out! There are two parts to the enemy’s plan: create as many Islamist states as you and destroy the two Satans. Let’s compare the Islamists to the first Terminator: you can’t reason with them and you can’t bargain with them. They only want to kill.

I have never seen a vicious hate like this. They are bred with hatred. An Israelite once said “There can only be peace when they learn to love their children more than they hate us.”

Posted by: stubborn conservative at April 29, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #218740

Jack et al

Is there not wisdom in withdrawing our troops from a loseing battle,rebuilding and redeployment to Afganistan. In Afganistan we have something else going for us,namely,allies. Nato is there in force. We can win there. That is also where Al Queada is likely to move its forces also.The Dem plan does leave a strike force to take out Al Queada in Iraq. We should encourage regional powers. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria to prevent a Sunni genocide. They are capable and willing to do that and part of that will require the elimination of Al Queada there. If they do not the Shia will.
Yes there is a price to pay. There is a price to stay also. The question is which will leave us in a stronger position in the future conflict.

Posted by: BillS at April 29, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #218746

Jack,

You can disagree that the internation police force is a good idea, but still agree that we are currently using a sledgehammer where a screwdriver would be more appropriate. We’ve torn a whole country apart and the terrorism situation is worst than when we came. Personally, I see a lot of benefits. It would be a great way of establishing individual rights internationally, which would be a step toward promoting democracy abroad.

BillS,

I also see a lot of value in redeploying to Afghanistan. I wonder why no one talks about that?

Posted by: Max at April 29, 2007 4:44 PM
Comment #218747

Jack, Republicans argue that al-Queda followed us into Iraq, and that if we bring our troops home, Iraqis insurgents and al-Queda will swim across the Mediterranean and Atlantic Oceans to fight us here at home. (They should be in the Olympics).

If that logic is valid, then redeploying our troops to Afghanistan will empty Iraq of al-Queda bringing them back to Afghanistan, and American shores will be safe.

But, I think you can see how fallacious that Republican logic is. Because little of those things Republican logic predicts would in fact happen. Murtha said we need to redeploy adjacent to Iraq to continue to assist Iraqis in taking out al-Queda in Iraq and help protect their borders from incursion. Yet, your comments above imply that you are not even aware of Murtha’s proposition as you tell AP to share Murtha’s plan with Murtha. Which casts doubt on your assessment of any other Democrat positions critique above.

There have been many wars in Iraq since we invaded. Reid is correct to say we have lost the war if he is referring to the one against sectarian violence or to eradicate al-Queda from Iraq. We engaged in a war to resurrect Iraq infrastructure, we lost. We engaged in a war to instill our kind of democracy which is far more than just a voting booth, we failed. We engaged in a war to keep Iraq united, but, now we are dictating Berlin Walls to segregate Iraqis even against Iraq’s prime minister’s wishes.

We won the war against Saddam Hussein and his Armies and to put Iraqi Oil into the hands of American oil companies. Let’s just call that a win, and leave the Iraqis to deal with the rest, and if they want our help, we can then dictate terms. But as an occupying and dictating force in Iraq, all we can expect is growing resistance and the need for many, many more body bags for our soldiers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2007 4:47 PM
Comment #218749

Jack

The NYTimes today reports that many of the rebuilding projects the US declared successes are actually rotting hulks of disuse. What a metaphor for this war. How long will Republicans ask that we deny the facts in front of our faces?

In a troubling sign for the American-financed rebuilding program in Iraq, inspectors for a federal oversight agency have found that in a sampling of eight projects that the United States had declared successes, seven were no longer operating as designed because of plumbing and electrical failures, lack of proper maintenance, apparent looting and expensive equipment that lay idle.

The United States has previously admitted, sometimes under pressure from federal inspectors, that some of its reconstruction projects have been abandoned, delayed or poorly constructed. But this is the first time inspectors have found that projects officially declared a success — in some cases, as little as six months before the latest inspections — were no longer working properly.

Posted by: Max at April 29, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #218750

“Al Qaeda policy was to provoke sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, they succeeded.”

The US lit the fire when we invaded, and held elections which effectively disenfranchised the Sunnis, putting them under the rule of the majority Shias. It was OUR fault. Al Qaida in Iraq poured gas on the fire. And please note, Al Qaida in Iraq is NOT the same as the Al Qaida of Osama bin Ladin.

“But if they believe we can just call it a day and go home, they are crazy.”

I am not crazy, and I believe that. In fact, I have been consistently right about Iraq, and the author of this article has been consistently wrong. It is available in Watchblog archives.

The US caused the problem when it invaded. The US is a major part of the problem, not the solution. In both the short run and the long run, everyone will be better off the day the US gives up its attempt to, for all practical purposes, annex Iraq.

But make no mistake- not another one, please- because Bush and the Republicans will be absolutely desparate to pass of this worst of foreign policy decisions to the next administration. Let there be no doubt whatsoever, that is their goal. If the US withdraws and the situation in Iraq improves, Bush will be humiliated.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #218753

Weary Willie,
Our unity or lack thereof has nothing to do with why we lost in Iraq.

The USSR fought the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the USSR had no domestic political opposition or media to reveal the true situation. Domestic opposition in the US merely provides the US with a self-correcting mechanism.

We have lost due to the fact that the invasion was based on pretexts, misinformation, and outright lies. We have lost due because we ignored the Powell Doctrine, went in without enough troops to secure the country, disbanded the Iraqi military & de-Baathified the government, including the firing practically every white collar professional, including 40,000 teachers. We have lost because the Bush administration attempted to institute a conservative version of the liberal Marshall Plan, selling Iraqi businesses to the highest Coalition corporate bidders, and displacing French/Chinese/Russian oil company contracts with Coalition oil company contracts. We have lost because of Bush administration lies, their gross incompetence, and an incredible amount of corruption.

The Iraqis do not care if we are unified or divided. They want us out of their country. They will resist until we leave. It is that simple.

Posted by: phx8 at April 29, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #218756

Some of you don’t understand what the Dem leadership (sic) has up its sleeve. The turmoil that will ensue, should they get their withdrawal and quiting will astound you all. There are thousands of terrorists active in cells in this country just waiting for the moment to strike. If the dems get their way there will be much division and confusion and we would be vulnerable to attack from inside our borders. That is almost prophetic.

The sad thing is that so many people would rather switch than fight. Giving in to democratic policy at this point is foolishness. Of course, I never would acquaint wisdom to Reid and Polosi et.al..

Posted by: tomh at April 29, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #218762

Jack:

Well, you’re going to dodge my response in the Blue column, I’ll bring it over here.

Jack:

Besides Democratic political gains GOP political losses, what do you think will be the result of an [indefinite] American retreat occupation?

I’m not going to list all the ways this Iraqi policy has been hatched, created, sustained and nurtured in mis-statements, fabrications, lies. Any thinking person can find out the facts that have promulgated and sustained this enterprise—if they want to.

The American people didn’t buy into a generational war, no matter what Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, William Kristol or any of their ilk may assert. Even saying that 3200 dead people in New York, DC and Pennsylvania equates to a thirty-year war on Islam is perposterous on it’s face, and smacks of Dominionist hysteria.

The American people have had enough. This entire policy has been not only mismanaged and corrupt from the opening gun—it has been predicated on a total misread of the cultural and political circumstances in this region that could only be concocted by ideologues, State Dept. careerists who vacation in Paris, and think tank hacks whose grasp of reality is in league with our Vice President’s.

Let me draw you and your neo-con cohorts a picture, Jack. This war is over—sure, there will be some jockeying and political jostling while the markers are placed and the endgame is massaged. But the threats, the paranoid rants, the ‘mushroom cloud’ arguments are falling on deaf ears. The majority of Americans are not listening anymore. And the pols who refuse to listen to the people’s loud-and-clear wishes on this will be driving taxis, or whoring for their favorite lobby in January, 2009.

The neo-con movement has screwed up royally. They backed a loser—and incompetent sociopath who’s real good at convincing bubbas that he’s the perfect person to have a beer with—but don’t count on him to pull you off the roof of your flooded house or to give a damn that your life savings just went poof in some corporate scam.

The American people are not going to pay for it anymore—a half a trillion dollars, 4000 young American lives and tens of thousands in wheelchairs is enough. The Right has tried to scare them into horrific scenarios of Islamofacism, thousands upon thousands of crazy towel heads lining up to bomb us back to the Stone Age.

Trouble is, what if the moronic Right is right? What if the US is in serious trouble with terrorism? What if a widening conflagration between Sunnis and Shias is true? You know what? It doesn’t matter now. The Right’s credibility is shot—most Americans just don’t believe the hype anymore. Which may create more problems down the road, who knows? But the neo-cons have had their chance to change the face of the Middle East; and we have a more serious problem with terrorist violence and hatred of all things American now, than we did on September 12th, 2001.

You and your ilk have screwed up everything you have touched—in foreign policy, in your pretense of good goverence, in economic policy, by dismantling any and all regulation to keep corporate raiders and thieves from the nation’s pantry door.

You’ve pretty much had it your way for thirty years. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. The Dems may be wimps, criminally incompetent, they may run the country into the ground, blah, blah, blah. Most Americans know one thing now—the Right Wing doesn’t have any answers. I’m going to try to convince as many of my fellow citizens as possible for the rest of my time on this earth, that they never did have any answers.

America has witnessed conservatism at its finest.
They are now looking for something else. Back to the drawing board, Jack.


In addition:

“Dems need to think about the consequences of defeat. Reid and Pelosi may be convinced that America has lost. What does that mean to them? “

First, this isn’t a defeat. We didn’t lose—we kicked the crap out of Saddam. Now we go back to Afghanistan and finish the job there. Just because things aren’t mirroring lunatic expectations of neo-con regressives doesn’t mean it’s a defeat. And this obsession with ‘losing’ makes me wonder if all the fat, rich, white old guys that run the GOP aren’t battling male menopause and impotence. If that’s what this is about, take some Viagra, and leave this younger generation alone!

“Dems need to think about the consequences of defeat. Reid and Pelosi may be convinced that America has lost. What does that mean to them? “

The real question is, why didn’t Bush and his fascist morons think of the ‘consequences’, hmm? I suspect this debacle means more to them than the deaths, carnage, collapse of American prestige and trillion dollars down the drain means to the sociopaths, Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 29, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #218765

A thought occurs to me:

Let’s say we do withdraw, and Bin Laden attacks us. In this case, what would his objective most likely be: to once more unite Americans and refocus their energies and attention on him, or to have us descend into a morass of partisan bickering.

