Despite the assertions of some here that I’m a knee-jerk supporter of all things liberal, people without blinders on are aware that I’ve expressed frustration and anger with Democratic party leaders any number of times.
But I have to say, I was tremendously amused to learn that the Democrats are intending to present the war funding bill to Bush–a bill he is certain to veto because, God forbid, it sets a timetable for our troops coming home (because in Bushworld extending their tours and leaving them in indefinite danger is “supporting” the troops whereas bringing them home isn’t)–on the fourth anniversary of Bush standing in front of that dámņëd “Mission Accomplished” sign. Think of it as Operation MAMA–Mission Accomplished, My Úš.
PAD
• 
Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it. Other than that if you read the language in it that is easily accessible on the internet, you will see that the “withdrawal” only refers to an actual invasion force. Peacekeeping, training and policing forces will stay “indefinitely”. The only real thing that might make a difference is that there is a provision to limit lengths of tours in Iraq, which doesn’t mean they couldn’t just rotate troops in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq as they please.
The Virginia Tech massacre has nothing on what Bush can do…
From what you say Adam, I say…sounds pretty good to me. ONLY $5 billion in pork? That sounds fairly light, considering what we spend a month to stay in Iraq. And just because it’s called pork doesn’t mean that those projects are all bad…maybe just not the best way to spend money, but the hope is that it’ll at least help someone locally.
And if the troop withdrawal is more of a staged, forced ramp-down from a full-on invasion/occupation force, why is that such a bad thing? Sure, I know some say it gives our enemies there good vibes…but doesn’t it also tell our Iraq puppet…errr, government friends…a kick in the pants to get their act together and start keeping the peace there.
I heard on the radio a comment that the bill contained an “artificial” withdrawal date.
I find that extremely appropriate, considering that we were given artificial reasons for going there in the first place.
It gets points for snark but it also reinforces the impression that anything this congress does is purely due to politics–potentially a danngerous position to take where war is involved. Senator Reid has been particularly inept in hiding the political aspect of this.
Right now, if I were betting, I’d put money on a huge Democratic Party takeover of both houses and a better than even shot at winning the presidency come 2008. But…if they overplay their hand…
Snark gets you points from people who appreciate a good political game but it might not play well with the average person who, in the long run, makes or breaks the election. If Bush is smart–no jokes please–he’s veto it somewhere that will be an equally obvious political theater. Maybe here in NC where a bunch of soldiers got killed. Go to Fort Bragg and veto it in front of a bunch of cheering soldiers. Craven? Sure, but it will be a bit harder for the Democrats to say anything about it.
As an aside…did ANYONE else watch the Democratic debate? Who is this Gravel guy? He’s a riot.
I didn’t watch the debate (I watched Smallville), but I caught Gravel on the MSNBC post-game show. I wish Kansas had primaries so I could vote for him. (We have caucuses, which means unless you manage to get a bunch of people of like mind together to pay for a caucus meeting of your own, you don’t actually get to vote for who you want to most of the time.)
It gets points for snark but it also reinforces the impression that anything this congress does is purely due to politics–potentially a danngerous position to take where war is involved. Senator Reid has been particularly inept in hiding the political aspect of this.
I agree. I think thats the very reason they will not flat out defund the war, politics. If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I didn’t watch the debates. I did, however, hear someone on the radio liken Gravel to the “crazy uncle” every family has. I also heard DeLay on that same radio show saying that Reid and Pelosi are coming close to committing treason. Does he think saying whatever batshit crazy thing comes to mind helps him sell books? Is this how he’s financing his criminal defense?
Bush has done just about everything he could to make me never vote for a republican ever again, but I’m still hard pressed to look at any of the dem candidates and say “yes! that’s who I want in the White House”. Hëll, I’d be satisfied with, “Well, he/she wouldn’t suck”, at this point.
So, what will be the result of this funding bill? Bush will veto it and the dems, lacking enough votes to override and the will to just defund the war and bring the troops home today, will send Bush a bill w/o any timetables. After a little bit of political theater, Bush still notches a win. The result will be simply a continuation of the status quo, leaving it for the next president to clean up Bush’s mess (par for Bush’s entire life).
