PeterDavid.net

Sorry, but most politicians won't risk having the label of "doesn't support the troops" hung on them this close to an election. I don't want our troops in Iraq either, but I think the Dems have successfully sent a message to the American people that says, "We tried. If you want change, you're going to have to make another one in 2008."

It's true that "doesn't support the troops" is a dangerous label, but I think the Democrats have missed at least two chances to do the right thing and look good too. When the first military spending bill was vetoed, they could have said "Look: We approved even higher funding than Mr. Bush requested. He vetoed it, so who is it that hates our beloved troops? We just want to bring the boys (and girls) home some day!" The other opportunity to look good is on the subject of not supporting the troops. "We love the troops. Really, we do! We love them so much we don't want to keep sacrificing them in a poorly conceived war in which they are getting blown to bits. It doesn't look all that much like love sending them into battle for a third tour. We'll love them just as much back home as Mr. Bush does in Iraq!"

And the Dems wonder why people call them weak...

And the best part is that they are STILL going to be labeled as against the troops... because it's the only card the Repubes have.

Here is why the Democrats will not say that it is Bush is the one putting the troops in harms way.

Kanye West

The right wing talking point defense will be “The Democrats are saying George Bush doesn’t care about our troops the same way Kanye West said George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” To quote PAD from a few years ago

“Reducto Ad Absurdum. Basically, you take a logical argument to an extreme conclusion that has little or nothing to do with the original proposition and then act as if it makes sense.”

It doesn’t matter if your statement is true if a nut job said some thing similar first. Most of us posting on this blog know the difference between the two situations and can see through the BS. The Problem is that it takes more than 15 seconds to explain it to some one who doesn’t. Thus the point is indefensible in the sound bite news that most people get.

In the 2004 election this was known as the Michael Moor defense. Any time a politician said something that Michael Moor had also said, the defense would be Michael Moor said that too. Implying that it must be untrue since Michael Moor is liar.

To give the Democrats the best spin on the matter, they are waiting for the September report by General Petraeus (sp?) on how well the surge is working.

And if you don't think Petraeus' report is already being written as we write this, you are naive. The fix is in.

Holy Smokes! This like the Star Wars Movies!! Next he's going to reform tthe government into the United Empire of America!!

I did not have high expectations for this congress and they are being met.

I think you could make the argument that while they lost the battle the Democrats could still win the war (in this case the war is just the 2008 election). They can say they tried to end the war and unless there is clearly seen improvement in the next year that may be enough. A more serious problem for them is how quickly they abandoned the "most ethical congress ever" vow and have behaved just as badly or worse than the previous Republican one.

It seems like both parties are willing to risk the loss of power as long as they get at least a few years of time at the money trough. As many have pointed out, it's just another case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Disappointing, though predictable.

Just because Bush is digging himself (and the nation, and the world) deeper and deeper into a hole it doesn't mean the Democrats will suddenly develop some guts.

It's worth saying, the spinelessness of the "liberal press" and the liberal politicians is also responsible for the damage the Republicans have wrecked this past decade.

I wonder if all this explains why in a reason poll Congress had as low satisfaction numbers as Bush's.

It just seems that the Democrats are managing to keep up their recent history of being able to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

Bobb(In Irving)

Yes, a phenomenal fold from the Dems, but the sad truth is a simple majority in both houses just isn't enough when they're up against an Executive branch with a readied veto pen and a character assassination team at the ready. They can't get enough bipartisan consensus to override the veto -- the administration is not hesitant about painting anyone who dares side against them on this or any other War on Terra issue as either not funding the troops or surrendering to Al-Qaida (as I believe McCain actually said).

That said, the Dems did manage a very quiet victory -- slipping through a minimum wage increase via the Iraq bill. But that's about as much as they can expect right now. Which won't be a comfort in another year and a thousand dead American troops. Of course, they won't be anyone the Republicans know.

Someone above hit the nail on the head. Politicians as a general rule no longer care about the 'Long View'. It's become a matter of the next election, the next funding cycle.

This approach is why the Dems won't ever really stand up to Bush (it might cost us the next election), it's also why we won't see meaninignful global warming reform (decisions will be unpopular and costly), ditto for soc sec reform, medicare reform, etc. When you are focused on the short term as a whole, issues need to become crises to be addressed and its usually too late.

PAD, when you say that "the will of the people" want us out of Iraq, I assume you make that statement based on majority opinion in current polls. Well, based on the polls in 2003, "the will of the people," including most of those in Congress, was that attacking Iraq was in our best interests.

Yeah, the original cited rationale for the attack may have turned out to be based on flawed intelligence, but as Colin Powell wisely and succinctly stated later regarding Iraq, "you break it, you own it."

Frankly, I do think most people want Iraq to be over. I know I do. But the fact is, I've yet to hear a non-biased, well-informed person give me a good reason (taking into account the best interests of our economy and national security) to drop everything and get out now.

And the whole "benchmarks" argument is flawed reasoning as well, in my opinion, because I don't think we can realistically force the Iraqis to move any faster than they already are. The fact is the Bush administration has been incessantly pressuring the Iraqis for progress for a couple of years now. Threatening now to pull out our troops if the Iraqis fail to meet certain benchmarks is a hollow threat, because if we suddenly did pull out, the likely resulting chaos would hurt us far more than it would hurt the already war-torn Iraq.

Finally, as I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the polls. I'm even less of a fan of politicians who base their every move on polls. I think polls are probably the most abused and manipulated form of opinion measurement that exists. And while, according to the polls, a "majority" may want us out of Iraq, exactly how well-informed is this majority? Is this the 60 percent of the people who can't find Iraq on a world map? Do those polled know the difference between a Shiite, Sunni or Kurd? Do they know which Muslim group Iran, al Qaeda, Syria or Saudi Arabia is allied with? Do they even care?

In short, is this majority knowledgeable of the situation, or are they just blindly following the politically-motivated urgings of their favorite political pundits?

From a national security standpoint, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam, and its region, had no critical strategic resources that our economy depended on. But if we screw up in Iraq, the resulting chaos and oil supply disruptions will very likely cripple not only our economy, but the economies of our allies as well.

Should we get out of Iraq? I think so. The multi-multi-billion-dollar question, however, is when? It sure isn't now, in my opinion.

And they've basically thrown away any future possibility that they'll be able to rein him in, because they've sent him a firm message: Hang tough and we'll cave.

The time to make the point, to hang tough, to get it done, was now. Not three months from now or six months from now.

Well, if they were going to cave like this, it actually would have been better if they'd just given him everything he wanted right away with no fuss. At least then it wouldn't have looked like they got beaten.

I imagine their political strategists thought they might score some points with the base for this show of defiance, but I think they completely miscalculated.

R. Maheras: Is this the 60 percent of the people who can't find Iraq on a world map?
Luigi Novi: Maybe. But even if a guy can't find Iraq ona world map, does that invalidate his desire for his 19-year old brother or son to come home in one piece? Or his right as an American to demand it?

R. Maheras: Is this the 60 percent of the people who can't find Iraq on a world map?

Right, like W could find Iraq on a map... or Washington D.C., or New York, or Texas, with out his handelers doing it for him.

"Finally, as I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the polls. I'm even less of a fan of politicians who base their every move on polls. I think polls are probably the most abused and manipulated form of opinion measurement that exists. And while, according to the polls, a "majority" may want us out of Iraq, exactly how well-informed is this majority? Is this the 60 percent of the people who can't find Iraq on a world map? Do those polled know the difference between a Shiite, Sunni or Kurd? Do they know which Muslim group Iran, al Qaeda, Syria or Saudi Arabia is allied with? Do they even care?"

It is true that according to the American democratic system the president can -- and in some cases should -- prefer to ignore to present public opinion if he feels it is wrong. The public has given him a mandate to make tat decision, and his mandate is not yet over. But many of the people sitting in congress were given a mandate to change policies in Iraq. So they cannot and should not ignore public opinion.

Hey Mr. David I agree with you on the fact that most of the Democrats seem to be very spineless since they didn't stand up to the president but a few of them did in the Senate and a lot did in the House. Personally I am proud of Sen. Obama who is my guy in the Senate. Anyway love X-Factor and I just got all of the back issues and am catching up. Keep writing all the great books.
Sincerely,
Steven Spagnolo

Micha wrote: "It is true that according to the American democratic system the president can -- and in some cases should -- prefer to ignore to present public opinion if he feels it is wrong. The public has given him a mandate to make tat decision, and his mandate is not yet over. But many of the people sitting in congress were given a mandate to change policies in Iraq. So they cannot and should not ignore public opinion."

That's very true. And I really can't begrudge a politician who is torn between listening to his constituents and doing what he/she thinks is right, based on classified or other inside information only he/she and other select leaders in Washington are privy to. However, I also realize there are a number of politicians who don't really do a lot of research or thinking about particular issues, and they only react to public opinion polls.