Moreover, what is more likely to be al-Qaeda’s true purpose in making Iraq a hellhole? To pour its resources down an empty hole out of which they will get nothing, while targets remain open in America, or to force America to waste billions of dollars, the goodwill of millions of Arabs and billions of the world’s citizens, to grind our military into crappy shape, and ultimate to break whatever unity we have in fighting our real enemies into pieces?

Or, to put it more plainly, who’s done more of a favor to al-Qaeda through their actions over the last five years? Who relented in the chase when it became difficult, politically sensitive? Who then decided to divert attention and resources to an unrelated theatre of operations? Who has made criticism of the poor management of that war, and its irrelevance to the real war on Terrorism a wedge issue? Who has made continuation of the war that has swelled the terrorist ranks a priority, a necessity?

And who would eagerly blame the Democrats for any post-war terrorist attack on our soil?

We did Bin Laden a massive favor by getting into Iraq. At this point, we’re likely to get hit sooner or later, no matter what we do. It only serves Bin Laden’s good to divide ourselves over the issue. If we withdraw from Iraq, I would suggest that we spend a great deal of money making America more secure in the homeland. I also suggest we give Iraq the softest landing we can afford. If al-Qaeda continues to engage in terrorists attacks in Iraq after we’ve gone, it only serves to harm their reputation. If they go after us, we should not give them the satisfaction of letting it divide us.

Fear of the terrorists should not be what keeps us in Iraq. Our ability to positively affect the process of reconciliation should be. If we can’t bring the two sides together, then we have no purpose in staying.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 29, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #218767

When the US pulls out of Iraq, as it assuredly will, the Iraqis will deal with Al Queda themselves. The Shia couldn’t possibly have any truck with those fanatics, given Sunni Al Queda hatred of the Shia. Iraqi Sunnis are probably amongst the most moderate Muslims; they are well capable of dealing with foreign extremists themselves, and indeed reportedly in some areas are even now attacking Al Queda. These people are not fools, and know well that Al Queda have nothing to offer them.

As to Al Queda following you guys home? Get a grip. If Al Queda had the capacity to hit you at home now, they would be hitting you at home. For all the talk about how resourceful they were in executing the 9/11 attacks, those attacks were not unduly complex. They just required money and time and modest preparation to launch. And given how lax internal flight security was at the time, it did not present any great challenge to overcome. That situation does not apply now to the same extent. Remember, there guys entered the US legally. As to whether they could now come across your southern border, I don’t know. I do however strongly believe that if they currently had to capacity to attack, they would do so.

The Iraqi (mis)adventure was a pack of lies dressed up to justify empire building and seeking to control the resources of the region. It was conceived by a bunch of extremist lefties who changed to the right to achieve their ends. And the current gang of criminals running the US executive will attain their rightful place in history alongside their historic forebears. Whom thte Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 29, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #218769

Tim Crow,

Thanks for your analysis of the conservatives. However, it seems none of the Democrats have been able to “get it up” since JFK left office!
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot about Bill Clinton. Now, that explains why you Dems analyze war in terms of Viagra! Helps us conservatives figure you out a bit better.

JD

Posted by: JD at April 29, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #218771

Tim

Read the O’Hanlon article linked re Iraq. You can check his background on the Internet. He is a Democrat. Dem have a very simple minded story. They say Bush lied to get us into Iraq (and fooled all those smart Dems) but he is so stupid that he cannot fool anybody. Now the Dems can just pull out of Iraq and everything will be fine. We will see how that works.

I guess you are counting conservatism from around 1981 (When RR took over). That record is pretty good: solid economic growth, Cold War ending favorably. I was just really grateful to get out of the stagflation and malaise of the 1970s. In fact, the biggest threat people make about the economy is that it will get to be like we experienced in the late 1970s.

You say the last 30 years. No American under 30 years old remembers a bad economy or really bad times in general. He/she has heard about it and may be convinced that a 4.5% unemployment rate represents a depression, but it really is not.

The problem is Iraq. It was a big risk and seems not to have worked out. A defeat in Iraq will help Dems win the next election. But it will not give them any new ideas. The reason the U.S. shifted toward a free market “conservative” direction in the last 30 years is that liberalism ran out of steam. Dems are running the engine on anger and vitriol. Right now it is high octane and running the engine well. Unless they come up with something else, they will run out of steam again right soon.

Paul

I think that we overreached in Iraq. Neocons forgot the important lesson that created the movement. Governments cannot remake the world. We forgot. We thought we might be able to bring democracy to the Middle East. It would be good if that were possible, but it looks like a bridge too far. This is a tragedy in the original sense and the modern one. For the original, it featured koros, hubris, ate, & probably nemesis. It is a tragedy in the looser application in that democracy will not be coming to the Middle East any time soon.

This is cause for sadness.

Posted by: Jack at April 29, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #218773

I’m not going to comment per se on this commentary because the author probably believes what he is writing, as he is entitled. Instead, my comments are directed to those who may be tempted to accept what the author of the above post has to say without considering facts he has neglected to mention (irrespective of whatever his motivation may be for such egregious omissions).

1. If there are still people who believe the original Bush lie about Iraq and WMDs consider these points…Al Qaeda WAS NOT in Iraq prior to Bush sending American troops there. They became established because of the lack of military expertise, leadership and planning on the part of the CIVILIAN led “Dumbsfeld” (Rumsfeld) pentagon. In addition, this “Al Qaeda in Iraq” propaganda was created also by Bush, et al. It originally had NO direct links to Al Qaeda associated with the 9-11 attacks on the US. The association now, direct or not, developed as a consequence of Bush incompetence and stupidity and began as an IDEAOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION that would NOT have developed except for the presence of the US military at the orders of the idiot Bush.

2. If you are tempted to accept what the author of the above commentary states about sectarian violence…consider this point. Prior to any invasion, and intelligent discerning thoughtful chief executive would have considered the impact of sectarian violence and if it would be possible to conduct a successful military campaign (e.g. the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, or finding and destroying those “famous” WMDs) PRIOR to sending our troops on such an ill-conceived, reckless, pointless mission. Furthermore, a legitimate US President would have considered military strategies that might limit “sectarian violence” (which is really propaganda for civil war). Even if it were possible to rid the country of Saddam and not spark civil war—the Asses of Evil (Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney) made no provisions for this INCREDIBLY PREDICTABLE OUTCOME.

Iraq (as an autonomous nation—created by the British) has ALWAYS BEEN a Shiite majority (greater than 60%)—perhaps because before the British decreed it as “Iraq” it was part of Persia (i.e. IRAN—which is a predominantly Shiite Muslim country—and NOW, A Shiite Theocracy subsequent to the revolution). Saddam Hussein kept the Iraqi Shiites in check by intimidation, torture, murder.

Also, before you are tempted to think that life has ever been “improved” or “stable” for the majority of Iraqis, as the author wants to imply, ask yourself. “How the hell does he know what life is like at anytime in Iraq—before or after the US invasion/occupation?”

3. Car bombings, suicide bombings, road side bombs, engagement of US troops by Iraqi militia (many times disguised as Iraqi Army), are DAILY occurrence. What the author is calling “high profile” must simply be the particular instances reported on by major forms of news media. Also, ask yourself, Is “surging” US troops going to in anyway prevent bombing attacks, infiltration of “Iraqi Army” (what a joke) by different militia factions, and the like? Bush (the terrorist bastard) says, he won’t know until September 2007, after 10% or more of the re-deployed military have been killed! Is this acceptable treatment of American citizen who volunteer to keep us safe? Is this acceptable from a US President?

4. If you are tempted to believe that withdrawing our troops to prevent further loss of American lives means leaving Iraq to “ruthless thugs”…consider this question? “Was Saddam Hussein a ruthless thug?” I would say that HE DEFINITELY WAS! Yet, I am not aware of any large numbers of VOLUNTEER US Military personnel losing their lives as a result of that particular thug. The death toll from Gulf 1 wasn’t anywhere close to the numbers for the US military death as result of this version of idiot Bush. Neither am I aware of any legitimate threat to US national security by the former “Iraqi thug” Saddam Hussein. Remember, the people responsible for the 9-11 attacks on the US are a group of “thugs” with no particular allegiance to any country/government.

My take home message is as follows: Think very carefully about the comments made by authors—such as the one who posted the orginal commentary—before deciding you agree with their positions on Iraq. Their “arguments” and “facts” rely on the same propaganda the Bush administartion has been using to lie to the American people and to send our great military service people to their deaths.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 29, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #218774

BillS,

You say that I have no evidence that a Democratic President will refuse to respond to terrorist attacks. Then, you talk about Bill Clinton’s cruise missile lobs at relatively empty camps in Afghanistan and Sudan three days after all heck broke loose in the Lewinsky scandal.
You’ll have to help me here. Was that retaliation after the fourth or fifth terrorist attack on the U.S. during the Clinton Administration? I seem to have lost count!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 29, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #218777

Kim-Sue,

Thank you for the opportunity for commentary on your commentary, especially point #4.

Saddam Hussein certainly was a ruthless thug. In fact, one whom Iraqis thanked and kissed American GI’s for removing from their country. Yet, equating a death toll in Gulf I, in which we simply pushed the Iraqi “offensive” (yes! I said “offensive” or have you forgotten) out of Kuwait, (our ally), with the death toll of removing Saddam indefinitely and trying to bring democracy to Iraq is certainly comparing apples to oranges. You stated you are not aware of any security threat of Saddam to the U.S.! Just thought I would refresh your memory as to why we were there. I guess an attack upon our allies in the Middle East is not considered a security threat to Democrats these days. I guess you forgot about Saddam lobbing missiles into marketplaces in Israel throughout that Gulf I, as well. But, alas, I guess you believed the Democrats, (was it Durbin and Reid?), who went to Iraq shortly before G.W.’s War and told reporters how wonderful life in Iraq was and rubbed shoulders with Saddam in his palaces. Never mind that he vowed to wipe Israel off the map just as the Iranian leader now does.
And, never mind that it was Saddam that bred the hatred for the U.S. in his schools and in every way he ran his country, just like the Al Qaida terrorists run their organization. Hey, they are just thugs and no real threat, right? Do you think U.S. soldiers would be dying in Iraq today if it were not for the years of Saddam’s extremism?
But, you just go ahead and pretend Saddam was just a thug and no real threat to the U.S., just like the terrorists. Let’s all just long for the pre-9/11 days, shall we?

JD

Posted by: JD at April 30, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #218779

Jack, the good news for you is that Bush was right. Like he said on the battleship, ‘major combat opperations in Iraq is over and we have prevailed.’ We won the “war”.

