Dems In Disarray Over Iraq

[Diuretic]

Last I checked the US has been around since 1776

Yes, I have a bottle of Jim Beam with a really nice 1976 Bicentennial design on it that my friend gave me when I visited him and his family in Iowa.

But I wasn't referring to the United States as an independent entity, I was asking about the Empire the US built.

Libs want the US to lose this war - so that is when the terrorists will win.

It was Redi who said the Dems should gain seat in Congress - another slip of the truth from White Flag Harry all he cares about is gaining more power - not on winning the war

There is no "war". There is an occupation. The occupation has been lost. Best now to find a way out of the meat-grinder.

I seriously doubt if Reid sees power as an end. I think he sees it as a means. This is of course in total opposition to someone like Rove who sees power as an end in itself. Very unhealthy in a democracy.

 

[Diuretic]

And dont worry RSSR, any legitimate Iraqi government will be completely controlled with US interest in mind. We will be running the region when we leave.

Who's leaving? The Death Star Embassy will be fully staffed with sufficient military personnel to destroy a small or medium size country. As well the various air bases which are being moved around in the ME in countries that will take them indicate that US influence will be very strong in the region. But yes, you're quite right I think, the US will still be running the region even when that damn meat-grinder is turned off.

 

[Superlative]

Yes, I have a bottle of Jim Beam with a really nice 1976 Bicentennial design on it that my friend gave me when I visited him and his family in Iowa.

But I wasn't referring to the United States as an independent entity, I was asking about the Empire the US built.



There is no "war". There is an occupation. The occupation has been lost. Best now to find a way out of the meat-grinder.

I seriously doubt if Reid sees power as an end. I think he sees it as a means. This is of course in total opposition to someone like Rove who sees power as an end in itself. Very unhealthy in a democracy.

RSR just like every republican see it as

Might Makes Right.

Simple.

 

[red states rule]

again.... no one is surrendering anything to anyone. When we leave, we will turn over our facilities and encampments and assets to the legitimate Iraq government. THat is not surrender at all.

In three months, Dems stuck a knife in the back of the troops, fucked taxpayers with higher taxes, coddle up to dictators and gave a group hug to terrorists

 

[Mariner]

in the good old days on USMB, there were one or two liberals at a time... me, Naked Emperor, Jillian, Psychobabble... Now, it's just RSR sticking to his guns, and the dozens and dozens of other former Bushies who used to own this place have suddenly gone quiet.

No surprise, as we "libs," so long vilified here, have slowly been proven right on point after point, from Iraq to global warming to income inequality.

Why bother arguing with RSR when he's the only remaining person in the U.S. to support Bush's position on Iraq?

Even the medal that Bush gave George Tenet wasn't enough to shut him up--his new book makes explicit that he doesn't expect this surge to be any more successful than the last three surges, and he expects Al Qaeda to attack again in the U.S. whenever they feel like it. At the moment, it's too easy and fun to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, so why bother killing Americans in America?

The ongoing Republican assertions that holding up funding for Bush's aims is the same as undermining the troops are just silly. If Bush ordered the troops to march off a cliff, would we be "undermining the troops" by refusing to buy their boots? It's Bush we're against, not the troops--and that's why the Democrats' House and Senate bills provide MORE money than Bush asked for--but they attach actual benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi gov't.

And it's equally silly to complain about the pork-barrel stuff the Democrats tacked on in order to win consensus--all the past Republican war bills had at least twice as much pork attached as the current one.

Is anyone surprised that the Iraqis elected a former Shi'ite death squad commander to be their new president? Of course they would--the long repressed Shi'ite majority would naturally choose one of their own to represent them. But how can such a person bring about the national reconciliation that Bush wants? Obvoiusly difficult--unless you're Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or George W Bush... Even Richard Scaife has given up on the neocon project...

So, USMB is no fun anymore. The hordes of Bush loyalists who used to live here are cowering in shame and embarrassment. If you have a liberal heart, you just gotta feel sorry for Republicans at the moment.

Hey RSR, if you've read this far, answer one of the questions I posed to you elsewhere--for example, if Bush really supports the troops, why didn't he give Petraeus all 80,000 troops he wanted for the surge? Why did he sell him short? And why do Republicans keep referring to "terrorists" and "Al Qaeda" when the latest intelligence shows that 3% of attacks in Iraq are due to Al Qaeda while the vast majority are civil-warring Shi'ites and Sunnis and insurgents who oppose our occupation?

Mariner.

 

[Edward]

in the good old days on USMB, there were one or two liberals at a time... me, Naked Emperor, Jillian, Psychobabble... Now, it's just RSR sticking to his guns, and the dozens and dozens of other former Bushies who used to own this place have suddenly gone quiet.

