January 12, 2007
Pressure on Democrats Building
The current media narrative locally and nationally on Iraq is heavy on criticism and outright disdain for Bush's new policy, while showcasing Republicans with concerns about the policy as well. This is to be expected, particularly in the short-term of the current news cycle. The more interesting trend, however, discussed in post-speech comments, is the pressure building on Democrats to use their majority in way anti-war activists would most like to see.
These themese are evident in recent, local newspaper editorials. The Seattle Times is all but calling for Democrats not to fund the "surge":
Parsing out a role for the congressional power of the purse will not be easy. No one wants to undercut the military men and women already in the field, and on organizational and financial levels, the president's call for more troops blends new units and extends others. If it is complicated to mulch through the budget process, well, too bad. Get to work.
Democrats were elected to confront the president's grievous war. They are not allowed a news cycle of snappy quotes only to plead legislative complexity in confronting the financial mechanisms that extend the war.
Meanwhile, the Everett Herald echoes Democratic objections to the Bush policy that lack the gumption to articulate the logical step of such convictions:
President Bush's "way forward" in Iraq - the addition of 21,500 U.S. troops, $1 billion in new economic aid and a demand for political and security progress by the Iraqis - is a road paved with little more than wishful thinking.
Apparently, that's all that's left for a president who has no realistic chance to fix a disaster of his own making.
Ok, if there is "no realistic chance to fix a disaster" then why not argue for a pullout, now? Why waste more lives and money on a lost cause? Most supporters of the Bush plan acknowledge it's no sure thing, might not work, and is likely the last chance for anything resembling success in Iraq. If all is lost as Bush opponents claim, why are calls for rapid withdrawal and outright withholding of funds for additional operations not more clear? Instead the Herald essentially calls simply for more talk in Congress:
There's little Congress can do in the short term to keep the president from implementing his new plan. But Democrats and the growing number of congressional Republicans who oppose this escalation of the war must hold Bush's feet to the fire, demanding results and accountability. Every move in Iraq must be scrutinized, every added expenditure debated.
U.S. troops mustn't be deprived of what they need to protect themselves, but neither should be president be given the blank check he still seems willing to give the Iraqis.
Thus, we have a faux debate that is unlikely to generate action of substance here in the United States. Democrats seem unwilling to back the sort of fiscal limitations true anti-war believers seek. Meanwhile, Democratic officials as a whole also appear unable to take the step liberal bloggers have for example have already embraced, and which the Herald tip toes around: clearly stating there is no hope, we should leave now.
Republicans will take their share of heat, especially in the near future, and on an ongoing basis if Bush's policy doesn't work. In the meantime, Democrats risk future trouble if they continue to play a fence-walking game of criticizing Administration policy without seriously acting out the convictions of their base, or proposing serious policy alternatives of their own. The latter problem is exemplified by the platitude of the Times saying "Democrats should use their own bully pulpit to press for diplomatic solutions," as if diplomacy can solve the centuries long Sunni-Shia conflict, or the zealous hatred of radical Islam toward America. Republicans will take their lumps, but eventually this now embryonic frustration of the Democratic base with its elected officials will have political consequences.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 12, 2007
08:29 AM | Email This
When I read today's Seattle Times editorial, the first thought that came to my mind was:
When did they hire Cindy Sheehan?
Dear Congresman/Dear Senator:
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state it is the job of the legislative branch to set or make foreign policy for this nation?
Defund the war? You will put the lives of our military in imminent peril, not to mention the security of the nation.
Screw world opinion. You had better think of the nation's welfare. All you've done is complain. You've offered no suggestion, no plan. You are the problem, not the solution.
Aside from hiring Petreas to command the new offensive in Iraq, I see very little change from previous policy.
The troops who have been doing the fighting in Iraq, especially those no longer in uniform, have repeatedly informed us that we do not have enough of a presence to win. With the additional 20,000 troops proposed (fait acompli?) in the President's speech, we will still have fewer troops than we had in 2005.
The change in the rules of engagement might help, but with only 20,000 more troops I do not see our forces being able to independently hold ground we wrest from the Sunni, or especially the Shiite, insurgents (or "militias" if you prefer).
I suspect we will see some initial progress so long as we avoid Al Sadr's strongholds in Sadr City. As soon as that happens, the Iraqi government will hold back its troops and demand we stop attacking its supporters.
I think Maliki's original plan calling for the US to pull back from Baghdad and for his forces to stomp the the Sunni's has a greater chance of success in cleaning up the capital. This will likely make Baghdad a Shiite-only enclave, but at least it has a reasonably high probability of lessening the violence there by virtue of it pushing the Sunni's out of the capital (assuming the Shiites and other, non-Sunni, factions don't start murdereing each other).
The bottom line is that a half-assed measure will produce half-assed results. The 20,000 troops in the President's plan is half-assed. Put in 50,000 to 100,000 more troops and we would have a reasonable chance of success.
Prof. Bainbridge blog is an eclectic mix of conservative/libertarian thinking and I am pasting this very interesting snippet from it. As a conservative it has me re-thinking Iraq.
"I recall from my days as an Army brat that the military talks about a tooth to tail ratio. A Google search kicks up various estimates of the tooth to tail ratio: 1-1, 1-4, 1-7, 1-10. According to John McCain, for example, in 2003 only about 30,000 out of 130,000 US troops in Iraq were actually on patrol at any time. So a "surge" of 20,000 troops plausibly might result in an increase of perhaps only 5,000 troops on patrol in Baghdad, which is a city of over 5 million people (depending on whose count you believe). If you assume that you need 10-20 combat troops in the field for every 1000 civilians, we need 50,000 to 100,000 troops to do the job in Baghdad. My bet is that the much ballyhooed surge is too little, too late. We come back to the basic problem, which is that Bush and Rumsfeld decided they could fight the war on the cheap. They decided they could invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, while also deterring North Korea and Iran, and carrying out other tasks, with a 10 division Army and a 3 division Marine Corps. They were wrong."
"I believe one of the mistakes for which history will most severely judge George Bush is his failure to significantly increase the size of the US Army post-9/11. In their belief in technology and transformation, they lost sight of the basic military maxim that you don't really own a piece of land until you stand a 19 year old with a rifle on it."
5. It would be nice if the president's critics read his plan in detail before they denounce it. The new plan is promising, detailed and comprehensive. Their mindless criticism highlights their ignorance and blind ideology, while ignoring the substance of the plan.
Deadwood #5, you have to stop reading the P.I. and Seattle Times. Most of what they publish is either so full of bias as to be unreliable or they edit authoritive voices so much as to be censoring the work.
This mornings Wall Street Journal has a few articles on what the new policy is and by their reporting it seems that it is quite different than before. I have heard from people plugged into the military that there are also much different Rules Of Engagement (halleluiah!).
I think that one thing the critics of this battle (within the war on terror) fail to realize that once opposite sides engage, your opposite has a say in how you conduct your operation. Changing tactics to better fight your enemy is standard operating procedure, not failure. Not changing to meet the challenge is failure however.
Perhaps, just perhaps it is the ROE rather than quantity?
Gen. Curtis LeMay: "If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting".
Nice war is an oxymoron.
When will the pols (ALL of them) quit playing power games and get down to the job at hand?
8. G Jiggy, Well said. I think the gloves are coming off our military and they will finally be given a chance to win and damn the political correctness and the "let's lose this war" liberals.
History Lessons not learned by the LLL.
Korean, political considerations and lack of will brought us to a cease fire. A state of war still exists on the peninsula. We consigned 20 million people to live for 5 decades in a prison camp.
Vietnam, politics caused an early withdrawal. In congressional testimony John F'in Kerry said the death toll from withdrawal would be in the thousands. 5 million died in S.E. Asia when we left.
Not finishing the job, will damage our credibility in the world for 3 generations, America won't keep it's word and doesn't have the cajones to do the job. The Islamofacist have the will to kill and control Iraq. The lslamofacists then control Iran and Iraq, a nation state with oil revenue, the will and means to develop nuclear weapons. And the will to use them against the US and Israel and take the consequences of a response.