As for the “occupation” (hearts and minds & rebuilding)? Reid is right, we lost. It’s over. The Bush boys screwed it up big time!! They did EVERYTING WRONG. It could have been so easy too. Anyway, that’s the past. What now? Basically, we’re guarding a burning building. A building that we set on fire. We (our troops) can stand around and get shot at while guarding the building or we can leave and let the Iraqis decide the best way to put out the fire.

By saying it’s time to “leave now”, we, on the left, are not talking about an overnight air lift. You might conjure the image of helicopters lifting people out of Vietnam in the last days of that occupation. At least that’s the level of rhetoric that is discussed regarding leaving Iraq. But that is not what the Dems are talking about.

They’re talking about a slow, negotiated withdrawl. Not leaveing a vacuum of security but bringing in Muslims (or non-Americans) from other neighboring countries to keep the violence down. In other words, regional NATO peacekeepers who know the customs and language. Countries that have an interest in stopping sectarian wars and minimizing Iraqi refugees from trying to get out and overwhelm their country’s capacity.

That is what we liberals want by setting timelines. Action! Us out (or on the outskirts) and them in. Then we can do what the US does best, WORK BEHIND THE SCENES with money, industry and diplomacy to get Iraq functioning again.

Posted by: Matthew at April 30, 2007 2:20 AM
Comment #218781

IF THE SURRENDER DATE IS SOMEHOW ESTABLISHED AS THE DEFEATIST DEMOCRATS ( e.g. SEN.REID WHO ALREADY STATED THAT IRAQ IS LOST) WISH IT TO BE THERE WILL BE A DISASTER SUBSEQUENT TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE US.

NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS STATE WHAT THEY EXPECT TO DO IN THAT AFTERMATH DISASTER. NOR DO ANY OF THEM EVER DESCRIBE WHAT IRAQ WOULD OR SHOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER THE US HAS ABANDONED THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT WE SUPPORTED AFTER DEFEATING SADAM’S VICIOUS DICTATORSHIP. TO THE EXTENT THEY DO THERE IS NEVER AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING IF WE HAVE WITHDRAWN.

SADAM CLEARLY DEFIED AND CORRUPTED THE UN, WAS OPENLY SUPPORTING TERRORISM AND ESPOUSING ANTI US SENTIMENTS AND INITIATING VIOLENT ACTIONS AGAINST THE POST GULF WAR PRESENCE OF THE US - i.e. NO FLY ZONE ATTACKS.

REGIME CHANGE WAS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT’S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ PRIOR TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YET ALMOST FROM THE MILITARY DEFEAT OF SADAM’S IRAQ THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN IRRATIONAL OPPONENTS TO ALMOST EVERYTHING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DOES.

DEMOCRAT ADVACATES OF THE SURRENDER OF IRAQ TO THE DISASTER THAT FOLLOWS WILL HOPEFULLY REAWAKEN THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTEING PUBLIC TO DENY THE DEMOCRATS THE ELECTION VICTORIES IN 2008 THEY MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THEY DESERVE.

SECURITY FROM 9/11 LIKE ATTACKS BY TERRORISTS EMBOLDENED BY DEFEATING THE US TO ALLOW THEM TO BE OPERATING FROM AN IRAQ ABANDONED BY THE US WILL BE WHAT IS MOST LOST IF WE WERE TO ALLOW DEMOCRATS TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS BETTER WAKE UP BEFORE 2008 ELECTIONS.

Posted by: jim healy at April 30, 2007 7:20 AM
Comment #218782

Kim

You are right about Al Qaeda not being in Iraq before the invasion, with the very big exception of Zarqawi. You are also right when you agree with what the president said on many occasions, that there were no operational links between Saddam and 9/11. Most of the rest of your post, however, is backward looking. You criticize how Bush and Rumsfeld executed the operation after major fighting. We could discuss this and the the various ways Saddam was a gathering threat that needed to be addressed before he became an imminent threat. That is history. Whether either of us is right or wrong about the history is not relevant, nor does it matter if the names you call the president and others are accurate or not. We face a situation today. Our only decision criteria should be whether things we do now makes us better or worse off in the future.

Dems in congress imply that a pull out will end the war. They are mistaken. That is the point of this post. We have been discussing what the post pull out Iraq - and the world - will be like. Will our actions make us better off or worse off?

We know that you hate the president and your remarkable and passionate ability to express that hatred would be impressive if we had not seen it so many times before. I am not saying you should not say those things. Many posters on this blog are so expert at hating the president that it would be a shame not to appreciate their fine vintage vitriol, but maybe you can put it in a link.

BTW - you all better drink up that Bush hatred now. It will not be much good in around 18 months.

Posted by: jack at April 30, 2007 8:03 AM
Comment #218783

Jack-
The assertion that somehow both the President and Congress had the same information better qualifies as simple-minded. Bush himself made sure that most members of Congress did not get the security clearance to see this information in it’s raw form. He prevented any real discussion of these matters by Congress as a body.

If you know something others don’t or can’t, then intelligence is not a factor- cognitive intelligence, that is. Deception is much easier when you can take advantage of the other side’s ignorance, and that is just what the Bush Administration did with Congress and the American people.

Bush possesses some degree of intelligence, even if it’s more the emotional kind. What he lacks is good judgment. He loves playing politics too much, and separates policy from politics poorly. His problem is that he buys all too easy into tha most political of myths, that the Republicans are simply not being given a fair shake, and that things are not going as bad as they seem in Iraq. The Viewpoint invites the person to look past the current, apparent situation, and hold out hope that these next few months will bring out victory. If you clap enough, and believe enough, Tinkerbell will come back to life.

You fail to consider that the appeal Bush and Cheney make now constitutes nothing new for the American people. They heard it before from him, after every setback. Maybe if Bush asked the American people for this indulgence once or twice, folks would have kept faith with his appeal. Making this appeal on a constant basis, like Bush has done, only makes it harder for people to believe that he will come through this time. Bush promised with each strategy that this strategy would win the war, and each strategy failed.

What should people think? Should they ignore the trend of events towards the failure of the Iraqi state? Should they forget how Iraq was after Saddam’s fall? Should they not care that the Bush Administration shows itself time and again incapable of getting the situation under control?

Sadly, everything will not be fine after we withdraw. But things will not get better if we stay. If Iraq collapses in the aftermath, the outcome will come of the poor planning of invasion and the poor management of the occupation, not from the criticism of that, not from the dissent to Bush’s policy.

It’s like many other things the Conservatives handled over the last thirty years. You say your party’s deserves credit for a great economy. I seem to remember a different last few decades. I recall the layoffs all too well, the economic lulls. I remember the early nineties, and what a lack of good healthcare did to people. The rich and the near-rich tend to be insulated from such developments. People in my socioeconomic class have not been. I’ve seen time and time again that there do exist folks whose greed allows them to manipulate the economy, and that the market is often a willing co-conspirator, up until the point that things slip out of control. I speak from personal experience, as a person who never knew a world without the conservatives in ascendance, that conservatism is the triumph of hope over experience.

The Republican Party and the Conservatives made too many promises they couldn’t or didn’t keep. They tried too hard to run this country without the help of a majority of its citizens. They picked a poor time to divide our people, and an even worse time to get us into a war like Iraq.

JD-
It’s interesting that you both talk about Clinton’s refusal to respond to the terrorist attacks, and then unfurl that “wag the dog” banner and wave it around. I mean, that sums up what your party’s response to the threat of terrorism was before 9/11: it was a distraction from the all too necessary business of finding something to pin on the president concerning his love life.

Bush refused to respond to the Cole attack when he got into office. If I remember, there was a retaliation after every confirmed terrorist attack. The trouble is, these cruise missiles take about seven hours to spin up their gyroscopes so they can hit things with precision. As for going after the terrorists to a greater degree than that, would you please tell me how Clinton was supposed to convince people who said he was just trying to distract from his affair with Lewinsky to commit soldiers to what was then regarded as the Soviet Union’s Vietnam?

As for the Gulf War?

We did what we came to do. We mishandled the ending, allowing Saddam to recover, but we at least went in with an achieveable goal which we managed well. The question you have to answer about the Iraq War is whether taking care of a weakened, humiliated dictator took priority over catching and/or killing the bastards who actually hit us on 9/11. Saddam did not constitute the threat al-Qaeda did. 9/11 did not make him a worse threat.

It did make Bin Laden one. Why would we let a terrorist leader go for five years, just so we could take care of a has-been? That we lost and caught Saddam Hussein without getting Bin Laden first demonstrates this administration’s real priorities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #218784

jim healy-
You know, your Caps Lock button seems to have been broken. You should get it looked at.

Seriously, though, your party had plenty of opportunities to make this work. You can throw all the discredited talking points at us that you want, but the fact is, we don’t make things better by staying. We’ve alienated too much of the Iraqi public to be and effective part of any political solutions.

As for regime change being the policy of a Democratic President? That’s true. But not pre-emptive warfare.

Saddam was a problem, but he was a managed problem. He couldn’t get the WMDs, and he was too scared to keep them.

Bin Laden was the real problem, but the Republicans have been too rooted in the past and their past triumphs to confront the unconventional modern world effectively.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #218785

Kim-Sue: Your comments are right on.

More than 100 Americans died in Iraq during the month of April. That represents nearly 1% of the 12,000 surge troops. Counting the wounded, we are well above that percentage. At this rate, by the end of the year, the percentage will be 10% or more. George Bush should have said, I am going to surge 12,000 troops into Iraq and 1200 of them aren’t coming home alive.

Posted by: jlw at April 30, 2007 8:22 AM
Comment #218789

Pearls of wisdom, Kim Sue!

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 30, 2007 10:14 AM
Comment #218791

Jack said,

Only a few Al Qaeda (such as Zarqawi) were in Iraq before the U.S. arrived. But they came to Iraq to fight us. They come to the places where we are. They have no stake in Iraq per se. They are there because they want to hurt the U.S. They will move to a different place if they can no longer hit us there.

Jack, they will hit us elsewhere like they are in Afghanistan. Their concern is the Middle East and setting up a caliphate. If you mean they will follow us to the U.S. didn’t they already do that? If you mean follow us to Riyadh and Kabul they are already there.

I think Stephen summed it up well. They way we went in was a fatal blunder. We have lost the Iraqi people. We have created the best training ground for terrorists in the heart of the Middle East. IT’S THIS ADMINISTRATION WHO LOST THE WAR, thinking they could fight it on the cheap with little planning regarding the aftermath. The arrogance is overwhelming.

I think the Republicans need to look at the consequences of the last four years and the consequences of staying. Are you sure 1,000 U.S. soldiers lives per year for five, ten, twenty years is worth it?