Many of them are probably beginning to realize how wrong they were and see that Bush is an idiot who has put this country and our soldiers in harm's way and has done nothing to deal with the threat of terrorism. Democrats have called on Bush to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and all we get from Bush is comments about how bin Laden isn't a priority.

No surprise, as we "libs," so long vilified here, have slowly been proven right on point after point, from Iraq to global warming to income inequality.

That's because liberals support the people while Republicans support the elite which they feel includes themselves. If it weren't for liberals the quality of life of Republicans would be horrible.

Why bother arguing with RSR when he's the only remaining person in the U.S. to support Bush's position on Iraq?

I don't argue with Red States instead I tell his fucking ass exactly what I think of his retarded ass. This probably offends the bitch but I don't give a fuck if I offend a retarded moron. I tell the asshole to shut the fuck up and vote for a retard who agrees with him as there are many of them. I have even suggested that the jackass run for office because I am sure other bitches would vote for him.

Even the medal that Bush gave George Tenet wasn't enough to shut him up--his new book makes explicit that he doesn't expect this surge to be any more successful than the last three surges, and he expects Al Qaeda to attack again in the U.S. whenever they feel like it. At the moment, it's too easy and fun to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, so why bother killing Americans in America?

Almost everyone agrees that the Bush administration's policy is inherently flawed and puts this country and our soldiers in harm's way.

The ongoing Republican assertions that holding up funding for Bush's aims is the same as undermining the troops are just silly. If Bush ordered the troops to march off a cliff, would we be "undermining the troops" by refusing to buy their boots? It's Bush we're against, not the troops--and that's why the Democrats' House and Senate bills provide MORE money than Bush asked for--but they attach actual benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi gov't.

Great point. It is the duty of Congress to protect our soldiers from the mentally challenged Bush and those who voted for him. This means funding and setting benchmarks.

 

[Gunny]

in the good old days on USMB, there were one or two liberals at a time... me, Naked Emperor, Jillian, Psychobabble... Now, it's just RSR sticking to his guns, and the dozens and dozens of other former Bushies who used to own this place have suddenly gone quiet.

No surprise, as we "libs," so long vilified here, have slowly been proven right on point after point, from Iraq to global warming to income inequality.

Why bother arguing with RSR when he's the only remaining person in the U.S. to support Bush's position on Iraq?

Even the medal that Bush gave George Tenet wasn't enough to shut him up--his new book makes explicit that he doesn't expect this surge to be any more successful than the last three surges, and he expects Al Qaeda to attack again in the U.S. whenever they feel like it. At the moment, it's too easy and fun to kill U.S. troops in Iraq, so why bother killing Americans in America?

The ongoing Republican assertions that holding up funding for Bush's aims is the same as undermining the troops are just silly. If Bush ordered the troops to march off a cliff, would we be "undermining the troops" by refusing to buy their boots? It's Bush we're against, not the troops--and that's why the Democrats' House and Senate bills provide MORE money than Bush asked for--but they attach actual benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi gov't.

And it's equally silly to complain about the pork-barrel stuff the Democrats tacked on in order to win consensus--all the past Republican war bills had at least twice as much pork attached as the current one.

Is anyone surprised that the Iraqis elected a former Shi'ite death squad commander to be their new president? Of course they would--the long repressed Shi'ite majority would naturally choose one of their own to represent them. But how can such a person bring about the national reconciliation that Bush wants? Obvoiusly difficult--unless you're Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or George W Bush... Even Richard Scaife has given up on the neocon project...

So, USMB is no fun anymore. The hordes of Bush loyalists who used to live here are cowering in shame and embarrassment. If you have a liberal heart, you just gotta feel sorry for Republicans at the moment.

Hey RSR, if you've read this far, answer one of the questions I posed to you elsewhere--for example, if Bush really supports the troops, why didn't he give Petraeus all 80,000 troops he wanted for the surge? Why did he sell him short? And why do Republicans keep referring to "terrorists" and "Al Qaeda" when the latest intelligence shows that 3% of attacks in Iraq are due to Al Qaeda while the vast majority are civil-warring Shi'ites and Sunnis and insurgents who oppose our occupation?

Mariner.

Perhaps a review is in order for you? USMB was sold. That would be the reason you don't see the familiar faces.

Odd how you liberals are willing to jump on Tenet's bandwagon when you used to villify him. It's almost like a plea bargain. Y'all lay off him if he says what you want to hear. The concept he's saying what you want to hear to sell you a book never crosses your mind.

There can never be enough Bush-bashing, eh Mariner?

 

[Diuretic]

I wondered what happened to the poster who had the Captain America fetish.