Any way you cut it the cost of putting our tails between our legs and running is a pittance compared to the cost of winning. For every life we "save" by pulling out will be paid for with a 1000 lives in the next decade. The monetary cost of Iraq is billions, what is the cost of a smokin' hole 20 square blocks in lower Manhattan, LA or Seattle?
The only way we lose is if the enemy within prevails and we quit.
10. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state it is the job of the legislative branch to set or make foreign policy for this nation?
I believe the power lies somewhere around Section 8. Maybe if you were not such a ditto head dumb ass and actually read the Constitution you might actually know that.
And I quote:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Congress represents the will of the people while Bush's "will of the people" rating stands somewhere around 26%.
"Republicans will take their share of heat, especially in the near future, and on an ongoing basis if Bush's policy doesn't work."
bush's policy has failed. there is no "if" at issue.
eric: quit harping on the dems to do a job that bush cannot (and for 4 years the republican congress did not, other than to say "yes" to everything bush requested). there are meaningful options the dems have other than de-funding the war. the most obvious of which is to allow bush's newest iteration to fail (as most now-former generals believe it will), then have our forces redeploy outside of baghdad into provinces which are more stable and create a cauldron for a contained civil war.
you, and many of your supporters, have no credibility on this issue, as for the past 4 years you vehemently (and seemingly uncritically) supported policies which have failed time and again.
12. And your solution is .....?
Did anyone see what Fox News is reporting?
Islamic Terror Group Posts Video Appearing to Show Chemical Rocket Attack Against U.S. Base in Iraq.
The story has not yet been confirmed, but it was supposed to have happened Tuesday at a base near Sammarra. If this is true we need to take the gloves off immediately and stop playing games. We should have taken the gloves off a long time ago, but of course we had John Kerry and his pals screaming about how we had to fight a "sensitive war" (whatever the hell that means). If this is true it changes everything.
"Laws" not "policy." Thank you for your compliment. Have a nice day.
"Take the gloves off" LOL! What a lot of brave chest beating.
Everytime we find an IED we'll shoot the insurgents who placed it there. Oh, we don't know where they are. Well then we'll shoot up all the houses around there. Maybe there'll be some Sunni insurgents living there. Or let's just nuke Ramadi and kill a couple of thousand Sunnis. That'll show em!!
What a joke.
Send far more troops to Iraq or prepare to get out. Increase the size of the Army and Marines, and raise taxes while you're at it to pay for it.
16. And your solution is .....?
You say "Not finishing the job, will damage our credibility in the world for 3 generations."
While I *NEVER* supported this war, I cannot see pulling out now.
Where Aunty Em wishes to take issue with your statement above is the last part. Only today I told a friend that: 1). President Bush's illegal war has screwed up the security of the entire planet; 2). We are *NOT* safer than we were before 9/11; 3). It'll be 4 generations before most other countries in the world trust the USA. And that's if we stay. If we leave, I can't see it being any worse. Isn't that sad?
Lately right-of-center pundits have been demanding to know the Democratic plan. While it's amusing to see them not answer the question, I am curious why they just do not say, "There is only one Commander-In-Chief and this problem remains where it has always been: on the President's desk."
If President Bush doesn't have enough rope yet, I'd be willing to let him use the next two years to create a Republican Party that is unelectable. But that's just me.
I also feel I need make two final points (one new, one also made by others):
1). Had the President (who has since claimed he has been relying on the advice of his generals in the field) actually listened to his generals in the field, he would have sent over far more troops in the first place and all the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence wouldn't have started in the second place. Have people really forgotten how there weren't even enough boots on the ground to prevent all that looting in the days AFTER the war started? I wish 20,000 troops would be enough to solve the problem, but I fear it's just a drop in the bucket to what's really needed.
2). The Right Wing Echo Chamber Orchestra and Chorale convinced the Democrats *BEFORE* the election to vow they would not start issuing subpeoni if they gained control of the House and Senate. What an utter abrogation of their duty as an oversight to the powers of the presidency!! It's my belief this administration has engaged in High Crimes and Misdemeanors and none of them involve a zipper. Many others believe this as well. However, we will never know the truth unless the committees ask the proper questions. Given this administration's fetish for secrecy, I believe the only way they will tell us what they know is through the power of subpeona.
And that, folks, is really what the Founding Fathers intended: Checks and balances.
With all my love,
18. 1). President Bush's illegal war...
Will someone please explain to me why Bush's "illegal war" is illegal? Last I check, the UN passed a resolution authorizing force if Saddam didn't comply with other UN resolutions. Saddam didn't comply, so we used force. Congress authorized the use of force... which was the only way that this war could have been launched in the first place. So exactly how is this illegal?
Call it unjust, call it unnecessary, call it wrong, call it whatever... but the "illegal war" label is factually incorrect and, more importantly, just plain ridicules.
Aunty Em, there is at least one problem with your statement.
You said if Bush had listened to his generals we would have had more troops in the beginning. This is not true. The commanders on the ground in the beginning never said they needed more troops they always said they had enough. It was the Democrats in the House and Senate who said we needed more troops. Yes that is right the same ones who now oppose sending more troops.
In number 2 you claim that the President has committed high crimes. Which high crimes would these be? You also talk about the Right wing chorus convincing the Democrats not to use subpoena
powers. So you admit that either the Democrats will do anything to get elected or they are a party that has no principles in which they stand. Which is it? Checks and balances are fine and that is why we have a three branch government. My question is what should be done to the Democrats, like Leahy, who have been proven to leak classified documents that they got through their committee's?
Aunty Em continues to ignore history and facts, relying on MSM to support his opinions.
If Lincoln had followed Em's advice, the US would be a lot smaller today. Instead he fired several of his generals, finally settling on Grant. The press and a lot of the left thought he should stop the war(prior to Gettysburg) and negotiate with Davis.
Second point is that I never heard andy division commanders or above (Casey, Abizaid, etc.) ever publicly or privately request more troops except when using them for specific missions (election security). To blindly throw troops into Iraq without specific missions is similar to the left's solution of throwing money at eduaction. Without defined objectives and quantifiable results, the resources are expended for naught.
21. Also, Aunty Em would you call Clinton's war in Bosnia illegal? He had no authorization from the UN, he did not even have any resolutions authorizing force. If you feel that Clinton's Bosnia war (which I support to this day) was legal then why is the Iraq war illegal when he did have resolutions authorizing the use of force for non-compliance of the 14 other resolutions that Saddam failed to meet along with the cease fire agreements from the first gulf war?
Laws dictate policy...unless your a certain Republican president who seems to think their Administration is above the law.
If the Dem's choose not to fund the war, they can do that because the budget is dictated by Congress. Therefore Congress can influence policy at their own discretion.
Thank you very much,
what a shocking (probably, inadvertent) admission from true solider:
"The commanders on the ground in the beginning never said they needed more troops they always said they had enough. It was the Democrats in the House and Senate who said we needed more troops. Yes that is right the same ones who now oppose sending more troops."
put another way: the dems were right then, and they are right now.
24. Dinesh, it looks like it was true that we did need more troops in the beginning so yes the Democrats were right then, but now they just want to be hypocrites and change their tune now that the President has decided to send more troops. Pulling out would be a disaster.
truesoldier: you are conflating 2 points. rejecting the president's "too little, too late" approach right now does not mean pulling out. it means redeploying our troops outside of baghdad (which means that some troops can come home) and keeping other iraqi provinces secure while the civil war rages in (hopefully) a confined zone of baghdad.
this war is FUBAR! bush has been wrong on virtually every count. why do you continue to have faith in a commander-in-chief who sent troops into harms way without an effective plan for victory, and over the course of 3 years has taken the wrong tact every time?
26. Would you have had similar sentiments during the Civil War, or WWII, dinesh?
So Dinesh would you have lost faith in Abe Lincoln seeing that until he put Grant in as the General in charge not much went right?