Posted by: chris2x at April 30, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #218793

chris2x

And they will continue to follow us. That is such a simple thing to understand. My conclusion is that the defeatocrats are not smart or wise enough to consider this or they are part and parcle of the terrorist groups. Then again they might be both. The ‘08 elections will not present a problem of hanging chads but of hanging chards. I just prefer a public hanging of those who are so maliciously in favor of the destruction of this great country and read into that “those defeatocrats”.

Posted by: tomh at April 30, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #218794

JD,
“And, never mind that it was Saddam that bred the hatred for the U.S. in his schools and in every way he ran his country, just like the Al Qaida terrorists run their organization.”

Sorry bud, your conflating the two. Iraq’s schools WERE secular. I know it’s hard to remember when Iraq had a functioning infrastructure. But there was no “breeding” of hatred by the state. It’s not like were talking about Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or something, this was Iraq. Saddam hated those guys! He didn’t breed anymore hate for the US than our Govt breeds hate for Hugo Chavez.

Plus, Saddam was our friend, remember? REAGAN took him off the “terrorist state list” in the 80’s so we could sell him the WMDs that Bush/Cheney hoped he still had. Just ask Rumsfeld. His hand probably still smells of musk from the time he touched palms with Saddam to seal the deal.

Also, how is an attack on Kuwait a “threat” to us??? A weak contry like Iraq, invading a weaker country is not a “THREAT” to us. Do you feel threatened if there is a house on fire 20 miles away?? No. We were not threatened by Iraq invading Kuwait, we “felt” obligated to help a friendly country. And Bush Sr. got a coalition to repel Iraq. I don’t beleive we even had an “alliance” with Kuwait. We just had business interests in Kuwait. So get your facts straight. We were NEVER threatened by Iraq.

jim healy,

“NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS STATE WHAT THEY EXPECT TO DO IN THAT AFTERMATH DISASTER. NOR DO ANY OF THEM EVER DESCRIBE WHAT IRAQ WOULD OR SHOULD LOOK LIKE AFTER THE US HAS ABANDONED THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT WE SUPPORTED AFTER DEFEATING SADAM’S VICIOUS DICTATORSHIP.”

I sure you have vast knowledge of all the democratic candidate’s positions regarding withdrawl. I don’t. But off the top of my head I can name a couple. I know Joe Biden has explicit ideas about post-withdrawl plans. THAT’S ONE, HAPPY!? Dennis Kucinich is another. That’s TWO! The others speak in broad terms and I haven’t researched their sites for more details. I bet Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have detailed plans in there sites. But there you go. You asked for one and you got 2.

Any other questions?

Posted by: Matthew at April 30, 2007 11:35 AM
Comment #218795

tomh,

Take a breath. You’re talking like a banana-republican dictator.

Here’s a thought exercise: Which do you think is statisically more likely to happen to you. A) You get killed in another Al Qaida attack. B) The “defeatocrats” splinter off and take over the US. C) You get hit by lightning. D) You win the Mega-Millions lottery.

Wait for it………..

That’s right, it’s C.

Be afraid tomh, be very afraid. Be afraid of………….DEMOCRATS!!! You’d be better off buying some rubber shoes.

Posted by: Matthew at April 30, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #218797

Jack,

As has been repeated many times over by the left, “We lost before the war even began.”

I can see now that this is true. 49% of the country can’t sustain support for a long war. We never had a chance to win this kind of war. This is just a fact we will have to come to terms with now and in the future.

Democrats have won. They have suceeded in promoting their ‘surrender’ policy change. I say we gracefully retire and allow them the responsibility that their victory affords them. There is little else to be done in any case.

Nothing we say can change their minds about what surrender means to them.


AP,

I beg to differ. There are a great many democrats, liberals and leftists who want nothing less than an immediate and complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

I wouldn’t be surprised after that when they start working on our defeat in Afghanistan as well.

Posted by: eric simonson at April 30, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #218802

“Dems are running the engine on anger and vitriol. Right now it is high octane and running the engine well. Unless they come up with something else, they will run out of steam again right soon. “

If you think the conservative movement is dead in the water just because of this Iraqi nonsense, think again. The American worker and the Middle Class is ‘on to’ the whole supply-side, free market free-for-all (well, free for the rich and the powerful, not for anyone else),not to mention a snootful of GOP ‘Southern Strategy’ in New Orleans, proving racism is indeed alive and well in the Republican party. No wonder they do unethical meretricious handsprings in the dark to disenfranchise poor ethnic voters.

As for your assertion that the Dems are full of vitriole—you do have hutzpah and a certain gall, I must say. With the Rabid Right full of Colters, Limbaughs, Medveds, Gingriches and an entire television network dedicated to Republican talking points, usually in the most acid and hate-filled methods, frankly, you lack a certain credibility.

What’s really dangerous about the scurrilous way the GOP has politicized a real terrorist threat is this: there is no question there will be attacks on US soil in the future. We can address the challenge in a true, bi-partisan way,doing what we can as a nation to minimize and control the threat without unduly jettisoning our liberties, or we can have clowns like Cheney and Guiliani claiming that voting Democratic will ‘aid the terrorists’ and make attacks under Democratic administrations ‘inevitable’. I can only imagine the sheer propaganistic vitriole the Right would be spewing if 9/ll had happened on a Dem watch. Absoulutely disgusting!!

That’s about as Watchblog-participation-policy sanitized as I can get it.

Here’s what the Father of Modern Conservatism thinks of the current crew, your crew, Jack, that’s running things. He wonders if the GOP can survive this Iraq policy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=


Kim-Sue:

An excellent summation—succinct, and really, quite damning.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 30, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #218810
BTW - you all better drink up that Bush hatred now. It will not be much good in around 18 months.

Jack,

You better take advantage of this bogus mind-reading argument now. It will not be much good in around 18 months.

And I’m sure you will…

Posted by: Woody Mena at April 30, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #218812
Your proposal sounds very practical. Maybe you need to talk to Reid, Pelosi or Murtha about this.

Maybe you should just read the funding bill rather than continue to spew misinformation, Jack.

There’s nothing in that funding bill that says all the troops must leave. In fact, it reads just as I presented it in my last post:

(e) After the conclusion of the redeployment specified in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

There is nothing in the Iraq funding bill that says all the troops must leave. On the contrary, the bill stipulates that US forces will remain in Iraq to hunt down al-Qaeda, train Iraqis and protect US interests.

Jack, you’re deliberately misrepresenting this funding bill.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 30, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #218817

Matthew

In my case the correct answer is A:

Try gatorade instead Kool-Aid.

Posted by: tomh at April 30, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #218819

Matthew

Also, since you do not know me, which bananna republic dictator do I best represent? Of course your answer will be taken with half a grain of salt.

Posted by: tomh at April 30, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #218820

tomh

Of course it is, because YOU are different (or you live in Manhattan).

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t after you.”

Posted by: Matthew at April 30, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #218825

What is required for an exist from Iraq to be considered a win? If Bush proposes an exit then is that a win, but if Democrats propose an exit then that is defeat? Is that how it works? We have been given so many f’ing excuses for still being there, I honestly don’t know. What needs to happen in order to exit Iraq and be considered a win?

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at April 30, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #218832

tomh,

It is simple to understand. I just don’t know why you insist on putting troops in a situation where the enemy takes pot shots at them. It will be a lot harder and eventually fruitless for the terrorists to fight a suicide bomber/ terrorist war over here.

If you think because we are fighting in Iraq we are immune to terrorism on our own land I don’t know what to say. Those Iraqi terrorists are going to be in Iraq a long time, not to fight the U.S., but the Iraqi government/ Shia/ Kurds to establish their caliphate or sunni resurgence. That is a tall order though and they won’t succeed. Unless they can drag the other sunni countries into their civil war they wouldn’t stand a chance. As to why the Saudi Arabia royal family would directly or indirectly aid Al Qaeda on their doorstep maybe you can explain it.

Why give the enemy easy targets? Why not let the Iraqis take care of it? Your bravado needs some grounding. Name why this administration’s strategy would work or what strategy might work. The talk of “defeatocrats” and “they’ll follow us here” is shallow. Maybe simplicity isn’t the friend you think it is. It certainly doesn’t seem to be working for our soldiers over there.

Posted by: chris2x at April 30, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #218834

“Why would we let a terrorist leader go for five years, just so we could take care of a has-been?”
Stephen Daugherty

Well, Stephen, you’ll have to ask Hillary why Bill did just that. Read his State of the Union Adresses where he attacks Saddam Hussein time and time again for his weapons of mass destruction. Only his attacks were all of the “oral” kind!

He, himself let Bin Laden go when offered to us long before 9/11! Guess he was just too pre-occupied “talking tough” with Saddam. Now, Democrats in their debates are once again “talking tough” to the terrorists while helping them achieve victory much the same way Bill Clinton helped Osama achieve 9/11!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 30, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #218835

Matthew

Sorry to disappoint you. I am not paranoid. I am a realist. There are thousands of terrorists loose in this country. There are dirty bombs on the loose in this country. The muslims are on the loose in this country to convert it to an Islamic state. Those are well know facts. There are too many people in authority in this country that have a situation where they have no knowledge or expertise on how to get their heads out of the sand.

chris2x

I want to compliment you on how to put so many ideas and thoughts into a statement that does not follow my statement. I know some fiction writers that aren’t that good. The point I was trying to make is that there is going to be terrorist events that happen in this country. The people to perform them, for the most part, are already here. They are just waiting for the moment to strike. It is well known that middle easterners are coming through Mexico and learning spanish and adopting Hispanic names. That should make everyone shiver just a bit or more.

Posted by: tomh at April 30, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #218836

tomh,

Your statements invite speculation, that’s why I try to get you to clarify.

So… I’m still waiting to hear why fighting in Iraq will address the threat of Hispanic imposters.

Posted by: chris2x at April 30, 2007 4:32 PM
Comment #218838

JD,

“He, himself let Bin Laden go when offered to us long before 9/11! Guess he was just too pre-occupied “talking tough” with Saddam.”

That’s just wrong and you can look it up.

Otherwise show us a “real” source.

tomh,

You keep this up and the price of tinfoil is gonna go through the roof.
Should we all buy stock?

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #218841

“He, himself let Bin Laden go when offered to us long before 9/11! Guess he was just too pre-occupied “talking tough” with Saddam.”

That’s just wrong and you can look it up


What is wrong about it Rocky?

Posted by: kctim at April 30, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #218843

Rocky:

“You keep this up and the price of tinfoil is gonna go through the roof.
Should we all buy stock?”

I must admit, this comment is the first one to make me laugh in a non-schadenfruede vein in…oh…months.

Rocky, if you’re looking for an investment opportunity, take Mark Twain’s advice: ‘Buy land. They’re not making it anymore.’

