Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn the Washington Post yesterday, Dana Milbank wrote, "Political Washington is in a state of suspended animation these days…leaders of both parties seem unable to do much more than heap blame on Maliki and argue about whether or not to call the Iraq carnage a civil war."
Actually, that depends on which "leaders" Milbank is referring to.
There are detailed withdrawal plans available for consideration. Each one provides a framework for finding a way out of this disaster that has disintegrated into a humanitarian catastrophe. The Congressional Progressive Caucus – the largest caucus in Congress – met last week with George McGovern, co-author of the 142-page Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. Written with former history professor and State Department Middle East expert, William R. Polk, the book calls for a withdrawal to be completed over approximately seven months with a subsequent massive reconstruction effort led by Iraqis and largely funded by the United States (at a far cheaper cost than maintaining the occupation).
On why he wrote the book, McGovern told the Washington Post: "I found that lots of thoughtful people had come to the conclusion that the war was a mistake, but they would say now that we are there, we can't pull out. It's the same argument I combated for 15 years during the Vietnam War….We concluded that instead of reducing terrorism, the [Iraq] war was aggravating it -- that we were in a more dangerous position with regard to Iraq and other countries as a consequence of the invasion…. [Polk] found that top people in the military don't think this war can be won…How do you end this? You begin to plan a systematic withdrawal. We're not talking about a stampede for the border – none of this silly business of cut and run."
McGovern and Polk advocate for an international peacekeeping force drawn from "Arab or at least Muslim countries." They write that the United States could fund such a force for two years at approximately two percent of the cost of continuing the war over the same time period. The plan describes the need for an immediate cessation of work on US military bases – which the authors say are "growing in size" and are "being given aspects of permanency."
The reconstruction effort outlined in their plan includes: destroying landmines; construction of buildings and infrastructure in a nation where over $100 billion to $200 billion in property damage has been incurred; restoration of Iraqi cultural sites damaged by the construction of US military facilities; reparations to Iraqi civilians for loss of life and property as the British are doing; grants to train Iraqi professionals who will develop Iraq's civic institutions, as well as aid to help skilled workers who want to return to the country; the voiding of all oil contracts made with American companies at discounted rates during the occupation; and rebuilding the public health system at "less than the cost of eight days of occupation, about $1.7 billion."
While one may have differences with elements of this plan, it certainly deserves a hearing. But it seems increasingly unlikely that such a plan will have traction among the cautious blue ribbon Inside-the-Beltway types. Sources inside the Progressive Caucus say that the members who met with McGovern emerged from the discussion impressed and motivated to ensure that other views are considered besides the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. (And don't expect any bold leadership there. As Erik Leaver – a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies – comments, "As a result of political pressure from the White House, the Iraq Study Group's report is not a reflection of the best minds of our nation on how to stop the killing and violence in Iraq and how to bring our troops home… the ISG's 'lowest common denominator' approach will keep US forces in Iraq for years to come without producing the political changes needed to stabilize Iraq.")
The Caucus intends to bring McGovern back again in January --along with a number of ex-CIA officials, diplomats, and military folks. The goal of these meetings is to work out a decisive plan for withdrawing our troops.
As Rep. Lynn Woolsey – co-chair of the Caucus – said following the meeting with McGovern: "Our continued military occupation is inflaming the situation, costing life and limb of not only our troops, but also countless innocent Iraqi civilians. The voters sent a message on November 7th giving the Democrats the majority with a clear mandate to bring an end to this horrific occupation. The voters did not give my party a mandate simply to…wait for cues from a blue-ribbon committee."
So, while there is no doubt that some Democrats will play it safe and wait for others to try to solve the crisis – there is a parallel track of progressive Democrats who aren't waiting to keep their promise to the American people to find a responsible way out of Iraq. The oft-maligned great patriot, George McGovern – who holds the Distinguished Flying Cross for service as a bomber pilot in World War II and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for humanitarian service – along with his co-author, William Polk, are both vital resources toward that end.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"So, while there is no doubt that some Democrats will play it safe and wait for others to try to solve the crisis..."
Uh, try "Most".
Although I can't for the life of me understand why Democrats wouldn't want to start throwing around the name "McGovern"?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 3:10pm
Plans are nice but useless until you want to leave. The Democratic Party as a whole doesn't want to leave. What they want to do is talk about leaving while staying.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/01/2006 @ 3:11pm
Katrina vanden Heuvel,
A good start Katrina. Commenting on the meeting that McGovern and Polk had with the Progressive Caucus in the House. Since they, alone on their own, are not a majority, the question must be asked, why DIDN'T ALL THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS meet with McGovern and Polk? It seems that the Democrats, again, afraid of their own shadows and listening to lunatic inside the beltway nonsense about being weak on national security indeed support the continuation of a failed war that is doing catastrophic damage to America's national security.
KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL, PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:16pm
MASK,
You want to bash a man who actually flew combat missions behind enemy lines and who is at least being thoughtful about getting out of the mess in Iraq. So I would guess in your mind that the current "non-plan to stay the course" for Iraq makes George W. Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar right about now...............
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:22pm
Hey Bush, why do you want to drag America into a Disaster in Iraq? Oh, well because I represent a very very small number of extremely wealthy people who want to become even wealthier, so I'm just going to lie so we can do this killing. Theyre an imminent threat, why, we want to give them Democracy. But Mr President, what if none of that is true? Doesnt matter. We gotta lie, it'll be over with in 5 weeks, it'll pay for itself, we gotta stay the course, stay the course, more Americans have to be killed - we can "say" it was for freedom, I never said stay the course.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 3:23pm
FROMREDBIRD,
And if American soldiers are still fighting and dying in Iraq by November 2008, then WE, the American people should make the Democrats pay the same price the GOP paid in 2006, defeat at the polls...............
FROMREDBIRD
Plans are nice but useless until you want to leave. The Democratic Party as a whole doesn't want to leave. What they want to do is talk about leaving while staying.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:25pm
Posted by POSEIDON 12/01/2006 @ 3:22pm
Lotta LEAPS there, POSEI. First not bashing McGovern (nor his war record. Actually read "Wild Blue" by Ambrose and McGovern was a hero in every sense of the word).
He's a decent man, I'm sure.....BUT I was noting though that he does have a SLIGHTLY tainted POLITICAL record and IMAGE problem that maybe the Democrats, even during an un-popular war, might not want to embrace....namely--
Richard Milhous Nixon=Republican=California= 47,169,911 votes= 60.7%= Electoral college- 520
George Stanley McGovern=Democratic=South Dakota= 29,170,383 votes= 37.5%= Electoral college- 17
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 3:29pm
LIBERALPRIDE,
Another GEM that was priceless: When Ken Mehlman and George Bush claimed that they never said and never were for "stay the course" both Keith Olbermann of Countdown and Jon Stewart of the Daily Show replayed at least 25-30 clips each of Bush himself (29 times) and others in his adminstration repeating that one phrase over, and over, and over again.
LIBERALPRIDE
Hey Bush, why do you want to drag America into a Disaster in Iraq? Oh, well because I represent a very very small number of extremely wealthy people who want to become even wealthier, so I'm just going to lie so we can do this killing. Theyre an imminent threat, why, we want to give them Democracy. But Mr President, what if none of that is true? Doesnt matter. We gotta lie, it'll be over with in 5 weeks, it'll pay for itself, we gotta stay the course, stay the course, more Americans have to be killed - we can "say" it was for freedom, I never said stay the course.
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:31pm
MASK,
You disappoint me. Perhaps six years ago, you WOULD BE RIGHT ON THE POLITICS OF EMBRACING MCGOVERN, ALTHOUGH WRONG ON THE MERITS. I think that Americans may be at the point now, where they no longer want to hear the politics of fear and smear, at least at this juncture, and they would be willing to listen to McGovern's ACTUAL PLAN for leaving Iraq than the NON-PLANS of the Congress and the White House which amount to "stay the course by another means" which will leave the U.S. in Iraq for years to come.
THE QUESTION IS NOW SIMPLE, KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW ABOUT THE FAILED IRAQ WAR AND GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN MCGOVERN'S PLAN FOR GETTING OUT AND THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE CONGRESSIONAL PLANS FOR STAYING THE COURSE, WHICH DO YOU PREFER?
MASK
Posted by POSEIDON 12/01/2006 @ 3:22pm
Lotta LEAPS there, POSEI. First not bashing McGovern (nor his war record. Actually read "Wild Blue" by Ambrose and McGovern was a hero in every sense of the word).
He's a decent man, I'm sure.....BUT I was noting though that he does have a SLIGHTLY tainted POLITICAL record and IMAGE problem that maybe the Democrats, even during an un-popular war, might not want to embrace....namely--
Richard Milhous Nixon=Republican=California= 47,169,911 votes= 60.7%= Electoral college- 520
George Stanley McGovern=Democratic=South Dakota= 29,170,383 votes= 37.5%= Electoral college- 17
Posted by MASK
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:42pm
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 3:45pm
Posted by POSEIDON 12/01/2006 @ 3:42pm
See, this is going to come as a surprise to you but.....I prefer McGovern's plan (if it was workable).
But that wasn't my point....let's read it again-
"Although I can't for the life of me understand why Democrats wouldn't want to start throwing around the name "McGovern"?!??!?"
How does that PLAY? Yes "play" as in "play in the Media", with guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, and the rest of the "right wing corporate media", hmmm?
Does it maybe come out like this...."Dems are turning to landslide loser George McGovern for advice on how to get out of Iraq. Despite previously endorsing the Murtha Plan, and later saying they wanted to wait and see what the Iraq Study Group came out with...Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have now embraced a plan by the man who lost 49 states and nearly 20 million votes to Richard Nixon!!!! which involves ABANDONING Iraq by July."
And that's just off the top of my head!
No, my criticism is ...My God!...did it HAVE to be McGovern?!?!? Why not atleast Jimmy Carter (though he's not much better).....or Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, MAX CLELAND maybe????
If anything this is going to push the Dems TOWARDS the "Baker Plan" out of political survival. If it's "Baker-Hamilton" (endorsed by Bill Clinton and others)....or linking yourself to George "Landslide Loss Despite An Unpopular Republican War and Distrusted President" McGovern....
which would YOU choose?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 4:26pm
McGovern's loss is ancient history to 90% of the population, and if his and Polk's plan becomes the only creditable one for withdrawal, the vast majority of Americans won't care two farts about 1972. Hell, Republican strategists and right-wing pundits are starting to worry that they won't be able to use Whitewater and Travelgate to stop Clinton in '08 and that crap is only 10-15 years old.