 

[red states rule]

Perhaps a review is in order for you? USMB was sold. That would be the reason you don't see the familiar faces.

Odd how you liberals are willing to jump on Tenet's bandwagon when you used to villify him. It's almost like a plea bargain. Y'all lay off him if he says what you want to hear. The concept he's saying what you want to hear to sell you a book never crosses your mind.

There can never be enough Bush-bashing, eh Mariner?

There is never enough Bush bashing - with the liberal media leading the charge

Tapper: Timing of Bush Veto Will Be 'Reminder of Everything Unaccomplished' in Iraq
Posted by Brent Baker on April 26, 2007 - 21:32.
ABC's Jake Tapper concluded his Thursday World News story, on the House and Senate Iraq funding bills which include timetables for the withdrawal of troops, by adding a gratuitous zinger about President Bush's much-derided “Mission Accomplished” speech. Noting how Democrats intend to send their final conference bill to the President on Tuesday, for an expected veto, Tapper helpfully pointed out how that “just so happens to be the fourth anniversary of the President's 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.” Tapper then bore in, asserting, “of course” that “would be an uncomfortable reminder of everything in Iraq that remains unaccomplished.” War supporters would see it as a reminder of how the Democratic effort to show they support the troops remains unaccomplished.

Tapper's spin matched the second paragraph of a story, by Jonathan Weisman, on the front page of Thursday's Washington Post: “Democrats hope to send the measure to the White House on Monday, almost exactly four years after President Bush declared an end to major combat in a speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. That would be a particularly pungent political anniversary for Bush to deliver only the second veto of his presidency.”

From Capitol Hill, Tapper concluded his April 26 World News story:

“Democrats are thinking about sending this bill to the President, for his signature or a veto, on Tuesday, which just so happens to be the fourth anniversary of the President's 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. That, of course Charlie, would be an uncomfortable reminder of everything in Iraq that remains unaccomplished.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/12344

 

[Mariner]

I'm happy to see your avatar, and happy you're still around.

Yes, I was aware that the board was sold, but you certainly remember the monolithic Bush support here from 2003-2006. It's not only here that this monolith has crumbled, but nationally. Republicans and conservatives should be looking at themselves hard to figure out how they threw away their perfect chance, after Clinton's moral failings, to win the country. My answer-->they went full-tilt to the right rather than trying to own the center.

Tenet? I was never impressed by him, and it sounds like his new book contains plenty of self-serving self-justification, but it's pretty amazing to me that even after being given a medal he certainly didn't deserve, he is willing to criticize the hand that handed it to him. He says there was "never a serious debate" in the Bush administration about invading Iraq--in other words, it was a foregone conclusion. He says he was scapegoated by the administration, who had plenty of access to more nuanced intelligence, and, as we all now know despite their best efforts to classify or delete anything that would bring accountability--they cherry-picked the evidence and sold the war based on "classified" stuff that was pure junk.

Who first broached the idea? Well, Karl Rove, in a speech 1.5 years before the invasion, to a group of Republicans whom he told that the war would succeed in bringing democracy to the middle east and would put Republicans in the house, senate, and presidency for the next generation. The Iraq war, it appears, was Rove's greatest PR ploy. Too bad it didn't work.

The Bush Administration itself appears to be evaporating before our eyes. Wolfowitz left, and now could lose his job at the World Bank. Richard Mellon Scaife, the very heart of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" has officially disavowed neoconservatism, Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, is befriending Hillary, Scooter is gone, Rove's deputy is about to testify, Rove himself is likely to end up on the stand, under oath (we'll see if he does better than Clinton), and Gonzalez, of course... who's left? Cheney, with Darth Vader approval rating of 18%?

All this speaks to comprehensive failure on Bush's part--hence my endless criticism of him. I think he and Cheney should accept responsibility for their errors and resign. Then Republicans would have a chance in the next election.

Anyway, back to the subject: RSR has repeatedly said "the surge is working. He doesn't believe us dumb libs, of course when we suggest otherwise. Perhaps he'd believe General Petraeus himself, who, per the NYT today, "conceded that the overall violence had not subsided, and he warned that large-scale attacks using car bombs against markets and other locations filled with civilians could still occur and set off more Sunni and Shiite revenge killings."

Note that Petraeus made no plea for us to remain in Iraq. It seemed pretty clear to me, reading between the lines of his reported testimony, that he wishes he weren't being ordered to do the impossible. He specifically said, for example, that al-Maliki is not strong enough to bring reconciliation. He's our only hope at this point--after all, he was elected by purple-fingered democracy...

