Some thoughts on the Senate Sleepover and the Iraq War

I am quickly tiring of the shallow charade that has become the substitute for true debate and planning in Iraq and the War on Terror in general. Last nights Senate sleepover was perhaps the pinnacle of political posturing and a pitiful excuse for true debate and discussion when it comes to the Iraq War and the future of the Iraqi nation and the region.

Senate Dems Push All-Night Debate on Iraq Policy

“Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader...
…The legislation would require a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, to be completed by April 2008. The measure envisions leaving an undetermined number of troops behind, their mission limited to counterterrorism against Al Qaeda and other groups, protecting U.S. assets and training Iraqi troops.
There are currently an estimated 158,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq, and supporters of the legislation have repeatedly declined to estimate how large a residual force they envision. “We’re not going to get into numbers, because it changes the subject,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

I’m sorry, WHAT? Isn’t the whole point about what the future holds for Iraq, the US presence and roll there, and the amount of US troops that will remain? Yep, let’s not talk about that, and oh by the way, let’s try to embarrass Bush and the GOP some more. If they started talking specifics then maybe we would start to get somewhere. Are we talking leaving 100,000 troops there? 50,000? Eleven?

That would be an extremely important point don’t you think? The Democrats were far more interested in political theater than actually addressing the Iraq war and the future of the Iraqi nation and people.

Ben Shapiro has an excellent piece as well over at

Democrats’ Iraq Policy: The Ultimate Hypocrisy

This week, Democrats broke out the cots and the S’mores, and held a big ol’ Senate sleepover for surrender. By pushing an all-night Senate session purportedly designed to debate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, Democrats hoped to show their sincerity and moral indignation. “How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had?” asked oily Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, who only two years ago compared U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
If politics is the art of painting a sincere face on blatant political manipulation, today’s Democrats are masters of the craft. Democrats have hedged their bets on the Iraq war since its inception. They have voted for it before voting against it, funded it before denying funding, supported it before undermining it.

So following last nights display of jr. high play acting I decided to set down some more thoughts on the ever so fun state of Iraq:

-George Bush gets all the blame but there is plenty of blame for everyone. It is just as much Reids war, and Hillary’s war, and Edwards war, and Kerry’s war. They voted for it, spoke out in favor of it, funded it, and now act like they had nothing to do with it. It’s one thing to say that the war has been prosecuted incorrectly. It’s quite another to say the aims of the war itself was incorrect. I am sick of the born again peacenicks that suddenly seemed to appear on the far Left waving white flags.

-Saddam was a thug, a tyrant, a destabilizer, a friend of terrorists and nutjobs the world over, a threat to the region, a warmonger, as well as a torturer and slayer of innocent men, women and children by untold tens and hundreds of thousands. Regime change had been the policy of the United States since the first Gulf War. To cry a single crocodile tear for the good ‘ol days of Saddam is stupid and ridiculous.

-The Iraqi’s have shown they did not have the political or cultural maturity to embrace the opportunity of freedom that we bestowed upon them. They could not get past the racial and religious differences between them and failed to see past the Zarqawi plan (which was brutal but brilliant and ultimately successful in the long run) which was by massacre and mayhem and atrocity to fragment the Iraqi population into violent and hostile armed factions leading to civil war.

-The Iraqi’s allowed themselves to be manipulated by the tactics of the Islamic Jihadists, al-Qaeda and its allies while the US fought a Republican war with a Democratic army that gambled on a quick and easy victory over Saddam’s forces (that was successful) that would be followed by a rebuilding effort and political transformation such as we had seen in Germany and Japan after WWII (that was unsuccessful). Instead, al-Qaeda decided to make its stand in Iraq instead of Afghanistan, the Iranians became far more involved militarily in Iraq than we figured they would dare, the over stretched military was not ready for a war of insurgency and once engaged fought it with one hand tied behind behind its back.

-The attempts at transforming Iraqi political culture were unsuccessful and far too utopian in scope. Instead of just removing the Saddam clan and their most hardcore supporters from power and replacing them with more friendly types, the US embarked on a complete dismantling of the military and (with the concept of de-Baathification) essentially the entire bueracratic, educational and political structure of the country. Rebuilding Iraq in ‘our own image’ if you will. And obviously that is THE mistake of the war.

-If the Democrats spent one tenth of the time and energy denouncing al-Qaeda and their allies for their bloodthirsty and spectacular massacres of ordinary Iraqis and pointing their fingers of guilt and blame at those who are truly at fault for causing the instability in Iraq as they do the ‘boogeyman’ Bush, then we as a country would be far better off than we are now. I consider the level of political debate on this subject to be on a grade school level at best. One would think that the elected representatives of the Republic would draw on the vast history of statesmanship and leadership of this country’s history to show some alternate visions for the future and paths to peace and stability in the region.

Instead I get bumper sticker slogans, evasions and flipflopping, absolutely no true plans for the future, cheap political theater, politicizing of the war, blatant manipulation of the situation for partisan purposes and revisionist history. All while those who pander to the most extreme of the radical pacifists and anti-American parasites who exist on the Left do little more than embolden our enemies, prepare to abandon our allies, and turn over an entire country to our vicious and brutal enemies. To those who see Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban as little more than poorly understood followers of the religion of peace, perhaps that idea is not so repugnant. To those of us who understand the mettle, aims, and goals of our enemies it is not an option.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at July 18, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #226759

Amen !!!!

Posted by: David at July 18, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #226761

David, you seem to either miss the point, or, recognizing, are trying to obfuscate it.

The point is simply that Democrats need 8 Republicans to join them to get this to pass the Senate. The point of the repeated bills, the sleepover, etc, is Time and Pressure. As time between now and the elections shortens, with the majority of Americans siding with Democrats on significantly altering our course in Iraq, Democrats are applying pressure via media coverage of again and again Republican refusal to alter our course. That kind of pressure, combined with approaching elections, will drive enough Republicans facing hostile constituencies, to join with Democrats and get this change of course Bill passed.

If the President you Republicans elected vetoes it, the fewer Republicans will show up at the polls in 2008 out of disgust with their party’s choice of Bush.