Adam, the reasons you list may be on there, but Bush has been very specific in saying that he will veto it because of the withdrawal of troops.
And raising the minimum wage by $2 is enough to veto it? Christ, are you insane? God forbid people be able to actually earn a wage that they can live on, huh?
If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I wish it were that simple, but there are pratical reasons against simply pulling out beyond the political problem that the neocons will scream treason if the democrats defunded the war right away.
Bush has put us in a no-win situation. If we stay, there will be continued violence with no military solution. If we leave, there will be continued violence. So, the democrats have chosen the “safe” course of trying to push for a deadline so that Bush will then prod the Iraqis to come up with a political solution in time for us to leave.
The problem is, coming to a political solution involves getting the various sides together to talk and negotiate, which isn’t exactly Bush’s strong suit. Then again, neither is leading a military campaign.
Come to think of it, what is Bush’s strong suit?
The point about the pork and the minimum wage increase wasn’t that they are not needed/incorrect, but simply that they shouldn’t be piggy-backed onto a war funding bill. The minimum wage has nothing to do with Iraq and should be it’s own issue.
And if a discussion about minimum wage was to be had, you would have to think about the impact it would have on businesses, and how many of your businesses would shut down rather than incur the extra cost of labor. To put it a way a lot of us would probably understand better, how many of those kids at the local comic store do you think make much more than minimum wage? Do you think if their boss if flat out forced to give them ALL a $2 an hour raise, do you think he could even afford to stay open? How about grocery stores? How about gas stations? A lot of those places may stay open, but do you think for one second that those unscrupulous owners would hesitate to “pass the cost on to the consumer”?
“Come to think of it, what is Bush’s strong suit?”
All of his suits are strong are very expensive. It reminds him he is above the rest of us….
If they truely believe this war is illegal then defund it.
I wish it were that simple, but there are pratical reasons against simply pulling out beyond the political problem that the neocons will scream treason if the democrats defunded the war right away.
Exactly, Which is why they will never do it. They will scream and yell and tell the country we have lost the war but will stop just short of actually doing the defund because it could hurt them politically. The compassion is touching.
Im not a neocon (I know, I know) but, Im screaming Treason now after Reids comments.
Thats what the troops need to hear, a congress thats given up on them. Weather or not you agree on the war to begin with. Those troops are over there NOW, a timetable now would only insure that we will have to go back later.
When the Iraqi people can defend themselves is when we should leave.
Congress hasn’t given up on the troops, it’s given up on the mission. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren’t the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it.
And let’s not put a low ball price tag on the life of those troops. Anyone of our people who dies over there, is too many. The Iraqi people will be warring amongst themselves, as they always have, for decades to come. Unless we want to be permanent residents there, then enough is enough. As I have said before, if the President himself was leading the troops over there, or had a close relative on the front, he would have ended this a long time ago. So long as his people are safe (like Saudi Arabia) then he is content putting other’s lives on the line. Bush may as well have the gun that kills each of our soldiers over there…
Congress hasn’t given up on the troops, it’s given up on the mission. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren’t the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it.
Im sorry, but thats one and the same.
What amazes me is that the same people (like DeLay), who are screaming treason today did the exact same things the democrats are doing now. DeLay called the conflict in Bosnia pointless and voted to cut funding for it. Troops were in jeopardy then just as they are now, but now it’s treasonous to say the exact same things? Why? Because a republican wanted this war, that’s why. Sorry, but there’s no other reason for the double standard.
The fact is, the republicans want the democrats to try and immediately cut off funding for the fubar in Iraq. They wany it because they believe they can use it in the 2008 elections to hold onto the White House and regain Congress. They want it so bad they’re practically double-dog daring the democrats to do it. That, my friend, is pure politics.
Im sorry, but thats one and the same.
I don’t buy that for a second. The troops didn’t ask for this mission, but they’re doing the best they can despite being given inadequate equipment and planning. There is no military solution to the current mess in Iraq. To admit to that isn’t hurting the troops, it’s acknowledging that a hammer is not the perfect tool for every problem.