I have not heard anything about "redeplying" outside Baghdad only "redeploying" to Okinawa.
pulling out of Baghdad would be a mistake. this would give the terrorists/insurgents a stronghold in which to operate completely unhindered (kind of what Fallujah was before the Marines went in only worse). So how exactly would this make it better for our troops if they are having to face an enemy that has a base of ops, that we are supposed to stay out of, that the enemy launches it's attacks from?
balh, blah: You are 100% right. Congress can withhold funds for the war.
But they won't. 'Cause they're gutless, clueless, and most especially, nutless.
That's the whole point of this thread, in case you missed it.
your comparisons to the civil war and ww2 are anachronistic.
this is the war we have and bush has demonstrated his incompetence as commander-in-chief (all the while, might i add while many of you supported his every decision without question and derided those as lefties, losers, liberals, pacifists, terrorist-sympathizers, etc.).
here's the plan:
instead of asking so many questions about what i would do, why don't some of you answer the question as to why you continue to have faith in bush's judgment re this war, given his track record of being wrong at just about every turn?
you guys blew it. big time.
"your comparisons to the civil war and ww2 are anachronistic."
In other words, you can't answer the question.
You say the Iraq war is "FUBAR". What do you think the Civil War and WWII were?
32. bill: focus on the question i asked you. you guys are the ones dodging and weaving. why the misplaced trust in bush? he was wrong. you were wrong.
I didn't indicate any support or non-support for the Bush policies now, or in the past.
I'm trying to get a sense of where you are coming from and I want you to relate your position to American history.
Most still believe in the occupation and helping the Iraqi's become a 'non-terrorist' state. Some even that they'll become democratic. I don't know if they ever will because I don't think the have any will to be. But if they become more like Jordan, great.
The one thing I've been most upset with is that our military hasn't used more agressive rules in engaging the enemy and worried about the political fallout. Damn the politics. People will die in this and the faster we quell the terrorists the faster a calm, never peace, will ensue. Our worry about killing one civilian allows the terrorists to kill hundreds. (I don't abdacate killing people willy nilly, just that in a war and thus occupation people die and we should face that fact.)
Also, these civilians should stand up too. I still don't know why they don't, but I guess we can ask people that live with our own "insurgents" in LA or any other gang controlled area.
here's a summary from keith olbermann on why bush is the "president who cried wolf."
a pretty good list of just how wrong bush has been.
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America.
Now he says it is vital.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control.
Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units.
He told us about WMD.
He has told us the war is necessary:
Because Saddam was a material threat.
Because of 9/11.
Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida. Terrorism in general.
To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases.
Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
Because -- 439 words in to the speech last night -- he trotted out 9/11 again.
In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
To get Muqtada Al-Sadr. To get Bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than the generals told him to. He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government "de-Baathified."
He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. He gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
He and his government told us: America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throes.
He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.
He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
He has trumpeted the turning points:
The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam. A provisional government, a charter, a constitution, the trial of Saddam. Elections, purple fingers, another government, the death of Saddam.
He has assured us: We would be greeted as liberators -- with flowers;
As they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about "stay the course."
We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And, last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.
He told us the enemy was al-Qaida, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.
He told us the war would pay for itself. It would cost $1.7 billion. $100 billion. $400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another $6 billion.
And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November and the majority of the American people.
By your reasoning, Congress can tell the President how to run the country, how to make treaties, how to select his cabinet, how to defend the Constitution. What you are saying is that the workforce tells Bill Gates how to run Microsoft.
When did the legislative branch have authority over the executive branch? I thought the role of Congress was executive and judicial oversight, to pass laws, ratify and confirm executive action and to impeach.
I appreciate where you are going with this, but I ask you to really look at your point.
Again, I thank you.
Dengle at #34 "The one thing I've been most upset with is that our military hasn't used more agressive rules in engaging the enemy and worried about the political fallout."
I agree with you Dengle. Unfortunately the left wing media has successfully demonized the war (see dinesh at #35). The media and Democrats would exploit any more aggressive rules in the same way they happily exploited Abu Graib and Guantanamo.
And your solution is .....?
Half the stuff you trumpeted doesn't make sense and has nothing to do with the mission at hand.
For example, during the fall of Baghdad, there was indeed the cheering and flowers and everything else. But, you say there wasn't.
well, bill, i want to get a sense of your position on this war and this president's policies as they relate to that position.
the differences between those wars and this war are too many to discuss. here's the most obvious: the civil war had a draft/conscription. wwii had a draft. so, is bush the gutless one for declaring this war so vital to our interest, but not having the guts to demand a draft?
if, as i believe, you are suggesting that we are too early in this war to declare it lost, a failure, then come out and say it.
i'm not trying to play armchair general. i'm saying that bush has lost the trust of the american people and deservedly so. he has either been incompentent or dishonest. its one or the other (or both).
bill: you are out of control to suggest the dems and the media are driving the rules of engagement policy. that is just intellectually dishonest.
so let me understand:
it's not bush's fault (despite the fact that he's the commander in chief).
it's not rumsfeld fault (despite the fact that he got canned, finally).
it's not the generals fault (despite the fact that bush has replaced them several times over).
it's not the coalition authority's fault (remember them? bremer, et al.?) (despite the fact that they had first watch).
no, its the dems and the media's fault.
that's like blaming the dallas cowboy's loss on dallas fans that questioned romo's ability to deliver in the clutch.
back to your pom poms and short skirts. band, cue up the music....
Dinesh and Keith Oberfuhrermann, here's what Bush should have said the other night....
My fellow Americans, as I stand to speak with you tonight, some 132,000 U.S. troops stand tall in Iraq. I want to tell you tonight what they stand for. I'm also going to call on thousands more of our heroes to stand with them, and I want to explain why this fight is too important to lose.
As you may have heard, I have directed the Secretary of Defense to boost our troop strength in Iraq immediately. This, of course, will spark new Congressional hearings. Since you don't have time to watch all those hours of C-Span, I'll give you the condensed version now.
Increasing our fighting force by 20,000 will not only allow us to better support the Iraqi Army's new effort to crush sectarian militias, but it also means we can have several armed U.S. divisions on Iran's border within hours. Once Israeli jets obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities, we'll be on the doorstep.
Whoa, did I say that out loud or just think it?
Folks, we're not at war with the average Iraqi citizen. We're fighting proxies ・deployed, armed and funded by Iran and al Qaeda ・who are taking advantage of the Iraqi government's chaotic infancy to advance their vision of a global Muslim caliphate. This is not a neo-con nightmare fantasy, it's the enemy's stated goal.
You've probably heard from the news media that the Iraqi insurgency is stoked by high unemployment. Well, if folks can't pay their bills or buy groceries, where do you think they get the money to make bombs and to buy guns? Do you know how much lamb and falafel you can buy for the cost of one AK-47? The lack of money is not the problem. The people supplying the money are the problem.
As a wise man once said, Civil war isn't breaking out in Iraq, it's breaking in.
Some tell me that the American public doesn't understand the stakes; that you're too stupid to comprehend the cost of failure in Iraq, or the benefit of victory. I don't believe that.
But just in case there's a journalist or a politician out there who doesn't understand why we fight, and why we must win, let me make it plain.
In every country where radical Islam takes over, the first people to fall under the sword are journalists and politicians. There is no free press under Sharia law, and no room for politicians who would advance the rights of women and homosexuals or the freedom to choose an abortion. There is no debate on these issues, because people who would speak out against Sharia law never speak again. Incidentally, there's no debate about the death penalty either, although the appeals process for the convicted can sometimes drag on for minutes on end.
If you think America should back away from this fight, think about this:
Picture a future where the number two (Iran) and number three (Iraq) oil reserves in the world are in the hands of our sworn enemies. How long do you think it would take them to expand their regime to Kuwait, Yemen, Dubai and Saudi Arabia? Which non-Muslim nations might be the first to capitulate to whatever demands these petroleum-rich whack-jobs might make? Who would stand in the way? The United Nations, perhaps?
And let me paraphrase the late John Lennon: Imagine there's no Israel.
It's easy if you try.
Just give Iraq to Ahmadinejad.
A lot of well-meaning Americans seem to think that there are a lot of well-meaning radical Islamists, who want only justice for their cause, and then they would settle down and live in harmony with their infidel brothers'hate for you and me.