The bottom line is, as much as Republicans resent popular opinion, politically they cannot diss the public indefinitely, and hope to avoid becoming a third party in American politics.

These tactics and strategy by Democrats is actually the best available to them. At the same time they yield to Democrats own base, and continues to alienate Republican’s base from their own party. It truly is amazing how frazzled and contrary to their own interests Republican politicians and strategists have become. It’s like watching the 3 Stooges plumb a rural mansion for running water. Their incompetence floods everywhere.

Newt Gingrich actually understood the Republican Party pretty well inasmuch as he and his cadre attempted to keep it simple for them. He knew Republicans could not handle sophisticated ratio problems precisely because of their black and white way of seeing things, which leaves no room for flexibility, accommodation, adaptability, and compromise.

The Iraq war, the war on terrorism, and the long term sustainability of the American economy proved to be too complex for Republicans to fathom or manage in ways which the American people could rest comfortable with.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 5:35 PM
Comment #226763

No. The little game being played is all about scoring political points and precious little about forming a coherent strategy for the war in Iraq. Street theater if you will.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at July 18, 2007 5:50 PM
Comment #226766

And your comment David is supposed to be political analysis?

Pulling out is the only coherent strategy. The industrialized world cannot and will not afford an unstable Middle East. If the U.S. announces it is going to pull out, the industrialized nations have no choice but to get their collective minds together to step in as the U.S. leaves, to insure the Middle East does not fall apart in the absence of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #226767

So, if only the Dems spent all their time posturing about how atrocious is Al Qaeda, we’d be far better off. Uh huh. That’s idiotic, and thankfully the number of Republicans who spew that nonsense decreases every day. Frankly, I know a number of Republicans who are embarassed to see this kind of rhetoric.

By the understanding of this article writer, the majority of people in this country is “far left.” How absurd, and how absurd to think mainstream DLC centrists represent the far left.

In the meantime, as what is left of the neo-cons get shriller and shriller, those who care about our form of government need to push Congress to begin impeachment proceedings of both Bush and Cheney on the grounds of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. We can pray that enough Washington politicians will demonstrate statesmanship to put the interests of this country above political expediency.

What is ridiculous is that most of us believe, and apparently so does the article writer, that adjustments in troop levels are going to be made, but rather than actually discuss that, he launches into a shrill political attack. This writer needs to focus on persuading Bush to face the reality many other Republicans already have faced. But he’s a partisan and more interested in being shrill.

Parasites. He calls Americans who disagree with him parasites. Why not go ahead and call them traitors? Thank god this polemicist doesn’t represent all Republicans. Meanwhile, cooler heads must figure out how to get ourselves out of this stupid mess with as minimal damage to ourselves and to Iraq.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 18, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #226773

I found myself musing today that it certainly is strange how the Democrats are now complaining that they can’t get anything done with a simple majority yet blame everything during the last 6 years on a ‘rubber stamped’ republican simple majority…

Are they saying that they couldn’t have stopped any of the nonsense that the republicans did the last 6 years but the republicans can thwart them at every turn when they try to do something?

Seems to me that it makes it hard to make one case without making the other… In effect, they are saying that they were complicit in the actions of the senate from 2001 to 2006 because they didn’t challenge them like the republicans are doing to them now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #226779

You know, I heard this post nearly word for word on the Rush Limbaugh show today.

This begs the question, do any if you guys out there on the far fringes of the right ever have an original thought?

Posted by: Rocky at July 18, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #226781

Mr. Huntwork,

WE created the instability in Iraq.

We replaced a tyrannical regime that held sway by use of force and torture…

With OURSELVES holding sway by use of force and torture.

Sadam was better at keeping Iraq from disintigrating than we are proving to be. Although, he did have to do it rather nefariously.
…And yet, we are merely doing the same thing but less well.

There is no winning this one. Bush has signed us up for yet another Viet Nam. You cannot FORCE democracy on ANYONE. It will never work that way.
We are stuck in a lose-lose scenario.

If we leave, Iraq will be a place of anarchy and instability. If we stay the same will be true, but we will be losing American lives and tanking our own economy to just remain!

No government we leave in place in our wake will ever be anything but a target for competing power groups. While remaining just keeps us stuck in the cross hairs of anyone and everyone in the middle-east who is using our blunders for their own recruitment efforts.


The most dangerous thing we can do now, is to remain and thus embolden and strengthen our worst and most powerful enemies.

Posted by: RGF at July 18, 2007 7:29 PM
Comment #226784

Well, if it makes you feel better, I don’t listen to Rush. I guess that makes it somewhat original. (:

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at July 18, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #226787


If you cannot make a distinction between the U.S. and Saddam I cannot explain it.


Logistics. Even if you assume the world community has the will to step in, something never before manifest, very few countries have forces mobile enough even to get to Iraq, much less do any fighting if they get there.

We are in this for a while longer. If we leave too quickly, it will cost us later much more.

We may disagree about this. My opinion is that a quick cut and run (and that is what the Dems proposed yesterday) will create horrendous bloodshed in Iraq. Anybody who advocates this cannot simultaneously fain concern for the people of Iraq. You do not do this, BTW, but I know that we will get lots people claiming to care about Iraqi lives.

A quick run will cost more American lives in the long run and many more Iraqi lives in the short, medium and long run. It is a bad idea.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2007 8:42 PM
Comment #226789

Jack, logistically, pulling out will take from 9 to 12 months, to do so in a safe fashion for our troops. And this works in favor of the international community getting their act together to step in as we step out, a 9 to 12 month period. It would be wise make the announcement of pulling out 3 to 6 months before actually beginning the phased withdrawal. This too would give the other industrialized nations time to fully appreciate their economic futures with and without their stepping in as we step out and arrive at the inevitable conclusion.

As for logistics of access, the U.S. could assist other nations with transport. It’s the appropriate thing to do in light of their stepping in as we step out, if they require that kind of assistance.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 8:58 PM
Comment #226790

David H. Just a few questions to help clarify your position. You said:

“Last nights Senate sleepover was perhaps the pinnacle of political posturing.”

