Dems on Iraq: Still Vague, Out of Touch

posted by John Nichols on 08/01/2006 @ 3:08pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (51)

Subscribe Now

From the Baby Steps Department where Democratic leaders plot policy comes a letter to President Bush signed by the opposition party's Congressional leadership, as well as a number of House and Senate Democrats who have been associated with national security and intelligence issues.

The letter from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their partisan compatriots identifies the crisis of the moment: "Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy."

The letter identifies the broader crisis: "U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions."

The letter identifies the source of the crisis: "Far from implementing a comprehensive ‘Strategy for Victory' as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat."

The only thing that is lacking is a proper response to the crisis.

While the letter declares the belief of its signers "that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006," it does not propose anything akin to an exit strategy.

In effect, the letter is an embrace by key House Democrats -- Pelosi; Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; Ike Skelton, the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee; Tom Lantos, the ranking minority member of the House International Relations Committee; Jane Harman, the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee; and John Murtha, the ranking minority member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee -- of the a proposal by Senators Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, that was voted down by the Republican-controlled Senate in June.

The vague Reed-Levin measure was a soft alternative to a proposal by Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, to establish a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Most Senate Democrats backed Reed-Levin -- although, notably, Senator John Lieberman, who faces a stiff primary challenge next Tuesday from anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont, did not. Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee was the sole Republican backer of the proposal.

Most Senate Democrats refused to back the Feingold-Kerry proposal, [The 13 Democrats who did take a clear anti-war stance were the sponsors and Senators Dan Araka and Dan Inouye of Hawaii, Barbara Boxer of California, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jim Jeffords and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon.]

So where does this new letter leave the Democrats. Not far from where they were in June, before all hell broke loose in Baghdad. House Democratic leaders are a little more united than they were early in the summer -- with former cheerleaders for the war such as Harman and Lantos, both of whom faced California Democratic primary challenges to their Bush-friendly stances, moving in a more clearly skeptical direction regarding the administration's misguided foreign policies.

That's progress. But the Democratic Party has yet to embrace the position taken by the overwhelming majority of Americans. A July Gallup poll found that roughly 2 in 3 Americans want the U.S. to exit Iraq. [Significantly, 31 percent wanted the exodus to begin immediately.]

While the new letter to Bush was intended to suggest that Democrats are united, the fact is that the party leadership has not yet figured out how to talk about Iraq in a meaningful way. If they ever do, it will most likely be because of a push from the party's grassroots. That's why the Lieberman-Lamont contest in Connecticut is such a big deal. The rejection of Lieberman by Democratic primary voters would not merely signal grassroots anger with one war-backing senator, it would signal that Democrats want their party to start making a serious appeal to the great majority of voters who want out of Iraq.

Comments (51)

not much will be ABLE to happen here until the content of congress changes. come swearing in time next year, should dems recapture a majority of congress, then we will see what they do. til then, this is about all they can do without appearing querelous, braying, and loudly powerless.

furthermore, and i hate this, it aint going to be easy to pull out of this hideous mess mr. bush's handlers have gotten us into. honorably, at least. and i dont mean honorably in terms of assuaging our stupid and destructive pride. i mean in terms of the lives of the millions of iraqis, for whom, despite the incredible loss of life and property our follishness has wrought on them, still see us as the only thing standing between them and islamic fundamentalist horrors.

impeachment is too good for those responsible for this debacle. i hope they made a nice bundle off this war through the stocks they own in military industries, because their karmic debt is further in the red than our national budget...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:20pm
Somebody has GOT to explain to me why the so called opposition party AND The Nation staff keep referring to the occupation of Iraq as a "war".

According to the Commander in Chief it was "mission accomplished" 3 weeks after it started.

Could it be that the Democratic Party and the staff of the Nation can smell the blood of a Democratic Presidential victory in 2008 and want the virtual dictatoral powers of a "war time" President bestowed on their own hack?

Such partisanship at the expense of the Republis is disgusting.

Let's call the occupation what it is and get the country back to it's Constitutional roots of three branches of government.

Posted by freedomplease at 08/01/2006 @ 1:37pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/01/2006 @ 1:37pm

whatever u call it it is what it is.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:43pm
The best we can hope is that at some point the Dems will realize that their first instincts are always wrong, leading to that George Costanza moment when he begins to do everything he never would and avoids doing everything he always would. Either that or they could just not run for re-election and we could see if their absence in Congress makes a difference.