Remember the Republican politician from Georgia who was co-sponsor of a bill allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted in the Senate and House, and when he was asked to list the Ten Commandments, he could only name three? That's fighting for something just to appease one's constituents.

Now, in the case of Iraq, there is no easy out or quick fix that I can see -- if there was, someone would have laid it all out by now. So the solution will be a tough one, and until someone comes up with a better way of resolving the conflict (and benchmarks ain't it), I think we should let the new U.S. Secretary of Defense and in military leadership in Iraq work the problem with the President, State Dept., etc. If they fail, then the new presidential administration elected in 2008 can tackle the problem.

Hows about the Dems give Shrubby a war spending bill without a timetable, but that includes rolling back the tax breaks to his ultra rich friends? Gotta pay for this clusterf*&k somehow.

Problem is, nobody seems to want to acknowledge the simple fact that there may not be a solution to the "Iraq Problem."

Bush and his fellow meatheads want to present it as some sort of sporting event, where it's noble and good to never admit defeat. Problem is, it's not a game, and no matter how we stand "score"-wise, the cost is still American and Iraqi lives.

In reality, it's much more like a surgery, and while we did manage to remove the malignant growth (Saddam) the "patient" now has a massive infection and internal bleeding, partially because of the "patient's" poor health before surgery, and partially because of the ineptitude of the "surgeon."

Iraq may manage to heal on its own, or it may not, but it almost certainly won't if we keep mucking around with it.

-Rex Hondo-

I hate to say this, but their folding may have been the right thing to do. Bush had his people lining up some plans to implement if the funding didn't come through that would have made the danger faced by the troops in Iraq even greater. It looked like, from what they were saying, that Bush would have just kept chugging along with keeping the troops in Iraq while their funding dried up around them.

Do any of you really believe that Bush would have thrown in the towel and pulled everybody home if he didn't have a bill that he would sign three months, six months or nine months down the road. Do you really believe that he would see any fault in the situation as his or do anything other then blame the Democrats for what would be happening as he kept the troops in Iraq until he got his bill?

Bush is either too stupid or too stubborn to change his course of action. All he ever does is do the same thing and call it a new strategy. I honestly don't think that he would have pulled so much as one soldier from Iraq until the point of no return was far, far behind him. And he might not have done so even then. Bush would have come up with some way to stay his course, the troops would be in even greater peril and Bush and his media voices would use a few troops as props here and there while blaming the Democrats for every soldier who died over a "funding" issue.

The Dems were too damned stupid to know how to work the funding issue in their favor. How badly do you think they would have been massacred over troop deaths blamed on inadequate funding? No, they should have engineered a stand on timetables in another way and over something other then a funding bill where Bush basically held all the cards.

I cynically look at it like this: The Dems are afraid that if they force Bush to pull the troops out and there is another terrorist attack on the US between now and the 2008 elections people will (right or wrong) turn around and say "Wow, Bush was right. We should have left our troops in Iraq." Bush becomes the 'right-all-along' hero and the Dems loose all chances for a victory in '08.
Far better to let Bush just continue to fight his unpopular war for the next year and a half and let his and the Repubs popularity slowly bleed away. Forget things like values, princables, and the loss of life on both sides----It's just good politics.

"PAD, when you say that "the will of the people" want us out of Iraq, I assume you make that statement based on majority opinion in current polls."

You assume incorrectly. I'm referring to the vote a year ago that put the Democrats into power with many voters citing the Iraqi war as the tipping point in their decision. I firmly believe the voters put the Democrats in charge to send a message to Bush: We've had it with this idiot war. And now the Democrats have turned around and sent a message to Bush as well: Do what you want, we can't/won't stop you.

PAD

While I think you can make a good argument that the majority do indeed want the war to end--although possibly not the exact same way that Murtha or Pelosi want--it's a little harder to argue that the voters voted to put the Democrats in charge. There was no such vote on the ballot. We vote for individual senators and congressmen--the results of that vote may well determine which party takes charge but that is not at all clear at the time of the vote.

When I vote I try to vote for the better of the two candidates. How that might impact the makeup of the senate or house plays no role, especially since there seems to be not a hell of a lot of difference in how things are run.

Or to put it another way--I recall many Democratic voters being angry when Republican victories were spun as some kind of mandate to do with as they wished. If thinking that way was wrong then why isn't it wrong now?

I absolutely hate this. We might as well refer to the current crop of Dems in Congress as the "Washington Generals" since they're only putting up token resistance and finally throwing the game.

Maybe that's not entirely fair. There are some Democrats like Feingold, Obey and Kucinich who are just as frustrated as we are about how their colleagues have folded, or who at least do a convincing job of acting like they are. If they had their way, the Dems would've stood firm. But there aren't enough people like that in Congress. So as for the rest...thanks guys. Thanks for letting us down. Thanks for not even fucking TRYING.

Posted by R. maheras at May 27, 2007 08:24 PM

But the fact is, I've yet to hear a non-biased, well-informed person give me a good reason (taking into account the best interests of our economy and national security) to drop everything and get out now.

If your criteria for "non-biased" is finding somebody without any opinion on this, good luck. Perhaps you'll think I'm biased here, but I'll give you what I feel is a good reason anyway: nothing is being accomplished. Nothing has been accomplished in four years. It's chaos. More Iraqi civilians and American troops have died per year as a result of the fallout from the invasion than died under Saddam.

If the surge is supposed to solve everything, then why the hell did Bush not send additional troops over there in 2004, 2005 or 2006? My suspicion is that the surge will not succeed in securing Iraq, because if that was the answer they would have done it much sooner. It's just a stalling tactic, so Bush and his monkeys can say "Hey, wait six months or more and give this a chance. Don't be pussies."

The only thing that I can possibly think of that one could point to as U.S. troops really doing good in Iraq is the recent story of how they rescued a few dozen captured civilians. Beyond that, what have they been doing except trying to fight an unseen enemy that whittles down their numbers week by week? What have they accomplished? What is gained by their continued presence there?

...if we suddenly did pull out, the likely resulting chaos would hurt us far more than it would hurt the already war-torn Iraq.

No, Iraq would hurt worse. I fail to see how a departure of U.S. forces would cause life here to be as horrible as life in Iraq. Even if your predictions about the economy are true, what happens to the economy should not be the sole factor one considers in making this decision. In fact, if U.S. foreign policy were to be dictated purely by the question "how much money will we have after we do this?"...well, I'll leave that thought unfinished.

The very fact that we're worrying about what happens to the price of gas is a great reason to start throwing everything we've got into the process of coming up with an alternative to fossil fuels.

"It is true that according to the American democratic system the president can -- and in some cases should -- prefer to ignore to present public opinion if he feels it is wrong. The public has given him a mandate to make tat decision, and his mandate is not yet over. But many of the people sitting in congress were given a mandate to change policies in Iraq. So they cannot and should not ignore public opinion."

This quote reminded me of another Republican President who made a few decisions including one about a draft that caused something of a riot. Not all folks in the U.S.A. agreed with his decision to go to war, and were worried about the casualty count. Of course over the years he was vindicated and even made a famous address after a number of soldiers died. He freed a lot of people but soon he died young. And while the Iraq war is in no way on the scale of Lincoln's Civil War, Bush still has freed a number of Iraq's civilians who were oppressed, murdered, and even raped by Saddam, we do not know right now how history will view this action. And as for the Vietnam situation, in the 70's when I was in High School the city I lived in became the new home for the refugees. I became friends with many young Vietnamese who lost most of their families, (One girl I dated had lost over 20 aunts, uncles, cousins, and siblings to the Vietcong. So maybe I've come to look at the whole Iraq thing from a different perspective. I also see a bit of a corollary with my family members who were gassed and murdered by the Nazi party, and those Kurd's gassed, and murdered by Saddam, & the Bath (SP?) party.

And I also wonder what would happen if all those calling for us to intervene in Darfur would feel the same if United States troops started to die there in numbers as well?

Of course your mileage may vary.

Bobb (In Irving)

Would it be appropriate to have the Democratic leadership hung, drawn and quartered for treason?

Because that's how the public should view this: treason on the part of the Democrats.

They can join the rest of the Bush Administration once the gallows are built.

Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 28, 2007 11:24 AM
He freed a lot of people but soon he died young. And while the Iraq war is in no way on the scale of Lincoln's Civil War, Bush still has freed a number of Iraq's civilians who were oppressed, murdered, and even raped by Saddam, we do not know right now how history will view this action.

It's a question of numbers, Bobb. How many people was Hussein's regime torturing, murdering and raping per year? Compare that to the number of people tortured, killed or raped per year since the invasion. Has the number gone up, or has it gone down?

Do you consider Al-Sadr a nicer guy than Saddam?