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 30, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #218845

Dr. Gnostic:

“What needs to happen in order to exit Iraq and be considered a win?”

This question, and indeed your entire post, has been asked in various forms by many regular attendees here. The answers tend to be rather muddled, because even kool-aid drinking supporters of this policy are not really sure themselves.

More likely, they’re afraid to enunciate their vision of success for fear of looking totally idiotic and removed from reality. By that I mean even more ‘removed from reality’ than usual.

When discussing anything with regressives, it’s important to remember the admonition of Mark Twain:

“Everything has its limit - iron ore cannot be educated into gold. “

That goes double for horse manure.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 30, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #218846

kctim,

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

The references to Osama begins on page 3. This is a PDF document.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #218847
What is wrong about it Rocky?

It never happened. Bin Laden was never offered to Clinton.

It’s just another lie — like the lie that this Iraq funding bill has a timeline or that it forces the President to withdraw all our troops. All lies.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 30, 2007 5:52 PM
Comment #218852

So, the London Times, former ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney and Mansoor Ijaz were all lying to “get” clinton?

Ok.
With individual opinions about a “memo” being so accepted today, I was just curious.

Posted by: kctim at April 30, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #218853

kctim,

Is the 9/11 commission not good enough for you?

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2007 6:09 PM
Comment #218859

kctim, the 9/11 report — among several others — concluded it never happened. Mansoor Ijaz now works for FOX News. Carney never said there was a serious offer. And I have no idea what your reference to the London Times is about.

In any case, kctim, it’s a right wing-nut myth — like the lie that the Iraq funding bill has timetables and calls for the withdrawal of all US troops. It’s just not true.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 30, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #218871

Iraq WAS not a mistake. It was made into a mistake by political correctness. All of the ROE’s and restraint of our military might is killing us. In war, “halfway” is not good enough, fight or die a slow death and be humiliated.

tomh:

you bet there are terrorists in here. Thank the US-Mexican border. There is something going on down there. Both sides are not doing a thing to stop it. I think they are getting paid off by the Mexican drug gangs.

All of these ills make me think for a moment. What happened to the old America where any person with wisdom and leadership could take the reins? Now we are not a Democratic-Republic; we are a Plutocracy. The 2008 election is expected to break records in fundraising (an estimated over $1 billion). Most politicians today are getting too political and using politics for personal gain. War is for generals, not politicians. Maybe some of these issues will be solved if we allow ordinary, but wise citizens to be in government positions instead of just voting.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at April 30, 2007 8:00 PM
Comment #218873

stub,

“Now we are not a Democratic-Republic; we are a Plutocracy.”

And that changed when?

Mr. Deeds goes to Washington was fiction.
This country has been ruled by the rich, for the rich for at least the last century.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #218875

Umm… What’s stopping you from running, stubborn? Most people in politics get their start on the school board or the city council, then move up to mayor or state representative, then on to the federal government.

It’s not rocket science. Here’s a really good book to get you started, “Politicking : How to Get Elected, Take Action, and Make an Impact in Your Community”

Give it a shot.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 30, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #218877

JD-
The Clinton Accusations hold little water, but even if they could contain the Atlantic, they’d be irrelevant to the question of Bush’s actions, chosen post 9/11, with the full mandate of the American people behind him.

Bush promised to get Bin Laden. Then he said he wasn’t that concerned anymore. Later, he reflected that perhaps he promised too much, saying he would get Bin Laden, while many people like myself thought that the promise of Bin Laden wasn’t too much to ask of him.

Americans basically united around the need to retaliate against and destroy al-Qaeda. The support was as near to unanimous as you can get in our culture. He split us to create support for a war that was a longtime agend item for most of his advisors. That divisive, wasteful act constitutes Bush’s greatest failure in the war on Terrorism.

More Terrorists fill jihadists ranks in al-Qaeda an other groups now than they did before the war. If this war’s aims focused on destroying a terrorist harbor and striking a blow against the Islamic Radicals, then it failed utterly. This war only benefits our enemies. It makes them more powerful, it makes them more popular, it gives them greater fodder to feed those who hate America in the Middle East, without the benefit of providing countervailing examples of America’s benevolence. It has been from day one, owing to Bush’s failure to get the intelligence right and the military strategy with it, a strategic failure.

I have no desire to see religious radicals dictate the future of the Middle East, to see the cycle of hate and violence continue. But there are right ways and wrong ways to achieve things of this nature. Methods work because of the results they give, not the philosophies or intentions behind them. The Right worships the perceived toughness of their plans, but those plans so far have proved weak and ineffectual. America does not like to lose; we want to win our battles. But if we can’t win, then we don’t like to continue losing at the war bleeds us of the strength to recover and set our course anew.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #218880

JD! US Soldiers are dying in Iraq because of the AMERICAN TERROIST George W. Bush.

Name one muslim nation where there are citizens that don’t have hatred for the US and western culture. On this point you need to “grow-up” and while your at it check the history and politics on Saddam’s regiem and it’s entire relationship with the US (not the just parts that suit your propaganda).

Finally, I certainly don’t mind your comments about my post. However, if you will recall it was not directed at individuals who have already determine on which side of this issue they stand. It was for those people who may still be influence by the kind of propaganda that you and “Jack” love to spout. My message—which obviously was over your head—was for people to get at much information about an issue to question facts in evidence. Use intellect and don’t be beholden to propaganda.

Jack,

18 Months can’t come soon enough for me. Unfortunately, several thousand US soldiers are higly unlikely to make it to glorious mile-stone.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 30, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #218883

You know Jack, the only reason I am going to comment again is because statements in your rebuttal may also be believed by individuals in my original target audience. I am sure you know, but for others who may not…I don’t give a rat’s ass what Jack believes.

Zarqawi was a Jordanian rouge (as describe in his own country) who IDEALIOGICALLY and practically associated himself with Al Qaeda, a practice now so commonplace that to separate out Al Qaeda from other Jihadists seems ludicrous and mere semantics.

As for “backwards thinking”—I am not exactly sure what this propaganda term means to you, and of course I don’t care! I will assume, however, you take issue with the relative historical context of my post. For individuals tempted to jump into this particular “Jack propaganda pit,” consider these points: There are valuable lessons in history. A legitimate US President is beholden to its citizen to make the most informed decisions, especially, if the aim is to initiate a war and send our volunteers to risk their lives.

Unlike you (Jack), this nightmare known as the “Bush Presidency” is more than just politics and partisanship for me. It’s about the reckless abuse of the US Armed Services and the consequent (and so far…never ending) loss of life.

Jack, JD, and the like, you can continue to showcase what you believe is your intellectual and/or political prowess. I, however, CARE ABOUT PEOPLE, infinitely more than politics. My agenda in this forum is not EGO, it is, hopefully, to provoke intelligent thought, research, analysis, etc. on cogent issues.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 30, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #218884

AP,

Perhaps, if the all-knowing 9/11 Commission saw everything from the Clinton Administration they should have told us exactly what and how many classified documents Sandy Berger stole, for which he was tried and convicted!

JD

Posted by: JD at April 30, 2007 9:35 PM
Comment #218885

Kim-Sue

“My agenda in this forum is not EGO, it is, hopefully, to provoke intelligent thought, research, analysis, etc. on cogent issues.”

How do you go about it? That statement does not fit what you have posted from the past.

Posted by: tomh at April 30, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #218888

Tomh,

I’m not sure exactly what your critism is of my posts. If you care to elaborate, that is fine with me and likely to be helpful to me in the future when constructing responses.

Let me just say for myself that I do, quite dogmatically, render my opinions in this forum. Nonetheless, it is my hope that such an approach is tempered with factual information or, at the very least, sufficiently referential as to allow verification (and correction if necessary).

It has always been my character to be direct—if you knew me personally you would know that. It is a quality that detractor (anywhere) detest because of my candor and truthfulness, but supporters (anywhere) really appreciate for exactly the same reasons.

I understand that it is difficult to discern sincerity from EGO in any of the participants. I hope that what sets me appart from someone like Jack, is that I try not to resort to personal attacks in order to avoid legitimate debate and consideration of factual information. As for opinions, everyone is entitled to their respective ones. For example, I think George W. Bush is an immoral, idiot, terroist bastard. It is such a strongly held opinion of mine, that in my mind it is factual. Therefore, any comment I make regarding him will be from that frame of reference. There are many who disagree with my opinion and are entitled to say so but that doesn’t mean I have change my mind or my rhetoric.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 30, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #218889


The legislation that the Democrats just passed is a reflection of the will of a majority of the people.

That defeatest President, Richard Nixon pulled out of Viet Nam and the Communist now rule the World, Not!

Posted by: jlw at April 30, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #218890

Kim

I think that indeed is what does set us apart, that and my lack of hatred. I have never on these pages called a fellow American a bastard or an immoral idiot, although I can think of several candidates.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #218891

Jack, agreed. Your hatred for the Bush Adminisration is noted and comes accross loud and clear. Stop defending yourself and offer discussion.

Posted by: Honest at April 30, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment #218893

Honest

What?

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #218895

Jack,

Thank GOD, as an American, that I am not beholden to behave (and especially think) as you would. Rhetoric is part of free speech. As an American, I am far more proud to state that I have never been responsible the death (let alone the senseless death) of a single American. Sure I have named called, who hasn’t. Maybe you have not directly “named called” in this forum, but I certainly would be surprised if that circumstance is the result of any kind of genuine consideration/respect you have for your fellow Americans. You have insinuated plenty of negatives about the character of several Americans (most of which you don’t even know) so get off your high, Bush-devotee, propaganda-laden horse. Instead you might try getting on your knees and thanking God that you are not an American serviceman under the command of your beloved George W. Bush (a.k.a, idoiot, moronic, terrorist bastard!!!!!)

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 30, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #218900

“As an American, I am far more proud to state that I have never been responsible for the death, (let alone the senseless death) of a single American.”
Kim-Sue

Whoa, there Kim-Sue. I thought you supported the Democratic Party. Are not they Pro-Abortion?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #218903

JD,

As entertaining (albeit tedious) as it sometimes is for me to engage the completely witless, I draw the line at blatant stupidity.


Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 1, 2007 12:53 AM
Comment #218904

Kim-Sue,

Your outrage is perfectly righteous but I would hold off on the attacks on Jack. It frustrates me as reasonable as Jack can be he doesn’t see what you and I see , that the emotional support of this war is good for nothing but getting more of our soldiers killed. However, Jack is respectful and a lot more thoughtful than a lot of posters on the Right. Jack happens to post a lot so you can’t avoid him but please tone down the harsh rhetoric, he doesn’t deserve it and you only alienate those who are truly listening.