By the way, one reason I've been absent for several months was that I joined a seminar at Harvard that has educated me about the French experience in Algeria. It is stunning how completely our failures in Iraq mirror France's problems in Algeria, where a tiny insurgency held off a huge French army, and all the "modern" debates we're having about torture, Islam, nationalism, borders, colonialism, resource wealth, etc., were already completed. 1 million of 9 million Algerians died in that conflict. We could end up with the same kind of mess in Iraq. No wonder Dominique de Villepin (who is friends with the professor who taught my class, and recently came here to speak) enraged the Bush administration in 2003 by suggesting that Iraq was a dumb idea and that we'd fail. Remember "Freedom Fries"? (Oh yeah, the Republican who coined that phrase was booted due to corruption... )

Mariner.

 

[maineman]

Mariner...as part of your studies on the french experience in Algeria, I recommend a novel by a frenchman Jean Larteguy entitled "The Centurion" (translated by Xan Fielding). It was given to me a long long time ago by a french paratrooper who had been a POW in Vietnam after Diembienphu and then went on to fight in Algeria. According to him, this novel clearly and accurately depicts the french experiences in both of those colonial struggles and the lessons they learned (and we did not) from those experiences.

 

[Mariner]

I will check that out.

I got interested in Algeria from the angle of Camus, who has long been my favorite writer but whose tremendous record as a humanist was somewhat marred by his inability to see the justice of the Algerian Nationalist cause. It's fairly forgiveable, given that he grew up not just French in Algeria but poor, and was educated in the nationalist French school systems (whose maps showed Algeria and France the same color, just like the old British Empire maps used to do with India, Canada, Australia, etc.).

Camus said that no matter how strongly we believe something political or religious, we should treat each other as people first. Naturally, he was completely against torture, and condemned its use by both sides in the Algerian conflict.

It's telling that one of the French commanders wrote feelingfully that what he learned was "one should never torture, never, for any reason," not only because he had observed it to be ineffective and counterproductive (inviting reprisals), but because he felt it corroded the souls of the torturers and degraded their cause. In other words, Abu Ghraib.

Mariner

By the way, RSR, there's nothing "gratuitous" about recalling the 4th anniversary of Bush holding up an aircraft carrier at the cost of a million dollars, having a giant sign made (and then pretending he had nothing to do with it), and prancing on the deck in a flight suit proclaiming "Mission Accomplished." It's factual. And it's meaningful. What it means is that the man was so completely out of touch that 4 years, 3000 U.S. dead, 30,000 U.S. wounded later, the mission is not even clear, what to say of accomplished. I could consider forgiving him if he climbed back on the aircraft carrier and said, "I was 100% wrong, and I'd like to sit down with the House and Senate now and work out a new bipartisan approach for getting us out of the mess I made."

 

[red states rule]

Libs have been yelling how the people want them to end this war

Seem the recent polls tell a different story


According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).


A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...YyNDA2ZThlMTg=

 

[Annie]

Libs have been yelling how the people want them to end this war

Seem the recent polls tell a different story


According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).


A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...YyNDA2ZThlMTg=

Well to my way of thinking, if the Democrats refuse to realistically analyze what the voters were saying in 2006, that's their problem. On the other hand, there is nothing worth noting that the GOP understands the voter's intentions any better.

Considering that it appears GW had already recognized a change in course was necessary, since he announced bouncing Rumsfeld before all the ballots were counted; yet the GOP too has a problem in reading the results.

 

[red states rule]

When Dems are in power they always overplay their hand and get greedy.

They have no idea what the people wanted

They want the US to win, the government of Iraq to stand on it's own,

and they want the terrorists defeated

Dems are doing the opposite in every case

 

[Annie]

When Dems are in power they always overplay their hand and get greedy.

They have no idea what the people wanted

They want the US to win, the government of Iraq to stand on it's own,

and they want the terrorists defeated

Dems are doing the opposite in every case

Not all, not in all circumstances. If they want the terrorists defeated, I'm on their side.

 

[red states rule]

Not all, not in all circumstances. If they want the terrorists defeated, I'm on their side.

Dems do not want to defeat them - they want to appease them

Big difference

 

[Annie]

Dems do not want to defeat them - they want to appease them

Big difference

Again, not all. Got to stop that 'lumping' habit.

 

[red states rule]

Again, not all. Got to stop that 'lumping' habit.

Sen Lieberman was the only Dems to vote against the surrender bill

I am not aware of any Dem in the House who voted against the surrender bill

So far, the Dems are pretty unified in appeasement and surrender

 

[Annie]

Sen Lieberman was the only Dems to vote against the surrender bill

I am not aware of any Dem in the House who voted against the surrender bill

So far, the Dems are pretty unified in appeasement and surrender

Right. Two Republicans crossed over. If they didn't, who else would have?