And I also wonder what would happen if all those calling for us to intervene in Darfur would feel the same if United States troops started to die there in numbers as well?

If we intervened in Darfur and tried to stop the bloodshed there...and if we had been at it for four years without making any real headway, and the bloodshed was continuing except now it was also our troops getting killed...then yes, I'm sure people would feel the same. Likewise, if the Union had not been able to make a dent in the Conferacy during the Civil War, and if the Allies had been routed at Normandy and Nazi Germany turned out to be an unbeatable juggernaut, they would have stopped trying to invade their enemies' territory, because it just wouldn't work! Obviously they would keep on fighting to make sure those same enemies didn't conquer their territory, but they would see the futility of continuing to use the same failed offense over and over. That's also why the U.S. never tried to conquer Russia during the Cold War: they realized the futility of it. Never mind that people were suffering, that it was a police state. There was simply nothing that could have been done about the situation. Not without starting a nuclear war and making the entire world worse off.

It's all about knowing what is possible and what isn't. If you try to lift a 500 lb. weight and can't budge it, if you put all your effort into it and still can't lift it, then it's pretty pointless to keep on straining trying to lift the thing hour after hour after hour, don't you agree? Any reasonable person will realize that it's futile, that it's impossible for them to lift that weight, and that they might even harm themselves if they keep it up.

Actually, the U.S., along with the British, French, Japanese and others, did invade the USSR, from June 1918 through October 1919. The U.S. contingent was about 5,000 officers and men, while the Japanese sent 70,000 and the other nations sent smaller numbers. The invasion was predicated on the idea that the Bolsheviks were actively colluding with the Imperial German Army, as Russia had signed an armistice following the revolution. It was a bad idea, and it didn't work. We finally stopped trying to overthrow Lenin overtly in 1919, although covert efforts never ceased. It was very difficult to find and engage the Soviet Army, so there was a good deal of invasion and destruction of civilian villages. This did not sway the common hearts and minds, but it did give the USSR excellent fodder over the next 70 years for accusations that the U.S. started the Cold War. It's just about impossible to free people who hate you more than they do their purported oppressors. If it is possible, it is not through killing and unhousing them: They really don't like that very much.

Another source says the U.S. contingent was 15,500 in Siberia and Archangelsk, with another 7,500 to 10,000 in Vladivostok, making something like 23,000 to 25,500 U.S. troops. I do not know which number is correct, but there were casualties both inflicted and suffered.

Craig? Go fuck yourself.

It makes me feel so wonderful when I'm the class act of the late afternoon.

John Smith's post could well serve as the test case of post-Imus standards. PAD, I'll leave you alone whichever way you move on this one. (After setting a high standard of tolerance, one is in a difficult position ever after. It's very lucky I don't have that problem.)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 28, 2007 01:01 PM

Would it be appropriate to have the Democratic leadership hung, drawn and quartered for treason?

I thought you could only do one since both tend to be fatal. I say hang those who have acted as enablers, including the Dems. That way the horses are nice and rested when Bush is finally brought to them.

Quoting Rob Brown, "It's all about knowing what is possible and what isn't. If you try to lift a 500 lb. weight and can't budge it, if you put all your effort into it and still can't lift it, then it's pretty pointless to keep on straining trying to lift the thing hour after hour after hour, don't you agree? Any reasonable person will realize that it's futile, that it's impossible for them to lift that weight, and that they might even harm themselves if they keep it up."

Or they might over time be able to build enough strength to make it budge and then overcome it. Was it pointless for folks to fight racism and discrimination year after year? Wasn't it almost 100 years after the Civil War till Brown vs. The Board of Education decision came down? So you face adversity at first do YOU just give up? I don't, and as someone who grew up Jewish and was the only other person in my High School save one other person who was, I hit my head against the wall for three years until the school district finally recognized the Jewish High Holy days as excused absences. And as a person who had Multiple Sclerosis for 17 years, who was told by his Doctors to take it easy, stay in bed 16 hours, and don't work to hard. I fought back and did not let M.S. rule my life. In 1995-1997 I was in a wheelchair and fought to get up and today after 17 years for the last 4 months I can walk without a crutch or wheelchair. I don't but that give up crud! And even if Saddam and his regime had only killed 1,00 or 10,00, do we sit buy and let a ruler who invades other countries, murders minorities in his country, and ignores the world community (The U.N.), live out his life and we wait till he dies?

Also how many folks in Europe died under the Nazi's before Normandy. However when the allies started to bomb cities like Dresden, and various undergrounds blew up passenger boats and trains, people still were grateful when all was said and done.

Also have you thought about all the schools reopened and, children vaccinated. And what about the women in Afghanistan who are now free to learn and such. The same thing is happening in Iraq in small and large steps everyday.

IMHO Americans these days talk about saving others and intervening where people are being hurt but when some form of sacrifice is asked, a number of the folks yell "Cut & Run."

Of course for folks worried about President Bush remember in 2009 he will be gone. How many countries, (I'm looking at you Cuba, Russia, China) can say the same thing every few years without a very bloody uprising or revolution.

As long as we have elections, and can walk down the street and see other people do the same either smiling, or frowning. The words of John Adams ring true, "Jefferson Yet Lives."

Bobb (In Irving)

OOps I forgot to add, "Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant."

Bobb (iI)

The words of John Adams ring true, "Jefferson Yet Lives."

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=634

Posted by: John Smith at May 28, 2007 04:51 PM
Craig? Go f%&* yourself.

John, completely unnecessary and inappropriate. Whether or not you agree with Craig, that's not any reason to move that low.

As much I find the War disgusting, the mess made by the Bush League makes a fast exit nearly impossible.

Part of what I find funny in a "laugh before I cry" way is the way the Bushies run around asking/demanding the UN's help cleaning up their mess. Of course, the advise of the UN (this is a really BAD IDEA) was ignored, derided as "pro-terrorist", and redused to accusations of institutional cowardice.

I've already opined as to one version of a bill. The other is to keep sending bills to Shrub without pull out dates, but with environmental packages, tax breaks for the working and middle class, etc.

The words of John Adams ring true, "Jefferson Yet Lives."

Okay, once again an attempt to post a comment containing a hyperlink has been caught in the spam trap. To sum up without the link: If your definition of "rings true" hangs on something that a) John Adams didn't say and b) was wrong anyway, that doesn't inspire much confidence in your argument.

John Smith -
Craig? Go fuck yourself.

Was it the accusing the Dems of treason, or was it the wanting to hang Bush & Co that set you off?

I'd just like to know so I can make sure to get the same results from you in the future.

Or they might over time be able to build enough strength to make it budge and then overcome it.

Eventually, maybe. Right now there are simply not enough troops to stabilize Iraq. Maybe someday in the future there will be more troops, or the U.S. will get some help with this, or something. But right now it is not possible. If it were possible, we would have seen some progress by now.

So you face adversity at first do YOU just give up?

If I have nothing to lose by continuing to battle against that adversity, no. If I have little to lose, perhaps still no. If I have a lot to lose, then I say "screw it," I walk away, and I come back when I'm better equipped to deal with it.

Was it pointless for folks to fight racism and discrimination year after year?

Not the same thing. Would you have been willing to put your life, or the lives of others, at risk for your right to have your holidays recognized? That's what we're talking about here, Bobb. We're talking about throwing people into a meat grinder and hoping that something comes from it.

I fought back and did not let M.S. rule my life. In 1995-1997 I was in a wheelchair and fought to get up and today after 17 years for the last 4 months I can walk without a crutch or wheelchair.

I'm sorry for your predicament, but again, I don't think you had much to lose by trying. I have an uncle with M.S., and what's the worst that could happen to him if his doctors told him to sit around waiting for the end and staring at the walls instead of living his life? What's the worst that could happen if he didn't listen to them...he'd decline faster? He'd die sooner? By squeezing the most out of life in the time he has left, he is risking nothing that he won't eventually lose anyway.

Here's a better analogy. A doctor examines you, and tells you that if you continue to live a destructive lifestyle of frequent substance abuse, you will die. If you're smart, you don't scoff at what you're being told and say that he wants you to "give up"...you change the way you live! Right?

And even if Saddam and his regime had only killed 1,00 or 10,00, do we sit buy and let a ruler who invades other countries, murders minorities in his country, and ignores the world community (The U.N.), live out his life and we wait till he dies?

YES. If the only alternative is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and thousands of U.S. troops, then we don't go after him.

Plus, I thought invading other countries would be acceptable to you. After all, that's what the U.S. did. Saddam only invaded one other country I'm aware of, Kuwait, and as I recall that was because he felt that Kuwait was screwing him somehow over oil rights or something, so it wasn't just because he woke up one day and thought "Hey, you know what? I feel like conquering this neighboring country just for the hell of it." Please.