Sometimes, we all think too much like Beltway pundits and need to come up for some fresh air. And Zero, don't give up hope. Just because most of the Democrats don't want to withdraw from Iraq doesn't mean they can't be forced into getting the hell out.
Posted by cka2nd at 12/01/2006 @ 5:21pm
Congress, both Houses are a pretty sorry bunch. The Dems don't really want a plan because the Iraq mess is political capital for them. The Repubs need those big fat cats (merchants of death) to continue funding their party so they're not going to rock any boat that might throw the fat cats overboard. So here we are. Time to declare a pox on both their parties and take to the streets.
The plan sounds good. If Iraqi firms had been allowed to do what Halliburton etal were allowed (not) to do, reconstruction would have cost 90% less than what we've been shelling out to American construction firms. That alone makes the McGovern plan worth a look.
Posted by felicity at 12/01/2006 @ 5:38pm
Even MOST Republicans now admit that the Disaster in Iraq that their stupidity caused, that their stupidity supported, must end. MOST Republicans admit the Disaster was a "mistake". A "mistake". Whose mistake? Liberal Geniuses didnt make this mistake. And I have to criticize the weak-minded Conservatives who lament that Liberals gloat over being right all the time. How stupid do you have to be to trust a so-called President of the United States, who tells you "we got to go to war, got to go to war".
Now Republican Conservatives, Democrat Conservatives - all the fools ARE ADMITTING that the Disaster in Iraq was a "mistake". A major, debilitating, destructive, dangerous, damnablly idiotic mistake.
Republicans admit that their "mistake" has hurt America bigtime. Osama Bin Laden runs free, and our troops are trying to occupy a tiny little country that is kicking their asses all over the map. Saddam Hussein - apparently the only person in Iraq capable of hunting down and destroying Al Qaida in Iraq - is gone. Al Qaida in Iraq went from a non-existent group, to a group that George Bush says is the primary killer of Americans in Iraq. Car bombs that werent going off every day when Saddam Hussein was in, are now going off every day.
Call them ragheads, call them camel jockeys, but they are DEFEATING the most powerful military the world has ever seen. WHY? Incompetent leadership. Americans with NO conscience, feeling no responsibility for the Iraqis we kill based on George Bushs lies. Americans who meekly admit to their mistake but continue to demonize those who would stop the violence.
Republicans said Democrats didnt have a plan - but Democrats are awash with plans. Democrats have plans coming out of their ears - to get the hell out of Iraq - a country that did absolutely nothing to America - and a country ruled by Saddam Hussein, a Terrorist Terminator the likes of which has not ruled Iraq since. Al Qaida in Iraq was hunted down to the brink of extinction - those were the days before George Bush led his coalition of mass-murdering butchering idiots, supported by Conservative Republicans, supported by Conservative Democrats, who have absolutely no loyalty to America whatsoever. As Conservatives continue to demonize liberals and every other word they say is liberal, socialist, liberal, calling us America-haters, saying we hate freedom, saying we hate the troops, WHY? Because we are right. Liberals didnt drag America into this disaster. Liberals are geniuses - not just on foreign policy. Liberals warned about the Disaster. Liberals told you George Bush was lying. But willfully ignorant Americans possessed by the arrogant philosophy of Conservatism, where you kiss ass to the principles of Authoritarianism by going along with every lie telling you to kill - innocent people - people who did nothing to us... Conservatives have no ideals, they sold out on their small government so-called beliefs. They dont believe in lower taxes, because after nearly 6 years of Republican rule most Americans taxes ARE NOT LOWER. All Republican Conservatives care about is Authoritarianism - believe the tyrants lies - even if he is an idiot - support the killing - even if it makes America less safe. Damn you Conservatives for what you have done to the world.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
George McGovern was buried by the Nixon bulldozer. Like Gene McCarthy, he had great vision, but not enough moxie to beat the poweful machine that chewed him up and spit him out. If we can believe some of the theories, Nixon actually picked McGovern to run against so he could win bigger.
He lost an election by lots. Nixon also lost, but by a little and then came back, resurrected himself and put his meanspirited self into our White House. I note that in Massachusetts, where I lived at the time, McGovern won.
Anyway, '72 was far too long ago to mean much to anyone except the jerks on the right lunatic fringe. Even if they weren't there, they invoke old ghosts. As an aside, I note that right wingnuts are still mimicking Dean's speech in Des Moines even though they weren't there. I was, and it was excellent -- until the media stripped away the crowd noise.
It makes great sense to pay for Iraq reconstruction at a small fraction of the cost of occupation. It's a great incentive for them to get their act together. No stability = no reconstruction.
Even if someone else must take the plan and rewrite it to put different authors' names on it, it's worth the trouble. I agree that this is an approach that can work. Heck, even "I never saw a profit I didn't like" Bush should embrace this capitalism-driven concept. Of course, he won't.
GWB remains, as he always has been, the worst American President in living memory -- and by a large margin.
Posted by adr at 12/01/2006 @ 5:55pm
"Damn you Conservatives for what you have done to the world."
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 12/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
Amen to that, after noting that a few conservatives really are and have been appalled by our foreign adventurism.
Most of them just shit-canned their principles while seeking greater power.
Let this be a lesson to all of us. We have to remember that power is a means, not an end. Otherwise, we'll end up drinking the same evil Kool-Aid as the conservatives did. I have faith that John Edwards and Barack Obama will not abandon their principles in favor of whatever flavor is favored at the moment. I hope I'm not proven wrong. I'm waiting and watching.
Posted by adr at 12/01/2006 @ 6:02pm
Americans are not going to forget WHO CAUSED the Disaster, just because Liberal Geniuses dont immediately agree on the best way to being to undo the damage.
Iraq is a Disaster - created by Conservatives - Conservative Republicans, Conservative Democrats. You expect Liberals to come in - and folks - the Democratic Majority has NOT EVEN BEEN SWORN IN YET. And without even being sworn in, we are all supposed to have arrived at a consensus of what is the BEST way to extract ourselves from this MESS.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 6:12pm
and Barack Obama will not abandon their principles in favor of whatever flavor is favored at the moment. I hope I'm not proven wrong. I'm waiting and watching.
Posted by ADR 12/01/2006 @ 6:02pm
Go to Huffington Post and read David Sirota's take on Barak Obama.....he doesn't seem as solid a favorite as even Edwards with the Left!
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 6:33pm
Noted this on John Nichols "Notion" post....
Anybody know what the date "Wednesday January 10th, 2007" is significant for?
(not counting Saturday and Sunday)....the end of Speaker Nancy's "First 100 Hours".
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 6:34pm
Here is a typical Republican "PLAN":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1433353,00.html
Which HAS BEEN implemented. Bush thought it was so brilliant he promoted Negroponte to DNI.
El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants
THE Pentagon is considering forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago. Under the so-called "El Salvador option", Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter.
REPUBLICAN "PLANS" = MORE DISASTERS.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 6:41pm
Democrats now have a dozen plans - to stop the disaster. The Democrat has not even been sworn in yet - that will happen in late January 2007.
Republican plans are simply more drivel, calling for "Salvadoran Options" - these plans are Disasters. Every plan originating from the mind of Authoritarian Conservatives is simply stupidity wrapped in a flashy looking 3 ring binder with some dumb name written across it like "Salvadoran Option".
Republicans demand a plan - but their own plans contain nothing but ignorance, arrogance - and when implemented - more disasters.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 6:44pm
Obviously, no Conservative is ever going to defend Negropontes stupid "Salvadoran Option" - which since having been implemented, has been an un-mitigated disaster. I seriously doubt any of the intellectuals from the RNC can even remember their own names.
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 6:46pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/01/2006 @ 6:24pm
That is the platform the Demoncrats ran on "We have a plan to end the war in Iraq"! So, you say they were LYING as usual?????? Big Surprise!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
How odd! Were it true, then one would think that reactionaries such as you would be in orgasms of joy at more lying since you worship at the feet of the Great Liar-Buffoon, the Commander-of-Falsehoods, the Chief Prevaricator, GWB.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 6:56pm
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 12/01/2006 @ 5:53pm
"Damn you Conservatives for what you have done to the world."
------------------------------------------------
I really DO like you LIBERALPRIDE! Your passion warms the cockles.
But I beseech you, don't call them conservatives.....they aren't.....they are reactionaries, at best, or fascists, at worst. Conservatives are in a more honorable tradition such as represented by Chafee, Eisenhower or Ford - people this crop of far righties see as socialists.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 7:04pm
The moment they stop saying "Liberal" 45 times in every single utterance
Posted by LiberalPride at 12/01/2006 @ 7:18pm
" Oh, well because I represent a very very small number of extremely wealthy people who want to become even wealthier, so I'm just going to lie so we can do this killing."
This statement,for me, is the most ridiculous utterance I have ever read or heard from some one who should really know better...To actually believe this of Bush,is childish, I never really liked Clinton or any one his policies,...I thought he was a fraud and his wife was worse...I also thought all those death theories, Vince Foster, Clinton chronicles,..all that horse shit was and is horse shit.I never believed for one second Clinton was trying to get rich, cheat,kill anybody for any reason muchless help his Arkansas buddies, lie, get his friends rich or anything at the American Peoples expense, no matter how it looked..I know those who held the beliefs are total kooks of the right and absolutely slanderous idiots who offer nothing in the way of proof that any scheister lawyer would go near in court.....to believe one wants to see men die so his friends get rich...especially in an office as public and transparent as the Presidency ..
And the same goes for this crapp posted by Liberalpride..
Ridiculous name...you shame true liberals and statements like the post above from you put in in a special nut section with all the Clinton conspiracy addicts and lunatics....you need to be under CONSTANT supervision if you really believe this and I would hope if you do, you have your gene pool drained...it has turn on you.
You and those with this believe are not part of the problem/solution arguement...you are the problem..
It might be time to thin the herd...
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 7:19pm
George McGovern and Nixon are part of oiur history and the ass whuppin Nixon gave him was massive...which, if the Dems want to lose in 2 yrars they should keep on bringing Mc Govern up....
Coffin nail # 5, I think.
George is a decent and an honorable man...but he was wrong...and thats OK.
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 7:24pm
The moment they stop saying "Liberal" 45 times in every single utterance
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 12/01/2006 @ 7:18pm
But LIBERALPRIDE....by calling them conservatives you give them more credit than they are due. And you are not properly classifying them. Let them call us what we truly are; and call them what they truly are.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 7:25pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:19pm
It might be time to thin the herd...