On the lighter side, I’m reminded of the episode of SCRUBS where J.D. is reading “Iraq For Dummies” and tells someone, “I don’t get it: I just reached the part where Bush declared ‘Mission accomplished’ and I still have 400 pages to go.”
I don’t think it’s “snarky” to point out that Bush naively declared an end to major combat four years ago. The Bush administration has done everything possible to create a rosy picture of how this would go — from “we’ll be greeted as liberators” to Cheney predicting that the insurgency wouldn’t last more than six months — and as things get worse and worse (how long *will* U.S. soldiers get killed there? how many hundreds or thousands of Iraquis have to be killed before we admit it’s a civil war?) Bush just keeps saying, in other words, stay the course. Democrats do want to win the White House and their is a political element to their timing — but that doesn’t make them wrong here.
“Im sorry, but thats one and the same.”
No, it’s not.
It wasn’t the same thing when Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits savaged Clinton over the military’s mission in Bosnia and Clinton, the Commander in Chief, himself over it and then tried to attach strings left and right to that mission and it’s not the same thing now with Iraq.
The mission is not the troops. It doesn’t matter how many times the Bush crowd repeat that lie, it doesn’t make it true.
Under that logic, no order from a president to the troops could be questioned as being legitimate or not.
Bush: “I would like to announce my new Iraq Policy Initiative. The mission of the troops is now to steal candy from Iraqi children and babies and kick their pets in the stomach. This should be a crushing blow to insurgency sympathizers”
Generic Democrat (GD): “Our troops shouldn’t be doing that. Stealing candy from children and babies isn’t going to help us in Iraq. And what kind of stupidity is kicking peoples’ pets in the gut?!?”
Pat: “How dare you attack the troops.”
GD: “I’m not attacking the troops, I’m attacking Bush’s dumb ášš mission.”
Pat: “If you attack the mission, then you attack the troops. They’re one in the same. Don’t you even bother to listen to Cheney when he speaks these universal, indisputable truths? If you supported the troops, then you would support Bush telling them to steal candy and kick puppies in the gut.”
GD: “Uhhh… I’m going to leave now… Please don’t hurt me.”
On a less snarky why to say that:
If you can think of so much as one “mission” that a president could order that you feel should be questioned or fought against, then you prove that you’re arguing your stand on the grounds of partisanship and not honesty. If you say that you cannot think of so much as one “mission” that a CiC could issue that you would argue with or see the need to defend the troops from…
Well, that just scare me a bit.
Ya, I’m confused…why would raising the minimum wage be bad? We live in a society where having a Million dollars means you have to still work hard and watch your budget.
As for Pork… who’s pork is it? Did all the other bills back in the REPUBLICAN days with the billion dollar bridge in ALASKA get passed with ease cause it was a republican pork?
What amazes me is that the same people (like DeLay), who are screaming treason today did the exact same things the democrats are doing now. DeLay called the conflict in Bosnia pointless and voted to cut funding for it. Troops were in jeopardy then just as they are now, but now it’s treasonous to say the exact same things? Why? Because a republican wanted this war, that’s why. Sorry, but there’s no other reason for the double standard.
Did Delay go on national T.V. and declare the troops were in jeopardy? If he did then yes the same standard should apply.
By the way dont we still have troops in Bosnia?
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there. The double standards go both ways.
It is true that talking about withdrawl and deadlines or criticizing the conduct of the war is emboldening the enemy and discouraging the American troops in Iraq. There’s no doubt about it.
But this is democracy. Stifling open debate about the war is not only undemocratic, but also bad for the troops, because it prevents correcting bad policies and strategies. Bad policies and strategies also embolden the enemy and discourage the soldiers.
I believe that part of this serendipidous timing is an attempt to judo the Repub argument that the bill is just a political stunt. Hard to make that argument straight-faced when the President took part in the mother of all political stunts four years earlier.
And of course, I understand a bunch of Repubs are whinging loudly and at length on it, complaining that the Dems should get the bill on Bush’s desk today (so he can veto it on a Friday, letting the bill fall into the newscycle memory-hole that is the weekend) instead of on the anniversary of a event whose memory has become politically inconvenient.