-Is this more so than what the Repubs did in 2003 over judicial nominations? All the Repubs wanted is an up or down vote. Why can’t we have one now? All the Dems want to do is end debate and vote. The Repubs won’t allow a vote. Why?

“They voted for it, spoke out in favor of it, funded it, and now act like they had nothing to do with it.”

- Who is acting like they had nothing to do with it? All the people you mentioned have spoken on this issue. Could you please site some examples and sources?

“Instead, al-Qaeda decided to make its stand in Iraq instead of Afghanistan,”

-I thought al Qaeda went to Iraq because we were there…..We still have troops in Afghanistan. Why didn’t they stay there? We have troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Phillipines. Why don’t they follow us there? Oh and how did they get the bombs to Spain and England if the are all in Iraq?

“If the Democrats spent one tenth of the time and energy denouncing al-Qaeda and their allies for their bloodthirsty and spectacular massacres of ordinary Iraqis and pointing their fingers of guilt and blame at those who are truly at fault for causing the instability in Iraq as they do the ‘boogeyman’ Bush, then we as a country would be far better off than we are now.”

- Far better off? What would be different in Iraq if all the Dems supported the war?

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #226791

Jack, certainly staying the course is not the proper approach. When the repubs get serious about this debacle then perhaps your right, until such time its best we move on. We will know the repubs are truely interested in more than breaking the federal government and securing oil for their corporate buddies when we see proper funding for this war and a draft to properly win the war.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 18, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #226792

No Jack
That was not what was proposed yesterday.Did you not read the amendment? Not like you. So far there are ,what 6-8 Reps to shun politics and and start comming to grips with reality. We cannot stay in Iraq or the middle east forever,an imperial bastion that we cannot and should not focus on.Time to grow up. Ron Paul is right. Wish you all would listen.
If I have a disapointment it is that Reid did notsend the Sargeat at Arms to drag back the Reps to the floor. If our soldiers can keep watch the least they can do is debate the failed policy that keeps them there.

Posted by: BillS at July 18, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #226798

BillS, did you really believe Republican politicians were going to lose sleep over our soldiers dying in Iraq? C’mon, let’s bring the conversation back to reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #226801


Most of our troops today are engaged in logistics and support. If we could rely on other countries to supply combat forces (a big if) we would still have to deliver them to the battlefields and drive them around the country. American casulties would not be less, maybe more since the American drivers might be “protected” by foreign troops.


The course has changed dramatically. We had a significant change of strategy this last year. It is very different. The Dems wanted a change of course and they got one. Changing the course does not mean withdrawing quickly.


We will draw down troops. We will probably begin doing that early next year or even late this year because either the new strategy will show signs of working (which means we can draw down) or it will be shown to be not working (which means we have no alternative left). It would be much better to be withdrawing from a stronger position. The Dem game in the Senate serves no purpose but to play politics and encourage our enemies.

Those of you who say that we will probably withdraw significantly anyway are right. Those who say that we will have SOME troops in Iraq for a long time are also right. The Dem game will not affect these things, but it might affect whether we are withdrawing in a good situation or retreating from an untenable one.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #226803


you say: “Those of you who say that we will probably withdraw significantly anyway are right. Those who say that we will have SOME troops in Iraq for a long time are also right. The Dem game will not affect these things, but it might affect whether we are withdrawing in a good situation or retreating from an untenable one.”

What the dems do will not affect the troop level or if we decide to “stay the course”. How can it effect the circumstances under which we withdraw.

and speaking of politics you said we decide not to “stay the course” What was the change other than another troop surge, of which we have had several? What is our change of course?

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #226804

Jack, what part of “U.S. Pull Out” do you not understand? We pull out, they step in. Where did you get this concept of the U.S. being the military taxi service for the international stabilization force?

They shuttle themselves around once in Iraq. If it is a U.N./NATO force that takes over, we may play a part, but, the stabilization of the Middle East military effort becomes international, not U.S. sponsored, nor U.S. resourced, nor U.S. funded, in the main. That’s the brilliance and simplicity of this OH SO OBVIOUS solution.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #226807

Yes I did. I learned long ago that always expecting the worst from people is self destructive,even if it is accurate. I would rather be disapointed than a defensive sh**head all the time. Other than than that thank you for the input here.Others would do well to Yes that is high praise.

Posted by: BillS at July 18, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #226808


They CANNOT drive themselves. They do not have the planes, copters or vehicles. This is the major flaw of European armies. They cannot deliver troops to the battlefield or move them around once they arrive. In the NATO partnership, the U.S. owns most of the mobility. The Europeans are only now ordering transport planes.

Remember that most militaries are not expeditionary and most are not mobile. Even IF all the militaries cooperated, they probalby could not scrape together enough mobile troops.

Mobility is the weak link in this international chain even IF you assume the world community wants to do anything and can agree on it.

Remember also that not everybody has the same incentive to help. The Iranians and Syrians are making trouble because they WANT to have it and think they can benefit. Some other oil producers would not be unhappy to have a perpetual conflict there. The “world community” can tolerate a lot of chaos there. Remember that the Iran-Iraq war lasted a decade and cost a million lives. Nobody stopped it or even really cared.


we got a new defense secretary, a new commanding general and a new strategy. It is a very different war.

I fear the Democratic game playing will embolden our enemies and demoralize the good guys. Iraqis and others who might want to cooperate with us will be much more likely to remember how we treated our Vietnamese friends if they see the Dems behaving in a similar fashion. It will be harder to get cooperation if everybody is sure we have no stomach for any setbacks.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #226811

Instead of forcing the republicans into a real filibuster, all Reid did was prolong the procedural stuff and the soundbite-making that goes on in the Senate every day. I was disappointed. If nothing else, it would have provided some entertainment.

There is no statesmanship left in either party, and this issue proves it time and again. This was not a debate. Debates are for people with ideas.
The Republicans have yet to understand that policy needs to be changed. What we have now is just a waste of lives and resources. They need to make Bush change strategy instead of following him blindly for God-only-knows what reason.
The Democrats have yet to understand that while pulling out for the sake of pulling out might ensure safety for the troops, it will be done so at the cost of many Iraqi lives. Ensuring your own safety while others die isn’t really peace.
Our focus now should be on training the Iraqis to deal with their own problems. I would support a timetable for pullout only if congress works out the plan with both our military and the Iraqi military and they both agree to it. This is what congress should have been doing all along. Instead of real military strategy, we get pretend debates that do nothing but prove that neither side has a clue.