Also how many folks in Europe died under the Nazi's before Normandy. However when the allies started to bomb cities like Dresden, and various undergrounds blew up passenger boats and trains, people still were grateful when all was said and done.

You know what, this might come as a shock to you, but not every conflict ends exactly the same way World War Two did! Just because you see parallels here and there does not make it the same war.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Saddam was just one of many. There are many countries that are even worse to live in than Saddam's Iraq. So if the U.S. absolutely insisted on invading someplace, why not one of those? Hell, why not Darfur?

IMHO Americans these days talk about saving others and intervening where people are being hurt but when some form of sacrifice is asked, a number of the folks yell "Cut & Run."

You said the magic words, dickhead. "Cut & run." I see no reason to continue even trying to be civil. How does the inside of Cheney's ass taste, Bobb? Oh, and as for people being pussies, in my opinion if you were so goddamn scared of WMD that you felt the only option was to start bombing a country that took no aggressive action against the U.S. then that makes you a pussy. Are you now crapping your pants over Iran? Will you only crawl out from cowering under your bed after you receive word that Tehran is a smoking crater?

Of course for folks worried about President Bush remember in 2009 he will be gone. How many countries, (I'm looking at you Cuba, Russia, China) can say the same thing every few years without a very bloody uprising or revolution.

Ohhhh, I get it. So just because things could be worse than this, we're supposed to walk around with big happy smiles on our faces and thank the good lord for every single thing about the United States of America, with nary a complaint passing our lips about ANYTHING! Yes, since China, Russia and Cuba are bad and since the U.S. isn't as bad as China, Russia and Cuba, the U.S. must therefore be PERFECT and require no changes whatsoever.

Sorry, but most politicians won't risk having the label of "doesn't support the troops" hung on them this close to an election.

?????? For God's sake, the next election is still a year and half away! Have we reached the point where we can only expect Courage on the day after the last election?

But the fact is, I've yet to hear a non-biased, well-informed person give me a good reason (taking into account the best interests of our economy and national security) to drop everything and get out now.

Well, how about the fact that Bush has broken our military and crippled out ability to use any leverage against Iran or North Korea?

Also, could you please define "non-biased, well-informed person"? I'm guessing it means to you something akin to "loyal republican".

Finally, as I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the polls.

Even the one we hold every even numbered year in November? Because I think the American public's view was made pretty clear on this matter in that poll.

From a national security standpoint, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam, and its region, had no critical strategic resources that our economy depended on.

The theory on Vietnam, was of course, the dominoe effect in which if Vietnam falls to communism, the rest of southeast Asia will, followed by Japan, Australia, etc. that would have put a huge impact on the critical strategic resources our economy depended on. It didn't happen, but many people believed in it very strongly.

But if we screw up in Iraq, the resulting chaos and oil supply disruptions will very likely cripple not only our economy, but the economies of our allies as well.

Yes, but the chaos Bush created is much preferable, right?

I'll spare you the comment that Bush has made fewer and fewer countries willing to admit to being our allies.

Oops.

The words of John Adams ring true, "Jefferson Yet Lives."

Okay, once again an attempt to post a comment containing a hyperlink has been caught in the spam trap. To sum up without the link: If your definition of "rings true" hangs on something that a) John Adams didn't say and b) was wrong anyway, that doesn't inspire much confidence in your argument.

Hyperlink? I did not post any hyperlink? What are you talking about?
As for what I attributed to John Adams, did I get the quote wrong somehow. I was under the impression from what I have read that those were some of the last words of John Adams. And though Jefferson preceded him by a bit of time on the same day, they had long since settled many of their differences. And many people of which I count myself as one believe that the "Yet Lives" pertains to the words of Thomas Jefferson drafted in the Declaration of Independence. The document that lay the cornerstone of the Republic in which we live in. (If you live in the United States.)

Bobb (iI)

Was it pointless for folks to fight racism and discrimination year after year?

Not the same thing. Would you have been willing to put your life, or the lives of others, at risk for your right to have your holidays recognized? That's what we're talking about here, Bobb. We're talking about throwing people into a meat grinder and hoping that something comes from it.

You've never been a Jew in a Texas town with a strong and viable K.K.K. I guess. After the third time the windows of my car were shattered my father told me in no uncertain terms to shut up and quit causing trouble as he did not want to outlive his son.

And even if Saddam and his regime had only killed 1,00 or 10,00, do we sit buy and let a ruler who invades other countries, murders minorities in his country, and ignores the world community (The U.N.), live out his life and we wait till he dies?

YES. If the only alternative is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and thousands of U.S. troops, then we don't go after him.

Hundreds of thousands? References please?

MHO Americans these days talk about saving others and intervening where people are being hurt but when some form of sacrifice is asked, a number of the folks yell "Cut & Run."

You said the magic words, dickhead. "Cut & run." I see no reason to continue even trying to be civil. How does the inside of Cheney's ass taste, Bobb?

Do you kiss your keyboard with those fingers?

Seriously why does using that term makes me a Cheney ass-kisser. You just lost any reason for me to respond to you anymore. And for the record, Cut & Run was something I learned from my high school baseball coach when we were on a bad losing streak and were whining and talking about forfeiting the season, or later when we got behind by a large score. Oh, and before you accuse me of sucking someones Richard, in my Poem that was published in the M.S. newsletter over 15 years ago is the line, 'Should I ***stay the course***, or just reach for something better?"

I was going to comment about how you either misunderstood my comment about folks walking around happy, or sad. Or used that as a straw man, but after the above I can only misquote a someone I once saw in a cartoon on on Slam-Bang-Theatre, "Go Away kid you're bothering me."

Bobb (i.I.)

To quote William Butler Yeats' poem "The Second Coming": "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The Democrats were given control of the Congress to end the war. (And poll after poll has shown that people who supported the war were voted out.) They *knew* Bush was against any sort of timetables and that nothing short of drastic measures would make him change the policy in Iraq. And after one veto, they give him all the money he wants, with no timetable for withdrawl, with benchmarks that Bush can choose to ignore. I laughed when, in an interview, Harry Reid said that the Democrats would keep trying to bring the troops home. How? By giving him so much money that he gets confused?

While I disagree with many Republican platforms, I do admire their conviction. When they lost on banning gay marriage, or banning flag burning, they didn't then support it with talk of compromise; they said they were against them, they were still against them, and they would continue fighting against them. When it was clear the Democrats would be outvoted for going to Iraq, almost all of them voted for it, with the lame excuse "We're giving you the authorization to go to war; we just hope you don't use it." And when it's clear the President wouldn't budge, they didn't even *try* for a bill that has any sort of accountability linked with the funds.

Sigh...

I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the level of surprise over all this. Did people really expect a sudden infusion of integrity?

Cindy Sheehan is so disgusted that she's just decided to quit the whole movement she was once the virtual figurehead for: "Good Riddance Attention Whore" http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/28/12530/1525

I wish I could say that I am surprised, but I'm not. I knew the Dems would cave once it became obvious that they couldn't beat a Bush veto. I'll willing to bet that even they knew that this was going to work out the way it did. This was all just so that they could go on record as having tried to put up a fight and buy themselves a few more months.

Had they any stones at all, they would have passed (on Mission Accomplished Day), a bill that simply stated:

Whereas, Congress recognizes that four years ago, the Commander-in-Chief declared that major combat operations were over in Iraq, therefore, there being no further need for a continued military presence in Iraq, funding is authorized for immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and no funding for continue military operations is authorized.

Bush would, of course, veto it, but then Rove would have to spin how he could veto his own declaration of Mission Accomplished (and don't give me any shit about how the crew of the carrier hung that banner. That's been so discredited it's not even funny anymore).

After that bit of theater, they could send the bill with binding timetables and see if Bush wants to continue to fight.

Sigh. If only Congress had courage. And the president, a brain.

And for the record, Cut & Run was something I learned from my high school baseball coach when we were on a bad losing streak and were whining and talking about forfeiting the season, or later when we got behind by a large score.

Let's everyone do the world a huge favor, and unless you either went to high school in Baghdad, or otherwise were playing against people who were either shooting at you or planting IEDs around the field, please don't (and I can't stress this enough, especially in the wake of Memorial Day) and I do mean DON'T insult our troops and their sacrifices by pretending that any sports experience you may have had is even remotely fucking analagous to being in a real, honest-to-God war.

-Rex Hondo-

Re WWII, the civil war, Iraq etc.

Look, we've discussed it before.

A) Yes, there are times when fighting hard and making difficult sacrifices is the right thing to do, and there are times in which it isn't. The fact tthat it was right during WWII, or wrong during Vietnam, doesn't prove that it was right or wrong in Iraq. We must learn from history, but also know to adapt it to each specific case.

I believe Iraq was a mistake. but now that you're in Iraq, should you leave? I bleieve that the US could leave and recover the loss. But from the point of view of the Middle east I'd rather you stay.