If the Repubs had simply factored in the costs of W’s War into the budget to begin with (instead of low-balling it to play down the true cost of the war and counting on a Republican majority Congress to rubber stamp supplemental spending bills as has been S.O.P. till now), we wouldn’t be having this debate. I can’t bring myself to feel all that sorry for them.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I’m kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn’t put these as the forefront of their objections. As these things go, $5B in pork may be a relatively small percentage for a bill of this size, but that wouldn’t matter to being able to cry some variation of “wasteful Democrats”.
I suppose the “they don’t support the troops” manta is just so fixed in the Bushies forebrains that at this point they can’t, y’know, change course.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I’m kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn’t put these as the forefront of their objections. As these things go, $5B in pork may be a relatively small percentage for a bill of this size, but that wouldn’t matter to being able to cry some variation of “wasteful Democrats”.
I suppose the “they don’t support the troops” manta is just so fixed in the Bushies forebrains that at this point they can’t, y’know, change course.
Did Delay go on national T.V. and declare the troops were in jeopardy?
Yes, he has.
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there.
Then you weren’t paying attention:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html
Transcript of President Clinton’s speech on Bosnia
November 27, 1995.
“If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support.”
Yes, we still have troops in Bosnia. The difference is, that mission wasn’t a complete fubar from the beginning. It actually accomplished its goal of ending the bloodshed with a minimum of risk to our troops.
Can’t say that about Iraq.
Adam: Actually the almost 5 BILLION in pork barrel spending and the $2 minimum wage increase that have been tacked on are reason enough to veto it.
I’m kinda suprised the politically astute Republicans didn’t put these as the forefront of their objections.
The reason why they didn’t is because, after six years of total GOP domination and soaring deficits, the republicans have lost any credibility they once had as the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint.
Not that the democrats are any better in that respect.
The Democrats are doing great. All this bill does is keep pressure on Bush and continually emphasize that he is isolated and unilateral in how he approaches Iraq.
Of course it will be vetoed. Then Democrats will turn to the electorate and say “we did everything we could short of literally failing to fund the war entirely, which we will not do at this point”.
And if Iraq degrades further, then every Republican who voted against this bill gets to take responsibility for not turning around.
Handing it to Bush on the Mission Accomplished anniversary is priceless. Is it too much to hope Bush will dance after he vetoes?
If you can think of so much as one “mission” that a president could order that you feel should be questioned or fought against, then you prove that you’re arguing your stand on the grounds of partisanship and not honesty. If you say that you cannot think of so much as one “mission” that a CiC could issue that you would argue with or see the need to defend the troops from…
I dont think of this as a one mission deal. I think this is the beginning of a whole mess trouble. (Iran, Syria etc.) and feel if we leave Iraq in this manner at this time it will make whats coming much worse.
I dont remember Bill getting approval from congress before going there.
Then you weren’t paying attention:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.html
Transcript of President Clinton’s speech on Bosnia
November 27, 1995.
“If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support.”
I stand corrected.
I dont think of this as a one mission deal.
The problem is, I don’t see this particular mission as doing anything to make us safer from terrorism or to help create stability in the region. In fact, all evidence indicates that it’s having the opposite effect on both counts. I don’t know anyone who disputes the idea that we are going to be facing problems coming out of the ME for years to come.
I just don’t see the Iraq invasion as being particularly helpful in dealing with them.
Bush’s refusal to deal with any language on timetables for withdrawal only proves the following:
1) Bush is a moral coward.
2) Bush and his staff have no idea what the hëll they are doing, nor how our troops have been relegated to playing glorified referees in someone else’s civil war.
3) Even if Bush wanted to pull our troops out, he wouldn’t have the first clue how to do it, since by his own “understanding,” a troop withdrawal would invite groups like Al Qaeda to swoop in and use Iraq as a base for terrorist actions.
Translation: at minimum, our service people are stuck in Iraq until at least 2009 when the next president takes office, and the retarded cowboy goes toddling back to Crawford, TX, to cut brush for the rest of his life.