Do you think the Islamic warlord Moktada al-Sadr would like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony?
No, he'd like to teach the world chant in bland monotony, he'd like to put a bloody end to Christianity. He's the real thing, and so is Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and dozens of other radical Islamic leaders who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the destruction and demise of liberty and its primary champion, the United States of America.
Let's face the facts. Iran declared war on the U.S. in 1979. Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in 1998. No truce or ceasefire has been signed. Iran and al Qaeda remain at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not.
And if we continue to stumble on as if these well-funded, suicidal hate machines don't exist, or can't hit us, we're going to wake up one morning to news that the tallest structure in New York is the subway.
If we wavered at news of 3,000 troops dead overseas, what will we do with news of 300,000 or 3 million dead in our own land. If we're willing to capitulate now, how will we handle their demands then?
Keep in mind, the first to fall under Sharia law will be the media. The radical Islamists have already demonstrated an ability to dominate the headlines through random acts of terror. What will they be able to accomplish when they control the media directly?
It will be too late to act when you go to your mailbox and find the Sports Illustrated Annual Burqa Edition. It will be too late when basic cable consists of Al Jazeera and the Fatwa Channel. It will be too late when butterfly ballots and Diebold machines are virtually error free because there are only two choices -- yes and no.
Perhaps you don't think this is possible ・that I'm just trying to scare you. That's because you took the Self-Esteem elective in high school instead of American history.
The only reason that English isn't your second language after German -- he only reason the Congress isn't called the Reichstag -- the only reason the president isn't called the Fuhrer (by sane people) -- is that the blood of more than one million Americans and the toil and sacrifice of millions more scrubbed the stain of Nazism from the face of the earth.
The men and women who remember what it took to accomplish that are in the winter of their years now, and so the task falls to a new generation of reluctant heroes. In their day, they heard the same excuses for not taking bold, overwhelming, decisive action. But they eventually ignored those voices and listened to a higher calling.
They gave, they fought, they suffered, they died. And because they did, we receive, we relax, we enjoy and we live. Those are good things・ut our comfort and plenty have also lead us to slumber.
Those of us with the luxury of remaining stateside in this conflict debate the war as if it were a purely philosophical question. Some folks are more concerned with appearances, tolerance and the civil rights of our enemies than with the future of freedom.
A lot of people say that our military policy has to take into account Iraqi cultural and religious sensitivities as well as tribal customs and loyalties.
If you blow up people with sophisticated remote-triggered roadside bombs, or send a young man strapped with explosives into a crowded market, you have cashed in your culture, your religion and your noble-savage tribal mystique. You're a bloodthirsty terrorist and I'm not going to waste a minute of the State Department's time trying to negotiate with you. Your file has been transferred to the Pentagon. Your days are numbered.
If you have legitimate grievances, take them to the legitimately-constituted courts or legislature.
You want to be taken seriously? Take off the rag mask, drop the AK-47, slip out of that fashionable explosive vest and start exercising some of that legendary Muslim wisdom or doing some of those charitable deeds for which your religion is so well-known.
So, here's our new strategy in plain terms:
Defeat the enemy.
Extinguish the flame of radical Islam.
Talk after victory.
Today, I'm warning the tyrant in Tehran that any weapons we find in Iraq stamped with his return address shall be returned upon his head a thousand fold.
I'm offering the people who live around Iran's nuclear facilities 36 hours to get out of town, because we're about to deliver a major setback to Ahmadinejad's peaceful energy research.
Finally, I'm inviting the president of Iran to fly to Washington D.C. where he'll be taken into custody, given a fair trial for his complicity in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, and then whisked away to comfortable quarters at one of our fine maximum security prisons.
This is certainly a more desirable fate than the one that awaits him when the people of Iran rise up and take back their country from this hairball in a leisure suit and his black-robed overlords.
Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops, and grant them victory.
(by Scott Ott)
I know you'll dodge this dinesh, but is Iraq more of a mess than the Civil War was in 1863? And who would you have blamed then?
And you know where you can put your snotty little personal comments.
43. my snotty comments? bill, you have selective reading issues. but, hey, thanks for not answering any of my questions (b/c you likely cannot).
"back to your pom poms and short skirts. band, cue up the music...."
That's the comment I was referring to.
Again, (and as usual), you dodge the difficult questions, dinesh.
My we sure have a lot of chest beating here.
If winning in Iraq is so vital to our national interest, why don't we raise taxes, enlarge the army by a draft or otherwise, and "win". We've been "fighting" this war with just about 150,000 soldiers on the ground. We can do better than that if the occupation of Iraq is as important as you all claim it is.
I just don't hear any calls from you super patriots for real sacrifice. Just a lot of "take the gloves off" and "kick some ass" venting.
46. chew2: We'll end up having to do that during Hillary's second term. And you'll move to Vancouver.
sorry, this isn't "your house and you don't control the dialogue. i note that you haven't answered a single question i put to you.
where do you stand on your support of bush's prosecution of this war?
has that changed? if so, when and why?
if not, why?
i don't know enough about civil war history to draw a comparison. i have lived through the last 4 years, and have a pretty decent recollection of all the excuses, rationales, reasons and corners turned.
the pom pom comment was simply meant to be a variation on chew2's comment at #46. beside the support for the president generalization, i don't see a lot of criticism being fired at the commander in chief. instead its blame the msm and the dems. sounds like scapegoating or cheerleading.
Are you volunteering for the mission, or are you another of those free lunch republican macho men.
What a lot of cheap false patriots.
"i don't know enough about civil war history to draw a comparison."
Why am I not surprised?
I think Democrats are also going to feel pressure sooner or later to define their position on Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel. Democrats and the left in general,(including their media), are tellingly silent.
When Israel defends itself the leftist media report it as a brutal unprovoked attack against civilians, as was done repeatedly when Hamas rained rockets down on Israel last year.
Why Jewish people continue to vote for the Democrats is beyond me.
For over a year now, we have heard about how horrible our president is handling the war. How the Dem's (if in power) would make it better, they had ideas and answers, just elect them in November 06, and they would prove they could do a better job. They promised everything from free health care to Immediate withdrawal from the war.
They have that power now. The people elected them, and they EXPECT the Dem's to live up to their promises.
You hear from the left that it is "bush's war". No it is america's war, and the dem's made the promise that they could do better, so they should step up and prove it. You don't let the sink ship just because there was a mutiny. So pony up Dem's, grab your gonads, and walk the walk, cause you have already Talked enough.
America is expecting it.
"You hear from the left that it is "bush's war". No it is america's war, and the dem's made the promise that they could do better.."
Nope. It's Bush's war. It was his idea from the beginning. He pushed it. That's what the vast majority of American's believe, and they would be correct. No amount of attempted blame shifting is going to get the Republicans out from that.
In case you haven't noticed the Dems have been very careful not to claim that they have the answer. As someone once said, when the captain has steered the ship off a cliff, there are very few good options.
The "answer' has always been far more troops. How come the republican true believers have always shrunk from demanding that? Too busy wallowing in their free lunch tax cuts?
54. There is absolutely nothing that President Bush can say or do without extreme criticism from Democrats. If anyone can remember a compliment by the left of President Bush, please post it.
Nope, It is not Bush's war. Like it or not, it is America's war. Bush happened to be the President and made a bad judgment. Congress could have voted whether or not to declare war, but for some reason they chose not to/they helped facilitate it in the first place. Now the Democrats want to have a do-over vote - that is disingenuous and bogus. Why don't they be humble and honest and admit how they voted and say they were duped ? because they were and I also was. We are in this quagmire and the opposition to the war (both parties) and the mainstream media needs to stop helping the enemy by saying we are losing the war, while we are still fighting there.
With that said, it is absolutely correct that Bush's plan be scrutinized and adjusted if deemed necessary by Congress. Unfortunately, congress will probably not be able stop this plan from going forward. However, Bush had better work with Congress to ensure its success. Now, I know there are a number of Democrats who don't care about success there - they just want to leave. We opened up the can of worms when we went over there and if we go forward with this plan and it falls short - it will be because the Iraq government did not really want to win it for them and it will be time to strongly consider redeploying.