B) Whether a war is wrong or right, the way a war is conducted should be questioned. And this war hasn't been conducted very well, to say the least. Even if you originbally supported the war, you should question the way it is handled or you'll continue making mistakes.

Rob, I understand you feel strongly about these issues, but I don't think it was necessary to react so aggresively since Bobb wasn't being hostile.

---------------------

"as someone who grew up Jewish and was the only other person in my High School save one other person who was, I hit my head against the wall for three years until the school district finally recognized the Jewish High Holy days as excused absences."

Is it right to expect the school system to adapt to the needs of such a small religious group? and if so, to what extent? I really don't know. I'm asking seriously.

Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 28, 2007 10:59 PM: Hundreds of thousands? References please?

Okay, here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 28, 2007 10:59 PM: Seriously why does using that term makes me a Cheney ass-kisser.

Isn't it obvious? That's one of the favorite phrases of pro-war Republicans. They keep on saying it to describe what the Democrats want to do over and over and over, to make it sound like they're pussies who just want to give up. They use it because it sounds very much like "turn tail and run." They have also accused Democrats of wanting to set a "surrender date." They insult everybody's intelligence by claiming "if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us here."

Using those phrases is a GREAT way to set me off. I hear them enough from Bush and company, and I'm sick of them.

Posted by: Micha at May 29, 2007 08:00 AM: Rob, I understand you feel strongly about these issues, but I don't think it was necessary to react so aggresively since Bobb wasn't being hostile.

He wasn't? Really? He was said that people like me were all about "cut and run." That's the way Republican politicians call Democratic politicians craven cowards. If that wasn't his intent, you can certainly see how I might've taken it that way.

Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 28, 2007 10:59 PM: You've never been a Jew in a Texas town with a strong and viable K.K.K. I guess. After the third time the windows of my car were shattered my father told me in no uncertain terms to shut up and quit causing trouble as he did not want to outlive his son.

And at the time, did you react the same way to your father as you're reacting to those of us who want to get out of Iraq? Did you tell your father that he was a quitter? I certainly hope you didn't. It sounds like your father realized that there is a time and place to make a stand and other times and places where you shouldn't. It's the difference between making a difference in the world and throwing your life away needlessly.

I feel just as disappointed as anyone else. But it should be noted that there HAS been a change in the administration's handling over there. They are engaging in a heckuva lot more diplomacy (even speaking directly with Iran) of late. THAT is the new direction that the election brought.

I wish it would have been more, but isn't a minimum wage increase also part of this deal? If so, the Dems are in better shape in '08 than some might think.

While many are disappointed right now, next year the Dems will be scoring points by saying they gave Bush's plan a final chance to succeed. No one can say they cut him short. If this surge fails--which is likely--the GOP will be bankrupt of credibility about war and national security. So what will the GOP run on then? More anti-gay, anti-abortion, and pro-gun platforms? I think the GOP has already lost their footing on those issues, since they spent 6 years doing nothing about them.

So, perhaps the Dems ARE taking the "long view" here.

I wish it would have been more, but isn't a minimum wage increase also part of this deal?

It's the silver lining in a thundercloud that is burning us to a crisp with repeated lightning strikes. I'm glad they got *something* done, but they still shouldn't have caved.

They should have said to Bush:

"Fine, you don't wanna sign our bill? Then you get NO money. None at all. Not a red cent. And every single hour of every day we're going to have one of our number talking to the media about this. For every address you give about how we're leaving the troops high and dry, we'll have one of our number giving an address about how you still have plenty of money left to get them out of harm's way, and that if you leave them there then it is YOU who are not supporting them!

"You don't want to compromise? We won't either. The American people are behind us on this. But even if they weren't, we'd still refuse to give you the kind of bill you want. We'd still just cut off fudning. Because it's the right thing to do, and it's worth not getting re-elected.

"We'll tell you something else, asshole. If you're insane enough to leave the troops there even after the funding runs out, we will impeach your ass and try to have you imprisoned, because that is sure as HELL a high crime!"

So, perhaps the Dems ARE taking the "long view" here.

Putting an end to U.S. involvement in this war is more important than winning elections. Besides, Republican credibility is already shot. The Dems had plenty of credibility...before this.

An appropriate political cartoon on this situation:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20070529/cp.74612e633a9d21d53c38bca15b653cdf

Well, the Dems won't have Cindy Sheehan to kick around any more. As soon as she began to gore their oxen with the same pitard she hoisted the Republicans' (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!), they dumped supporting her like a hot rock. So she says she's caving in and quitting.

Quoting Micha:
"
as someone who grew up Jewish and was the only other person in my High School save one other person who was, I hit my head against the wall for three years until the school district finally recognized the Jewish High Holy days as excused absences."

Is it right to expect the school system to adapt to the needs of such a small religious group? and if so, to what extent? I really don't know. I'm asking seriously."

Whether it is a small religious group, or a small minority group of different color. America is a country that is supposed to offer equality to all who live here. All I asked was that the two most important Holy Days in my religion be recognized as days that an absence would be charged against me. The school district recognized Xmas, Good Friday, and even Lent (By changing the menu to allow for Catholics who gave up such things as meat and other things,) We even only served fish on Friday with no meat as an option in deference and so as not to offend those who still held to that. This was a less litigious time, but I have no doubt in my mind that I could have called on the ACLU and they would have helped me. All I want was bit of equality for myself and not only the other person who attended the School but for other of my religion that might also attend later. (Guess who had some ex-hippies as teachers.)

Bobb (i.I.)

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM

[The Democrats] should have said to Bush:

"You don't want to compromise? We won't either. The American people are behind us on this..."

Doubtful. The U.S. electorate is indeed sick and tired of the war in Iraq, but most people would react negatively to an attempt to cut off funding for troops in the midst of fighting a war in a foreign land. It would be an especially tough sell for the Democrats given that many of them voted to authorize Bush to go to war in the first place.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM

"But even if they weren't, we'd still refuse to give you the kind of bill you want. We'd still just cut off fudning. Because it's the right thing to do, and it's worth not getting re-elected."

Politics is about the art of the possible. You think the Democrats' resistance to this war has been inadequate? If the Democrats lose the Congress and the Republicans keep the presidency, there may not be any resistance on Capitol Hill.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 11:04 AM

"We'll tell you something else, asshole. If you're insane enough to leave the troops there even after the funding runs out, we will impeach your ass and try to have you imprisoned, because that is sure as HELL a high crime!"

First of all, the impeachment is akin to indictment: it sets up a trial in the U.S. Senate. If the president is convicted by the U.S. Senate, he is removed from office. Criminal charges that could lead to imprisonment would be a separate matter.

Second, I see no high crime in the president's stubborn position. Once given the authorization to go to war, the President has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to decide how to wage that war. If the Democrats were to adopt the intransigent position you advocate, I would foresee a Constitutional crisis, which is something we don't need while we're in the midst of a war.

Besides, all is not lost. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who had been one of Bush's staunchest bullet-takers, has stated that by September or October Bush is either going to need to show some progress or come up with a "plan B." That may sound like mild language, but remember -- this is the leader of the House Republicans, a member of Bush's own party. If he's making noise like this in public, I suspect he and other Republicans are making even more noise in private.

If the Democrats dig in their heels now by attempting to deny funding for the war, they risk losing public support and strengthening Bush's hand. By September or October, however, they may be joined by some Republicans in calling for withdrawal dates. That would be a much different situation. I agree that it would be preferable not to wait, but in this world you have to play the hand you're dealt.

By September or October

Don't you mean next January, then next September, then the next presidency, and maybe then the one after that?

The thought that some in Congress are going to change in September after they haven't done so after 4 years of this disaster is laughable.

Let's everyone do the world a huge favor, and unless you either went to high school in Baghdad, or otherwise were playing against people who were either shooting at you or planting IEDs around the field, please don't (and I can't stress this enough, especially in the wake of Memorial Day) and I do mean DON'T insult our troops and their sacrifices by pretending that any sports experience you may have had is even remotely fucking analagous to being in a real, honest-to-God war.

-Rex Hondo-

When he accused me in the way he did, all I was saying was that I had learned the term in High School almost 30 years ago. I was not referencing it as in anyway as school as war. I was not pretending, I was merely using the term in a different situation. Why does every one here jump on a word and not the context of the messages.

I guess it is easy to jump on a word than discuss things in a civil manner.

Not you Rex, the one who began typing insults, and what I consider some profanity at my message,and what I felt was me.

On the internet long ago I learned that when some accuses someone as Hitler, or starts attacking with profanity that it best to ignore that person and remove yourself from the argument with him/her.

Bobb (i.I.)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 29, 2007 12:31 PM

Don't you mean next January, then next September, then the next presidency, and maybe then the one after that?