Jack,
Thanks for your honesty and curiosity. Keep up the posts and links. Wish I had time to read them all. BTW, I still think you could get 4kw solar system on your property that would power your house without really trying.

Posted by: chris2x at May 1, 2007 1:11 AM
Comment #218913

Chris2x,

It is a very considerate gesture you make coming to Jack’s rescue. However, I don’t see similar posts from you admonishing Jack for his attacks (whether direct or not). Of course, I have not read everything you have posted so if I am in error by all mean accept my appologies for an errant assumption.

Just the same, I don’t deserve to be called a “hater” any more than you believe Jack deserves the brunt of harsh rhetoric.

If individuals are going to post in opinion forums such as this one they ought, at least, to be able to take what they dish out. They ought to be able to accept the responsibility (and scorn if necessary) for the things they post.

If one is going to participate in polarizing debate then you should be prepared to countered hard from the opposing side. It would be wonderful if polarizing discussion didn’t so frequently deteriorate into personal attacks, but too often when, as you say, Jack (or anyone) doesn’t “see what we see” he (or whoever) does not opt for a counter-argument. Instead the rebuttal begins this downward slide by attemping to insinuate that the antagonist has some “character” flaw that makes their descenting opinion invalid.

If Jack (or anyone, me included) does not possess the confidence, the required level of intelligence, the vocabulary, and the like then he (or anyone, me included) can also choose to abstain from rebuttal. Freedom of speech also includes the right NOT to speak. There are plenty of thing I ignore in this forum because it would be difficult for me to avoid what is deemed “harsh satirical rhetoric.”

Finally, most of my harsh rhetoric is directed at the individual masquarading as the President of the United States. If Jack is offended or “hurt” by attacks on George W. Bush, then that is just too damn bad. I am offended and hurt by the appauling lack of support for the human lives that George W. Bush is wasting in Iraq. Jack is more offended by the fact that I call Bush an idiot, terrosit, bastard than he is by the senseless death of an American who volunteers to protect his fellow citizens from legitimate threats. If Jack doesn’t possess the fortitude or a high enough intellect to withstand strong cogent debate from descenting opinions without having to rely on the “escape” of personal attack then that also is to damn bad.

If my rhetoric in anyway violates the rules of this forum, I am certain that I will be barred from future participation. So far, nothing of the sort has occurred.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 1, 2007 8:19 AM
Comment #218919

Rocky
“Is the 9/11 commission not good enough for you?”

Sure it is. And I still believe trying to blame only clinton or Bush is nothing more than hindsight.
It is good enough for alot of folks, as long as it supports their views, I guess.
But, there are others you know, who believe opinions about memos and assumptions based on party and their own “personal experts,” who believe all anti-Bush info too be fact.

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #218924

Stephen D.
“Bush promised to get Bin Laden”

We suffered 6 attacks planned by bin laden throughout the 90s, Stephen, and clinton too, promised to get him.
I know its easier to look back at things and say we should have done this or that, but sometimes you guys get downright silly. Look at how kim-sue views Bush as the “real” enemy and disregards the terrorists who have declared war on us.
And look at how the mere mention of clinton makes you all start sidestepping or saying anything he did is in the past and only current events are valid.

We constantly hear how its not about partisanship to the left but then we hear how clinton was the greatest president in our lifetime or how all of his crimes can be defended or justified from those same people and how the investigations against him were nothing more than a political witchhunt. Partisan BS is all it is.

Jacks post did not piss all the lefties off because he asked you to “think about the consequences of defeat,” it pissed them all off because he asked “What is our next move the day after we lose?”
And your only answer to that is “hopefully the left wins total control and we can start implementing our own agenda.”

Posted by: kctim at May 1, 2007 10:01 AM
Comment #218927
If my rhetoric in anyway violates the rules of this forum

The rules of this forum are very clear: No personal attacks. “Critique the message, not the messenger.”

It’s fine to say Jack’s statements — like the premise of this article — are lies, but you can’t say Jack’s a liar.

Please abide by the rules, Kim-Sue, I’d hate to see you go.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 10:58 AM
Comment #218931

kctim,

A lot of people dropped the ball here, and I think that it is foolish to blame anyone for the war on terror except Bin Laden.

That said there were things missed or ignored by a host of folks that you and I pay to know better.
That America’s multiple intelligence agencies weren’t talking to each other for what ever reason isn’t the least of it.
Point of fact; that America finds it necessary to have “multiple” intelligence agencies gives me pause, and that they all missed the clues provided, makes me wonder exactly why.

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2007 11:13 AM
Comment #218935

Kim_Sue

Since I don’t know you personally, I do not know your character. But, this I do believe. As a man thinks so is he. Your above statements support this. If you believe that a “fact” in your mind is not a fact in anothers mind, then that is relativism. That is a false doctrine. All thins are either good or bad, right or wrong, the truth or a lie, and their is nothing inbetween. It relativism were a correct posture to take, then we could kill, rape, steal, etc. at will and be right in doing so. Of course this is not the case. In the posts on this site so many times this doctrine of relativism is displayed and people buy into the lie. This causes confusion in their own arguments. One can disagree with a set of circumstances, but upon further research and examinatin one shoud find the truth and not believe the lie.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #218945
It relativism were a correct posture to take, then we could kill, rape, steal, etc. at will and be right in doing so.

No, it would only be right under certain circumstances.

Tell me this, tomh: Do you believe it’s right to torture your next-door neighbor? What if your next-door neighbor is a terrorist who knows where the nuke is, would it be right to torture him then?

The world is not black and white. You, tomh, exercise relativism every time you don’t completely stop at a stop sign. It’s called free will and judgement — and it can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances and the outcome.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #218946
It relativism were a correct posture to take, then we could kill, rape, steal, etc. at will and be right in doing so.

LOL! It just occurred to me that you’re saying our soldiers are evil because they kill. Do you believe that, tomh?

Why do you despise our troops, tomh?

Or is it ok to kill under certain circumstances?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #218948

kctim-
1) 9/11 was a terrorist act an order of magnitude greater in terms of its destructive power than any other terrorist attack in our history. To compare the publics drive to get Bin Laden before and after 9/11 is to compare apples and oranges.

2) Bush has been in office during the relevant time period, not Clinton. He is decidedly not a political successor to Clinton, like his father was to the president before him. Bush, in most ways that count, was his own man, and heeded few of Clinton’s precedents for how to run a government.

3) Bush faced nearly unanimous political support from Congress for pursuing those responsible for 9/11. In contrast, Clinton was often criticized and politically hampered by those who thought Rogue States were considerably more important as an issue, and who also took partisan exception to nearly everything he did. Nobody cried “Wag the Dog” when Bush went after Bin Laden.

I don’t think Clinton was the greatest, I don’t like Kim-Sue’s approach, and I know you are not so dishonest as to say that I have ever advocated disregarding the terrorists. One of my biggest beefs with Bush is that he took his eye off the ball, and diverted us into a useless war that only inflamed the problem. I want the Left to win more control, because the right is currently in this ideological orbit around Bush and defending his screw-ups. If you read the polls, you’ll find most of America supports this.

Bush has misused and mishandled his power, and he has failed to be successful in the one thing that few in this country would begrudge him credit for: destroying those who attacked this country. Politically, that was his easy way out: make damn sure that all that was left of the al-Qaeda leadership was dead in the dust of Central Asia.

I know it’s more convenient for rhetoric’s sake to pretend that liberals and Democrats don’t love this country, and don’t want to take on the enemies of this country, but it’s a convenience at the price of the clarity of insight into our real motives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #218949

Murder is wrong. Murder defined as the willful intent to take an innocent persons life.
Killing is justified in an act of war or self defense. There is a difference.

If my neighbor were a terrorist as the example above states, I would not terrorise the individual. I would assist authorities to capture that person.

I always stop at stop signs with a complete stop. Likewise at traffic lights where it is legal to make a right turn on red. One or two seconds are not worth the cost in a ticket, damage, or death.

Relativism is a choice; it is a belief system. If a person does not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, that could be a mistake or a conscious exercise. I cannot answer for others.

The what ifs used above are certainly reaching for some response from someone.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #218951

Kim-Sue,

Your energy and candor is a breath of fresh air. I found it important in an earlier thread to get strident to prove a point about how much death our response created and how ridiculously out of proportion it was to the actual losses suffered by us on 911. The death and injury defended by many on the right as a necessary response is in my opinion, completely unwarranted and horrific. I’m pointing out that if you single out and go after people (you wouldn’t be the first in this forum) make sure it is necessary to make your point otherwise you will inadvertently turn a lot of ears off.

I don’t know what Jack has called you however the worst he’s called me is probably disingenuous. That would hurt but only because it is coming from Jack and it would make me think twice about what I said. There are a lot of people in this forum who don’t find it necessary to examine their positions much less their beliefs.

Posted by: chris2x at May 1, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #218954

tomh, murder and war and self-defense are all euphemisms for killing. A person is just as dead if he was shot by a psycho or a homeowner or a soldier.

You’re making my point. You are making a relativistic distinction between types of killing.

If you were not a relativist, then killing would be either good or bad. But you are saying it depends on the circumstances. You are a relativist.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #218961

AP

Read my definition. It is not relativism. Killing someone in defense of your own life is not murder. Murder is the taking of another when there is no reason for doing so. You are the one who is arguing for relativism. Murder is bad to be sure. There is time and place to do many things. Eating your lunch 2 hours late is a choice, it is not relativism. Stealing is absolutely wrong period. Rape is absolutely wrong. Sexual crimes are wrong absolutely.

Euphemisms you mentioned are in your mind, not mine. Euphemisms are used by liberal, leftists, humanists, et.al., so as to escape an absolute authority and assuage their own conscience.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #218963
Killing someone in defense of your own life is not murder.

Killing is killing, tomh. You’re the one making the relativistic case that the circumstances of the killing make it good or bad.

Want to try another one? How about sexual relations. Do you believe sexual relations are good or bad?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 1, 2007 5:09 PM
Comment #218964

AP,

Murder and War and Self-defense are not relative at all.

In the case of murder an individual chooses to kill an innocent person. The innocent person has done nothing to deserve such cruel and heinous action from the murderer.

In the case of war, a nation is attacked, (like we were by Islamic extremists). Defending the lives of the people is good government. Or, would you prefer the opposite- doing nothing? There is nothing relative about the good side and the bad side in a war, (unless you happen to be a Democrat). It is pretty easy to understand when the good side is attacked and attacked over and over to either provoke them or destroy them. The bad side then deserves what it gets for their choice of action not the innocent nation’s choice of action. There is no relativism here unless you are confused about who is the good side.