You can go ahead and call Bush and his past advisors "Chicken Hawks" if that makes you all feel better, which is legitimate.
Consider though that life could get much more difficult both economically and politically in the USA and the world if we leave and within two years and Iran swoops in and fills that void, just as North Vietnam did with South Vietnam. The reactionary left ought to be more careful what they wish for. They also want to change the country, but I loathe the kind of country they want to change it into, which would be far worse than what we have now.
#53 - Iraq is no more Bush's war than WWII was Churchill's or Stalin's war. Iraq may not have lead the attacks of 9/11, but credible evidence has been and continues to circulate that they were supportive of Al Queda.
In addition to those connections there's still the known plot to kill former President Bush and the continuing refusal of Saddam's regime to honor its obligations from the Gulf War truce.
The left's illusion that this was a war of choice is pure fantasy. We had to show the Muslim world that attacking the US could not be done with impunity. Iraq's complicity as above made them the obvious fixed target in a war against mostly moving ones.
The only choice involved was in making the battle in Iraq rather than America. If that makes the Iraq War a war of choice then I for one choose to agree with Bush.
The conduct of the war, especially since the Iraqi elections, is another thing entirely. I for one would rather we doubled our presence for the next year and then turn the show over to Maliki or whoever supercedes him when the dust settles.
"We had to show the Muslim world that attacking the US could not be done with impunity. Iraq's complicity as above made them the obvious fixed target in a war against mostly moving ones."
A point the left ignores entirely in their undisguised zeal to use the war as a way to "get even" with Bush for having the audacity to be elected President.
The voting dems of this country deserve answers and action, since those elected recieved the votes.
No amount of Blame is going to solve this. The big picture is the goal, not the bickering/blaming of the current admin. The voters have spoken.
Get to work Majority Party. Show us what you can do.
You have options that could start immediately. Start the impeachment process and pull the money plug on the war. Do you got the votes and the gonads to do this? During the campaign you said you did.
Chew 2: I volunteered in 1967, and served in the infantry in Vietnam. I believe I've earned the right to comment on this topic.
Don't mock my patriotism and I won't mock yours.
"Don't mock my patriotism and I won't mock yours."
I won't mock your patriotism if you'll lay off the "moving to Canada" BS. Were you calling me unpatriotic or a coward?
But I am calling out you guys who hyperventilate about how our very national survival is at stake in Iraq from the worldwide "islamo-facist" conspiracy. If you really believe that, then step up to the plate and call for some real national sacrifice - send a whole lot more troops to Iraq, increase the size of the army and raise taxes to pay for it. None of this cheap nuke Iran BS.
You don't think we are in danger from "islamo-fasists",(your term, not mine)?
If that's the case, what makes you think so?
It's a threat, but not a threat to our national survival. And not a fight to the death, where we have to obliterate and subjugate all the Islamic extremists who don't like us. Something we have to deal with.
But if you think it's a fight to the death, then I'm waiting for you to volunteer and send your kids also to fight the good fight in Iraq and Iran, and raise taxes to pay for it. No more free lunch hyperventilating.
"But if you think it's a fight to the death, then I'm waiting for you to volunteer and send your kids also to fight the good fight in Iraq and Iran, and raise taxes to pay for it. No more free lunch hyperventilating."
I've never suggested any such thing in this thread, or anywhere else.
This is the latest lefty game...let's re-establish the draft,(proposed by Charles Rangel, D-NY)...why doesn't Bush send his daughters to fight in Iraq? Condee Rice isn't paying a "personal price" because she doesn't have children,(incredible comment by Barbara Boxer, D-CA yesterday) etc., etc.
The left wants to re-live Vietnam, which is why Teddy referred to Iraq as "Bush's Vietnam" just the other day. With the willing left wing press's assistance 60% of Americans believe we are in a "quagmire" - a word heard endlessly during the Vietnam era.
The left doesn't have the courage to admit that they wanted us to lose in Iraq from day one. Every speech by a Democrat, every newspaper article, every news broadcast by the leftist mainstream media is designed to make sure the Bush Administration will suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq by manipulating public opinion. If you don't believe me show me a positive broadcast or article anywhere about the Iraq War from the mainstream media.
It's really about politics and power, not right and wrong isn't it "chew2"?
Answer the question. Are all these Islamic militants that you are hyperventilating about a threat to our national survival. Do we have to exterminate them and the nations they live in?
If so, no free lunch for you.
Put up or shut up.
America is it's own threat to it "national survival". This continued bickering between the parties is destroying this country.
The Dems have the power to Impeach and Pull the money plug on the war.
The democrats need to Put up or Shut Up.
They touted these ideas over and over, so lets see some action.
Iraq was a misguided war and unecessary for our national interest.
But it was just an adventure. No threat to our national survival. It may have been dishonest and a moral travesty, but at worst a 1000 more soldiers will have to die for Bush's folly before we leave.. The dems don't have to do anything.
If that is your opinion, why are you bitching then. Let the chips fall where they may, and I hope for your sake, that you are not in the path of the next Jetliner that is highjacked by a terrorist.
Good luck, but don't fly, or walk near tall buildings......
one more thing.... You said "The dems don't have to do anything.
Posted by chew2 at January 13, 2007 09:30 PM
Your right, I wouldn't count on it either.
Hey Chew2, chew on this: Just in case you forgot, those prissy little militants killed 3000 of our citizens on our own turf. Seems to me all the infantile hyperventilating is in your house buddy (or buddiette as the case may be). The Looney Left bears the responsibility for the length of this battle within the war against extremist Islam. From day-one the cries of "quagmire", "Vietnam", "Bush's Vietnam", "losing the war" and every other defeatist sound bite that could be invented was blasted over the world-wide air waves with the help of a compliant media. How stupid are you people? Who do you think heard all of that crap? The enemy is tapped into the same media as we are. When Osama and his buddies are quoting Ted Kennedy's "quagmire" speeches 48 hours after he makes them, you'd think that the murderous drunken fat ass who is the leading light of the Democrat party could shut up. Guess not. But it's not his fault, he can't stay sober long enough to watch the evening news to get a clue. In fact his Congressional buddies, emboldened, joined in! Man, I never realized that sedition was a contagion. The way I see it, the blood of thousands of our men are on THIER hands (and by extension you
) because their sedition extended this battle far, far beyond it's logical conclusion. You gave the enemy hope, every day on the national news. But that is what you guys wanted. That's what you have worked for. Make the war GO bad (as best you can . . . it's tough work), show that war IS bad and that Bush IS bad. Congratulations, you manufactured the trifecta. And all because you lost a f*cking election. What infantile children.
Those poor misunderstood militants may not be busting down the door yet
but if we follow your lead, they'll be here at some space in time. Sooner rather than later I suspect. What you liberals don't seem to grasp is that when they take control, you (and those that believe like you) will be the first to go. Abort a baby? You die. (hey no big, the trial is quick with a bullet to the temple). Gay? Nothing that a little stoning to death won't cure. Public displays of affection? You get the dark squat-box for a few months. Sex outside marriage? You're safe on that, she dies buried in a hole up to her neck stoned to death (and not the pot kind) - you get a pass. There's more, but you get the idea. Right? As far as Islamic extremists care Disneyland is the devil's place and San Francisco . . . brûlez-le vers le bas (as the Muslims, STILL rioting in France, would say).
There is only one motivating force for these folks. They want the west gone. Not "gone" like in "out of Andalusia" but "gone" like "no more" as in "dead" like "all dead". They have said it (more than a few hundred times), they've killed thousands to prove it and, you know, I'm kinda inclined to believe them at this point. Why not you? At this time, our forces are big enough in number to take care of it. They are strong, motivated and smart (in spite of what Dingle says). If you guys could at least get on board enough to shut-up, that would help a lot. You don't have to do anything spectacular or illegal. Just shut-up and let the adults take care of it.
But that is to much to ask apparently.
Hey Chew2 I forgot to ask.
How's that impeachment going?
"Just in case you forgot, those prissy little militants killed 3000 of our citizens on our own turf."