Your first, sir.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 7:28pm
" Chafee, Eisenhower or Ford - people this crop of far righties see as socialists"
Actually, I see Chafee as a democrat, Eisenhower as a conservative and Ford as a goof....now the Reagan was a conservative, as was Goldwater and Dole...Bush 1, Bush 2, Rockefeller,and yes, Nixon,(Nixon pushed the Great Society thru and believed in it, his next goal was national health care, but was , ah, side tracked) were more socialistic than Johnson or Carter IMO...
but Bush as a far righties?
You have your panties on backwards and too tight.
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 7:30pm
"Your first, sir. "
Ah, no, I am member of a pod, not a herd....:)
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 7:31pm
But, kidding aside, his staement was over the top, especially if he realy believe it to be a fact of life...
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 7:32pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:32pm
But, kidding aside, his staement was over the top, especially if he realy believe it to be a fact of life...
--------------------------------------------------
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but while admitting to a slight amount of hypberbolae, I would have to say that I do not think LIBERAL is that far off the mark. There is not time, space nor energy to go over this whole hideous episode in our nation's history but the anger of LIBERAL is understandable and justified. I believe the consensus is strong enough that it no longer requires debate that this invasion was one of the greatest mistakes the US has ever made, if not THE greatest. And when one examines the record and sees how tied at the hip the POWH and his minions are to the corporate world and wealthy, the statement of LIBERAL is quite defensible. You think what you will of the Clintons, it can be defensibly argued, not just a matter of distaste, that the POWH is a war criminal, a breaker of his oath of office, a congenital liar, a religious hypocrite, and profoundly immoral(which is obviously redundant). All LIBERAL did is link this monster to his masters.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 7:50pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:30pm
Actually, I see Chafee as a democrat, Eisenhower as a conservative and Ford as a goof....now the Reagan was a conservative, as was Goldwater and Dole...Bush 1, Bush 2, Rockefeller,and yes, Nixon,(Nixon pushed the Great Society thru and believed in it, his next goal was national health care, but was , ah, side tracked) were more socialistic than Johnson or Carter IMO...
but Bush as a far righties?
You have your panties on backwards and too tight.
__________________________________________________________
QED
Thank you for proving my point to LIBERALPRIDE. All this litany of your opinion and classification proves is my point that you are, at best, a reactionary, far to the right of what almost all of the political experts in nations of the first world would view as conservatives. Not one true conservative would countenance the actions of the POWH. Further, he wants to turn the clock back to, at least, the Gilded Age. That makes him a reactionary. But his total allegiance to the plutocracy and his actions to destroy constitutional rights, employ police state procedures and label any opposition as unpatriotic,if not traitorous, is pure textbook fascism.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 8:07pm
Democrats now have a dozen plans - to stop the disaster. The Democrat has not even been sworn in yet - that will happen in late January 2007.
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 12/01/2006 @ 6:44pm
LP, two points.
1. Dems get sworn in on January 2nd, session starts the 4th.
2. If Dems have "a dozen plans"...doesn't that mean that a FEW of them might be....contradictory?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 8:20pm
Posted by MASK 12/01/2006 @ 8:20pm
2. If Dems have "a dozen plans"...doesn't that mean that a FEW of them might be....contradictory?
--------------------------------------------------------
The logic of that remark completely escapes me. Certainly, several plans can be envisaged that do not negate the validity of each other. Contradiction means that if one is true the others must be false. But plans such as these are not exercises in validity. There can be a plethora of plans, all of which differ greatly and which may have opposite activities, but contradiction implies invalidation and that cannot be the situation here. It would only be a question of which plan would work the best under a given set of circumstances.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/01/2006 @ 8:35pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/01/2006 @ 8:35pm
TIRES...if 1 plan (say Ms vanden Heuvel's "McGovern-Polk" "out by July 2007") is part of the "dozen"...
and "Iraq Study Group/Baker-Hamilton" which Dems have said they would "consider" is another....and as Ari Berman said it STILL means troops there PAST 2008 is another.
Don't you see SOME contradiction between "out by July 2007" and "still there in 2008"?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2006 @ 9:06pm
" my point that you are, at best, a reactionary, far to the right of what almost all of the political experts in nations of the first world would view as conservatives."
I consider myself more fiscally conservative than most..and I am more libertarian when it comes to governemnt programs that just throw money out the windows without regard to success or effectiveness...to me the far right is a Pat Buchannan, Michael Savage, Hannady,...Liddy...in government I think of Helms,McConnel to some extent,Sessions..as samples..
Posted by john maasch at 12/01/2006 @ 9:23pm
I was surprised earlier this year to learn that McGovern is still alive....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/01/2006 @ 10:08pm
certainly his era is dead...
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/01/2006 @ 10:09pm
I see Chafee as a democrat, Eisenhower as a conservative and Ford as a goof....
Posted by TIRESIAS
Please do not confuse "clumsy" with "goofy"
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/01/2006 @ 10:11pm
in government I think of Helms,McConnel to some extent,Sessions..as samples..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 9:23pm
Finally, people outside of Kentucky are starting to recognize Mitch McConnell for the radical that he is.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/01/2006 @ 10:14pm
CK: that they won't be able to use Whitewater and Travelgate to stop Clinton in '08
what exactly came out of those two things? absolutely nothing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/01/2006 @ 10:22pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/01/2006 @ 8:07pm
T,
What was that you said about expertise in one field not guaranteeing the same in others? I like you best as a maths/science academic. You just seem a little like the majority maddies who inhabit this site when you stray into political commentary. Then again I suppose it's hard to be cool, calm and collected when you are fighting fascists, particularly one who somehow got voted into the Whitehouse. Fascist? I prefer the term naive idealist.
On a lighter note, my gut feeling (observation mixed with cynicism) is that a fair few Dems, who thought like Bush about Iraq well before 2000, are quite happy that a once in a century "mad" President (no one else Dem or GOP would have done it) invaded Iraq and are thus very likely to drag their feet in getting the troops home. (The only fly in the ointment is if the Iraq Government says; "Go home Yankee").
It's a win-win situation for them. viz. The US furthers its many and varied interests in the ME and Bush gets the blame. I heard one commentator suggesting a time frame of up to 10 years for a "phased" troop withdrawal; maybe that is a more realistic scenario. However considering the US still has military bases in Germany and Japan 60 years after the war, (which may or may not have to do with the existence of fascism in US high places) the phasing and time frame may need some further qualification.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/01/2006 @ 10:36pm
Posted by LRJONES4 12/01/2006 @ 10:36pm | ignore this person
all of this is just absurd. give the goddamn occupation in germany and Japan a rest. none of those soldiers have fired a shot in 60 years. they are there for symbolism because america is an empire, and don't you forget it. the american military's effectiveness in germany ended when the Berlin wall was built, which reduced them to bystanders. I did not believe so at the time, living in germany, but I believe now that this marginalisation was for the best.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/01/2006 @ 11:00pm
CKA2ND,
Well said..............
CKA2ND,
McGovern's loss is ancient history to 90% of the population, and if his and Polk's plan becomes the only creditable one for withdrawal, the vast majority of Americans won't care two farts about 1972. Hell, Republican strategists and right-wing pundits are starting to worry that they won't be able to use Whitewater and Travelgate to stop Clinton in '08 and that crap is only 10-15 years old.
Sometimes, we all think too much like Beltway pundits and need to come up for some fresh air. And Zero, don't give up hope. Just because most of the Democrats don't want to withdraw from Iraq doesn't mean they can't be forced into getting the hell out.
Posted by CKA2ND
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 11:36pm
MASK,
Being thoughtful and intelligent about the whole thing and not being politically tone deaf and stupid about it, I would take George Landslide Loss McGovern's plan any day of the week compared to the non-plans of the White House and the Congress.
Posted by POSEIDON at 12/01/2006 @ 11:39pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/02/2006 @ 12:18am
Solid.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/02/2006 @ 01:11am
Plans are nice but useless until you want to leave. The Democratic Party as a whole doesn't want to leave. What they want to do is talk about leaving while staying.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD
And if American soldiers are still fighting and dying in Iraq by November 2008, then WE, the American people should make the Democrats pay the same price the GOP paid in 2006, defeat at the polls...............
Posted by POSEIDON 12/01/2006 @ 3:25pm
If any of those a******* think they can get away with not having us completely out of Iraq by January of 2007 they are deluded. I won't just vote third-party, I'll vote Republican.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/02/2006 @ 02:35am
Please keep promoting McGovern. He was wrong on Vietnam and has been wrong ever since.
A decent man and an honorable veteran, but he is just as wrong for our national security and global security today as he was then.
Fortunately only the far left actually listens to him.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/01/2006 @ 4:26pm
I doubt if anyone other than the 28 members of the Brownshirt Party of America give a damn what you think about George McGovern.
"He was wrong on Vietnam." Part of his platform was withdrawal from Vietnam. Three years later we withdrew from Vietnam. Is that your exhibit "A" that he was wrong?
The only way we could have conquered Vietnam would have been by slaughtering 40 - 60% of the Vietnamese. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to know that option would fall within the parameters that a homicidal nincompoop like you would consider not just acceptable but "neat".
Why the f*** did you want to "win" the Vietnam war anyway? What the f*** for? For your bloated American ego? Is that all you live for?
Posted by fromredbird at 12/02/2006 @ 03:00am
But I beseech you, don't call them conservatives.....they aren't.....they are reactionaries, at best, or fascists, at worst. Conservatives are in a more honorable tradition such as represented by Chafee, Eisenhower or Ford - people this crop of far righties see as socialists.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/01/2006 @ 7:04pm
But LIBERALPRIDE....by calling them conservatives you give them more credit than they are due. And you are not properly classifying them. Let them call us what we truly are; and call them what they truly are.
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/01/2006 @ 7:25pm
Bush and his unquestioning supporters are undoubtedly fascists.
But what's really funny is to see the "centrist" Democrats get their nose all out of joint when someone uses THAT f-word. They're scared to death that someone will call them "leftist" because they are on the same blog as someone who uses that frightening word.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/02/2006 @ 03:07am
The only way out of this war that is likely to happen is people holding on to the landing skids of US helicopters, being lifted from the roof of the embassy. Patrick Cockburn describes it as Baghdad nearing its "Saigon Moment". I'd have to agree.
Posted by ZERO 12/01/2006 @ 9:19pm
The Democratic Party as a whole doesn't want to leave. What they want to do is talk about leaving while staying. -- FRB
I couldn't agree more. I believe that the Democrats as a body will primarily view the war as a political football, with many of them, in thrall to the Israel lobby, seeing it actually as a good or desirable thing. The anti-war voter will be seen as a pawn to be controlled and manipulated, but never represented. I have zero faith in the Democrats. I'd would dearly, dearly love to be proven absolutely wrong - and I will admit that situation with total joy if it happens - but I don't think I am going to be proven wrong.