In self-defense, again the evil or bad person chooses to attack and provoke the innocent person into defending himself. Therefore the consequences are based solely on the evil or bad person’s choice of provocation. There is no relativism here either as it is easy to see and determine the extent of provocation by the evil or bad party.

Unfortunately, in both Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. has been provoked for decades by Islamic terrorists and Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately the Democratic Party decided to characterize the U.S. as the bad side rather than the innocent victim of 9/11 and other aggression by both terrorists and Saddam Hussein toward the U.S. and its allies. The entire argument here being played by the Democrats, especially Kim-Sue is that WE are the bad guys. I think you better read these posts thoroughly before you guys choose to defend that kind of B.S.! But, alas, if that is what you believe, don’t criticize conservatives when we simply interpret it as you believing that Bush, (a.k.a. America) is the enemy. If Bush, (a.k.a. America) is the enemy, then who are your friends?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #218965

tomh,

mur·der - noun
1. unlawful killing of a human being by a human being.

eu·phe·mism – noun
1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.
2. the expression so substituted: “To pass away” is a euphemism for “to die.”

“Euphemisms you mentioned are in your mind, not mine. Euphemisms are used by liberal, leftists, humanists, et.al., so as to escape an absolute authority and assuage their own conscience.”

Yeah, right, only leftists use that type of talk?? Get a clue.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 5:35 PM
Comment #218967

Good guys, bad guys. What are you 12? This is not a John Wayne movie. This is exactly the reason that we lost in Iraq. You didactic, black & white, all-or-nothing thinkers can’t get your heads around the fact that the world is not black or white. It’s a million shades of gray.

Was Saddam a good guy when he was fighting against Iran? If not then Reagan/Bush supported a bad guy. And if that is true than Reagan/Bush are bad because they helped the bad guy, RIGHT?

Hamas spends a lot of it’s money feeding poor Palistinian families with kids and no jobs to get. Are they good?

Bush (America) attacked a very weak country that did not threaten us. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the process. Are we good? Or bad?

Clinton (America), in the 90’s, shot a cruise missile at a target in Iraq that was thought to be a weapons factory. The factory made condensed milk. Is America bad or good?

Ther is always more than 2 ways of looking at things, especially in politics. It’s time to expand your minds to find different way to solve complex problems. Just calling them “bad” is no answer.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #218972

AP,

If you look at my very first post. No where in there will you find a personal attack on any participant in this forum. The only name calling are the usual descriptive words that I use to characterize George W. Bush. I don’t initiate personal attacks on anyones message because they are entitled to believe what they will.

I will not, however, stand blithely by and permit a participant to misrepresent what I post or to attack my character or motivation—and I won’t take any prisoners in my responses to individuals who personally attack me.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 1, 2007 7:44 PM
Comment #218974

Matthew,

Why beat around the “Bush”. Why don’t you just say it! You think that America is just as bad as the terrorists. That is certainly what you imply, and Kim-Sue steadfastly beleives by her posts. Boy, I guess if I was as open-minded as you two Democrats, I would have joined al Qaida, too. What is sophomoric or twelve-year-oldish about still believing that there is good and bad in the world, and furthermore, being able to determine the difference. That certainly tells us something about the morality and integrity of the Democratic Party and their constituents. I hope a lot of people are reading this out there. It is almost unbelievable that you guys admit this kind of stuff!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #218979

JD,

What?! No one even comes close to saying America is as bad as the terrorists. That doesn’t mean we don’t do bad things. I thought Matthew put it well.

Twelve-year-oldish in this case is an insult to twelve-year-olds. Here is the formula that makes you think we liberals hate America and is allowing our leaders to do whatever they want in the name of defending our country.

AMERICA = GOOD, IRAQ = TERRORISTS,

therefore, everything America does is good and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed as a result of our invasion are bad, or at least a legitimate cost of war.

Your simple-mindedness is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It’s why Kim-Sue is mad as hell and more of us should be for being sold a load of crap.

The real question for American now is, since we’ve created the conditions for daily mass murder in Iraq are we on the hook to fix it ala Powell’s Pottery Barn rule? Of course we are. Now, the next question is, does our presence further democracy and justice in Iraq or have we blown it so badly that it will never get better with us there?

There are other important questions (i.e will terrorism continue to flourish in Iraq if we leave) but you get my point. If we are to talk about this war in a meaningful way, we need talk about what will work rather than simple-minded platitudes and idealogically driven name-calling.

Posted by: chris2x at May 1, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #218980

Kim

It is nearly impossible for anyone to truly insult me. I would point out in all your flailing that you are attacking a stereotype of your own making, not me. I have not been given to such strong negative emotions since I was a kid and it would certainly take more than an anonymous blog entry to provoke them in me.

I write from my own perspective, as we all do. I do not try to be fair and balanced, since I am telling my story, but I never write anything I know to be untrue. I like to write and even take joy in the relationships even most of my opponents. I just do not have the emotional investment in that you seem to make. Although I can only really embrace my own point of view, I understand that there are others and not everybody except me is stupid or malicious.

Kcim

I think you hit the nail on the head. I have annoyed our liberal colleagues by asking what would be the next step. They enjoy going back over the past, where they can safely reinterpret events and convince themselves that Bush made them do it. Asked about the future, they fear that they will actually have to make a decision and face the reality of the situation currently on hand.

Chris2x

Thanks.


Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #218982

“If al-Qaeda continues to engage in terrorists attacks in Iraq after we’ve gone, it only serves to harm their reputation. If they go after us, we should not give them the satisfaction of letting it divide us.”
Stephen Daugherty

Stephen, you almost get it! Just remove the “after we’ve gone” from your assessment and you have the perfect strategy for winning this war!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #218988

Matthew

Thank you for the murder definition. I said the same thing only with different words.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #218991

Matthew

murder is an action word making it a verb.

Posted by: tomh at May 1, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #218992

JD,

“Boy, I guess if I was as open-minded as you two Democrats, I would have joined al Qaida, too.”

Once again you have proved my point, JD. Either you think your way or you have joined al Qaida. Black & white, simple minded thinking. Very beautifully executed, JD.

“I hope a lot of people are reading this out there. It is almost unbelievable that you guys admit this kind of stuff!”

So do I, buddy. So do I.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #218993

tomh,

“murder is an action word making it a verb.”

It can be both, genius. Invest in a dictionary.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #218994

chris2x,

You’re almost there.

Try:

America = good

A free Iraq = good

Terrorists = bad

As for nobody saying that America is just as bad as the terrorists, let’s take a look at the kind of rhetoric the left loves to use when talking about their country shall we:

“For example, I think George W. Bush is an immoral, idiot, terrorist bastard.”
Kim-Sue

“It was OUR fault.”
phx8

“We have lost due to the fact that the invasion was based on pretexts, misinformation, and outright lies.”
phx8

“The Iraqi (mis)adventure was a pack of lies dressed up to justify empire building and seeking to control the resources of the region. It was conceived by a bunch of extremist lefties who changed to the right to achieve their ends. And the current gang of criminals running the US executive will attain their rightful place in history alongside their historic forebears.”
Paul in Euroland

“JD! US Soldiers are dying in Iraq because of the AMERICAN TERROIST George W. Bush.”
Kim-Sue

“Instead you might try getting on your knees and thanking God that you are not an American serviceman under the command of your beloved George W. Bush (a.k.a, idoiot, moronic, terrorist bastard!!!!!)”
Kim-Sue

“Bush (America) attacked a very weak country that did not threaten us. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the process. Are we good? Or bad?”
Matthew

“The real question for America now is, since we’ve created the conditions for daily mass murder in Iraq…”
chris2x

God Bless the left! I can just feel the oozing love for their country, can’t you?

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #218995

JD,

It’s called tough love, not blind devotion to the current president.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #218996

Matthew,

Now, I understand why you guys fit in so well with the Hollywood crowd. You guys are sounding like the Baldwins with your “tough love”!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #218997

tomh & JD,

Classic rightwing arguement: Attack their opponents patriotism.

Why should you argue the topics when you can just attack the person. Especially when it is someone you know nothing about.

Your desperation is showing.

Posted by: Matthew at May 1, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #219001

JD,
Some people love their political party more than their country, and so they keep supporting Bush with the most ludicrous justifications.

Happy Mission Acccomlished Day!

Get behind your country, JD. Support the removal from office of Bush, Cheney, et al. They have done great harm to our country and our honor.

Posted by: phx8 at May 1, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #219002

JD,

As for the quote from Kim-Sue, You equate verbally attacking the President of our country to verbally attacking America? By that logic verbal attacks on Bill Clinton are anti-patriotic.

“It was OUR fault”. This sentence is so disembodied I don’t know what it is refering to. America as a democracy does have faults, makes mistakes, and sometimes blatantly ignores the suffering it causes. America as a democracy also counteracted totalitarianism, provides opportunity to its many immigrants, continues to offer the most culturally mixed and rich society in the world, and does a lot of good. I love being an American. Please stop acting like LIBERALS = BAD

“We have lost due to the fact that the invasion was based on pretexts, misinformation, and outright lies.” -phx8

What is untruthful much less un-American than that? The notion this administration botched this war? Please!

Every other quote you mentioned, including the one by me is not un-American or anti-American. You are so enamored of this President and his war you can’t even come to grips with what these quotes plainly state. In response to ‘911’ we toppled an awful regime with little consideration to predictable consequences. As a result, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WERE KILLED. Holy Crap, the Rights stubborn refusal at the crime of justice this shouts is unbelievable! Instead of listening to those who said this could go very wrong this adminstration chose to embrace the most rosy scenario, even though hundreds of thousands of peoples lives were in the balance. We were going to war for Christ’s sake! If this isn’t criminal negligence what is? Yet you on the right go on parroting

BUSH = AMERICA

We were told this war would cost 50 billion dollars. Wolfowitz said the war would pay for itself. Larry Lindsey was fired for stating the war would probably cost 100 billion. It has cost nearly 500 billion dollars thus far. With 500 billion dollars Social Security would be solvent for another 75 years.

Let’s see JD, terrorists attack the WTC and Pentagon killing over 3,000 Americans and some foreigners. The U.S. starts a premptive war against a country which could not threaten us (we were flying over their airspace remember?) on the flimsiest of excuses which directly and indirectly leads to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people killed. We are talking mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandmothers, grandfathers, of real people this administration treated so cavalierly. This is the level of responsibility the leaders of America, the most powerful nation ever in existence and leader of the free world, have sunk too?

I am proud to be an American. I’ve f*cking had it up to here with this adminstration. I can’t believe there are still people like you out there who think these two are irreconciable. You know you think a lot along the same lines as a fascist.

