Profiles in Cowardice

Back in November, after Jack Murtha shocked the political establishment by calling the Iraq war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Congress rushed to vote on his resolution.

Murtha's proposal called for the redeployment of US forces "at the earliest predictable date" with an "over-the-horizon presence of US Marines" deployed in the region so the US could "pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy." But the House never got to vote on Murtha's resolution. Instead, Congressional Republicans rewrote it to read: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

It was a sham vote, pure and simple, that reached its climax when Republican Jean Schmidt called Murtha a "coward" on the House floor. "I thought the tone was a bit over-the-top," House Majority Leader John Boehner said later. "And frankly, I wasn't very comfortable with how it was done and some of the words that were used."

But now Boehner is pulling the same stunt today, urging Congress to "debate" on an incredibly slanted resolution while circulating talking points labeling Democrats as "weak," "dangerous" and ready to "concede defeat."

No wonder Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina, one of three Republicans who forced the debate in the first place, calls Boehner's move "nothing more or less than really a charade."

Republican Wayne Gilchrest, a Purple Heart and Bronze Star honoree, took it a step further. "While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter," Gilchrest told the Washington Post. "And around here we don't have the sense of urgency."

Most of Gilchrest's colleagues didn't want any debate in the first place. "When the country is war-weary, when the violence is still playing on TV, I don't know why we want to highlight all that," said Ray LaHood of Illinois.

When there's a festering problem, why provide a solution?

No, gay marriage, the estate tax, indecency fines and flag-burning take precedence. Congress today is a profile in cowardice, offering no hope for our troops, no answers for the American people and no future for Iraqis.

Jim Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy who's challenging George Allen for a Senate seat in Virginia, summed it up best. "They're sending other people's kids to war," Webb said of the Republican Congress. "They're allowing other people's kids to suffer from bad schools, outsourced jobs, crime-ridden neighborhoods, deflated futures, no health insurance. They've lost sight of why they should be in government in the first place."

Comments (36)

1. The GOP has truly made the term "opportunistic" inadequate to describe its machinations.

   Posted by John Earl at 06/15/2006 @ 11:32am

2. Predictable. And then we'll be back to gay marriage soon.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 11:36am

3. Ari - the ridiculous set-up that is this resolution really should be for all to see:

   Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. ...

   Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

   (1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

   (2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

   (3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

   (4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

   (5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

   (6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

   (7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

   So, of course, if you are against No. 3 and do not vote for the resolution, you will also be falsely painted as standing against the others.

   Shameless.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 11:42am

4. hey hold their feet to the fire, Zero, they certainly deserve it.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2006 @ 11:57am

5. The hard, cold fact is that western capitalism needs this war to sustain its interests. And if it did not need this war, it would not be pursuing this war. The right may crow on all they like about the most powerful nation in the world. But powerful nations do not have to occupy weaker nations.

   And it is an occupation. How else could the United States get away with a surprise visit from its government, with as little as five minutes notice to the supposed head of state in Iraq? If that's autonomy, the word must mean something a lot different then what the dictionary says it means. Of course, to an imperialist government such as our own, autonomy is only something that's respected when someone has enough firepower to hold you off. In short, the old idea that might makes right.

   The right creepazoids can paint this war any way they like. They are pirates and war criminals, and if it is treachery to stand against their brutality, treachery has become the most patriotic thing a person in this country may entertain. Down with the empire.

   Posted by JRJunior at 06/15/2006 @ 12:03pm

6. So....any predictions on how the VOTE on the resolution will go?

   Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 12:11pm

7. Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 11:42am

   After actually reading that resolution, I think I will go vomit...

   Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 12:11pm

8. Does it matter which way the resolution goes? The resolution is only words on paper. Of course, for the right, whose idea of democratic inclusion is solely power relationships and form, a refusal to accept such candy-mouthed nonsense is "ultra leftism". People can say whatever they like, so long as nothing is actually done, or as the rapper Ice T said a long time ago, freedom of speech, just watch what you say. In the long haul, the "mainstreamers" are no more coherent then the Whig party was when this country was in a crisis as deep as the one we face now. The organization that pushes for democratic renewal and splits chunks off of both the republican and democratic party base will be the one that leads this country to victory in the coming civil war.

   Posted by JRJunior at 06/15/2006 @ 12:21pm

9. "The hard, cold fact is that western capitalism needs this war to sustain its interests. And if it did not need this war, it would not be pursuing this war."