3000 dead Americans is nothing. America should be strong enough to sustain 30 9-11's. So why are the rightwingers so fearful of a small bunch of Islamic terrorists whose main weapon are truck bombs.
Why so fearful?
I'm for vengeance. Hunt down Osama and kill him and some of his buddies. He did us wrong. But we don't have to occupy Islamic lands and threaten them. Islamic people may hate and dislike us because we are killing their people and threatening to invade their nations, but they have not attacked us. Only Osama and his merry band.
3000 dead Americans is nothing.
Posted by chew2 at January 13, 2007 10:16 PM
You pathetic two faced b*stard. You post on here that we have lost american lives to Bush's failed plan, and turn around and make a comment like that.
You should move to Canada, before you speak in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Every life lost here or there matters. Maybe you should look up Bin Laden, and see if you could buddy up with him, and join his merry band....
#67 - "If that is your opinion, why are you bitching then. Let the chips fall where they may, and I hope for your sake, that you are not in the path of the next Jetliner that is highjacked by a terrorist."
But one of the problems is of this continued was is that it is creating more insurgents, terrorists and problems than we faced 3 years ago. And we are expecting different results from the same formula.
BTW, What our nation would be like without the Civil War, if the North and South were not united? We would lose a bunch of red states, 4 of the top 10 states which receive more federal spending than they give. We'll also lose some of the least educated, most divorce happy states.
I don't know, I wouldn't mind losing Disney World and Dollyworld.
Chew2 @ 71:
#1. If three thousand dead civilians is nothing than why all hubub about 3000 dead G.I.s? A least they signed up for it.#2. They didn't drive Toyota Hilux's into the twin towers you boob.
The Islamasits were killing westerners long before we "invaded" Iraq or Iran. They dislike us, like in "our culture", like in "who we are". Also, the U.N. passed a passel of resolutions to punish Iraq but I'm not going to get into that now. It should be common knowledge for anybody with half a brain cell.
Also, we are talking here Islamic extremists here. Don't try and infect me with your bigotry by insinuating that I'm talking about Islam in general. Although, until they condemn with certainty the acts of their brothers they are viewed by me with a jaundiced eye. The Iraqis in Everett are plugged into the program. They are good people.
Why so fearful? I'm not fearful. Wanting to protect yourself isn't fear. Just prudence. Do you fasten your seatbelt out of fear? I'll say this though, if they light off a dirty nuke in Elliot Bay, a few folks might be fearful. You might even be one of them.
Good night Chew. I'm going to bed. Punks like you make my a** ache.
redkittyred @ #73:
Are you familiar with term bigotry? I'm sure you do, it's a liberal staple for party conversation when the word "conservative" comes up.
Well, you seem to have cornered the market on it pal. Those Americans are just having to much fun at amusement parks. How plebian! How dare they! What an elitist bung hole you are. How about all those "uneducated" (I know, you were just showing your magnificence . . .they really are just "stupid") people? How can they be happy without the ability to engage in the snappy socialist repartee that moves you so? What a organe mol de sexe you are.
You naive leftists are all the same. Done nothing, condemn it all . . . because my professor said so. What small little minds.
If Iraq is so important to our national security, why aren't you demanding far more troops to fight the battle, a larger army, and raising taxes to pay for it?
Bush and the republicans were responsible for starting this war and managing this war up to now. TBush will be in charge for another two years. They've never put in enough troops, because they were looking for a free lunch. Sounds like you are too. Meanwhile, we've had to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Al Qaeda and risk losing both wars. Not enough troops.
77. The pressure is now on the left. Do they want us to win the war, or not? I believe they want us to lose.
oh dear, I thought you were already familiar with the statistics. What you're taking as bigotry is actually a reference to mundane facts. You're rewording my statement, "least-educated".
I'll also add the link to divorce rates here
So as far as bigotry and name calling go, ummm.... I'll just refer to your response for that.
FYI, I have nothing against Dollyworld and Disney World (they're actually the better parts), just that I'd be willing to give them up if we lost the south.
79. By the way, "chew2" please provide evidence we've "had to withdraw troops from Afghanistan".
80. Hmmm, those states listed as "least educated" must be getting smarter. They don't vote for the Democrats the way they used to.
and converseley, of the two "red" states that were in the top 10 most educated list, they're now "blue".
Oh my! Take a look at the racial makeup of those southern states you'd not mind losing :
If I was on the left I do believe I would play the race card here.
Posted by redkittyred at January 14, 2007 12:33 PM
Curios to your lil diagram there. Is that you (the dot) stuck between two large mountains? Not getting any real information from the real world?
Nice map. However, your point? Please state your argument so I can respond. When responding, I will try to form it as a question with a phrase such as "What is..." or "Who is..."
But getting back to what I think you're trying to say, the relationship of the rates of education more closely follows income levels rather than that of race. Meaning that there are people of Germanic descent in both highly educated and poorly educated states.
But thanks for bringing up race. We should explore all factors when looking at any statistics.
perhaps. I've been watching too much anime lately. ^_^
BTW, nice name, Chris. I like to use it when I visit the real world too sometimes.
I'm not making an argument "redkittyred" I'm making an observation.
You were making comments, (and using left wing articles to support your points), about the education, and divorce rates in southern states.
Given the ethnic makeup of those areas I think you could just as well point to the failure of leftist social programs, rather than "evangelicals" or "born again" Christians.
You've been dodging taking any stand at all. Do you support Bush's tepid plan for "victory" in Iraq, that nobody really expects to succeed? Or are you for really increasing the number of troops in Iraq so we can "win", increasing the size of the army, and increasing taxes to pay for it?
Are you a free lunch rightwinger or a rightwinger who is willing to support sacrifice to succeed?
As for losing in Afghanistan:
" Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.
According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar."
"Despite the presence of about 30,000 NATO troops - roughly 10 percent short of what its member nations had pledged to provide - Taliban attacks on U.S., allied and Afghan forces more than tripled in the past year, from 1,632 in 2005 to 5,388 in 2006, according to U.S. military intelligence officials."
" "It is bleak," said Col. Chris Haas, commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan.
"The gains we have made over the past few years are mostly gone," said a bearded Special Operations officer, fresh in from advising Afghan army units in battle with 600 to 700 well-equipped Taliban fighters.
Conway said U.S. commanders understand that the Afghan war is an "economy of force" operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq."
Not enough troops.
Just as I thought, "chew", you lied when you said that we have withdrawn troops from Afghanistan for use in Iraq.
I wonder how many other fabrications you believe?
From yesterday:http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?165884 "However, the chair of the U.S. joint chiefs staff said Friday there`s no plan to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan.
U.S. General Peter Pace, speaking at the Senate armed services committee, said the units going into Iraq "were already in the pipeline and they will be moved forward in the pipeline in a couple of months." He said there are about 22,500 troops in Afghanistan right now and that won`t change, adding: "We will be able to maintain that."
Gen. Pace also testified that if it`s necessary, the U.S. military could draw from the National Guard and reserves to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Those are the facts, not made up left wing garbage.
89. In order to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s message of peace and equality we should call our represetnatives to let them know that we could like to see the 2000 Millenium Goals met which includes combatting global poverty. According to the Borgen Project, only $19 billion is needed to feed the poor of the world for this year.
You still haven't answered the main issue on the table. Do you support Bush's policy or don't you? Or are you just taking potshots at random lefty targets, while dodging the main question.
As to Peter Pace. Is that the same Peter Pace who has been continually claiming that things are going fine in Iraq and we didn't need any more troops? He will say whatever Bush wants him to say. I don't believe a word he says. Meanwhile Afghanistan is going the way of Iraq, the Taliban attacks have tripled and we haven't killed Osama. I'm sure Pace will claim we have enough troops there also, and that the needed US battalion was due to be rotated home anyway. He's wrong, but free lunch Republicans like yourself can believe him if you must.
BTW my claim is that Iraq has been diverting resources from Afghanistan since the beginning, not just this latest surge. Stories like this:
"In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures." USA Today.
We are now seeing the fruits of that, the Taliban resurgence.