Posted by: chris2x at May 1, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #219005

Here is the context of the earlier quotes used by JD:
“The US lit the fire when we invaded, and held elections which effectively disenfranchised the Sunnis, putting them under the rule of the majority Shias. It was OUR fault. Al Qaida in Iraq poured gas on the fire. And please note, Al Qaida in Iraq is NOT the same as the Al Qaida of Osama bin Ladin.”

And again:
“We have lost due to the fact that the invasion was based on pretexts, misinformation, and outright lies. We have lost due because we ignored the Powell Doctrine, went in without enough troops to secure the country, disbanded the Iraqi military & de-Baathified the government, including the firing practically every white collar professional, including 40,000 teachers. We have lost because the Bush administration attempted to institute a conservative version of the liberal Marshall Plan, selling Iraqi businesses to the highest Coalition corporate bidders, and displacing French/Chinese/Russian oil company contracts with Coalition oil company contracts. We have lost because of Bush administration lies, their gross incompetence, and an incredible amount of corruption.”

I can back every word with links from respected sources.

This has been one of the most corrupt, grossly incompetent administrations in the history of our country. In other nations, Bush would have been removed long before now. Our political system ensures Bush will be gone in less than two years, but even that seems like an eternity.

Posted by: phx8 at May 1, 2007 11:49 PM
Comment #219008

No lost war is pleasant to give up on. There are consequences for strategic failures. To believe that our failure in Iraq will not come with negative conseqeunces (heck, already has come with negative consequences!) is naive, and I don’t think the politicians should be sugarcoating it.

Neither should they sugarcoat why you don’t persist in a lost war. The big reason is that losing wars weaken the countries that engage in them, especially those that feel compelled to continue their engagement without real goals as to how to take control and extract victory. Wars are too murderous on their resources, and too much of a strain on the nations waging them to be fought on a wait and see attitude.

Only an occupation overseeing a battlefield under their control has the luxury of taking a wait and see attitude. The war has to be definitively won for persistence in a policy to have some value, some meaning.

We won the war with Iraq, and had we gone in right, it would have stayed won. The galling irony of this whole thing is that we have been sliding steadily towards defeat since the day we won! It’s not the outcome I wished for, by God! I wanted us to win this thing, because the only thing worse in my mind than a strategic mistake like this, is piling further strategic errors like degrading the readiness of our forces, causing harm to our relations with important countries in the region, and needlessly dividing the American people over agreement with Bush’s policies, when most Americans would happily find some sort of compromise on the issue.

It would not have bothered me to see Iraq and Afghanistant won. It would have been tough for my party to overcome in the polls, but my country’s interests are more important than any such thing.

I don’t recommend our withdrawal because I think the results won’t be bad. I recommend it because I believe what results will only get worse the longer we stay. I hate to say that, not when I had such hopes for improvement in this war, but if Bush is known for anything, its his consistency, and he will ride his strategy, and the Army lead by it right into the ground, just so he wouldn’t lose a war on his watch.

American soldiers are supposed to be willing to sacrifice their lives, but they shouldn’t be made into sacrifices for somebody’s pride. If most Americans can handle defeat, and still keep their head held high, why can’t this president summon the strength of character to do the same. Admit things went wrong, do better next time. Don’t politicize the strategy of a war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #219011

Jack said,

I have annoyed our liberal colleagues by asking what would be the next step. They enjoy going back over the past, where they can safely reinterpret events and convince themselves that Bush made them do it. Asked about the future, they fear that they will actually have to make a decision and face the reality of the situation currently on hand.

There are undeniably some Democrats, especially the elected kind, that won’t give a pat answer on the future of Iraq after we leave. Undeniably some are taking the easy political course. Some, such as Biden and others, have given cogent arguments for getting out and what that would mean for Iraq.

Some Democrats and Republicans think unless this civil war is allowed to play out it will be dragged out for a long time with Americans in the middle. That may be true but encouraging civil war does not guarantee peace around the corner. Look at Lebanon as a case in point. I see that as unwise and irresponsible.

I think we broke Iraq and are responsible to fix it. The question is how to best do that. Are we making it better for Iraqis or worse by our presence? I am still hoping the Iraqis will wake up to a historic opportunity and create some polictial unity. However, it is a fool’s hope and I can’t keep supporting putting Americans in the middle of that their peril.

Jack, what you fail to realize is we can take your last sentence can easily say the exact same thing about conservative supporters of this war. Regarding this war, this administration has done an incredibly inept job of facing “the reality of the situation at hand” and is likely driven by “fear” of admitting possibly the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. Admitting we need to pull out now is admitting they failed and we know this administration will never admit when they can leave it to someone else in 18 months.

Posted by: chris2x at May 2, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #219015
I have annoyed our liberal colleagues by asking what would be the next step.

Jack, I believe we’ve addressed the next step. The funding bill would have changed the military mission to counter-terrorism, training and force protection. The idea that would make Iraq a haven for al-Qaeda is stupid on the face of it as I described above.

You, yourself, described the plan as “very practical”.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Comment #219016

Matthew

Who said anything about patriotism? Did somebody say something that struck a nerve? Oh, well.

I have a copy of Websters 1828 dictionary. PC is left out of it.

The word murder that we were discussing was an action. That is why I referred to it in the verb form.

Thank you for the attribute of genius. I will wear it proudly.

Posted by: tomh at May 2, 2007 12:32 AM
Comment #219035

“JD,
Some people love their political party more than their country”
phx8


I know. That it why they choose to demonize the President of the U.S. as a terrorist bastard, moron, idiot, criminal, etc., etc., etc.!
Get behind YOUR country, phx8! Impeach the President if that is what you think the majority of the Americans really want. Try him as a war criminal, and see how much support you get from the American people. You and Harry Reid talk about the will of the people. Well, carry it out, baby, carry it out! Let’s see how far you are willing to go. I think you grossly overestimate the support your side is getting in this thing. So, go ahead. Push it a little further. Or, as Sen. Joe Biden said to a supporter when he wasn’t aware of a microphone on him, “We’re gonna shove this thing down his (the President’s) throat.”

Bring it on!!!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at May 2, 2007 9:36 AM
Comment #219036

Jack,

“Asked about the future, they fear that they will actually have to make a decision and face the reality of the situation currently on hand.”

Perhaps we should ask what William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the others at the PNAC that they had in mind for the future of Iraq.
Surely those that pushed this agenda had a plan.
Or is this the result they envisioned?

Was McCain walking around the “Green Zone” in a flak jacket and surrounded by a cadre of American soldiers and followed by helicopter gunships part of the plan?
Speaking of the “Green Zone”, isn’t our palatial new embassy due to be finished soon?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/07/wirq07.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/07/ixnews.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Baghdad

“The current embassy which opened July 1, 2004, located in the “Green Zone”, is being replaced with what has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world. As of 2006, the embassy employed over 1,000 people, only six of whom can speak Arabic fluently.”

Perhaps the problem is that the Iraqis don’t understand the PNAC’s vision because we haven’t been able to explain it properly.

I know you have abhorred using comparisons to WW2 in your posts, but just how long did it take America to train our soldiers to defeat both Germany, and Japan, countries with vastly superior militarys than those we, and the Iraqis face on a daily basis?

Surely it can’t be a lack of funds as we are led to believe. This Iraqi campaign is supposed to be funded by Iraqi oil isn’t it?
Just how long are the American and Iraqi people supposed to support this vast vision, and accept half-vast results?

From what I understand, barely half of our “surge” forces are in place, and this is May already.
It didn’t take this long to take Baghdad, did it?

Jack, the next step is for the Iraqis to take control and for the American military to step back to a support role.

Mr. Bush has been dragging his feet on this whole “vision” thing. Things do take time, but the time is swiftly running out.
It’s time to put up or get out.

Posted by: Rocky at May 2, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #219081

Another note. Be cautious about adopting the language that is given by partisans. Technically, we are not at war. We are occupying a country wherein a civil war rages, and at the same time there are external forces there trying to inflict damage on our troops. But there is no “battle” between our forces and some other forces for control of a specific geography. Talking about “being at war” and “winning the war” only serves to obfuscate the issues for those that would have us continue whatever it is we supposedly are doing in Iraq.

Instead, we should talk about our occupation as a peace-keeping or peace-restoring operation that has been botched badly by the administration cowboys who think that every military operation is a “war.” They have the subtlety of a bull in a china shop. Clearly, the majority of Iraqi’s no longer want us there, Al-Qaeda loves us being there so they can kill some soldiers, and we have decimated their infrastructure to the point of dysfunction.

So, we need the Bush administration to be clear about what they hope to accomplish by continued occupation of Iraq. Then we need to have a clear explanation of how that continued occupation will meet that objective and metrics that will tell us how much progress (or regress) is being made. All this crap about supporting troops, or “we’re at war!” are just smoke screens to prevent the American public from understanding just how futile our efforts have been in Iraq and how unlikely they are to be fruitful in the future.

We also need to get clear updates on progress (or regress) in Afghanistan and our “hunt” for Bin Laden. Not only is that likely to be more successful than the Iraq fiasco, but it is more critical to the safety of the US and the rest of the world. Don’t forget, fear-mongers, that’s where the 9/11 attackers came from, right?

Posted by: mental wimp at May 2, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #219110

tomh,

from JD:

God Bless the left! I can just feel the oozing love for their country, can’t you?

You must do it so much that you don’t even notice you are doing it.

Posted by: Matthew at May 2, 2007 6:36 PM
Comment #219115

Matthew

Be careful, you now consider me a genius and I will have to uterlly destroy your argument with all that is within my power, knowledge and authority.

Posted by: tomh at May 2, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #219252

Jack,

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla….Write, believe, eat, sleep, drink, whatever you want. Your perspective is often shallow and limited—that doesn’t concern me, however. What does concern me is that others may be tempted to adopt your prospective because you have the veneer of credibility and knowlege. Since I am an academic, I feel an obligation to encourage others to look beyond a single prospective, ask questions, search for information and come up with some conclusions on their own. If these conclusions are similar to your prospective so be it, at least they did the work for themselves.

As far as emotions are concerned, you bet I am emotional when faced with daily deaths and morbid injuries that our troops must endure for absolutely no good reason. You may very well be a callous S.O.B. and reduce human life to simple polical rhetoric that is this forum. But you stick to what you know best, propaganda, shallow analysis, cheap insinuations, veiled insults—all indicators of an individual that lacks the intellectual prowess, the vision, or the wisdom for legimate debate. All you understand is your little world. You don’t need to tell me that…it is patently clear from your “writing.”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at May 3, 2007 5:14 PM
Post a comment