No, I meant what I said.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at May 29, 2007 12:31 PM

The thought that some in Congress are going to change in September after they haven't done so after 4 years of this disaster is laughable.

No, it's not. The Republicans took a shellacking in the mid-term elections last year. They're scared of losing further ground in Congress, and losing the presidency. That wasn't the case four years ago.

Micha,
Sorry I forgot to add an answer to my reply to your post.
I am Jewish first, an American Second, A husband third, and so on. I feel that an insult to my religion, is an insult to thousand of years of struggles all the Jewish people who came before me suffered. So as an addition to what a said above I felt it was my duty. Though some kids in my school thought this was just my way of preserving my attendance since if you had less than three absences, and an A grade before finals you did not have to take them. When after the absence you had to go to the Dean and defend and explain why you were not there. So there was humiliation involved.

Bobb

(Sorry my AD/HD causes me to get confused when posting.)

Micha,

One the I forgot to add to my reply above.

When I did not attend on those days and returned to school I would be called into the Boys Deans' office to explain my absence. I felt humiliated as he questioned me. All I thought about then was the long history of my people, and the lies, discrimination, and even torture that the past few thousand years have brought. I was an angry young man, and if it happened today, which it still does in small ways, I become an Angry Old Man.

Bobb (i.I.)

Hyperlink? I did not post any hyperlink? What are you talking about?

No, I tried to post a hyperlink to an article on the History Network website debunking the claims about Adams' last words. (This is about the third time I've tried to include a hyperlink in a post and lost it to the spam filter--which I understand, but it's still kind of frustrating.)

Anyway, the article points out that the only person known to have been at Adams' deathbed said that his only intelligible words were "Thomas Jefferson," and the "survives/yet lives/still lives" ("survives" appears to be the most common version of the quote, actually) seems to have been propagandistic mythmaking invented later.

They're scared of losing further ground in Congress, and losing the presidency.

That's not change, that's simply pandering for political votes, a tactic that already cost them seats.

And it will only cost them more seats because of the simple fact that they're continuing to string along the American people without accomplishing a god damn thing. The whole lot of them, Republican and Democrat alike, have guaranteed that.

They've signed off on the deaths of who knows how many American soldiers and Iraqis simply because they *think* it will keep them in office.

What they need is 10-ton sized wake up call upside the head.

Posted by: R.J. Carter at May 29, 2007 11:50 AM
Well, the Dems won't have Cindy Sheehan to kick around any more. As soon as she began to gore their oxen with the same pitard she hoisted the Republicans' (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!), they dumped supporting her like a hot rock. So she says she's caving in and quitting.

You've got to give her credit for sticking to it as long as she did. She's been trying to get something done for years and her life has suffered because of it. The Democrats finally take Congress, an achievement which she may very well have contributed to, and then they don't do what they were voted in to do.

So, as frustrating as this is for people like me and Craig, how do you think she feels?

Anyway, I totally agree with her for criticizing the Democrats. They implied, and in some cases said flat out, that they were going to end this thing. So far, they have not kept their promise, and they deserve to be taken to task for that.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 29, 2007 12:28 PM
...most people would react negatively to an attempt to cut off funding for troops in the midst of fighting a war in a foreign land.

The thing is, Bill, that cutting off funding wouldn't do a damn thing to hurt the troops at first. Bush would still have months to get them out of their before they began to run out of supplies and equipment.

The idea that cutting off the funding would mean saying to the troops, "Oh, we're just stranding you here, hope you can catch a ride back home," is absolutely ridiculous.

Unfortunately, that's what far too many of the American people thought it meant. The Democrats could have told them that the troops would *not* be left stranded there, and they would *not* suffer the moment funding was cut off, and that Bush would have *plenty* of time to get them out of there with the money he still had left from the previous bill. They didn't do that. If they had bothered to try, then maybe those people who say they're opposed to the war but don't want funding cut off would change their position on the funding.

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 29, 2007 06:47 PM
The idea that cutting off the funding would mean saying to the troops, "Oh, we're just stranding you here, hope you can catch a ride back home," is absolutely ridiculous.

Any other time I would agree with you, but Bush makes things a whole other matter. Bush was already lining up plans on how to move funds around and stretch things out for a long time in case the Dems didn't cave now. And I don't really think that he ever gave any real thought to not getting what he wanted.

I have no doubt that, had the Dems not caved, we would have been months past the point of no return before Bush would have even begun giving any thoughts to pulling out. No death(s) would have overly bothered him because they would have been the fault of the Dems and their political games rather then anything to do with him.

Bush is, to be kind, a little mental. One thing that you always heard about the Bush boys before W ever came close to becoming Prez was that Jeb was his dad's boy while W was more like his mom. Now, Barb can put on a nice public face, but she was also often known as a bit of an ice queen. She's also the one who sees nothing wrong with giving donations to the needy only so long as the money goes to family/friend's businesses and thinks that Katrina was good for all those poor people who were then much better off living in a temporary refuge area rather then their own homes back in NO.

No, I'm not sure Bush would see things the way others might. He would stick to his guns and blame every single death caused by a funding issue on the Dems' forcing him to veto bill after bill after bill.

When he accused me in the way he did, all I was saying was that I had learned the term in High School almost 30 years ago. I was not referencing it as in anyway as school as war. I was not pretending, I was merely using the term in a different situation. Why does every one here jump on a word and not the context of the messages.

I guess it is easy to jump on a word than discuss things in a civil manner.

Not you Rex, the one who began typing insults, and what I consider some profanity at my message,and what I felt was me.

Could you please specify just what "insult" I tossed your way?

So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term "cut and run" in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.

In short, mouthing sports metaphors and platitudes while people continue to die is more insulting than any no-no word I may toss out.

-Rex Hondo-

And, frankly, it doesn't matter one whit where you may have originally heard whatever phrase. If it is one of the Bushies' main talking points, don't act surprised when you find yourself standing to be counted with them by using said phrase in the exact same manner they do.

-Rex Hondo-

PAD, quick question...I know this is completely off topic, but this discussion seems to be winding down anyway, so:

How allegorical was your Farnaq Dahn/Trans Sabal storyline from IH meant to be to the what the situation was in Iraq at the time? It's something we've been discussing on the CBR forums, and it seems like you had a frightening bit of intuition there regarding Dahns death. Farnaq's own people killed him in the end (or so it seemed, regardless of the fact that we, the reader, knew it was Rick.)
Now, does that seem startlingly familiar to another real-life genocidal leaders' capture/execution?

We were wondering what your thought on the matter would have been, and I thought why not go straight to the source, get the real junk...

Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

Could you please specify just what "insult" I tossed your way?

Rex, "the one who began typing insults" refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term "cut and run" in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.

No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

In short, mouthing sports metaphors and platitudes while people continue to die is more insulting than any no-no word I may toss out.

If you can get past the terminology some proponents of staying in Iraq use, I believe they have a valid point. Regardless of our reasons for getting into this war (none of which were valid in my view), we have created a situation which demands our continued military involvement. If we leave, there is a very real risk that the Iraqi government we helped create could collapse in a heap of sectarian violence. That power vacuum could very likely be filled with a government at the very least sympathetic to Iran, given that there is a Shia majority in Iraq. Iran has been aching to become dominant in the Middle East and, unlike Iraq, is well on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran's turning Iraq into an ally -- or worse still, a puppet -- may not hurt us in the short run, but in the long run could be a very real problem for us if Iran is able to extend its influence throughout the region. Unlike the B.S. "domino theory" used to justify our presence in Vietnam, this threat is real. In addition to our economic interests in the region, a juiced-up Iran could become a very real threat to our allies in that region, including, but not limited to Israel (I'm also counting Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, although our relationships with them have become quite strained). I suppose you could say we could sit on the sidelines and do nothing in that instance, but I doubt we'd let Israel "be pushed into the sea."

(Micha, this isn't an attempt to "drag Israel into this," by the way. It's just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation: we consider Israel to be a key ally and our government would be unlikely to sit by and do nothing if Israel's existence were truly threatened. Moreover, I'd argue that we should intervene if it came to that.)

Unfortunately, right now our military involvement is at best a band-aid, staving off a disaster without making progress against the underlying causes of the insurgency. Bush has made some baby steps in the right direction by reaching out to Iran -- dealing with them is an unpleasant necessity -- but it's not enough. We need to mount a diplomatic blitzkrieg in that region (pardon the mixed metaphor -- using a German term for warfare to describe a diplomatic initiative may seem odd but it felt like the best way to get across my point that we need a huge and rapid diplomatic push), reaching out to any and all who can help us to positively influence things. Given how badly we've pissed off the world, we're going to have to make some heavy concessions and sacrifices to get other nations on board, but I believe it's doable. Unfortunately, with W. at the helm, I have little hope that the doable will be done.

No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.