So Bill, do you support Bush's plan or don't you? Do you think we have enough troops to win in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Borgen claims on his website that "$12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth"
We spent $324 billion in the US alone in 1999-2000. http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/doe_education_spending.shtml
I smell a rat.
"U.S. General Peter Pac... said the units going into Iraq "were already in the pipeline and they will be moved forward in the pipeline in a couple of months."
"Already in the pipeline".
There has been "no change in course", no real "surge", just more of the same.
Any increase in troops can only be temporary since they will have to be rotated out to rest and refit. The only way they can stay is if we enlarge the size of the army, and/or call up more of the national guard. Even those who are for the surge say it has to be for an extended period of time. So are you rightwingers for enlarging the army and calling up more of the national guard?
"chew2" at #90. Yes I support Bush's plan. No I don't know if we have enough troops. Neither do you.
And you should apologize for lying.
Lying? The only lying going on here is by Bush! "Change of course?" no just more of the same.
"Lying? The only lying going on here is by Bush! "Change of course?" no just more of the same."
And you prove my point at #63 again. It's all about Bush.
The point of this long thread, which you avoid because it makes you uncomfortable, is what are the Democrats going to do?
Bill @ #93
p.s. I'll put you down as a free lunch no sacrifice republican then.
97. And inevitably when discussing issues with the left...the name calling.
99. juandos - your first link is priceless and should be required reading for everyone that still doesn't believe public schools have been turned into leftist indoctrination factories.
"And inevitably when discussing issues with the left...the name calling."
Weren't you the one calling folks "lyers"?
"It's all about Bush."
Of course it is. This is/was Bush's misguided war, in which he promised "victory" with no sacrifice. And you free lunch republicans have been cheering him on, and feeding at the free lunch trough. Now the chickens have come home to roost, because victory is no where in sight. The country has gotten tired. But you free lunch boys have never stood up to the plate, to tell the country we have to sacrifice if we want to "win".
I've said in this thread, and in the thread below, that the democrats don't have to do much of anything. Bush has never leveled with the American people that his course of war would involve sacrifice if we were to achieve his arrogant goal of remaking Iraq and the middle east. The dems sure as hell are not going to tell that unpleasant truth, especially since many of them don't support that goal. In two years somebody will have to chart a new course. Meanwhile we will have to muddle and bleed through another two years and more. What are you proposing to do about it? You're just for staying the course with Bush's fake "surge". Another truth dodger.
Let's be clear here "chew2". I said that you lied when you said,
"Meanwhile, we've had to withdraw troops from Afghanistan",(direct quote from #74). You were unable to refute that despite your feeble 2002 USA Today citation, which is irrevelant.
I didn't call anyone "lyers" I can spell better than that, (at least most of the time).
You are the one name calling, "free lunch no sacrifice republican"
It's so typical.
102. I'm wrong! the direct quote is from #76. The point remains the same.
103. chew2 - You have failed to answer before, but will ask again, what is your solution and what about Iran ? IF you don't answer this time, we will all know that you are blowing smoke. On the other hand, I will give you credit for your honesty if you do.
ooooh. can I jump in here? Regarding the name calling, G Jiggy responded to me (post #75) with this, "How plebian! How dare they! What an elitist bung hole you are."
Name-calling seems to be exclusive to neither leftist nor right-ist groups.
Anyway, the word "surge" is an unfortunate term. And that if we are to send in more troops, it should be a significant amount, an additional 100,000 at the very least. If this is a matter of "national survival" then it should be taken with more urgency and commitment than 20,000 troops for several months. In addition to troop levels, let's treat this war like a war in America and have a coordinated visible national effort to make sure each soldier has all the armor and weapons they need.
And, if we aren't willing to help them than with a paltry 20,000 "surge", then perhaps, we should reconsider our commitment.
There was a recent article from Washington Post (1/12/07?) of a troop account which can best illustrate some of the difficulties our soldiers still face. There are deeper problems and a need for better solutions than just a "surge" can answer. Please read, it's a long-ish but well told tale. The comments are also a good read.
105. correction, original name calling reference post is #97
"There are deeper problems and a need for better solutions than just a "surge" can answer."
I think the President addressed those problems in his speech last week.
The media and the left,(which are the same thing), as I have said before want Bush to fail. Immediately they began calling increased troops a "surge", or as you put it, "just a surge", as if there is no plan in place.
The Washington Post article you referred to only bolsters my point. Here's an article headlined:"U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy". Day after day, week after week these are the kinds of articles the media puts out. You are never going to see a positive article published or reported, and it's deliberate.
"You have failed to answer before, but will ask again, what is your solution and what about Iran ? IF you don't answer this time, we will all know that you are blowing smoke. On the other hand.."
You haven't proposed any solutions either. I don't think you have even signed on to Bush's stay the course fake "surge".
I've said in the thread below that we either escalate in large and sustained way, or we prepare to get out and cut our losses. You didn't say anything in response.
The "victory" that Bush sought required more resources and sacrifice than the American people seem prepared to pay. Not one of you republicans dared to say on this thread that you'd be prepared to raise taxes and sacrifice to "win" in Iraq. Given that, prospects for a sustained escalation are just not politically realistic. How we get out without leaving bloody chaos I'm not sure, but that should be our goal. We owe that to the poor Iraqi people who have been dieing in the thousands partly because we never provided security in the first place. This may take a number of years. We may need to leave some forces in the region to prevent a regional war, and to strike and disrupt Al Qaeda forces hiding there, if the local Sunni sheiks don't finally kick them out. And we should send more forces to secure Afghanistan where we still have a chance of succeeding, not to mention pursuing Osama.
As to Iran. That's a whole different subject. We can leave Iraq and that will not change our Iran problem. We have already killed Sadaam the greatest counterbalance to Iran that existed in the region. Whatever happens in Iraq, the Shia government will want friendly relations with Iran. We can't do anything about that regardless of what puppet we tried to put in place in Iraq.
Iran is 5 to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon if they are really serious. There's lots of time for diplomacy or war. I'm not scared of Iran. They are not stupid and we are the most powerful military power in the world and can destroy them anytime we choose. But if you are afraid, then you have to think how you will stop them militarily. Remember just bombing will at most delay them a year or two if they really want such a weapon, and will precipitate a wider war in any case. So again we need a much bigger army if we are going to occupy Iran, and we will have to be prepared for guerilla war throughout the region, not just in Iran. I'm not in favor of starting that war.
Trying reading this if you are afraid.
"Iran isn't the big, bad nuclear wolf it pretends to be"
"We have already killed Sadaam the greatest counterbalance to Iran that existed in the region."
Every once in a while you get a moment of clarity.
Free lunch republicanism at it's finest.
" LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said -- and you've said it many times -- as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?....
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war."
Bush goes on to say giving up his tax cuts would be too big a sacrifice. Any you wonder why I call you chest thumping republican warriors - "free lunch chicken littles".
Bleed on. Bleed on. To your next electoral defeat in 2008.
"Bleed on. Bleed on. To your next electoral defeat in 2008"
It's all about politics.
"It's all about politics."
That's all you've talked about is politics Bill. You are a coward. You refused to take any position on Bush's fake surge, until I brow beat you into it, and you've never discussed the substance of his Iraq policy or our true national interest. Plus this thread was all about politics, what were the democrats supposed to do under all that "pressure".
Always, always, always, the name calling.
Oh poor poor Bill,
He won't discuss the substantive issues of Iraq so all he can do is make excuses. He won't defend any intellectual position at all on the Iraq war, so all he can do is call someone a "lyer" then claim they are name calling. LOL!
"claim" they are name calling?
You called me a coward. Pretty tough talk from someone who chooses to hide behind an anonymous handle and what I imagine is a phony e-mail address.
I use my own name and have for years whether writing letters, or making commentary.
Let's see if you have the guts to do the same.
Bill you are an intellectual coward. You refuse to address the issues, then accuse others of name calling, or "politics" when your total argument is about politics, attacking the "lefties". You can't argue the true issues, so you engage in diversions like berating some guy for not answering your questions about Lincoln and the civil war.