Posted by ZERO 12/01/2006 @ 9:26pm
It doesn't matter if the Republicans or Democrats have the best plan or any plan for Iraq. The occupation is doomed.
Everyone has a plan until they get hit. - Mike Tyson
Posted by fromredbird at 12/02/2006 @ 03:13am
Posted by MASK 12/01/2006 @ 9:06pm
and "Iraq Study Group/Baker-Hamilton" which Dems have said they would "consider" is another....and as Ari Berman said it STILL means troops there PAST 2008 is another.
Don't you see SOME contradiction between "out by July 2007" and "still there in 2008"?!?!?
------------------------------------------------------------
Different schedules does not imply contradiction. A six month vs. a twelve month schedule is certainly running on different time scales but one is not a negation of the other; both are withdrawals. An indefinite stay vs. a scheduled one would be a contradiction within my understanding of the word.
That is not to say that I agree with a slow withdrawal. I contend the US should leave as soon as logistics will permit.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 04:23am
I see Chafee as a democrat, Eisenhower as a conservative and Ford as a goof....
Posted by TIRESIAS
Please do not confuse "clumsy" with "goofy"
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/01/2006 @ 10:11pm
----------------------------------------------
And please do not confuse what I post with what is posted by John Maasch; physicists are extremely careful about such things.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 04:28am
Posted by LRJONES4 12/01/2006 @ 10:36pm
What was that you said about expertise in one field not guaranteeing the same in others? I like you best as a maths/science academic. You just seem a little like the majority maddies who inhabit this site when you stray into political commentary. Then again I suppose it's hard to be cool, calm and collected when you are fighting fascists, particularly one who somehow got voted into the Whitehouse. Fascist? I prefer the term naive idealist.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And your point is? Oh, that in a democracy only the politicians and the self-appointed punditry will have any capability to make political analysis. That in a democracy only an expert on government should have the right to make a political choice. Or more likely, given your reactionary outlook and following your remarkable logic, that in a democracy only the government is competent to decide what the government should do. That, of course, is complementary to your absurd implication that election to office means the elected cannot be a fascist. Perhaps you should review German and Italian history of the first half of the 20th Century and then try, as difficult as it may be for you, to think about how those events might be relevant to this time.
Upon that study you may run across a book entitled Mein Kampf whose author, Herr Schicklgruber, tried to achieve the ideals expressed in his work. You apparently appreciate the "naive" idealism of those who treat human life in cavalier fashion. But you may be assured, monsters can be idealists too. At least your statements identify why it is that you have such difficulty in identifying fascism. Ignorance and inability to reason makes understanding anything difficult. One only need cite your classification of posters here as "majority maddies" (whatever that means) to further make the point.
And, frankly, I do not like you in any role; ignorance and thoughtlessness, both so characteristic of those of your ilk, are always ugly. But you do play the fool well.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 05:35am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/02/2006 @ 03:07am
But what's really funny is to see the "centrist" Democrats get their nose all out of joint when someone uses THAT f-word. They're scared to death that someone will call them "leftist" because they are on the same blog as someone who uses that frightening word.
-----------------------------------------------------
And, of course, they all run like rabbits when the l-word is mentioned. Much of what transpires for politics these days is merchandising - how you label yourself and your opposition. That is why it is important to classify as precisely as possible what a position is or the proper political categorization of a person or person's political suasion. It is unrealistic to expect the politicians to do that, but the one group that should be doing it, assiduously and with care, is the media and especially the press. It is the media's irresponsibility in this area that makes them so despicable. If they reported accurately the political classification according to accepted definitions in political science (and perhaps always having a glossary of such terms available in their publication), the political dialog in the US would, I wager, be markedly changed.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 05:49am
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/02/2006 @ 05:35am
T,
"Maddies" identify themselves by intemperate and immature language. Very frightening people.
I first became aware that you were on this forum in the last day or so and was somewhat impressed with your grasp of the philosophy of science and the easy manner in which you expressed your ideas. I must confess that I was taken aback by your vicious and seemingly irrational expressions toward one you appear to hate. I don't expect that sort of intemperance from rational and educated persons and don't come across it with my associates and friends.
As far as Nazism goes historiography is not my speciality but I think you will find that National Socialism had its roots in some of the ideas that developed out of German Romanticism from the 18th century and right through the 19th century development of the German volk idea.
It was that stream of thought into which anti-Semitism, (I think the word was coined by the German Wilhelm Marr) which found new expression in Germany around 1870, flowed. So "My Struggle" was not only in tune with an already conditioned national psyche but is essentially the co-product of that philosophical matrix. (I think JR could help out here).
It seems to me that by lumping Italian Fascism (The word in fact has Italian roots) and German Nazism together you fail to recognise an important difference. The German volk was the "binding principle" for Nazism whereas the State was the focus of Italian Fascism.
Now it is quite obvious that Bush is not anti-Semitic and further shows no signs of wanting to implement any policies based on racial superiority.
As far as corporatism, a feature of Italian Fascism, is concerned Bush is a free trade marketeer and globalisation "missionary", as his speeches on his recent trip to Asia confirm. That's a far cry from "corporatism" and also rules out nationalism. Militarism? Fascism does not have a unique claim on that trait, as a few moments reflection should inform you. Militarism is probably present when a nation spends more on its military budget than the rest of the world put together and that did not begin with Bush.
About all that leaves us is authoritarianism, which is all about degrees and is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us who are more enlightened wonder why you gaol criminals for hundreds of years and still practice capital punishment, so you are not as lily white, as other Western democracies to start with. However I don't think too many will brand yours a fascist nation on those grounds. To most of us the fact that you have beefed up your anti-terrorism laws just means you have done what other democracies have done before you. Some have sunset clauses on those laws and I think you also have such a provision.
In accusing Bush of being a fascist one needs to be able to identify which actions he has taken that would give any credence to that idea. If you are just throwing these terms about with wild and ignorant abandon don't be surprised if some of us begin think you may be 10 cents short of the full dollar.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/02/2006 @ 09:41am
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/01/2006 @ 10:14pm
Yeah, but when are the people of Massachusettes going to recognize the clowns they have as the radicals they own...? KOOKs are KOOKS no matter which side of the line.
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 09:48am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/02/2006 @ 12:18am
Solid.
Posted by MALCONTENT 12/02/2006 @ 01:11am
My favorite character was Linc...
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 09:54am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/01/2006 @ 4:26pm
Please keep promoting McGovern. He was wrong on Vietnam and has been wrong ever since.
A decent man and an honorable veteran, but he is just as wrong for our national security and global security today as he was then.
Fortunately only the far left actually listens to him.
And how, exactly, was McGovern wrong on Vietnam, Lvliberty? What critical national and global security interests were we serving by being in that war and how would ending it when McGovern proposed to do so have damaged them? You make a claim that requires some rather extraordinary proof here, since the modern consensus amoung historians is that Vietnam served no credible national interest and only exacerbated global security problems by destabilizing a larger portion of Indochina than the original fight between North and South Vietnam would have. We can lay the destabilization of Laos and Cambodia (and the subsequent success of the Khmer Rouge) directly at the feet of American Vietnam policy. It was actually the newly united Vietnamese government who took on the Khmer Rouge directly and tried to do something about one of the worst human rights catastrophies of the 20th century while we stood by and did nothing. So please, explain to me how McGovern was wrong about Vietnam. I'm interested in how you can manage to justify a war that damaged our interests and led to an ignominious defeat anyway, despite the attempts of Nixon at "peace with honor" and all the other clap-trap that was cooked up to justify continued U.S. involvement (and the secret bombing campaigns into Laos and Cambodia.) Feel free to take some time on the answer, you'll need it.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 09:54am
"In accusing Bush of being a fascist one needs to be able to identify which actions he has taken that would give any credence to that idea."
this is where the rubber meets the road...most here have been throwing similar labels around like confetti at Bush and the repubs, as if they had been proven in a world like court(Nuremburg) and the world scene as Hiltler, Stalin, Mao,Castro as,mass murders all without a second thought....the majority may be upset at Bush or the US ,but no comparisons can be made at that level, where the entire world fought to the death to end the Hitlers and to some extend, Russia with the cold war...to the end.
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 09:58am
"And how, exactly, was McGovern wrong on Vietnam, Lvliberty?"
I think he was wrong about the military situation and the out come...The US did not fight as the military would ...McNamara and the "best and brightest"(theres an opportunity for a revised term) called the shots as well as the targets...
Had Viet Nam surrendered(lost) they would have become another South Korea with a valued position in the western and eastern world, instead of a basket case like North Korea(to a certain degree, of course, the Vietnamese are not nuts)...they lost many more millions AFTER we left and their countrymen took over the south.. Besides, a profitable society of Viet Nam modeled after S Korea in the under belly of China would have been a nice buffer...and today it is another 3rd world contry struggling to maitain the "peoples way"...
I think that is what he means..
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 10:05am
"I won't just vote third-party, I'll vote Republican.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/02/2006 @ 02:35am | ignore this person "
HOLD YOUR CARDS...WE MAY HAVE A BINGO HERE...
You may regret these words....
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 10:16am
The plan sounds good. If Iraqi firms had been allowed to do what Halliburton etal were allowed (not) to do, reconstruction would have cost 90% less than what we've been shelling out to American construction firms. That alone makes the McGovern plan worth a look.
Too true, Felicity. It would also have helped to alleviate one of the worst problems of immediate post-invasion Iraq: unemployment. Never underestimate the strength of economic desperation in fueling both the original insurgency and the current civil war. Young men with no jobs and no prospects (because the employment simply does not exist for them) are far more likely to join up with a militia that at least pays them and gives them some power to boot. The BushCo version of reconstruction was always a boondoggle for a select few of their corporate friends, not a serious effort to rebuild Iraq.