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 18, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #226812

- What is our change of course? I mean other than new people in charge and you saying its different and us sending a bunch of people. I don’t mean to be difficult, but could you elaborate just a bit?

- Are you telling me that a buch of people who are cutting off heads and blowing themselves up and anyone in a 100 meter radius are people who are going to be be scared of the “pinko party” and the “soft on crime”, Homo loving leftys??

Answer the question Jack. What would be different if the Democrats were on board with the Repubs?

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #226813

The “setback” occured when GB decided to invade Iraq. Probably as a personal grudge. What we are doing now is trying to pick up the pieces.
This is no game .Our best are being killed and maimed daily and our treasurey is hemmorageing and our enemy is stronger than even before 9/11. That is the definition of failed policy. 4 years into a war and the enemy is stronger?The answer here is the same as the answer in Vietnam. “How we possibly get out?” Boat or plane,either is good.

Posted by: BillS at July 18, 2007 11:12 PM
Comment #226815


Are you for real? You said:

“Remember that the Iran-Iraq war lasted a decade and cost a million lives. Nobody stopped it or even really cared.”

Stopped it? We gave Saddam weapons and advisors for Christ’s sake. Remember, a guy named Rumsfeld arranged it all?

Talk about revision history!

And under Reagan we gave aid to a group of Afganis fighting the Russians called the Mujahideen or Islamic freedom fighters they were financed by the CIA. Oh, and a guy named Osama. Can you guess what side they are on now?

Oh and what else did we do under Reagan…lets see we gave 2000 to a known terrorist country (Iran)in exchange for one person (Terry Waite)

so let me ask again: What would be different if all the Dems were on board with the Repubs: Come on you folks are the optimists here. Paint me a picture…what do you see?

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #226816

oops got ahead of myself:

Thats 2000 TOE missiles to Iran

Posted by: 037 at July 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Comment #226818

David Remer, I think I agree with you philosophically about this (by which I mean have a similar wish-list about what the “international community” should do in its own interests) but in practice, it’s just delusional to think that they could ever get their act together.

When have they ever done so? Some like to say that the UN offered to take over in Iraq, but look at what actually happened. The UN headquarters were attacked and they ran like rabbits. The reason that the UN has nearly zero presence in Iraq today is not that the US has kept them out but because they complain that the US military doesn’t provide them adequate security. This is entirely typical, and a case in point.

The UN and the international community is ready to act in a decisive and bold manner in the world’s trouble spots—as long as the United States is there protecting them and holding their hands.

Personally, I don’t think anything will ever change unless we increase our tolerance for the national instability of other countries, including our allies. Stop guaranteeing their security with our dollars and the lives our soldiers. Pull our bases out of Western Europe and South Korea, and only get involved with their problems when they come to us hat-in-hand and beg for it. Which they have no reason to do under the current system where we’re always there being their mommy and just biting our tongues while they attack and defame us instead of standing up for themselves.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 18, 2007 11:39 PM
Comment #226827

I’ve been reading a neat little book by Larry Diamond, entitled Squandered Victory. The author was invited to Iraq by Condoleezza Rice to work within the CPA, promoting Democracy back in early 2004. One interesting point he brought up back then, and I think still holds true today, is that if the UN is going to take part in stabilizing Iraq, they must allowed in the decision making process.

We must remember, that by bringing the International Community into the fold, they are going to rightfully demand a voice in the debate on the way forward.

With more then 3,500 dead, and thousands wounded, will Americans be too proud to allow the Internation Community to make decisions about Iraq that are against America’s best interest? Will our leaders sign off on drawing down American influence in Iraq?

As far as Iran, remember that we aren’t the only one’s with interests in the middle east. Iran, in all reality should be the regional power, having the territory, population, and oil reserves to accomplish that. I just looked at a map the other day, and ‘lo and behold! The United States has has almost 200,000 soldiers on their borders. If you don’t understand why they’re meddling in Iraq… Then your lost in the sauce. We aren’t the only ones in the region with National Interests… The nations that are physically located there… well, they should have some type of say to… You know, crazy as that sounds…

I heard some drunk on the street the other day muttering about war being an extension of politics. Then he mentioned something about politics being the art of controlling your enviornment. Then he tried to steal my wine.

So it goes

Posted by: a lonely wino at July 19, 2007 2:51 AM
Comment #226840


No. The little game being played is all about scoring political points and precious little about forming a coherent strategy for the war in Iraq. Street theater if you will.

Thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands seriously injured or crippled for life, 541 dead since February 2007, hundreds of billions of American tax dollars spent while we ignore the serious problems at home is not a game. The dem congress may not be accomplishing much but at least they are showing me that they are continuing to pursue this matter despite stubborn republican obstructionism. I would be greatly disappointed if they were to give up this cause. You call it whatever you like but it certainly is not a game and the only theater I see going on is coming from the republican side who continue to advocate for a failed president and his failed policies in spite of the desires of the greater majority of American people.

Posted by: ILdem at July 19, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #226841

LO said: “it’s just delusional to think that they could ever get their act together.”

Wrong! Nothing motivates like the loss of income. Failing to secure the stability in the Middle East will cost governments of industrialized nations serious, serious income, and that destabilizes the governments in their own lands.

No one remains an isolationist when they are losing the money that sustains their national stability and status quo. No industrialized nation in the world, like China, Russia, the EU, Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Australia can afford to have the oil flow out of the Middle East interrupted by Middle Eastern regional warfare, causing massive unemployment and hardships for their people, which in turn can easily become unrest toward the people’s own government.

Self interest is not the sole province of the United States, LO, it is universal, regardless of regime, national culture, or history.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2007 8:47 AM
Comment #226843

Jack, you are shooting from the hip, and missing the mark widely on your estimate that other nations haven’t the transport ability to move their military. I have seen China’s, Russia’s, Great Britain’s troop transports on parade on TV. The end of the cold war made military transports super cheap.