   Ridiculous, ignorant of the real world, silly syatement spoken by an obviously unemployable member of the Peoples Workers Commune. How do you feed yourself? What do you realy do?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/15/2006 @ 12:32pm

10. Posted by JRJUNIOR 06/15/2006 @ 12:03am | ignore this person

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/15/2006 @ 12:32am | ignore this person

    JR....who are the "western capitalists" supporting this war for their interests....besides us and the UK, of course?

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 12:50pm

11. ARI

    "They're sending other people's kids to war," Webb said of the Republican Congress. "They're allowing other people's kids to suffer from bad schools, outsourced jobs, crime-ridden neighborhoods, deflated futures, no health insurance. They've lost sight of why they should be in government in the first place."

    And you call REPS "shameless," take a good look in the mirror bud.

    Posted by CPT at 06/15/2006 @ 1:05pm

12. JR

    Laughable comments, ultimately devoid of any reality. Have you been watching the anarchrist cookbook? Maybe one too many times

    Posted by CPT at 06/15/2006 @ 1:07pm

13. Mask - the resoultion is entirely lacking in substance and nothing more than a cheap political ploy.

    That said, it will probably pass with resounding numbers.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 1:08pm

14. CPT, I assume you mean JRJUNIOR. I hate to miss a good scrap.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2006 @ 1:24pm

15. A box? How about a house of cards?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 2:00pm

16. Anyone know what LL means? I know that the loony right is characterized by the stereotype of knuckledragging morons but he seems always bent on proving the stereotype to be deserved.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 06/15/2006 @ 2:03pm

17. LL wants people to believe that this resolution actually means something.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 2:13pm

18. A bunch of fucking LIB pussies. They asked for the debate...They got it...I for one am enjoying them making total fools of themselves...if only once again....

    THE CRACKUP OF THE LOONY LEFT IS BEAUTIFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD

    Posted by fukulibz at 06/15/2006 @ 2:17pm

19. What a crock...

    Talk about SLANTED - I am disgusted with the point of view from the left(seemingly, WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY LEFT).

    ..."Congress today is a profile in cowardice, offering no hope for our troops, no answers for the American people and no future for Iraqis."...

    I'll tell you what cowardice is, it's leaving before the job is done. It's leaving when the people of Iraq need us now more than ever to finish securing a peaceful and democratic future for the nation they love. It's people like this author who throw around words they do not fully comprehend in an effort to sway those who they feel are woefully ignorant of the facts on the ground(thanks to them and their ilk) in Iraq. Cowardice is an understatement and perhaps to NICE of a word to describe those who would have the country willingly cut and run from battle just so they could attempt to use what they would then call loudly a defeat for their own political purposes. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is NOT a gameplan.

    Posted by Josh C at 06/15/2006 @ 2:18pm

20. Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document

    By The Associated Press Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's

    hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National

    Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

    ___

    The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

    As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

    1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

    2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

    3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

    4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

    5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

    6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

    7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

    Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

    1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

    2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

    3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

    4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

    5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

    6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

    7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

    In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

    Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

    1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

    2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

    3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

    4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

    5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

    6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

    7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

    8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

    9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

    The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

    1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

    2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

    3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

    4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.

    5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

    6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

    7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

    1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

    2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

    3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

    4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

    5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

    The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

    1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

    2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

    3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

    4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

    5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

    6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

    SO MUCH FOR THE QUAGMIRE...YOU SEE EVEN YOU LOONY LEFTIES CANT HIDE THE TRUTH FOREVER

    Posted by fukulibz at 06/15/2006 @ 2:19pm

21. "Cowardice is an understatement and perhaps to NICE of a word to describe those who would have the country willingly cut and run from battle"

    armchair warriors such as yourself have no right to accuse anyone of cowardice.

    how long are you willing to send other people's children into battle for an Iraqi civil war , which the US unleashed?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2006 @ 2:22pm

22. I'm disgusted with you, Josh, defending a war of aggression, launched on the basis of lies with no end in sight.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2006 @ 2:24pm

23. Zero

    you are quite right....how about those serious about such thoughts work towards a "draft" resolution which I will forward to my Rep & Senators...everyone else feel free. Here is a rework to tone down inflammatory language while maintining much of the "spirit":

    In the name of honoring; those who have died, and of those still serving as well as those who have served, at the behest of the Commander in Chief, we resolve that:

    *The continuing conflict in Iraq was predicated on, at best faulty process, and at worst misinformation, against a leader that in retrospect was clearly not "a clear and present danger" to the United States, and was, according to all evidence since discovered, not actively involved in terrorist activities against our nation; and,

    * The Iraq war, while most certainly an unnecessary action, has occurred nonetheless, and has progressed past the intial goal of regime change. As such it is the best interests of the Iraqi people to allow them the same freedom to control their own destiny that we hold most dear, and futher