By the way, I have my doubts about the second phase of the McGovern/Polk plan, but not because I think its intentions are wrong. I'm afraid that the window of opportunity for that kind of reconstruction plan may already be closed and even if it isn't it will be closing fast. The very nature of the civil war itself may now prevent it, and I doubt that any force of Arab or Muslim peacekeepers will now be able to do the job that our own military cannot do; keep the factions apart. The only really viable candidates in a military sense are Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey (with an assist to any of these from Jordan) and they all have fairly obvious problems that make their employment for this dangerous or unworkable. Syria and Iran will not take this initiative on U.S. say-so, only through some other organization and then only after we're out. Both also represent interests we would be well not to strengthen by giving them de jure as well as de facto control over Iraq. Egypt will be very reluctant to participate both because it would lead to even more serious internal political problems for their government and because they are far more concerned with the brewing Sudan/Chad crisis at this point and want to keep their military close to home. Turkey is simply unworkable since it is a former colonial power in Iraq (and thus no better liked by either Sunnis or Shi'ites than we are) and would be utterly unacceptable to our only remaining friend there, the Kurds. As I see it, we will not get anyone else to step into the shoes of our military in Iraq regardless of the incintive offered. Who wants to inherit a dismal quagmire? That makes the second phase of the McGovern/Polk plan much more dubious, since without peacekeepers we'd be funnelling money in without any real control over where it went. Where it would likely go is into funding the civil war instead of into reconstruction at this point. I'm not saying we souldn't try to help the Iraqis rebuild (we're morally bound to do so, given that we caused much of the destruction in the first place) but that it is not going to have the results we'd like.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 10:18am
It seems to me that by lumping Italian Fascism (The word in fact has Italian roots)
the word refers to the fasces, a bundle of rods carried as symbol of state power during ROMAN times.
good summary, Jones
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 10:24am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:24pm
George is a decent and an honorable man...but he was wrong...and thats OK.
Same challenge to you as to Lvliberty, John. Why was McGovern wrong? Read my post above to Lvliberty and feel free to join him in answering.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 10:26am
Maasch, just an absurd historical analysis. from all reports Vietnam is doing fine economically, don't you ever read something BEFORE you go off.the goddamn pres was just there.
It did not matter who called targets there, it was an unwinnable struggle for the US. one of the most damaging , to the US, myths was mthat it was a matter of North Vietnam against the south. it ignored the ever growing commie insurrection in the south,and its corrupt and incidentally catholic gov't, which in turn made the war unwinnable.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 10:30am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:24pm
George is a decent and an honorable man...but he was wrong...and thats OK.
decent maybe, honorable, no way. he was and is wrong and that's definitely NOT OK, thousands of dead american soldiers, for what? that the Shia can run Iraq?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 10:34am
you cannot rebuild a country in the middle of a blood bath.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 10:35am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 9:23pm
I consider myself more fiscally conservative than most..and I am more libertarian when it comes to governemnt programs that just throw money out the windows without regard to success or effectiveness...to me the far right is a Pat Buchannan, Michael Savage, Hannady,...Liddy...in government I think of Helms,McConnel to some extent,Sessions..as samples..
I'd agree that you've pegged some fairly obvious figures of the far right here John, but that brings me to a question. How can you call yuorself a fiscal conservative and then place Reagan in those ranks? He presided over the second highest deficit period in American history (surpassed only by BushCo) and his economic policies were by and large failures. It took the moderate corporatism of Clinton to fix them, and even that was only a temporary fix (lest you think I liked Clinton's economics, which I didn't, but they were better than what had gone before.) Just pointing out the rather interesting way in which you find "conservatism" in those you already like, John.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 10:36am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/02/2006 @ 02:35am
If any of those a******* think they can get away with not having us completely out of Iraq by January of 2007 they are deluded. I won't just vote third-party, I'll vote Republican.
Ummm, not to quibble here Redbird, but don't you mean January 2008? Given that having the troops out in one month would be physically impossible unless they just got in their vehicles and headed for the Saudi border, I'm thinking this was a typo. At least I hope so.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 10:43am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/02/2006 @ 10:05am
I think he was wrong about the military situation and the out come...The US did not fight as the military would ...McNamara and the "best and brightest"(theres an opportunity for a revised term) called the shots as well as the targets...
Because Johnson and McNamara didn't want the Chinese entering the war as they had in Korea. We were fighting a proxy war against the Soviets, not China (the North Vietnamese never liked or trusted China, too much historical baggage there) and they wanted to keep it that way. Nor does this old saw about the military not being allowed to fight as they wished really hold up, since they did get that under Nixon and fared no better. They simply did not have the orientation to fight an insurgency backed by a neighboring state under the protection of the opposing superpower. What happened when they could do as they wished? The bombings into Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam, the more extensive free-fire zones, the "protected hamlets", and a host of other measures that escalated the war further without making any real progress toward military victory. We tried it both ways John, and neither worked.
Had Viet Nam surrendered(lost) they would have become another South Korea with a valued position in the western and eastern world, instead of a basket case like North Korea(to a certain degree, of course, the Vietnamese are not nuts)...they lost many more millions AFTER we left and their countrymen took over the south.. Besides, a profitable society of Viet Nam modeled after S Korea in the under belly of China would have been a nice buffer...and today it is another 3rd world contry struggling to maitain the "peoples way"...
But Vietnam was never going to "surrender", if by that you mean give up the reunification fight (it was, after all, one country that had been artificially divided by other powers, including us.) There was no amount of military success that could have achieved that goal. With the support for reunification and the communist regime that existed in the south, there was also no way to keep a stalemate/balance such as existed in Korea. So at best we would have been able to maintain a failed state (i.e., not a south Korea at all) that would have been a constant drain on our resources. The old "domino theory" idea is basically what you're expressing here, the original justification for the war that was proven wrong by the course of events. The rest of Indochina did not fall to the Soviets and we created an anti-American state where (if we had pursued what many in the U.S. intelligence community wanted immediately after WWII) we could have had a fairly socialistic but friendly state instead. By the time Kennedy sent the first "advisors" that opportunity was already lost. There was no chance of a South Korean style state in Vietnam and no amount of American military action could have made one. Sorry John, but you've only expressed the pipe-dream of those who got un into and continued the war, not the hard facts of what happened or of what our real interests were.
I think that is what he means..
Somehow I doubt it, but we'll see how Lvliberty answers for himself.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/02/2006 @ 11:11am
The Republican plan for is called "The Salvadoran Option". Bush likes that plan - so much he promoted Negroponte to DNI. It has been implemented, it is still in effect, it hasnt been updated, Bush has not put forth any other "plan".
Posted by conshame at 12/02/2006 @ 11:15am
By the time Kennedy sent the first "advisors" that opportunity was already lost.
excellent points Riley. the turning point came in '54 when the promised elections were cancelled, mostly because it was obvious that Ho would win. there was also a great chance that Vietnam could have been neutral, like Laos at the time.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 11:16am
Those Republicans who cant remember your own last name let alone the details of BUSHS PLAN, try this Google search: Negroponte, Salvadoran Option, Iraq
Re-familiarize yourself with Bushs "plan" - then come back here and tell us how much Democrats dont have a plan.
Posted by conshame at 12/02/2006 @ 11:17am
It BEGGARS BELIEF that anyone could consider a presidential election that took place TWENTY FOUR YEARS AGO to have the slightest bearing or relevance on whether or not Mr. McGovern's plan is sound, or not. A presidential election is a referendum on one thing and one thing only - which candidate the voters prefer for president at that time and place.
If Mr. McGovern has good ideas, then we should listen to them. Period. Until we learn to listen to all ideas that have merit, regardless of the lingering stains of partisan mud warfare, or the fear of losing future elections, our nation will continue to sink into the mire of disaster. We simply do not have time to replay the 1972 election.
Posted by maddox at 12/02/2006 @ 12:10pm
Maddox,We simply do not have time to replay the 1972 election.
true, but I would point out the results of that election, a pres who was forced from office, for high crimes, unique in the history of our country. Mcgovern has always been squeeky clean and honorable. that is always relevant.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/02/2006 @ 12:54pm
Posted by LRJONES4 12/02/2006 @ 09:41a
In accusing Bush of being a fascist one needs to be able to identify which actions he has taken that would give any credence to that idea. If you are just throwing these terms about with wild and ignorant abandon don't be surprised if some of us begin think you may be 10 cents short of the full dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------
My first reaction was to ignore your rather sad response. Typical of those of your bent, when one returns your veiled contempt more openly, you whine about intemperate behavior. What you see as intemperate is firmly placing you and your response where it belongs. You should have given attention to your "expectations" before you gratuitously slandered me and those who post here as maddies and then had the temerity to suggest none were capable of expressing political insight. The corollary to that arrogant remark is, and was, clear. Typical of the right, you expect to be able to dish it out, but wail when it comes back to you.
Of course, it is unsurprising that you would find no "intemperance" among your associates and friends, for like attracts like. My associates and friends can find no apology for a creature responsible for needless deaths of tens of thousands, for a person who throws children onto the welfare rolls and without health coverage, for a government official who lies through his teeth and laughs at his oath of office. In fact, my associates and friends would not view any one apologizing for the POWH as rational and such would be considered educated only in the sense that they have jumped through some institutional hoops.
I deemed my suggestion that you study the history of Germany and Italy in the early 20th Century was obvious from the context of your comment where you made the silly implication that the POWH could not be a fascist because he had been elected. Thus, my suggestion that you investigate that history had nothing to do with the bases of either Italian or German fascism, but the fact that both Hitler and Mussolini reached their positions, initially, by democratic process. It was a factual refutation of your absurd implication. That you choose to enter a disquisition regarding quite outdated concepts of fascism is irrelevant, as is your quaint and immaterial analysis applied to the POWH. But it does bespeak of an inability to follow an argument or to be aware of current political thought, or is that being a maddie too?
The question of fascism is not one of history but of modern political thought. That your discussion of fascism is so dated is unsurprising given your political viewpoint. In fact, its use in your pathetic response is clearly that of providing a strawman. While I am no great student of fascism either, I have, at least, deemed it necessary to be aware of current thinking to see if my darkest fears were well-founded. To be clear of my intent, I present this information for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate that you are the one who does not know of what they speak re fascism and (2) to allow readers to draw their own conclusions on whether the POWH's actions fulfill the modern criteria. I suspect one who sees him as a "naive" idealist to be incapable of the analysis.
L. W. Britt in Free Inquiry (sometime in 2003) gave an excellent discussion of fascism. The key characteristics are (as best as I recall): (1) Powerful nationalism, (2) Sexism, (3) Disdain for human rights, (4) Need of enemies external and internal, (5) Militaristic, (6) Manipulation of mass media, (7) Binding of religion and ruling class, (8) Protection of corporate interests, (9) Supression of Labor, (10) Obsession with national security, (11) Focus on crime and punishment, (12) Denigration of intellectuals and the arts. There is also a brilliant discussion by Umberto Ecco in the New York Review of Books somewhere in the mid-90's. His points more or less overlap with Britt's but there are telling refinements. Ecco lists as characteristic ( I am certain I am not recalling all): (1) Emphasis on tradition, (2) Labeling of disagreement as treason, (3) Fear of the different, (4) Obsession with plots, (5) Action for the sake of action, (6) Appeals to middle class values, (7) Despising the weak, (8) Newspeak.