We can elect to assist in transport from their nations to Iraq and back where AIR transport may be insufficient for many of those countries, but, the industrialized world is not without its own trucks and personnel carriers, nor is the U.N. without the ability to purchase or lease them as needed. Many of those purchases and leases may well be with the U.S. or count as America’s contribution to Middle Eastern stability. A bargaining chip, if you will.

But, your comment lacks any credibility from my point of view, so, if you want to score debate points on this issue, you will need to provide a source for your conjecture to counter TV footage of other nation’s military transports on their own versions of the 4th of July.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2007 9:04 AM
Comment #226844

Oh, the best part of yesterday was Max Blumenthal’s video on Huffington Post showing College Republican’s finding every excuse in the book why they couldn’t or wouldn’t serve in the military and let themselves be cannon fodder in Iraq…”I’m going to college”…what an excuse…they follow on the heels of their beloved Cheney who had “other priorities”…yeah, like letting someone else die in their place.

What a wonderful new generation is coming of age…

Posted by: Rachel at July 19, 2007 9:07 AM
Comment #226845

BillS, I know, I was being ironical :-) I agree entirely, expect the best, be prepared for less, but, never allow oneself to be paralyzed by fear of the worst.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2007 9:12 AM
Comment #226848
I fear the Democratic game playing will embolden our enemies and demoralize the good guys.

And just who might the “good guys” be??? The invaders? the occupiers? the College Republicans who “support” the war but who find every excuse not to join the military?

Unfortunately, at this point in time, Pogo is absolutely correct: We have met the enemy and it is us!!

Posted by: Rachel at July 19, 2007 9:50 AM
Comment #226851

Just exactly who is obfuscating the defense of our nation?

Byrd’s letter to Bush, who threatens to veto the homeland security funding bill

Kind of funny to see Milwaukee & Miami (who’s recently had to shut down their airport!) get de-funded and yet Minneapolis and Houston get scads more $$$ for “homeland defense”…what a crock this whole thing is…big boondoggle putting $$$ into Bush cronies’ pockets…

Posted by: Rachel at July 19, 2007 9:59 AM
Comment #226855

I don’t think the Democrats are trying to so much “embarrass” the Republicans as simply draw attention to the fact that the Republicans are using the filibuster to stop them from changing the course in Iraq.

There is nothing inherently wrong or unconstitutional about filibustering. When Democrats are in the minority they use it themselves. BUT, it is also quite legitimate to point out to the public that the minority party is filibustering!

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #226856

The minority party in the Senate can have their cake and eat it to — they can block bills and then complain that the majority is “doing nothing”. The only way the majority can fight back is to draw attention to the obstruction.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #226863


The sleep over was designed to wake up the public so they could do their job on Election Day, so they do not elect any morally bankrupt rubber stamp republicans. A majority is needed to change policy and get this country on the right track. You know that!!!! That is why you are throwing up this smoke screen to avoid the real issue. We don’t really give a %#$@& about democracy in Iraq. We are in Iraq because of the oil. We are there to justify our no bid contracts to Halliburton, Titan, KBR and Black Water. Bush and company use the same methods to get what they want as Saddam did. Bush is there to steal oil and to raid the treasury department with no bid contracts for him and his buddies. If he has to kill women and children to get the job done that’s ok, it is nothing personal its just business.

Why can’t we get some republicans to join the American people and bring the troops home so they can protect us here from possible attacks? Are corporate profits more important than the people of your country????? Republicans, step up and do the right thing!!! Be real patriots join the American People and demand the return of our country to a moral direction. Don’t let corporate profits cloud your judgment. We must take back our country from the drunken bar room bullies that control it now. Just do the right thing for a change and see what a difference it will make to this country and to the rest of the world. We have no credibility, the world is watching us and they feel threatened by our drunken bar room bully approach to everything we attempt. David, don’t try and distract us from this very import task that we must complete on Election Day. Go out on the street and talk to the American people, do what they ask so we can get our country back from the thugs, murders and thieves.

Posted by: Outraged at July 19, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #226879

I have said it in the past but it is worth repeating: At some point in the next six months there will be a group of Republican Senators and Congressmen walking into the oval office to pull the plug on w and his war. They will not sacrifice their party in the ‘08 elections to w’s obstinance and ignorance. I know how cynical this sounds as it would mean that there is virtually no difference to the dire situation in Iraq in starting the withdrawl now, or waiting a few months. An orderly pullout starting ASAP would, however, save the lives of five or six hundred American soldiers. These are lives that will be lost because of the posturing of certain Republicans (and one Independent) who, by and large and by no coincidence, are NOT facing re-election next year.
Also. Votes to authorize a president to go to war do not equate to a declaration of war. In other words, it was w’s decision, (he is after all the “decider”) to invade Iraq. The conduct of the war was solely under w’s purvue. Congress’s vote for authorization assumed the competency of the “Commander-in-Chief” (to clarify for you bushies, this is another term for “the decider”). Of course, we all know now how throughly incompetent w is; that he could not conduct his presidency any more successfully then he has his personal life.

Posted by: Charles Ross at July 19, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #226881
I am quickly tiring of the shallow charade that has become the substitute for true debate and planning in Iraq and the War on Terror in general. Last nights Senate sleepover was perhaps the pinnacle of political posturing and a pitiful excuse for true debate and discussion when it comes to the Iraq War and the future of the Iraqi nation and the region.

The Republican are using cloture votes to quietly scuttle dozens of Democratic initiatives. And why? Because the Democrats have majority support, and the Republicans want to frustrate the will of the majority in order to make the Democrats look bad.

Reid is wise to force this out into the open. You guys make fun of it, call it a sleepover, a political stunt, and conveniently neglect to mention that it’s in response to your continued political stonewalling of what most Americans want, that Democrats are in fact doing this to counter your political chicanery, and demonstrate to the American people that they aren’t pushovers on the issue Americans believe matter.

This is the Republicans desperately trying to hold back the tide moving against them, a tide they ultimately can be said to have inflicted on themselves.