    * The Iraq war and occupation has destabilized the Middle East by galvanizing formerly neutral peoples into a more reactionary stance against our actions, and at this time our continued presence in Iraq appears to be worsening the hopes for security and peace for the United States, and

    * The continued occupation of Iraq no longer supports any of the several intial premises presented for war, and in fact seems to serve no ends that advance the well-being of either the American or Iraqi peoples,

    * Furthermore, at this time as the supporters of the "war-on terror" are increasingly absent from Iraq, and current issues revolve around sectarian violence from resident militias seeking to foment civil unrest unrelated to the "war-on-terror" objectives,

    * It is in the national security interest of the United States, that the Iraq war and occupation be ended as soon as is practicable,

    * To this end be it resolved that a cogent working plan for rapid withdrawal of American forces and materials from Iraq be drafted for review and action by December 31st, 2006.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 2:28pm

24. Oh, they never get tired of making other people suffer and die in the name of some higher ideal. Interesting, isn't it, how similar their line is to every other band of party line zealots in history, and yet, the purity of their intent makes them more correct then lesser breeds. And the heads roll on...

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 06/15/2006 @ 2:45pm

25. Josh C -

    Cowardice is not being able to admit a mistake and take a different course. Its easy to act courageous when your ass isn't on the line, isn't it?

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 2:49pm

26. Spinning Zarqawi What three al Qaeda terrorists had to say about Zarqawi's and al Qaeda's cooperation with Saddam.

    by Thomas Joscely

    NOW THAT ABU MUSAB AL ZARQAWI IS DEAD, perhaps the American press can also lay to rest the biggest myth about the mass murderer: that he had nothing to do with Saddam's regime prior to the war. It is not clear where this claim originated, but it is widely accepted. In the cover story for this month's Atlantic Monthly, for example, Mary Anne Weaver writes, "In his address to the United Nations making the case for war in Iraq, Powell identified al-Zarqawi--mistakenly, as it turned out--as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."

    Similar statements can be found throughout the coverage of Zarqawi's barbarous life. But this says more about the desire to keep Saddam's reign separated from the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq's terror network than it does about the actual facts.

    There is abundant evidence that Saddam's regime, at the very least, tolerated Zarqawi's existence in regime-controlled areas of Iraq prior to the war. Moreover, at least three high-level al Qaeda associates have testified to Saddam's warm welcome for Zarqawi and his associates.

    Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said "he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." But, he added that "any relationship would be highly compartmented and went on to name al Qaeda members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis." Zubaydah "indicated that he heard that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi intelligence."

    Zubaydah's testimony has since been further corroborated by a known al Qaeda ideologue, Dr. Muhammad al-Masari. Al-Masari operated the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, a Saudi oppositionist group and al Qaeda front, out of London for more than decade. He told the editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi that Saddam "established contact with the 'Afghan Arabs' as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the US once the Taliban was routed." Furthermore, "Saddam funded Al-Qaeda operatives to move into Iraq with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime."

    Al-Masari claimed that Saddam's regime actively aided Zarqawi and his men prior to the war and fully included them in his plans for a terrorist insurgency. He said Saddam "saw that Islam would be key to a cohesive resistance in the event of invasion." Iraqi officers bought "small plots of land from farmers in Sunni areas" and they buried "arms and money caches for later use by the resistance."

    Al-Masari also claimed that "Iraqi army commanders were ordered to become practicing Muslims and to adopt the language and spirit of the jihadis."

    Just as Saddam ordered, many of Iraq's senior military and intelligence personnel joined or aided Zarqawi's jihad. Many of the more prominent supporters and members of Zarqawi's al Qaeda branch, in fact, came from the upper echelon of Saddam's regime. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (aka the "King of Clubs") and his sons allied with Zarqawi, as did members of Muhammad Hamza Zubaydi's (aka the "Queen of Spades") family. Zarqawi's allies included Muhammed Hila Hammad Ubaydi, who was an aide to Saddam's chief of staff of intelligence, and some of his more lethal operatives served as officers in Saddam's military, including Abu Ali, "Al-Hajji" Thamer Mubarak (whose sister attempted a martyrdom operation in Jordan), Abu-Ubaidah, and Abdel Fatih Isa.

    THESE BAATHISTS, and others, have spilled much blood in Zarqawi's name. Their attacks were among "Zarqawi's" most successful, including an assault on the Abu Ghraib prison and the first attack on the U.N.'s headquarters. The latter strike was among al Qaeda's earliest, killing Sergio de Mello, the U.N.'s special representative in Baghdad, in August 2003.