I recognize I should probably go through each criterion and offer specific behaviors of the POWH that correspond together with full documentation. If you need that, get it yourself for it is certainly available. I shall attempt to offer you some help below, however, since it appears you may need it. But I think the educated, knowledgeable, objective and thoughtful people of this forum will not need such guidance. However, to assist, I offer the following brief clues: Re Britt: (1) Mission Accomplished; attitude to UN, Kyoto accords, (2) Attitude toward abortion/gays, (3) Where to begin? Torture, indefinite imprisonment, removal of habeus corpus, (4) Gays/Terrorists/Axis of Evil, (5) See 1, Invasion of Iraq, defense budgets, (6) any press secretary's conference; prosecution of Miller, Palme incident, (7) Taggert , Falwell, Graham intimates of POWH; Office of Religion (whatever it is called), (8) Big Oil meeting with Cheney; any of a number of laws passed in last 6 yrs, (9) anti-labor appointments to NRLB, revision of labor laws (10) obvious, I hope, (and yes, of course there is 9/11) but the response is beyond the pale, (11) punitive laws, criminalization of medical marijuana, overflowing prisons, attitude toward capital punishment (12) decreased support for pure science, attempts to eliminate Dept of Education; Re Ecco: (1) Attitude toward same-sex marriage; abstention in place of sex education, (2) obvious, (3) Attitude toward gays, non-religious, cloning, (4) Axis of Evil, Saddam Hussein, (5) Iraq war, (6) any speech of POWH, Schiavo (7) laws affecting minimum wage, health care, homeless, poor, (8) GOP propaganda, Rove statements, talk show lackeys, FOX. Perhaps this list can help you with your difficulty in identifying the POWH's actions (or those of his party and fellow-travelers) that may be associated with contemporary views of fascism. I should not think every criterion need be filled to make the case.
Why you should try to additionally smear me with claiming my approval of the antediluvian justice system of the US escapes me. Nowhere can you find evidence that I support it and I can provide ample proof that I abhor what this benighted country calls its criminal justice system. Again, your propensity to set up straw men is evident. But perhaps it is but a case of improper reference of pronoun and the collective "you" was meant. That you should then think that any but a small minority of liberal people in the forum would approve of capital punishment indicates you learn nothing from your presence here.
And why should you shy from labeling the US as a fascist country? From the above criteria, it is evident that it has many characteristics of such a state, even without the assistance of the GOP. To my knowledge, other western, democratic nations have not allowed their own citizens to be removed from the protection of the courts by simple declaration of their Executive. I am unaware of the details of what the UK has done in terms of the IRA, but, considering it has no written constitution nor bill of rights protections there is much more vulnerability. ( Yes, it has the EU Human Rights.) I assume you are a subject of the Crown and can answer that better than I. But I sense you are comfortable with cameras on nearly every street corner in major cities. And I suspect you would not be uncomfortable with suspension of the Great Writ. To me, the latter is anathema.
As promised, since you probably require further identification of the actions that appropriately label the POWH as a fascist, I first refer you to the article on Inverted Totalitarianism that appeared in 2003 in The Nation. In addition: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14_pts_2.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5648.htm http://www.bushwatch.com/fascism.htm
For the record: I have not discussed the philosophy of science in this forum, but rather how science operates practically. In the most unsophisticated view this might be called the philosophy of science, but no serious scholar would consider it so.
Now perhaps you may be able to reassess your rather trite analysis of my response to your inane comments. Who, indeed, is using terms with no understanding?
LIBERALPRIDE expresses the complete outrage that I, and many of my fellow liberals, have over the events of the last six years. I do not recall who said it, but the observation that "the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance" locates the core of that anger. To me, and I suspect to LIBERALPRIDE and others, this travesty of a party/political movement, this criminal administration, this corruption of our courts, and this most venal of legislatures may well be the cause of bringing our country to its knees. Those who venture into this forum and defend a barbarian like the POWH as a "naive" idealist or who offer any other apology for the behavior of this disgrace of a human being warrant only contempt. It is those of you who apologize for this regime that has so severely damaged, and may well have devastated, America , who are certainly a pence short of a pound.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by STWRILEY 12/02/2006 @ 10:18am
By the way, I have my doubts about the second phase of the McGovern/Polk plan, but not because I think its intentions are wrong. I'm afraid that the window of opportunity for that kind of reconstruction plan may already be closed and even if it isn't it will be closing fast. The very nature of the civil war itself may now prevent it, and I doubt that any force of Arab or Muslim peacekeepers will now be able to do the job that our own military cannot do; keep the factions apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great analysis, ST! But could it work if Muslim nations outside of the Middle East comprised the peacekeeping force? Those that come to mind are Indonesia, Pakistan, Algeria and possibly Morocco. The first two might be able to field forces that could be effective whilst the last two would give it a bit more of an international look.
Nevertheless, your assessment hits the mark. I suspect McGovern/Polk had to present something for even those two are probably loathe to point out how really awful the situation is.
Failing Indonesia or Pakistan participating, a most probable situation, places the US again with no real plan that has a chance of success, and that is also politically feasible. In fact, I doubt that anyone can formulate a defensible plan that will also satisfy the electorate in getting the US out of Iraq soon. Again, it seems the only action that is consistent with the realpolitik, and that has some chance of slowing this accelerating debacle, is as timely a withdrawal as logistics will allow.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/02/2006 @ 4:42pm
..". How can you call yuorself a fiscal conservative and then place Reagan in those ranks?'
Congress are the ONLY ones who can spend....I blame congress for not cutting any spending, as they promised they would....Congress(dems) agreed to the tax cuts and the treasury filled to the brim... Reagan years were great...but congress could have stopped or at least balanced outflow with income...something Newts boys forced on the fed and Clinton, and Bush's boys screwed over as they went back to spending like drunks..
Posted by john maasch at 12/02/2006 @ 5:16pm
I am so tired of hearing rightwigers trash George McGovern. I am proud to have voted for him in my first election. I would gladly do so again. He lost because the American people are easily deluded by phony patriotic propaganda. If McGovern had won, this nation would be better for it. Instead, we got more Nixon! That worked out real good, don't you think?
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2006 @ 12:31am
Posted by PHILBQ 12/03/2006 @ 12:31am
I am so tired of hearing rightwigers trash George McGovern. I am proud to have voted for him in my first election. I would gladly do so again. He lost because the American people are easily deluded by phony patriotic propaganda. If McGovern had won, this nation would be better for it. Instead, we got more Nixon! That worked out real good, don't you think?
---------------------------------------------------------
AMEN, PHILBQ, AMEN!! I too am proud to have voted for a quite intelligent, decent and honorable man who would have significantly helped to alter things to make less likely the calamitous course the US is now following. The degree of defamation of McGovern is an excellent measure of the character and ethics of the detractors, people who supported and, in many cases, still apologize for the POWH whose deliberate lies have lead to loss of well over a half-million Iraqi lives, approximately 200,000 of which are children. Even if the number is half that, it is still unacceptable.
[Yes, I do think that the Johns Hopkins study is a fair estimate and that it has employed respectable, established and reasonable statistical methods. That result is gaining acceptance in the scientific community. The difficulty with initial acceptance of the estimate is that nobody could face the horror that the wanton behavior of the POWH, his fellow-reactionaries, the sycophant Dems, and the purblind majority of US voters has produced, for then the real question of war crime can not be so easily ignored. The head-in-sand attitude is fostered because the number is an indictment of a whole nation whose entire leadership (nearly) and half its electorate are directly culpable for this slaughter - a pretty tough pill to swallow, especially for a people exceedingly prone to denial.]
Posted by Tiresias at 12/03/2006 @ 04:38am
Still waiting for plans, boys. I've read the excuses, the jibes, the blame the other guys. I've seen the results in Iraq. Disaster. So, you macho studs got any actual ideas, or are you awaiting more talking points from the Mother-ship?
"fight 'em over there, behind their women and children"
"We'll stand down, in twenty years when the Iraqis stand up"
"stay the course"
"We we're never "stay the course""
"Mission Accomplished"
"we will stay till the mission is complete"
Lets read what you guys would do to finish the liberation of Iraq. YOU started it, you finish it. Or you can sit in your comfy chair and poke fun at the dems.
Posted by CRABWALK 12/02/2006 @ 9:50pm
RIO. LUVVY, MAASCH, CPT, SPORT?????? Do ANY NEO apologists have ANY ideas not approved by Chimpy?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/03/2006 @ 04:50am
Good information Katrina! Thanks for the usual quality reporting/journalism I find nowhere else.
Bless George McGovern and his scholarly co-writer for providing an alternative to the apologists for empire led by James Baker. Ceasing the building of fortresses in Iraq is an excellent point. The old adage applys: first STOP! the digging (or whatever behavior). The occupation is THE cause of the splintering of Iraqi society and it's probably too late to stop it. But, for goodness sake, let's systematically BEGIN removing our troops ASAP. Anything less constitutes a imperious refutation of the legitimate mandate voters gave the Democrats on 11/7 (switch the numbers around and it's 7/11: good "bones" and a great "convenience" for democratic principles - apologies to the Southland Corp, ha,ha).
Posted by lewwelge at 12/03/2006 @ 07:07am
McGovern was right about getting out of Vietnam, and he is right about getting out of Iraq: it is stupid and immoral to spend more blood and money in a senseless war. Get out now!
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2006 @ 07:08am
Posted by CRABWALK 12/03/2006 @ 04:50am
RIO. LUVVY, MAASCH, CPT, SPORT?????? Do ANY NEO apologists have ANY ideas not approved by Chimpy?
-------------------------------------------------
CRABWALK...you just don't get it, do you? It is the Dem's and liberal's job to clean up the mess. And, if they fail, the whole thing is their fault. In fact, the war is the liberal's fault because they did not do an effective enough job of stopping the fiasco. Regardless of what happens, if it positive, it will be because The Right actually did it, and if it is negative, it is the fault of the Dems, liberals, and everyone but the infallible right. That's why they think they are called The Right, right?
Posted by Tiresias at 12/03/2006 @ 07:15am
I would appreciate if those that argue for a staged withdrawal would address the practicalities. Each removal of forces will leave a smaller, and thus more vulnerable, contingent of already over-exposed troops. This argues that such a weakened force will be forced to stay in extremely well-fortified bases ( perhaps driven to the coast where there will be naval protection and rapid evacuation possible, if necessary ) and will have negligible mobility in the country. If that is the case, then what advantage is there to a slow withdrawal? There will not be available, much less sufficient force, to help the Iraqis anyway. Again, I can see no viable alternative to an immediate and complete removal of all forces from Iraq.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/03/2006 @ 07:28am
Posted by LEWWELGE 12/03/2006 @ 07:07am |
Anything less constitutes a imperious {my emphasis} refutation of the legitimate mandate voters gave the Democrats on 11/7 (switch the numbers around and it's 7/11: good "bones" and a great "convenience" for democratic principles - apologies to the Southland Corp, ha,ha).