This is George Bush’s war. Others might have gone along with it out of political necessity, or mistaken impressions, but both the political necessity and the mistaken impressions were fostered deliberately by Bush, his administration, and his party, not only looking to get into Iraq, but derive political benefit out of it. Only his administration made serious mistakes, and his party did nothing to make sure he corrected them It’s pure scapegoating to try and stick all this to us.

Saddam was a bad man, but he was a known political quantity that wasn’t really going anywhere. Even if he regained all his original strength, America would have had the power to put him back in his place. We exchanged him for chaos and sectarian discord. I don’t shed a tear for his regime, but I find the exchange unsatisfactory, and unworthy of all the time, effort and money we put into this.

The Iraqis had suffered under decades of totalitarian rule, and we expected them to jump up, throw rose petals at our feet, and act like experienced citizens of a Democracy? Get real. Bush and his people had the chance to plan for this, to do better than just throw an election in their laps and expect them to do what we desired.

But worse than that, we expected people to keep their heads on straight, with law and order absent from the streets. They turn to these militias and sectarian groups for the same reason immigrants once turned to mobsters and the like: when you can’t count on your authorities, you count on the toughest sons of bitches available who are on your side and share your interests.

If we had hurried and got the numbers on our side early in the game, if we had dependably repaired and resurrected Iraq’s economy and infrastructure, they might have decide that we were those people. Unfortunately, we let the fiasco go on far too long, so now we’re just the muscle people play games with to get what they want.

As for a Republican war with a Democratic army… Jeez man, you folks had the chance to do something better. You were told ahead of time by your own advisers that you would need to do this. Your response? You lame-ducked the Army Chief of staff that suggested going in with hundreds of thousands. You publically ridiculed Democrats and others who called for more troops, and only got religion on the matter after you lost the majority. But at the point, the conflict and lawlessness we had sought to prevent had already taken hold, and remains in force to this day. I don’t want to hear it. You guys had years to get this right, and you waited until it was politically impossible to maintain the status quo to do anything else. And worse, this surge you’ve created can’t even maintain the numbers you’re asking it to maintain. We start having to send back troops in April, or else try and keep exhausted, ill-equipped troops in Iraq whose vehicles are breaking down and who are behind on their training.

As for al-Qaeda? Yours are the people who went looking for al-Qaeda in the last place anybody would look, and only found them after you let them in yourself. And what do you do when they start coming in? Do you start reinforcing, working the political angles? Do do what it takes to improve security? No, you slap some spin on it and call it the flypaper strategy, pretending that a continued failures to exclude them from that battlefield was somehow a brilliant gambit to protect America from terrorists. Let me tell you: this crap makes me sick. From day one, al-Qaeda’s been my target, what I want this President to go after. It was you and your party who pushed us into this war in Iraq, insisting on bad evidence and worse logic that al-Qaeda was there, using the public’s fear of a new attack, and disdain for Saddam to get a war your Neocons had been aching for even before 9/11.

If we had stuck to the places we knew these people and other terrorists were working from, we would be mired in this fiasco, and al-Qaeda wouldn’t have had the chance to move next door to Pakistan and enjoy some rest.

Has it ever occured to you that part of the Anger with Bush on the Democratic side is his handling of counterterrorism, and the way this monumental detour into Iraq has benefited our common enemy? We’re not angry with Bush just for drawing Bush, we’re angry with him for screwing an all too important war against our enemies. Bush is getting burned by the anger that 9/11 has fueled from the start. That may not fit your macho visions of the superiority of the Republicans in all things defense related, but there it is.

The time has come for a more sensible policy to arise. Whether Republicans want to get on board or not it their choice, but one thing is true: they cannot stand long against the will of the American people, no matter what they believe, and profit by it. America wants this fiasco over, and it wants the Democrats to help them do that, and that is why your people have to stay up one measly night. If they wish to stay up more, let them continue to filibuster. We’ll make you guys work for your obstructionism.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #226885


Reid is wise to force this out into the open. You guys make fun of it, call it a sleepover, a political stunt, and conveniently neglect to mention that it’s in response to your continued political stonewalling of what most Americans want, that Democrats are in fact doing this to counter your political chicanery, and demonstrate to the American people that they aren’t pushovers on the issue Americans believe matter.

Pushovers are exactly what they are. Senator Reid played right into the Republican’s hands the other night. Look back at Paul Siegel’s article on filibusters. His point (which I agreed with) was that the Democrats should force the Republicans to do a real filibuster and basically give them enough rope to hang themselves. Instead, Reid did nothing but prolong the “debate.” Not only did that accomplish nothing (after all, everyone already knows who is for the war and who is against it), but he handed the Reps the “we weren’t the ones who delayed the vote” line on a silver platter. Very poorly executed politics on Reid’s part.

And so you know I’m not just busting on Reid, I’m also pissed off at his Republican counterpart. McConnell Went to the floor of the Senate yesterday, told us Casablanca was one of his favorite films, and then proceeded to butcher a quote beyond all recognition. I’ll bet he’s never seen the thing. Damn lying Republicans!

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 19, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #226886

We’re the ones who prolonged the debate? The Republicans announced their intention to filibuster. The Debate, by definition, was to be prolonged indefinitely by them. What Paul Sigel’s article indicated, was this was being done without the necessity of the folks doing the filibuster to actually publically engage in one of these Marathon debates. When we’re talking about an indefinite debate, what’s a day or two going to matter? My only complaint is that they didn’t force a longer debate than they did. By all rights, they should have forced the full thirty hours.

The point of what he did was to force what was at this point had become a parliamentary short circuit of the majority rule, and return it to what it originally was, an obstructive, public display of resistance using the rules of the debate.

The Republicans are getting in the way of legislation favored by the majority, but have been doing it quietly, being weinies about it. We’re just forcing them to be weinies about it in public. If only our so-called liberal media would get the story right. They’ve confused who’s doing what, and their conflating the vote to end debate with the vote for the bill itself It’s not an innocuous mistake to make.

Reid ought to make a habit of this, in my opinion. If they want to signal their intention to filibuster, why should they get away with not doing it? If they want to be obstructive, we should make it hard work for them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #226887

Stephen, you have a very simplistic and overly-optimistic view of how much public support Democrats actually have—most in evidence when you jump to the conclusion that Democrats represent “the will of the people.”