    In addition to Abu Zubaydah and Muhammad al-Masri, a third high-ranking al Qaeda associate has explained Saddam's support for al Qaeda prior to the war. Hudayfa Azzam, who is the son of one of al Qaeda's earliest and most influential leaders, Adullah Azzam, gave an interview with Agence France Presse in August 2004 in which he explained Saddam's support for al Qaeda's members as they relocated to Iraq:

    "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms," Azzam explained, "and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation." Al Qaeda's terrorists "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran." Once in Iraq, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities, Azzam added.

    Curiously, in all of the coverage of Zarqawi's death there has been no mention of Abu Zubaydah's, Muhammad al-Masri's, or Hudayfa Azzam's comments. This is not entirely surprising. Many of the basic facts surrounding Zarqawi's early days in Iraq have been muddled by those vested in the notion that Saddam's Iraq never supported al Qaeda.

    Even when al Qaeda terrorists themselves admit that Saddam offered them safe haven and support, their words fall on the mainstream media's deaf ears

    MORE LIBERAL LIES EXPOSED...WONT BE LONG YOUR HOUSE OF LIES WILL CRUMBLE JUST LIKE YOUR OUTDATED IDEOLOGY

    Posted by fukulibz at 06/15/2006 @ 3:00pm

27. Zero

    true but, if it were to have any chance at being seriously enertained it would need to be couched in "PC" if pointed terms....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 3:07pm

28. God forbid you'd ask a lawyer to draft legislative material.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/15/2006 @ 3:09pm

29. Posted by HMAN23 06/15/2006 @ 1:08pm | ignore this person

    1. Agreed.

    2. Agreed.

    Posted by Mask at 06/15/2006 @ 3:11pm

30. Well, finally had to throw yet another incarnation of "Fuck this or that" Aludra, LibZ, blah-blah into the ignore heap.

    Whew....place smells so much better once you take out the trash.

    I actually had a more-or-less civil converation with him/her some time back. However, if they would just drop the bullshit, bile and venom - perhaps we cold converse. Alas, they are just here to foment discord - kind of like those sectarian nut-jobs causing problems in Iraq.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 3:14pm

31. Zero

    My Rep is Costello, and Senators Durbin and Obama by and large DO represent the perspex of most Democrats. And when any get too "right-sided", limp or insipid, I give'm an earful.

    I think the "animal totems" of donkey and elephant are about right for the parties. If you kick a donkey in the butt long enough it will generally move in the desrired direction. However, if you kick an elephant in the behind it will do any/all of: a) nothing, b) whatever it was doing BEFORE you kicked it, C) crap on your foot, D) kill you in blind animal rage.

    Although in retrospect, perhaps the Dems should be a sloth, and the GOP a weasel.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 3:20pm

32. JC

    Oh, democracy...so THAT's why we went there? I thought it was the "clear and present danger" or striking at the heart of the 9/11 killers, or WMDs...Sorry, am getting dizzy tryin to keep up with the shifting landscape of "why we went to war". Guess giving Iraq democracy is the "flavor of the week?"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 06/15/2006 @ 3:24pm

33. "armchair warriors such as yourself" "willing to send other people's children into battle"

    To my personal detractors here: wow, you must be proud of yourself for your stunning intel! So quick to thrown names! You did the pre-war intel for Iraq too, eh? It seems you try to label anyone not agreeing with your cut and run plan. Oh well, seems to be the fad lately. How about a real plan now?

    Cowardice is not being able to admit a mistake and take a different course.

    Not exactly, but close enough for this discussion. Mistakes have been admitted, but still there's some pressure built up in a few of us it seems, with every debate getting ugly. How can we come to work together in this atmosphere? A different course? By my count, we've changed tacks more than a few times already. I suppose the only course you'd consider is the one that shows our backside to the enemies, eh? I'd love to hear a plan that's not a non-starter.

    Posted by Josh C at 06/15/2006 @ 3:55pm

34. I'd love to hear a plan that's not a non-starter.

    so would we, Josh

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2006 @ 4:00pm

35. AS LONG AS YOU WRAP YOURSELF IN THE AMERICAN FLAG, HATE GAYS, AND CAN MISQUOTE THE BIBLE - YOU ARE BRAVE CONSERVATIVE.

    But, to take responsibility for unprovoked wars, global warming, skyrocketing budget deficits, you must be a bleeding heart.

    Ironic, but the heart bleeds because the GOP keeps killing America's many opportunities for fairness and responsibility throughouth the world. Such a shame, indeed.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 06/15/2006 @ 7:34pm

36. cut and run...

    isn't that how you score touch downs?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/16/2006 @ 01:38am