--------------------------------------------------
The emphasis keys on the problem. The POWH sees himself as a Napoleon and although this emperor's clothes are all gone, he has yet to look in the mirror...and probably never will. And therein lies the problem for the Congress and the people. He should be impeached so that lives will be saved, honor will start to be reborn, and the rule of law revived. Short of that and much more blood will be shed, resources squandered and liberties infringed.
And thanks for the smile....7/11 indeed!!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/03/2006 @ 07:44am
The incoming progressive Demo congresspeople will not sit quietly while Pelosi straddles the fence on ending the Iraq occupation (it is no longer a war - the war was over in a few days). New Congress members like John Hall and Kieth Ellison will not be silenced or bought off by the Rahm Emmanual/ corporate axis in the Demo party. No more wasted billions, no more wasted blood.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2006 @ 08:55am
The "Blue Ribbon Committee" will offer no more than a concensus in the middle of what the conclusion should have been. Extricating our troops from Iraq. If they suggest anything more than "giving the elected democratic government more time to stand up so we can stand down" BS, I'll be the most surprised person in the country. In other words, "stay the course." George McGovern has a portfolio much fuller than the lame people, including Generals who are trying to "win" this war. Winning is so far in the rear view mirror it is below the horizon. Representative Woolsey is correct. It is not their charge to take recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Committee but to take them from the electorate. And they have spoken. Haul those responsible for this fiasco before their committee and demand truth . As to what happened and what they are to do now. If it is more of the same, use the War Act and cut off funding except to safely get our troops the hell out of there.
Posted by nellieh at 12/03/2006 @ 09:53am
The "Blue Ribbon Committee" will offer no more than a concensus in the middle of what the conclusion should have been. Extricating our troops from Iraq. If they suggest anything more than "giving the elected democratic government more time to stand up so we can stand down" BS, I'll be the most surprised person in the country. In other words, "stay the course." George McGovern has a portfolio much fuller than the lame people, including Generals who are trying to "win" this war. Winning is so far in the rear view mirror it is below the horizon. Representative Woolsey is correct. It is not their charge to take recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Committee but to take them from the electorate. And they have spoken. Haul those responsible for this fiasco before their committee and demand truth . As to what happened and what they are to do now. If it is more of the same, use the War Act and cut off funding except to safely get our troops the hell out of there.
Posted by nellieh at 12/03/2006 @ 09:54am
Thanks Tiresias, "I do with what I can" to support Murtha and mirth. Your Dunkirk-like analogy is a bit overblown, though, don't you think?
Posted by lewwelge at 12/03/2006 @ 11:54am
"Congress members like John Hall and Kieth Ellison will not be silenced or bought off by the Rahm Emmanual/ corporate axis in the Demo party. No more wasted billions, no more wasted blood."
Sure Phil, sure...
Keith was elected by first time votes in his district by a vastly majority ...of Somalis.... who have been placed there by rescue groups and his campaign focus was on Muslim religion....where 1,000s of Somalis from a desert nation are placed in a tundra climate in the middle of millions of Lutherans...well, who would you seek comfort with...? what issues top this? Progressives poiltics? Iraq? Pelosi will make nice with Ellison and then he will be shoveled to the back of the bus, unless he is loud..and then they may make sure he loses next time...he squeaked by in his primary by a handfull of votes...
Posted by john maasch at 12/03/2006 @ 1:18pm
John Maasch - You may be right. As a progressive, I don't trust the Democratic Party for a second. They wish to control and dilute our progressive ideals. To me, principles matter more than supporting the Democratic Party. Sadly, many Democrats voted for this illegal Iraq invasion, many Democrats voted for the gestapo "Patriot Act", most Democrats continue to vote for bloated military budgets, many Democrats (in the Clinton era) joined the corporations to destroy the middle class by sending union manufacturing jobs to slave-wage countries. So I don't trust the Demo leadership at all.
Posted by philbq at 12/03/2006 @ 1:33pm
Phil,
I am as far away from a progressive as one can get, but I too, share your distrust of Dem and REP party leaders...I was betrayed when I voted conservative and expected them to act and behave accordingly...and you too, will be betrayed by the Dems is my point...and nothing personal..
Posted by john maasch at 12/03/2006 @ 1:44pm
Yeah, trust is slow growing vine, easily cut. The accommodationist branch of the historically more progressive Democratic Party has certainly disabused our allegiance. I've decided I'm an outright radical and that's where the "left wing" of the Democratic Party needs to set up shop.
Posted by lewwelge at 12/03/2006 @ 5:31pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 12/03/2006 @ 11:54am
Your Dunkirk-like analogy is a bit overblown, though, don't you think?
-----------------------------------------------------
Hmmm....had not really thought of it quite as extreme as Dunkirk but simply a position that could afford great protection and easy escape. I certainly have no expertise in military logistics, but near the end of the withdrawal, I would expect, as I stated, there to be a relatively small force that could be easily overwhelmed, something like the French were at Dien Bien Phu. I do expect Iraq to fall apart into a civil war and a small number of our troops could be in great trouble in such a situation. Do not forget Mogadishu.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/03/2006 @ 8:12pm
This plan wasn't acceptable to you when it was presented by Ralph Nader [democracyrising.us]. Why do you and your posse of pwoggie pundit-wannabes like it now, Katrina? Aren't you being a purist and unrealistic? And wipe that smirk off your photo, while your at it. It makes you look like the Chimperor.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 12/03/2006 @ 8:26pm
Show me Da Plan, Alan.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/03/2006 @ 8:54pm
Thank you for someone putting up a plan that makes sense and doesn't depend on supporting the American Oil interests first and foremost. Vietnam shows that the American war machine isn't an essential part of any foreign country's survival and growth, but certainly does lead to tens of thousands of their citizens suffering and dying. Hopefully the citizens can force the withdrawal, apologize and do the best we can to help them recover from this presidents' ego trip.
Posted by discoverer at 12/03/2006 @ 10:50pm
It's been more than a day now. Not one warmonger has come to this thread, or any other, with a plan for Iraq. For years now we have had to read the nonsense that "the dems have no plan", even though several do. Now we KNOW that the neo-con apologists are the ones with NO PLAN! "Stay he course" is all they have. Kill, kill, kill. keep killing till the killings killed.
Wrong about the reasons for war, wrong about the cost and time. No plans to stabilize Iraq from day one. No plans to support the troops. You guys and gals are full of hot air and pomp. So let us not read any longer how the repubes are the good national security party, how "The Left" is harmful to US interests. At least Mcgovern has a brain, not a foil hat.
Ya'll got nuthin', except Nationalism. And that is dangerous in the hands of children.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 07:49am
George McGovern? GEORGE MCGOVERN??!????
BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
(sorry) :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/04/2006 @ 07:53am
This may be a dying thread, if so I will post this again till Rev. LUVVY sees it. His beloved Chinese guvt is at it again...
"Xu Shuangfu, Li Maoxing and Wang Jun, leaders of the "Three Grades of Servants" underground church, were secretly executed for murder last week by the Chinese communist regime. Xu Shuangfu's attorney Li Heping received a phone call from the court and learned this news. This case was internally referred to as the "Thunder No. 1" big case within the Ministry of Public Security. This case has involved as many as 63 people. It started in March 2003, and spread to Shandong, Jiangxi, Sichuan and another seven provinces. To date, 22 people have been sentenced to death, and 12 more people have been executed"
Just like Gitmo- "...evidence presented was illegal, severely lacking and that the legal processes were not followed. Many defendants were seriously tortured while being interrogated. Xu Shuangfu and other defendants were tortured many times. Every time, the torture was aimed at forcing the defendant to admit to fabricated stories. If the defendant refused to admit, the torture would not stop. Sometimes, the defendant's hand was directly pulled to make a signature or fingerprint, and some were even tortured to death during the process.
Li Heping said that the so-called evidence used by the court to accuse the defendants was actually the oral confession forced out of them during the duress of torture. According to certain rules in criminal litigation law, the case can't be judged based only on oral statements. It is also illegal for illegally obtained evidence to be used in court. "
Shop at Mal-Wart, keep the Chinese safe from christians! And lets hear again how Christianity is "under attack" in the US.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 07:59am
What's YOUR plan, Chip?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 08:01am
Maybe we should ask Dan Quayle for his Plan?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 08:01am
I heard chimpy is calling it an ivil-cay arw-ay
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 08:09am
I heard chimpy is calling it an ivil-cay arw-ay
Posted by CRABWALK 12/04/2006 @ 08:09am
--------------------------------------------------------
Now, THAT is funny!!!!!! Grazie!!!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/04/2006 @ 08:32am
George McGovern? GEORGE MCGOVERN??!????
BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
(sorry) :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/04/2006 @ 07:53am
------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it interesting how the reactionaries deride any honorable, thoughtful, militarily distinguished and truly patriotic person who disagrees with their theology? They did it with Cleland, they did it with Kerry, they even did it with McClain... Such reactions are prime evidence for the kind of ethical universe in which they operate.
Posted by Tiresias at 12/04/2006 @ 08:38am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/01/2006 @ 7:24pm
Ok it's a ways back but had to address it and if others already stated this I must've scanned too quickly. But it seems your definition of being right is to win, and whomever 'wins last' is right, concerning Nixon (whom one could argue lost last) and McGovern (whom very well may still win last). For instance, someone walks up to another shoots the other and robs him, the person with the money is a winner because he's free and has the money; he wins. If he gets caught later and sentenced to jail, he becomes a loser and then is wrong. So then it seems in your world right and wrong appears transient, (corporate profiteering is just if they don't get caught), but I'd argue that pulling out of Iraq is not only the right thing to do because we 'will' do it, but because it was 'wrong to invade in the first place' and the 'quickest way to right it'-- is by leaving ASAP (while providing as much humanitarian aid by getting a world coalition to help via a contrition, like criminals not building the prison first but contribute to it later after it's secure). I'd say it's the first step to not prolonging a WRONG. Restitution requires stopping the crime first. hsuB admin and their energy/MIC argument to WIN, is similar to a criminals' allegation that they're innocent while the evidence proves they are guilty. Send the criminals to jail.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/04/2006 @ 09:01am
Yeah, those who fail to (adequately) plan, ipso facto: plan to fail. I just think there was treasonous psuedo-planning on top of the evident incompetence, cf Valerie Plame, et al, ad infinitum.