The “will of the people” is a very mixed bag, and is very hard to arrive at by reading polls, which send very mixed messages and are prone to all manner of spin. The simple fact that a clear majority does not approve of the conduct of the war does not mean in any way that the wider public is at all behind the Democrats on the issue. Many are undoubtedly like myself in wanting to see the conduct of the war changed and then brought to a conclusion without subscribing to the Democrat’s defeatism.

A Rasmussen poll the other day said that 51% of the public, a small majority but a majority nonetheless, believes we should wait until September’s progress report before making any major policy changes on Iraq. But then we have a new CBS/NYT poll which says that 61% believe there should be a timetable for withdrawal. Only 8% want funding for the war halted altogether.

But then a previous CBS/NYT poll which had even more people saying there should be a timetable for withdrawal than the most recent poll—64%—also said that 56% think that if Bush vetoes a bill with a timetable, Congress should give Bush what he’s asking for anyway.

None of this is a defense of Bush or his prosecution of the war in Iraq, but it’s nonetheless pretty clear that the public’s views on Iraq are a lot more complicated than simple support for the Democratic Party. Too often people like yourself take the simple and undeniable fact that people want the war to be over and spin that to your own conclusions. But who doesn’t want the war to be over? Bush himself most likely wants it to be over. But how and when it should end, and on whose terms, is the issue now, and on that there is no clear consensus in either government or the population. Congress’s main achievement in when and how it chooses to fight the administration over the issue has been to make themselves even more unpopular than the president.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 19, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #226892

Loyal Opposition,

You make this sound like a ball game, win or lose smoke screen %$#@.
People die everyday for this head game bush is playing.
Bush dropped the ball the game is over it is time to go home!!!!!!
Bush made the other team what they are today with his training program.
I hate to tell you this he showed up at the wrong ball park!!!!!
Win our lose what kind of crap is that??????????
No one buys the win or lose crap at this point in your game.
The name of the game is blood for oil!!!!!!!!!

30% of the people are with this jerk, they are like you no matter how bad they are, they still root for the home team. This is real life and death people we are wasting our children’s lives for oil!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ouitraged at July 19, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #226894


I don’t understand why you think what the democrats tried the other night worked.
You seem to have missed the point that the Republicans won. They got exactly what they wanted and all they had to do was take turns with the dems all night in a pretend debate. You didn’t hurt them, you just tickled them a bit.
Reid did not force the Republicans into a debate or a filibuster (in the classic sense of either word). All he did was prolong the inevitable. Why not force the republicans to stand and talk for days on end? If you really want the Republicans to “work for it,” what happened the other night didn’t cut it. Force them into a real filibuster. All the mock debate did was advanced their agenda, not yours.

Posted by: TheTraveler at July 19, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #226895
The little game being played is all about scoring political points and precious little about forming a coherent strategy for the war in Iraq.

The “little game” you speak of is “all about” ending this disaster of a war that this fool of a president HAD to start. What’s left of your “base” is little more than a faction. (What are you down to now? 25%?) The “little game” is necessary to continually point out (and never let people in this country forget) that the republicans in the Senate are simply circling the wagons to protect THEMSELVES and the cult of personality they’ve built (around an idiot who is completely incapable of doing ANYTHING right) and danced to (along with the likes of YOU) for the last six years.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at July 19, 2007 4:22 PM
Comment #226896

Bottom line - stop making excuses for Republicans. Get us out of this crazy war.

Posted by: Max at July 19, 2007 5:00 PM
Comment #226905


Far better off? What would be different in Iraq if all the Dems supported the war?

Because of the democrats actions, we will never know the answer to that!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 19, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #226909

Honestly? There’d be a lot fewer Democrat incumbents around. America might have even turned to a third party. This was a grass roots thing, which mostly developed from word of mouth concerning issues. The Politicans behavior is a lagging indicator as to the direction people in this country have taken.

Defeatism is an easy and erroneous label for our attitudes. You’ve been calling us defeatists from the start, even when we were giving you advice on how to win the war. This administration even called people defeatists for suggesting a Plan B The Republicans have had a rather self-centered definition of American victory against the terrorists from the start, and it’s why we’ve lost the war in Iraq, and are right back where we started or even worse on the war against terrorism.

If America is so damn uncertain about this war, why is the President, who’s put this front and center as his issue, polling worse than Nixon or Carter? Why do more than four-fifths of the population think we’re on the wrong track?

I don’t think it’s coincidence that Bush’s numbers are tanking while most American want an orderly withdrawal and he’s doing everything to promote the opposite. Unless the Sept. report has something spectacular to show, I doubt American sentiments will change much.

As for how Americans regard the folks in Congress? Truth be told, the main reason why job satisfaction ratings are down is because they folded before Bush, and have been generally passive in the face of Republican resistance.

That’s pretty much ended, and I’m glad.

They got to block the bill, but they didn’t get to do it behind the scenes, where it would have little impact on their political fortunes. And it doesn’t get better if you’re aware of what he did next: He shelved discussion on the authorization bill until the Republicans agree to reconsider their actions.

Or put another way, now there is no opportunity whatsoever for Republican from vulnerable senate seats to offer amendments. If the Republicans want to play power games, they come to understand the advantages that a Democratic Majority can use against them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2007 8:44 PM
Comment #226912

Just listened to Lamar Alexander on PBS. His take is that the president should commit to adopting the recomendations of the ISG and the Dem leadership should move to support it also. He claims,probably correctly, that there would be an actual bi-partisan majority to move forward and that is where we ,as a nation,should be.

Posted by: BillS at July 19, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #226921

Anyone notice? Now the administration needs yet more time; September is too soon to evaluate the surge, and the goalpost is being moved back to November. Of course, this delay needed to await its announcement until after the Senate vote.

It should be painfully obvious that the Bush administration intends to foist the debacle in Iraq onto the next administration.

It should also be obvious that Iraq will take, not months, but years to resolve. At some point, the ethnic cleansing will be completed, and Iraq will be effectively partitioned into three separate states.