If that is the case, then it was still, at the very least, a tremendously poor choice of words, considering how loaded a phrase that is, particularly when discussing our military efforts in Iraq. It still tars anybody who doesn't agree with the party line as a coward.

Perhaps I was a bit more brusque than I needed to be, but it's been a rough week, I'm tired, and "Sound Bite Politics" really pisses me off. I suppose that's why I don't usually wade in too deep into political threads. It's just not worth getting that worked up about...

-Rex Hondo-

A rather bleak thought just occurred to me. I'm currently working my way through A Song of Ice and Fire (about 2/3 through A Clash of Kings), and I just realized that just about anybody in the books up to this point would be a better ruler than Dubya.

-Rex Hondo-

While I disagree with many Republican platforms, I do admire their conviction. When they lost on banning gay marriage, or banning flag burning, they didn't then support it with talk of compromise; they said they were against them, they were still against them, and they would continue fighting against them.

Indeed.

As repulsive as I find the Conservative position on social issues, I have to admire their conviction.

One thing that should be noted is that "Conservatives" seem to comprise groups with similar or at least very compatible goals.

The same can't be said of "Liberals". I see something Schizoid in many Liberal positions. You support feminism, but you also must support tolerance for Eastern religions that crush feminism. You're for secular science, but you also support Green radicals that have very anti-science stances on matters like genetic modification. There are many disparate groups under the "Liberal" umbrella.

Is it possible that Liberals adopted so much of the post-Modernist, multiculturalist, relativistic point-of-view, that they don't know how to fight fiercely for what they believe anymore?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at May 29, 2007 08:14 PM
...Bush is, to be kind, a little mental...

Oh God. If he's really that bad, then he has to be removed from office.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 30, 2007 06:03 AM
Rex, "the one who began typing insults" refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.

Yes, Bobb thinks that by not referring to me by name he will piss me off further. Honestly, I don't even care anymore.

No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.

Here's what he said, Bill: "IMHO Americans these days talk about saving others and intervening where people are being hurt but when some form of sacrifice is asked, a number of the folks yell 'Cut & Run.'"

The implication is that I, and those like me, are yelling "cut & run" and we're afraid of making sacrifices.

As Rex correctly observed, that phrase is loaded these days. Whenever somebody says "Oh, you just want to cut and run," I won't feel bad about giving them an earful...or an eyeful in this case.

If Bobb didn't intend it as an insult then perhaps I should apologize to him. Nevertheless, if he says the same thing to somebody else and they react in a similar manner, he should not be surprised.

Doug A. posted,
Hyperlink? I did not post any hyperlink? What are you talking about?

No, I tried to post a hyperlink to an article on the History Network website debunking the claims about Adams' last words. (This is about the third time I've tried to include a hyperlink in a post and lost it to the spam filter--which I understand, but it's still kind of frustrating.)

Ah, I now I understand. Thanks you for clearing it up.

Also to the person I am no longer answering to, I will answer this. I am not trying to anger you, I just feel your posts, )other than the one I am referring to right now,) I just figure you are not worth my time. If that ticks you off I am sorry, that is just the truth and you may take from that what you may.

Bobb (i.I.)

Posted by: Rob Brown at May 30, 2007 10:41 AM

Here's what he said, Bill...

Whatever. If you want to be angry, be angry. I don't care anymore. I've lost my appetite for personality clashes.

Posted by: Bill Myers at May 30, 2007 06:03 AM

Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

Could you please specify just what "insult" I tossed your way?

Rex, "the one who began typing insults" refers to Rob Brown. The sentence construction is simply a bit awkward.

Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

So, you may not have come right out and directly compared baseball to warfare, but by using the term "cut and run" in reference to those who oppose the war and then telling where you learned the term originally, you strongly imply that the admonitions of your baseball coach are equally valid when actual lives are on the line.

No, he was trying to point out that he was not parroting Cheney as Rob Brown unfairly accused him of doing, but using a phrase he picked up in high school.

Thank you Bill! I guess since I was born in Texas,
and much like the President speak English as a second language sometime the way I "speak" is a bit confusing. Someday there will be a way to hire an interpreter to help solve all the Texan/English problems. ;-)

Bobb

Posted by: Bobb (In Irving) at May 30, 2007 11:13 AM

Thank you Bill! I guess since I was born in Texas, and much like the President speak English as a second language sometime the way I "speak" is a bit confusing.

Don't sweat it. My late grandfather mangled English about as badly as Popeye, but I understood him. And despite his interesting syntax, he was a very intelligent and wise man.

You know, Rob Brown's not a bad guy, he's just passionate. And in all fairness, "cut and run" sounds like a pejorative. When's the last time you heard someone say, "Hey, great job with the 'cut and run!'" Better to say that pulling out of Iraq may be premature -- that way people can focus on your ideas and not on their anger.

I happen to agree that it may be too early to pull out of Iraq. But I don't agree that those who believe otherwise are advocating that we "cut and run." Only a fool refuses to flee from a building so consumed by flame that there is no hope of putting it out. The question is whether or not Iraq is a fire that we cannot put out.

Posted by Rene at May 30, 2007 07:35 AM

As repulsive as I find the Conservative position on social issues, I have to admire their conviction.

The problem with such conviction is that inflexible principles are as bad as being unprincipled. On the one hand, the Democrats who voted in favor of using force in Iraq when that was popular and turned against the war when it lost popularity are finding themselves in a pickle. I laughed my ass off when Joe Biden, during an appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room," said he voted to prevent a war by authorizing Bush to, y'know, go to war. On the other hand, Bush's stubborn belief in his principles is what got us stuck in the mess we're in now.

It is important to have principles, as the Democrats should be (but probably aren't) learning now. But it is important to also be aware of facts that contradict our beliefs, and to be open to changing our beliefs based on those facts, as Bush should be (but most certainly isn't) learning.

I've avoided posting in this thread because I find myself severely underqualified to comment, but now, at last, I can offer something. Somewhere up above, Rene commented about the singleness of purpose of conservatives versus the apparent contradictions in liberals. Now, I know a lot of liberals who disagree on many things, so just by calling something "liberal" does not actually mean all those calling themselves liberal will subscribe to it. Same with conservatives. There are many gradations of both liberalism and conservatism, so many that the terms become almost generic, really indicative of nothing but the most basic of attitudes. Also, most of what you hear about from the media about liberal or conservative viewpoints tends to be pointing to the most radical of the viewpoints about any given subject, so I tend to be a little suspicious of the terms anyway.

Peter, Peter, Peter. It's just politics. You keep making the mistake that it's about right and wrong when instead, it's just politics.

Of course the Democrats didn't want to get tagged with "not supporting the troops" or "weak on defense" label. Yes, Iraq War 2 is unpopular with the majority of people, but so was Vietnam and the Dems got tagged with the soft on defense cliche and it stuck.

You're making the mistake of assuming last year's vote meant the voters would back Dems defunding the war. Voters have also declared they wanted the government to keep its hands off their Social Security. Voters will vote for all the services government offers but decry the taxes to pay for them. It's not about morality or even logic. It's just politics.

But it's about life and death? What major national bill, especially national budget ISN'T about life and death? Defense? Immigration? Drugs? Crime? Health? Education? Poverty? All those and more have significant life and death consequences. It's just politics.

-- Ken from Chicago (in a Democratic-dominated state that's massively in debt while the governor is offerring even MORE services while taking property and income taxes off the table--and suggesting "Gross Receipts Tax" on every single business transaction ... but claims in no way would that affect the consumer and what they pay, even his fellow Democrats, in a trial vote, unanimously voted against it)

"Putting an end to U.S. involvement in this war is more important than winning elections."

Of course. But I don't believe the Dems have any idea how to get out of Iraq either--not without risking the country fall straight into Iran's hands. I think the Dems want to keep this war in Republican hands, and rightly so. If we lose, or if it escalates, it's the GOP who deserve the blame.

Posted by: dan at June 1, 2007 01:02 PM

If we lose, or if it escalates, it's the GOP who deserve the blame.

Does it really matter who deserves the blame? The lives lost will remain lost, regardless. Have we become so fractured by partisan politics that we've forgotten we're all citizens of the same nation?

Perhaps the problem is not in Washington, D.C. Perhaps we, the electorate, are the true problem. If we want better leaders, perhaps we need to be better citizens. It's worth thinking about.

not without risking the country fall straight into Iran's hands

Iraq fell into Iran's hands as soon as the Sunnis were taken out of power.

"Have we become so fractured by partisan politics that we've forgotten we're all citizens of the same nation?"

Yes. The religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing is totally disconnected from reality and the separation of church and state. They don't believe in the constitution, they believe there is only one way, theirs and it shoul be forced on everyone.

As far as both Dems and Repubs, after they get elected, they change into someone/something else that has only their own agenda/welfare in mind, and screw the people they claim to "represent".