Posted by lewwelge at 12/04/2006 @ 09:02am
Dear Mask,
STFU.
Posted by boing007 at 12/04/2006 @ 09:44am
To JOHN MAASCH,
Actually, George McGovern was right in 1972 and he's still right in 2006. It's you who hasn't learned anything from history in the last 40 years.
Posted by boing007 at 12/04/2006 @ 09:51am
To John Maasch, ... decent maybe, honorable, no way. he was and is wrong and that's definitely NOT OK, thousands of dead american soldiers, for what? that the Shia can run Iraq?
George McGovern had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, likeminded people like yourself did. What are you blabbering about?
Posted by boing007 at 12/04/2006 @ 10:08am
TO:CRABWALK
Do the following:
Announce a plan for systematic/phased withdrawl of troops, to be completed in 6 months, & let the Iraqi's know this in no uncertain terms.
Keep a contigent of srike forces offshore in the Gulf to maintain the threat of intervention. This type of threat is known as "offshore balancing". Such a plan also takes away the complaint by insurgents that they fight because of our presence (although we waited so long to do this I'm not sure they even care about our presence anymore).
Enlist UN-Forces aid-everybody has been bitching about how we did all this unilaterally: Fine. Let a UN force handle it for a while. Can't wait to see the results. At the least I don't want to see any more losses fighting for people who can't go a day without trying to kill each other or someone.
On the way out, our troops swing by the Bagdad Courthouse and blow Saddam Husseins head off, thereby keeping the project from being a COMPLETE waste of time.
In this I don't worry about "sending a message" that we are weak. The world already knows after five years what happens when we get really mad. Frankly, if we stopped and went home, I'm thinking a lot of our enemies would breathe a concealed sigh of relief.
Thats my plan
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/04/2006 @ 10:22am
Boing,
"George McGovern had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, likeminded people like yourself did. What are you blabbering about"
I was refering to George McGovern in this line, not George Bush..
What are YOU blabbering about?
McGovern was a clownish figure back then and wrong. Only those on the far left voted for him and apparently they still would..lucky for all of us we won't get that opportunity.
Posted by john maasch at 12/04/2006 @ 10:33am
CT,
I would also announce that if the US lost 1 city, had one massive terrorist attack on US soil....that with in 24 hours Tehran would be hit and erased, fulfilling Armajihads wish to meet Allah in person along with his minions of suicide bombers ready for martyrdom. And let them understand, we will drop all kinds of help to the underground anti Iranian mullah government groups..so much so that we will have to build a port to handel the traffic.
And this is just for openers.
Posted by john maasch at 12/04/2006 @ 10:39am
so, Chip is in the "cut-and-run" group. I thought you hated the dems and their plans? and a conservative wants to let the UN have a go? You're confusing me here Chip. Are you saying Chimpy has it all wrong?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 10:52am
At the least I don't want to see any more losses fighting for people who can't go a day without trying to kill each other or someone.-CHIP
You would waste the lives of those who have already paid the price for freedom?
How does your plan differ from Mcgoverns, other than he wants to try to rebuild what we blew up?
Posted by crabwalk at 12/04/2006 @ 10:55am
CRABWALK,
I've not ready Chimpy, but if he implied I'm a reactionary he's probably wrong.
Let me explain: Sorry for the length.
I have no problem with killing terrorists wherever they are found, and outside of the use of torture,(which makes us just like them) I don't care how we do it. However, from the beginning I thought George the Younger was losing focus when he went to Iraq: I would have picked Yemen after Afghanistan, for example. I likened it to us attacking Franco's Spain in the 1940's just because he was friends with the real bad guys.
There has been only one instance when a foreign invader was able to subdue countries like Iraq or Iran: The Mongols of the 13th Century and their decendants did it, first with a wave of systematic destruction and slaughter that we would never employ, not that I'm advocating it. Thats what it takes, and as we are not prepared for that, there's no point in being there. Even the Mongols, upon their conquest, were smart enough to then let the survivors continue with their own systems & beliefs, collecting only tribute and demanding peace. We seem bent on instilling Democracy there and any serious study of their mindset will tell you it'll never happen.
The difference is I think I'm being practical: I consider people like McGovern naieve. For example, the idea of sending Arabs to break up a fight between 2 Sects of Moslems is like sending a pre-adolecent to break up a fight between two 3 year olds.
CT
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/04/2006 @ 11:36am
"How does your plan differ from Mcgoverns, other than he wants to try to rebuild what we blew up
Maybe Iran and Syria would be willing to pay for what they blew up with their car bombs...as far as we blew up....I think we have repaid by giving the Iraqis new power grids,power plants, schools, water systems, a chance to vote for once in their history, setting up an infrastucture, water treatment plants, new wells,,......I think we have paid in dollars and in blood enough...the AQ should pay reparastions if anyone should ne paying..and Saddam stole enough money alone..we pay enough..
Posted by john maasch at 12/04/2006 @ 11:39am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/04/2006 @ 10:39am
I would also announce that if the US lost 1 city, had one massive terrorist attack on US soil....that with in 24 hours Tehran would be hit and erased, fulfilling Armajihads wish to meet Allah in person along with his minions of suicide bombers ready for martyrdom....
-------------------------------------------------------
Unbelievable, completely appalling.....the reactionary mind at ...well....
Were there Iranians among the 9/11 terrorists? NO.
Have the Iranians indicated any tendency toward terrorism on US territory? NO.
What is the evidence that Iranians would be the most likely suspect for a terrorist attack on US soil?
From all that I gather, the most likely culprits would be Saudis.
Increasingly, I am convinced a distinguishing characteristic of the reactionary, along with a propensity for demonization and viewing other human beings as so much cannon fodder, is a complete inability to learn from anything that contradicts or otherwise would give pause to reconsideration of their basic prejudices, hatreds, ideology, etc.
To suggest that the annihilation of millions of people, who indeed could be innocent of such an act and, indeed, whose nation and leadership may also be innocent of the same act, without any investigation or without any proof of responsibility is beyond barbaric, it is unspeakably evil. Here we have the evidence of the catastrophy of Iraq, created by the same lack of attention to evidence, the same condemnation without thought, and the same lust for bloodshed, and not one thing has apparently been learned.
This is the most reprehensible post I have ever read. Mr. Maasch, you should be ashamed!
Posted by Tiresias at 12/04/2006 @ 11:51am
Yeah, people who seem ready to allow indiscriminant killing or even "live and let die" (Paul McCartney) don't realize that karmic laws/principles make such thinking unhealthily risky for themselves. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...."
Posted by lewwelge at 12/04/2006 @ 12:01pm
First, the wingers screamed over and over, "The Democrats have no plan!" (As if the the current catastrophe reflected any sort of planning...)
Now, as the plans start to emerge from the Dem side, the losers have nought to fall back on beyond attacking the messengers.
(Big surprise...)
Posted by drhammer at 12/04/2006 @ 12:21pm
Tiresias,Those that come to mind are Indonesia, Pakistan, Algeria and possibly Morocco.
your analysis fails you. both Indonesia and Pakistan are a powderkeg of islamic radicals. neither gov't would likely survive being seen as doing the bidding of the US? Algeria has just come off a ten year civil war, and is by no means stable and Morocco has a bit of a small civil war in the former Spanish Sahara, which they have been carrying on for 30 years.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/04/2006 @ 5:08pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/02/2006 @ 4:42pm
Great analysis, ST! But could it work if Muslim nations outside of the Middle East comprised the peacekeeping force? Those that come to mind are Indonesia, Pakistan, Algeria and possibly Morocco. The first two might be able to field forces that could be effective whilst the last two would give it a bit more of an international look.
Nevertheless, your assessment hits the mark. I suspect McGovern/Polk had to present something for even those two are probably loathe to point out how really awful the situation is.
Failing Indonesia or Pakistan participating, a most probable situation, places the US again with no real plan that has a chance of success, and that is also politically feasible. In fact, I doubt that anyone can formulate a defensible plan that will also satisfy the electorate in getting the US out of Iraq soon. Again, it seems the only action that is consistent with the realpolitik, and that has some chance of slowing this accelerating debacle, is as timely a withdrawal as logistics will allow.
Thanks Tiresias, I do my best. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the non-Middle Eastern muslim nations will be much help either. Morroco dosn't have much of a military (though it is a fairly secularized state and friendly to the west), and the other three all have internal problems that prevent them from deploying very much force outside their borders (especially Pakistan, who has the albatross of the tribal northwest around its national neck.)
I agree that the McGovern/Polk plan is likely to have included this international muslim force idea as a way to solve the unsolvable. The problem is that like all civil wars this is essentially an internal political question that no one can solve by imposing a solution from outside (regardless of who they are.) We no longer have any legitimacy in this regard even with our Shi'ite "friends" and no one else has both the force and the legitimate standing to do so either. We're left, as you say (and as I've been saying in these forums for quite some time now) with making a timely and logistically well-planned exit as the only viable solution to staying and still seeing things go down the tubes anyway, but with our own soldiers stuck in the middle.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/04/2006 @ 5:15pm
Posted by TIRESIAS 12/04/2006 @ 11:51am
This is the most reprehensible post I have ever read. Mr. Maasch, you should be ashamed!
Bravo Tiresias! You got to this madness before I did, but my answer would have been exactly the same. Well done!
Posted by Stwriley at 12/04/2006 @ 5:24pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/04/2006 @ 10:22am
I like the first part of your plan very much, especially the inclusion of a strategic balancing force in the region (I've mentioned the idea here before on another thread.) The second part is a bit sticky, since we may have a great deal of trouble convincing any UN members to back such a force, given our own conduct there since Bolton took over. Let's just say he hasn't won friends and only influenced people to back away from supporting us (though not for much longer, he announced today that he won't be seeking renomination.) The third part is pointless, since the Shi'ites will take care of that soon enough themselves. Saddam's days were numbered from the moment we handed him over to a government dominated by the Shi'ites and Kurds.
Posted by Stwriley at 12/04/2006 @ 5:33pm
what is this talk of "if we lost a city..." WE HAVE LOST A CITY. it is called New Orleans.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/04/2006 @ 6:20pm
RILEY and ROLF
You have no disagreement from me. That is why the third paragraph allowed for it: "Failing Indonesia or Pakistan participating..."
Posted by Tiresias at 12/04/2006 @ 6:39pm
CHIP, I am surprised you have not been jumped by the other neo's for your "cut and run" stratagem. But thanks for at least responding with an idea, better than any of the other warmongers. Like most plans, it has some holes, but is better than the Chimpy McFlightsuit plan. (you may not know it, but Chimpy=the worst pres in history, Dumbya etc)
Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 09:55am