The reason why they didn’t is because, after six years of total GOP domination and soaring deficits, the republicans have lost any credibility they once had as the party of fiscal responsibility and restraint.
As someone who has been known to be a knee-jerk conservative, I must admit I can’t argue with this statement about spending by Republicans. It, more than the war, is why I believe we lost control of Congress. The conservative base lost faith in the Republican leadership.
I have two thoughts about the war:
1.) There is no question in my mind that Bush genuinely entered into this war because he saw it as a necessary way to take the war on terror over there rather than just wait for an attack here. To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there, not just a reactive punitive strike because of 9/11. I don’t expect most of you to agree with me, I am just stating what I am convinced is the case.
2.) The endless false claims that Bush “lied” and went into the war for false reasons kept legitimate criticism for HOW the war was fought from being adequately dealt with. Hindsight is always 20/20, and I don’t think the war has been an abject failure. But the fundamental mistake Bush made was definitely NOT when he had a press conference saying “Mission Accomplished.” I think there are a couple of key decisions made in the first year after the invasion that hindered things and allowed the rise of sectarian violence.
Why am I so convinced this (Bush was sincere) is the case? I look at the hearings about Pat Tillman. It is very hard in a democracy to pull off the type of conspiracy Bush (or Cheney) are accused of doing. People quickly talk. It didn’t take long for the lie that Tillman was killed by the enemy was known to be not true.
The whining of Tennet that he was misunderstood and that his “slam dunk” comment was taken out of context is a classic proof of my premise. The reality is he DID think there were WMDs. There are a lot of “connecting the dots” type of logic that manufactures the “real” reason for the invasion, but there is no one who has come even close to confirming the wild ideas many have suggested.
I vividly remember the conspiracies that many (including even Rush) were willing to consider about Clinton. I rejected virtually all of them for the same reason I mentioned above. They were built on a circumstantial connecting of the dots while assuming at every possible turn that the person was evil incarnate. I have a very low view of Pres. Clinton’s character, but I never saw him as evil.
In regards to the bill, setting a date for a pullout is beyond foolish. It not only empowers the enemy, it also, quite frankly, potentially gives the Republicans the perfect campaign platform next year. Let’s just say (Heaven forbid) there is a successful attack on our soil before the next election. I would say the odds tip very quickly in Rudy’s favor over Hillary as the next President.
Just my thoughts.
Iowa Jim
I’m not sure that the fact that a lie was easily uncovered proves that it wasn’t a lie in the first place.
It not only empowers the enemy,
I don’t really buy into that carnard. It could also be useful for Gates and Patreus to go Maliki’s government and say, “look, we’re going to have to pull out eventually, so get your šhìŧ together!”
it also, quite frankly, potentially gives the Republicans the perfect campaign platform next year. Let’s just say (Heaven forbid) there is a successful attack on our soil before the next election.
I’d say you’d have a point here if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Let’s look at another scenario: Bush refuses to pull out, because, let’s face it, that’s what he’s going to do no matter what the democrats say or do, and there’s another successful terrorist attack (knock on wood) on US soil. That would pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the idea that invading Iraq somehow made us safer.
Dave Von Domelin wrote: “Congress hasn’t given up on the troops, it’s given up on the mission. Don’t make the mistake of confusing the two. The troops aren’t the mission. You can hurt the troops by supporting a failed mission, and support the troops by ending it.”
Baloney. You hurt the troops most by telling them they’ve “lost” when most of the troops who are actually still involved with the situation know dámņ well nothing has been decided at this point.
From a military standpoint, a war is lost when all one’s defensive positions are overrun, the troops have lost the capacity to fight (no equipment, no food and no ammo), and most of one’s forces are dead or in disarray.
That’s not the case in Iraq.
Frankly, I think congressional representatives like Harry Reid are useless when it comes to really solving the problems in Iraq. His purely political solution, “Let’s stop the fighting, withdraw, and the problem will go away,” is shameful. Is that how he proposes to fight every war, be it a war on drugs, a war on poverty, or a war on whatever?