Oh, that lovely oil. Ah, those wonderful, wonderful permanent military bases. How much are we willing to spend for them? How many American lives?

Posted by: phx8 at July 20, 2007 12:30 AM
Comment #226928

Apparently, final judgement is heading for November.

This is why I don’t trust the administration when it asks for more time; it always asks for more time, never does what it takes so more time is not necessary. Since the beginning of the war, we’ve had what you could call an infinite regress, where the time period for the end of this war has been pushed back, as promised conclusions failed to materialize.

I could understand if the Bush administration had asked for such time having made progress at some point; I can understand how a war would not work out completely according to plan. But I would expect permanent progress of some kind, something that gets us closer to our goals. I’m fine with an administration having setbacks when they aren’t the only outcome on the issues that matter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2007 7:40 AM
Comment #226937

on behalf of true conservatives everywhere, to the dwindling neocon/bushie loyalists…

i told you so. nah nah na-nah nah.

apologies, but there’s nothing left but to laugh at your psychotic “understanding” of foreign policy, democracy, freedom, and life in general.

neoconservatism is dead.
thank God.

Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2007 10:14 AM
Comment #226939
Pushovers are exactly what they are. Senator Reid played right into the Republican’s hands the other night. Look back at Paul Siegel’s article on filibusters. His point (which I agreed with) was that the Democrats should force the Republicans to do a real filibuster and basically give them enough rope to hang themselves. Instead, Reid did nothing but prolong the “debate.”

Reid was being very smart…after hearing lies from the Bush camp for 6 years repeatedly, ad nauseam, it takes more than one filibuster or one overnight for the public to see the truth of obfuscation by the Republicans…hang on…these overnights will need to be repeated month after month before the public catches on…these overnights are not a catchy ad…repetition will do the job.

Posted by: Rachel at July 20, 2007 10:25 AM
Comment #226952


it takes more than one filibuster or one overnight for the public to see the truth of obfuscation by the Republicans…hang on…these overnights will need to be repeated month after month before the public catches on…

Yeah, the American people are stupid like that…
You think Americans are a bunch of idiots who need to be led around by the nose by politicians. Even when the people are on your side (like now), you just have to insult them don’t you? God, I hate politics.

Posted by: DamnTheParties at July 20, 2007 2:18 PM
Comment #226958
last nights display of jr. high play acting
Oh. I thought for a second you were referring to the REAL junior-high play-acting: Dubya in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier, proclaiming “mission accomplished”. Posted by: ElliottBay at July 20, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #226966

David MH,

I’d like you to imagine something. Imagine if we WON. What would things be like if our wildest dreams of achieving a peaceful Iraqi regime were realized?


Well, there would be a government in Iraq that would be recognized by the entire Islamic world to be a puppet regime of the U.S. Our success itself would demonstrate the dire need of the Islamic world to oppose us. Our enemies would have a VERY powerful tool for recruitment and we would appear even to otherwise peaceful and non-fanatical muslims as the embodiment of the very vile empire that the Islamists cast us as.

In other words, we would actually have lost.

This is a lose-lose scenario, David.
There is no winning Iraq possible.
All we can do is earn more enemies, play more deeply into the hands of the radical Islamists and lose more American lives as well as Iraqi civilians’ lives.

AS for those among the Democrats who voted for the war…
That doesn’t count. It doesn’t count because Bush lied to Congress to get that vote.
When you calculate WMDs into the above considerations, you come out in favor of going in, no matter what it looks like!
But there were no WMD’s and we knew it.
In fact, Bush knowingly and willfully manipulated the intelligence.

There were WMD’s in a sense -
There were the hundreds of tons of high explosive that were being gaurded by UN troops prior to our actually telling them to leave!
Bush et al then failed to guard the depot where these high explosives were being held and by the time our troops got there months later, the UN seal on the warehouse doors had been broken and the highexplosive trucked away.
No surprise - The same kind of high explosives are being used in IED’s to kill our troops with roadside bombs!

The only WMD’s in Iraq were the ones Bush’s incompetence and dishonesty actually gave to the insurgency.




I don’t why you republicans insist on not ‘getting it.’

What you are supporting is not peace and not patriotism. It is not good for this country or any other. All Bush’s misguided efforts are only making things exponentially worse.

Posted by: RGF at July 20, 2007 6:23 PM
Comment #226972

I have one thought, and one thought only, regarding our troops:

We’re demanding too much from too few! We’ve increased Army tours of duty from 12 to 15 months. We’ve decreased “dwell time” across the board.

A few months ago McCain even went as far as saying that he’d prefer an even larger “surge” than W called for but we’re “all in”! Gates has said that we can’t maintain this level beyond April of next year without more “adjustments”.

Now, just stop, pull your head out of the Neo-Con pudding and ask how long it would take to implement a draft, train those drafted, etc! If we tried to pull off a 12 week training period reminiscent of WWII or latter conflicts our sacrifice in human lives alone would be monumental!

While we still have Naval and Air superiority we’re at the breaking point when it comes down to ground forces. Unless we change our tactics very, very soon we have only two options: (1)Draw down the number of troops in Iraq, or (2)Reinstate the damn DRAFT!


Just consider how long we’ve had an all volunteer military. Why would there even be an IVAW:

They obviously know more than us about Iraq!

And why is there still any discussion regarding MRAPS? They save lives for f$#k sake! Still after 4 1/2 years and even after Joe Biden and Kit Bond pushed thru an amendment to the last “emergency” appropriation it’s still NOT happening.

What are we waiting for?

You hear Bush talking crap about pay raises for the troops in an effort to denigrate the Democrats, but where is his demand for immediate manufacturing of these MRAPS? Where has it been for the last 4 years?

Rummy-Dummy tried to come across with that “you go to war with the army you have BS” but how f$#@*&!g long does it take to give the troops what they really need to survive??????????????


MRAPS would have saved HUNDREDS of our troops from death and serious injury!

Still to this day we’re pissing in the wind regarding getting these MRAPS to the troops.

Downright shameful!

Posted by: KansasDem at July 20, 2007 7:43 PM
Post a comment