The american political process is so pathetically broken I don't see a real fix that'll work as long as money is involved...

"Of course. But I don't believe the Dems have any idea how to get out of Iraq either--not without risking the country fall straight into Iran's hands. I think the Dems want to keep this war in Republican hands, and rightly so. If we lose, or if it escalates, it's the GOP who deserve the blame."

Just a thought...what makes anyone think that the Iraqi warlords leading the insurgency would be any more tolerant of Iranian oocupation than they are of US occupation? I think the Administration needs to stop trying to push this fantasy that a democracy is even possible in Iraq at the moment. The only thing that allows a democracy to be born, and survive that often violent act of creation...is to have a big enough group of people willing to die and kill to preserve that entity. Iraq doesn't have that, and they aren't likely to ever have that within this generation, because they are too innured to the idea of the military strongman/warlord calling the shots. There's no sense of nationality among the various factions present there, so they have no reluctance to use force of arms against each other.

We broke it...we can't fix it, unless we're willing to become that warlord willing and capable of doing some truly terrible things. In the absence of that, we should get the heck out and let them sort it out for themselves, because that's the only way things will ever attain a semblence of peace again.

Posted by Sean Scullion at May 30, 2007 11:07 PM

I've avoided posting in this thread because I find myself severely underqualified to comment, but now, at last, I can offer something. Somewhere up above, Rene commented about the singleness of purpose of conservatives versus the apparent contradictions in liberals. Now, I know a lot of liberals who disagree on many things, so just by calling something "liberal" does not actually mean all those calling themselves liberal will subscribe to it. Same with conservatives. There are many gradations of both liberalism and conservatism, so many that the terms become almost generic, really indicative of nothing but the most basic of attitudes. Also, most of what you hear about from the media about liberal or conservative viewpoints tends to be pointing to the most radical of the viewpoints about any given subject, so I tend to be a little suspicious of the terms anyway.

That's because the major media fail to distinguish between FISCAL conservatives & SOCIAL conservatives and between FISCAL liberals and SOCIAL liberals:

--Fiscal conservatives: Lassez faire government, let the "invisible hand" decide, buyer beware, less restrictions on government, free trade, etc.

--Social conservatives: Want an activist government to establish a "morally correct" society, religious conservatives, for prayer in school, against gays in military, pro-prohibition, pro-restricting swearing and nudity in the media, etc.

--Fiscal liberals: For an "even playing field"; for equal opportunity in education, employment, financing, housing; want an "activist government" to establish a "politically correct" society, greater regulation of food safety, drug safety, consumer good safety; pro-restricting violence and ethnic epithets in the media; etc.

--Social liberals: For freedom of speech; for legalized drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, if it's adults are giving informed consent and it harms no one else then said act should be okay, be it polygamy, polyandry, beastiality; want smaller government out of their lives.

By no means exhaustive, but that gives you a gist of the FOUR major political movements in the country.

Thus Fiscal conservatives and social liberals often see eye to eye in shrinking government. Fiscal liberals and social conservatives sometimes are allied in restricting speech in the media.

As far as the major political parties, it becomes understanding where the Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservatives, there is some overlap because some are liberals socially and while some are liberals fiscally and some are conservatives socially and others are conservatives fiscally. Incidentally the social wings of the parties are their respective "bases".

Theoretically the Libertarian party should dominate with its fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, in wanting less government in both areas, yet the party itself doesn't seem to engender popular enough candidates, or the two major parties co-op the Lib's issues.

-- Ken from Chicago

Peter, how could YOU not expect today's Democrats to send a loud and clear message of "hang tough and we'll cave"?

It's the same message they've been sending to all our foreign enemies since Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the republicans have been sending the message of: Attack us, and we'll attack someone entirely unrelated to those who attacked us.

Posted by: Adam at June 3, 2007 10:41 PM

Peter, how could YOU not expect today's Democrats to send a loud and clear message of "hang tough and we'll cave"?

It's the same message they've been sending to all our foreign enemies since Vietnam.

President Richard M. Nixon, a Republican, was the one who ended our involvement in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell to the communist-led North Vietnam not long thereafter.

President George H.W. Bush, also a Republican, declined to order an invasion and occupation of Iraq after expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait, despite calls from many to "finish the job."

President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat, ordered a military strike against Iraq to punish them for a violation of the cease-fire agreement to which they agreed in order to end the first Gulf War. He also initiated an extremely successful military campaign that led to the toppling of a brutal tyrant in Bosnia. He also ordered an airstrike against a facility in Sudan because U.S. intelligence indicated it was being used for the production of a nerve agent known as VX.

Real life usually defies attempts to reduce it to simplistic slogans.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at June 1, 2007 01:42 PM

Iraq fell into Iran's hands as soon as the Sunnis were taken out of power.

No, it did not, any more than Britain fell into our hands when Tony Blair became Prime Minister. The Shiite majority in Iraq may be inclined to see Iran as an ally, and even to accept their support, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd sit still for an Iranian occupation. There is a difference between supporting a foreign government and having that foreign government as your puppet.

Iran supports Hizbollah, for instance, and wields a great deal of influence over them. If Hizbollah ever perceived its interestes to be at odds with Iran's, however, I think that situation could change in a hurry. The U.S. provides a great deal of support to Israel, but as we've seen the Israeli government will often act in ways that run counter to our desires (as well they should -- Israel is a sovereign nation).

The Iraqi government in place now was installed by the U.S. Iraq is NOT in Iran's hands at the moment, and doesn't necessarily have to be. It could, however, very easily become a pawn of Iran should we leave now. This is one of the reasons why I believe that it is too early to pull out of Iraq, despite my misgivings about the war and the awful toll it is taking upon our soldiers and our nation as a whole.

Posted by: Bladestar at June 1, 2007 01:59 PM

Yes. The religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing is totally disconnected from reality and the separation of church and state. They don't believe in the constitution, they believe there is only one way, theirs and it shoul be forced on everyone.

If you believe that only "religious, hyper-conservative far rightwing" folks are capable of intolerance, you are as guilty of stereotypical thinking as they are. Extreme liberals are as bad as extreme conservatives in terms of trampling on constitutional freedoms, and in fact the two groups are often in alignment when it comes to supporting censorship.

Posted by: Bladestar at June 1, 2007 01:59 PM

As far as both Dems and Repubs, after they get elected, they change into someone/something else that has only their own agenda/welfare in mind, and screw the people they claim to "represent".

The american political process is so pathetically broken I don't see a real fix that'll work as long as money is involved...

That sounds like the words of someone who has given up. If so, don't fool yourself into thinking that by giving up you become an innocent bystander. When you throw in the towel, you become part of the problem. One of the reasons why political parties are so easily dominated by special interest groups is because those groups get together, raise money, and make noise; whereas the majority of us are too apathetic to take action for that which we believe.

The majority of us don't have the money or the time (we're too busy working our asses of to keep what we fucking have that the government, oil companies, and corporations are trying to take away) to have any effect.

ANd when we DO participate and VOTE like we did when we put the Dems in comtrol of congress, they turn around and piss all over us and just do what the old guard wants anyway, so fuck you Bill.

What the hell can any of us do? We don't have the billions needed to buy the politicians...

Nothing you can do when you have no actual power...

Who will invade America and free us from the religion rightwing and the spineless Dems?

And how could Bush & Co. not see this coming?

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19028561/

Iran was the appropriate target not Iraq! Most Americans don't want defeat either. What I and others I speak with is to ruthlessly crush our enemies and put an end to this. If Bush would stop running this war as a social service program and return to ending states that sponsor radical Islam bent on converting the world to it's whim, I'm confident his approval numbers would increase and the country would rally behind him and the war, but he won't. George Bush and most in the Republican Party are philosophically bankrupt as are the Democrats. The difference is they've turned to religion to justify their reasoning and Dem's are just plain Nihilists, which makes the Conservatives more dangerous to America than the Democrats. It's much harder to get someone to abandon their religion than it is to turn a cynic.

Rex Hondo makes some excellent points. Other than mentioning the ineptitude of the surgeon he was able to sum up the situation very objectively. Rex should be a reporter. His post along with others show better examples of reporting than we get from CNN and Fox News. Regarding PAD's original post, He's right. The Dem's have completely jumped the shark and run away from their promise of "change". They are empowering this war and not resolving it. Personally I agree we need to bring our troops home. I know this is surprising coming from someone who voted for Bush and still support him. However this is a war that is not being supported by the people we are trying to help. They want a regime that tells them what to do and controls them. A regime that kills their families and allow honor killings and no vote. I say leave and let them kill each other. Just don't put a date on it. I don't want to let the insurgents know when our soldiers will be facing the other way returning home. God Bless our troops, they deserve to be blessed and honored for their sacrifice.