You've never once attempted to rebut my claim= that you republicans are free lunch no sacrifice posers. You've never once explained what you stand for with regard to Iraq. You are a coward.
It's amazing. Way back at #93 I indicated that I support the Bush plan...at least so far.
" "chew2" at #90. Yes I support Bush's plan. No I don't know if we have enough troops. Neither do you."
You, on the other hand can't resist name calling and ugly playground baiting.
We just let you guys demonstrate what you really are...we don't have to make it up.
"It's amazing. Way back at #93 I indicated that I support the Bush plan...at least so far."
I had to browbeat you into even making that admission.
"You are a coward. You refused to take any position on Bush's fake surge, until I brow beat you into it, and you've never discussed the substance of his Iraq policy or our true national interest."
This is what you've said in this thread.
"bill: focus on the question i asked you. you guys are the ones dodging and weaving. why the misplaced trust in bush? he was wrong. you were wrong."
"I didn't indicate any support or non-support for the Bush policies now, or in the past."
Bill dodges taking a stand.
"57. "We had to show the Muslim world that attacking the US could not be done with impunity. Iraq's complicity as above made them the obvious fixed target in a war against mostly moving ones."
A point the left ignores entirely in their undisguised zeal to use the war as a way to "get even" with Bush for having the audacity to be elected President."
"63. "But if you think it's a fight to the death, then I'm waiting for you to volunteer and send your kids also to fight the good fight in Iraq and Iran, and raise taxes to pay for it. No more free lunch hyperventilating."
I've never suggested any such thing in this thread, or anywhere else."
Yet you claim to support Bush's policy. Why? You've never attempted to justify that. Or to rebut my claim that republicans have taken the free lunch approach to Iraq and the Islamic threat. Nothing but diversions and name calling from you.
"Nothing but diversions and name calling from you."
You won't be able to find any "name calling" from me. I challenge you to find one example.
But let me tell you something. I try to treat everyone with respect on this blog, or anywhere else I post. I try not to say anything that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying to a guy on the next barstool.
I don't like being called a coward, especially by someone who doesn't even have the courage to post his own name and e-mail address.
Try saying that to my face.
sigh, I don't base my opinions on just one or two articles, or listening to only people I want to hear. If so, I wouldn't have run across this site. Nor would I have stayed after a few hundred posts.
I have seen the positive reports in Iraq. I have also seen the negative. And in the words of my mother, "3 minutes of bad deeds can erase 3 years of good." Don't take it too literally and nit pick. It's a proverb.
And ah, the liberal media some might say? That same liberal media was egging us on for a war with Iraq just a few short years ago. I'd prefer to call it the sensationalist media. And I'd trust them with supplying all my information like I'd trust social security with my retirement.
The article is just one example of why I doubt the president's plan. (I figured you're the type of person who requires footnotes and references). I'm sure there are Sunni and Shia people who want to live together in harmony, like P.Bush said in his speech. But I also knew there were Irish and English people who wanted to live in harmony in the early 90's. That little religion-based dispute took a while to sort out, so it's not going to happen instantly. Suppose you secure Baghdad. Then what? What about the REST of the country? Logic tells me that if it requires 150,000 troops to secure Baghdad, we may need just a couple more for the rest of the country.
So in the end we will disagree. You seem to still believe in the President and that he can execute his plan successfully. I don't. That's all there is to it. It's not because he smells, or looks funny. It's because I've seen the broken promises, the shifted strategies. And frankly, I expect more honesty and transparency than I've seen on his resume so far.
In my book your calling someone a liar is name calling. But no big deal.
"I don't like being called a (intellectual) coward".
Well I and others (Dinesh) repeatedly asked you to explain and argue your position on Bush's Iraq policy and you continuously ducked the question. What do you call someone like that?
But if it will make you happy, I won't call you a coward if you won't call me a liar.
121. I said you lied when you said we "already" had pulled troops out of Afghanistan. That's a specific charge you can't refute and refuse to recant.
redkittyred @#119, "That same liberal media was egging us on for a war with Iraq just a few short years ago"
I think "egging us on" hardly describes the tepid support of the mainstream media had just prior to the war. Don't forget, the vast majority of Democrats in Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. As the Democrats go, so goes the media.
I suggest you read this rather lengthy piece regarding how the media has covered the war and manipulated public opinion.
This brings us full circle back to the original topic. The pressure is on the Democrats now.
Isn't it interesting "chew" that as you rant at me for not making a case for Bush's policy, and not answering questions from you and "dinesh" that my very first post and question at #26 was never answered. Who is doing the dodging?
Are you truly arguing for a massive escalation of the war when you spew your "put up or shut up" garbage? Or do you really want to pull out now?
The pressure is on the Democrats.
Bill at 123
"I said you lied when you said we "already" had pulled troops out of Afghanistan. That's a specific charge you can't refute and refuse to recant. "
Calling someone a liar because you dispute a factual statement is name calling, whether it was true or not. And it wasn't true. Folks disagree about the facts all the time. I quoted two news articles and you quoted another. You don't have to call someone a liar over that.
Based on your reasoning I'm fulling justified in calling you an "intellectual coward", because it's "true" you've been continually dodging taking a stand. But I'm not the one whining about "name calling", you are.
You're still a free lunch republican who can't or won't defend the Bush free lunch fake "surge" in Iraq.
Speaking of the politics of Bush's fake surge.
"Republicans will take their share of heat, especially in the near future, and on an ongoing basis if Bush's policy doesn't work. In the meantime, Democrats risk future trouble if they continue to play a fence-walking game of criticizing Administration policy..."
This is what conservative republican Bob Novak has to say in today's WP.
"This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week."
"One nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the president's speech that if at the end of the year U.S. troops are still in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."
"Republicans can only hope that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now."
So the car is hurtling off the cliff, and the republicans want the dems to take the steering wheel now. Sure.
Sigh. The President outlined in detail why he's increasing troop strength in Iraq in a speech last week. Perhaps you missed it. It's anyone's guess whether or not it will be successful. This is a war, it's not predictible. The left of course condemns the Bush plan before it's even been implemented. It's all about politics.
As for saying you lied. You did. That's a fact. A decent human being would have apologized.
"A decent human being would have apologized."
If you'll appologize for being an intellectual coward, I'll appologize for "lying".
Maybe you should apologize for your spelling.
By the way, aren't you the same person that used to post as "Robk1967"? Your style and attitude,(and maturity level), are amazingly similar.
ah, back to the big speech. It's like having an employee who spent more than originally proposed amount, overspent on contractors who are obscenely over-billing, asked for more money for the project, scaled down and changed the scope of the originally promised results, moved out the completion date and the job still isn't done, and then that same employee says "trust me, I know I messed up before but I can still make it work."
True, the final outcome is not predictable, but it's based more than anyone's guess. There's odds. There's history.
Personally, I would have fired Kevin Costner and tanked Waterworld.
130. "redkittyred" are you actually admitting that the private sector does a better job of controlling spending than the government?
"Maybe you should apologize for your spelling."
I'll throw that apology in for free, if you'll apologize for being an intellectual coward.
"This is a war, it's not predictible."
We are the most powerful nation on earth. Are you saying we couldn't win this war if we wanted to? Or are you just a free lunch republican willing to settle for defeat.
"It's anyone's guess whether or not it will be successful."
That's why the republicans have lost the support of the country. Americans aren't willing to pay the costs of your feeble "guesses" anymore.
If you are going to call names "chew2"("free lunch republican") then you ought to have the guts to use your real name and e-mail address.
I don't think you have the guts.
Now who is the "coward"?
Name calling has a price. Put up or shut up.
Name calling? It was a question this time, Bill.
So what's your answer? Are you a no sacrifice republican like Bush, or not? Oh wait, he said the American people have had to sacrifice because they have to watch the killing in Iraq on TV. Is that your idea of sacrifice, Bill? Explain to me why you are not a free lunch republican, Bill?
Are you just willing to settle for just an "unpredictable" who knows what chance at "victory". If that's all you can offer, you've lost the American public on that one.
135. Can't you read?