I don’t think much of polls, because I never know, for example, what percentage of the 52 percent of the people who currently say they disapprove of the war in Iraq include the 60 percent of the people who can’t find Iraq on a world map. That being said, I thought it was ironic that Reid, who, like his ilk, seem to live and die by the polls, has an approval rating even lower than Bush’s.
This war cannot be won. Don’t you think the troops know this? You are not going to affect morale by telling them it’s time to come home, except in a good way.
You hurt the troops most by telling them they’ve “lost” when most of the troops who are actually still involved with the situation know dámņ well nothing has been decided at this point.
From a military standpoint, a war is lost when all one’s defensive positions are overrun, the troops have lost the capacity to fight (no equipment, no food and no ammo), and most of one’s forces are dead or in disarray.
That’s not the case in Iraq.
There are more ways to lose a war than what the textbook says. A war also lost if one’s troops lose a concrete set of military goals, and (as is the case now) have been relegated to playing a role as an occupying police force.
Furthermore, Bush’s claim that setting a timetable will encourage Iraqi insurgent forces to wait us out, and then go nuts is circular logic for the primary reason that even if we did reach a magical moment when Iraq’s political climate relaxed, and we did begin to withdraw troops, doing so would take well over a year to complete.
This said, what happens if, in the midst of that withdrawal, insurgent violence in Iraq spikes again?
Do we recall all those troops previously sent home, and go back to Square One?
If so, our soldiers will never leave Iraq because the country will never be fully at peace.
Our military forces will be stuck in a permanent role as Iraq’s babysitter.
CHV wrote: “Our military forces will be stuck in a permanent role as Iraq’s babysitter.”
You mean, as we are in South Korea?
Depending on what criteria you use, we lost between 33,000 and 56,000 troops in the Korean War, and we have been there since the cease-fire, in force, for the past 54 years.
And South Korea doesn’t even have oil…
Our troops in SK aren’t being killed these days, are they?
The region is in a military stalemate.
The socio-political climates in Korea and Iraq are also like apples and oranges.
The insurgent violence in Iraq is driven by religious and social grudges dating back centuries. North Korea is led by a political dinosaur whose little empire would have collapsed long ago had China not been a continual source of economic support.
The two situations could not be more different.
>The troops didn’t ask for this mission, but they’re doing the best they can despite being given inadequate equipment …
And remind yourself, this was the finest army in the world. The one which would stand up to the Soviets in Europe or elsewhere. Yet getting their heads handed them by a bunch of guerilla terrorists. Feh.
> To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there
Many people make that argument and it makes no sense at all. This is like saying that [in WW II], Britain was getting hit by occasional raids from Germany so, wanting to make a pre-emptive strike to avoid things getting worse, they mount an all-out attack … on France. Hunh?
CHV wrote: “Our troops in SK aren’t being killed these days, are they?”
I was stationed there for a year. We were on alert the whole time. The North can, on a whim, attack tomorrow, and the number of U.S. casualties inflicted in the first week would make four years in Iraq look like a minor skirmish.
To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there
But why there, unless you’re part of that 60% who can’t find Iraq on a map, you have to realize that the ME is a huge region. Al Qaeda was not planning and launching attacks on the US from Iraq, so why did we need to take the battle to their backyard? Unless you believe that it doesn’t matter which brown nonchristians you kill, you should focus your attention on the specific ones that were attacking you.
Call me crazy, but as Starwolf noted, if someone from Germany is launching attacks at you, you don’t attack France hoping to lure the Germans across the maginot line.
Posted by Den at April 27, 2007 04:02 PM
I don’t really buy into that carnard. It could also be useful for Gates and Patreus to go Maliki’s government and say, “look, we’re going to have to pull out eventually, so get your šhìŧ together!”
I hope that conversation has already taken place.
Posted by Den at April 27, 2007 05:59 PM
Call me crazy, but as Starwolf noted, if someone from Germany is launching attacks at you, you don’t attack France hoping to lure the Germans across the maginot line.
How about when someone from Japan attacks, would you then attack Germany?
There’s something I don’t get about the R’s and their tooth and nail fight against set dates. That thing is the reason that they most often give.
Just about any R: “You can’t set a date! why, that would embolden our enemy! All they would have to do is look at their calender, circle that date and lay low until we move out and they move in!”
Ok, that actually sounds pretty good to me. Lets set a date for July 4, 2008. Under the Bush, Cheney, Rush, Hannity, etc. world view, that would mean we get over a year of relitivally few terror attacks in Iraq, random violence and other stupid garbage cuts back a lot and we give ourselves some breathing room to work. I mean, think about how much more we could get done in a year of relitive peace in Iraq.
If they really believe what they’re saying, then they should love the idea of setting a date in stone for a little over a year from now. To not do that would mean that they want more troops to die by making sure that we have the full amount of attacks everyday that the “terrorist” can muster rather then a scaled back, lay and wait terrorist front. If they actually believed the pile that they’re trying to sell, they should welcome a set date to give us the time to get Iraq to “stand up” so that we could then “stand down” and get more of our troops home.
Or could it just be that even they don’t believe what they’re selling the public and they’re just trying anything they can to hold out long enough to dump Iraq, and all blame for its failure, on to the next guy (or Party) in the White House?
“There is no question in my mind that Bush genuinely entered into this war because he saw it as a necessary way to take the war on terror over there rather than just wait for an attack here. To say Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 is to totally miss the point. It was a preemptive strike to take the battle over there, not just a reactive punitive strike because of 9/11. I don’t expect most of you to agree with me, I am just stating what I am convinced is the case.”
You may be right that this was Bush motivation to invade Iraq, namely the neo-con theory that in order to deal with the threat of terrorism youhave to take over a random middle eastern state and turn it into a democracy. However, this reasoning was dead wrong and did not serve the US interest in any way. If Bush followed this bad approach, he should be held accountable for it even if he was full of good intentions.
“I was stationed there for a year. We were on alert the whole time. The North can, on a whim, attack tomorrow, and the number of U.S. casualties inflicted in the first week would make four years in Iraq look like a minor skirmish.”
Fareed Zacharia of Newsweek actually compared Iraq to Korea in the sense that the US should recognize in Iraq what it realized in Korea, namely that full victory cannot be acheived. He also suggested the need to set a timetable, because the Iraqi government was being uncooperative.
In any case, South Korea has a tense but long lasting and stable ceasefire. Iraq had continued bloodshed, and the US does not seem to have much of a strategy to change this situation. The US can continue to stay the course, hoping that things would improve. But it certainly more in the interest of the troops in Iraq, as well as Americas strategic interests, if it reexamines the way it is handling itself in that war. Demanding of the government to reexamine its approach is certainly the right and duty of the American citizens.
“And remind yourself, this was the finest army in the world. The one which would stand up to the Soviets in Europe or elsewhere. Yet getting their heads handed them by a bunch of guerilla terrorists. Feh.”
1) The Americans did not actually fight the soviets.
2) The inability of the US to defeat the guerillas in Iraq does not reflect on the quality of the army, since guerilla warfare presents a different kind of problem than conventional warfare. It may reflect a lack of ability:
a. to adapt to geuril awarfare.
b. lack of motivation
c. lack of ability to recognize the limits of miiltary power and to use deplomacy effectively.
d. A lack of ability to know which fights to pick
Although I can’t claim I follow Iraq closely, so I could be wrong.
Bush got us involved in Iraq for either oil or to get revenge for the plot on his father’s life.
Not WMD.
Not for Democracy.
Not to fight terrorism. (There wasn’t any terrorism in Iraq until after we invaded.)
Studies have been done that prove that raising the minimum wage actually crates more jobs. So, if one company goes out of business, another will takes its place.
It all depends on what your definition of “PORK” is.
Money top help rebuild New Orleans.
Money to improve Homeland Security.
Money to get better equipment for the troops in Iraq.
Money to get better health care for the returning troops AND for the 10-20,000 troops who have been permanently maimed.
I don’t think that is pork.
Obviously, most Republicans do.