Perhaps Nichols and the lot can wait for an accomplishment by the Dems before writing about any of them again. Their lack of substance is just too depressing to read about.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/01/2006 @ 1:47pm
I continue to be amazed and bewildered by the sheer stupidity of the Republican leadership at all levels of government and by the timidity of certain Democratic leaders who refuse to open their mouths and announce to the world the "the emporer has no clothes!!" The whole world knows our invasion of Iraq was misguided and counterproductive to our stated goal of peace in that region. Dems need to get off the fence and SPEAK THE TRUTH for once. We messed up horribly in our invasion and occupation of Iraq and we MUST GET OUT as soon as possible. Our continued presence is stoking the fires of insurgency and adding exponentially to the suffering of the Iraqui people. Let the UN take over there in a humanitarian role and clean up our mess....but get us out of there NOW. Dem leaders across this country should take careful note of what the majority of Americans are begging for...get us out of Iraq and return us to a position as respected world peacekeepers and guardians of human rights...not warmongers, torturers, and murderers.

Posted by mikewalker at 08/01/2006 @ 1:47pm
Posted by MIKEWALKER 08/01/2006 @ 1:47pm

once you have publicly complimented the emperor on his stylish attire, and discussed such apparel with others as if it really existed, pride makes it very difficult to acknowledge his nakedness.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 1:56pm
You mean as in.."I voted for the war, then I voted against it?" We need leadership to stand up (Like Howard Dean) and say we screwed up...tragically for the Iraqi people and the world...and now lets fix this mess

Posted by mikewalker at 08/01/2006 @ 1:59pm
yeah - that and more - see my gigantic stupid robot rant on corn's blog.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 2:28pm
Admittedly the Dem letter is somewhat insipid. However, it is at least in the right direction..something the "right" has not yet managed yet.

Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 2:29pm
When times get tough, DEMS want to???????????? leave?

Thats a strategy that should work for you...keep it up along those lines.

Please spare me the useless poll numbers about how America is with you on this. They are not on the side of losing.

Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 2:54pm
Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 2:54pm

problem is we should never have gone there to begin with. lied into it and maybe worse.

furthermore "DEMS"...what the hell Is that, by the way? not exactly a monolithic lumbering robot, you know? (a term i would say more accurately refers to the neocon machine, and not all republicans)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 3:07pm
Posted by CPT 08/01/2006 @ 2:54pm

God forbid that elected legislators would actually do what their electorates want....

...and since polls "don't matter" (per your view) then why does the Right Wing media need to distort polls to fot their own stilted view? USA

Fact is CPT, we went to Iraq on a lie and a whim of GWB...not for any of the many stated reasons as far as anyone can ascertain. OK, fine, we got suckered...it's time to go. At least its time to withdraw to the perimeter and let the shake out their own internal political differences. Its not about the terrorists anymore, its about sectarian violence these days. This means we have to pick a side amongst several "non-terrorist" camps. That is, unless you want to define terrosist as anyone who doesn't agree with the GOP "party line".

Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 3:09pm
CPT,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but America wants to leave.

You and a majority of the current elected politicians want to carry on the folly and carry on breeding hatred of America.

The American electorate is about to take their ball and go home....you and the Politicians can get along without us.....you losers!

Posted by freedomplease at 08/01/2006 @ 3:10pm
By the way, has anyone noticed that by Dubya's algorithm we are now dishonoring US soldiers who died in southern Afghanistan?

I thought they were opposed to the "cut and run" exit--or does that only apply in Iraq?

Surely things aren't significantly more secure in southern Afghanistan?!

Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 08/01/2006 @ 4:47pm
JOEDA

Uh we are still there, in Afghan, we just allowed ISAF to take responsibility for more than Kabul.

Posted by CPT at 08/01/2006 @ 5:16pm
We liberals can complain all day long that democratic elected officials are not sufficiently in lock step with us on cerain issues, particualarialy the evil illegal war, But, what is most important or at least more important first is that democrats get elected and reacquire a majority in the congress. And The Only way to do that is to do what it takes to get elected. And to get elected democrats have to play the game. War and beligerance and being tough and being the daddy and not letting them pin the tag whimp woose, or cut and run has to be suffered. We have to get elected first. More people in America can name the contestants on American Idol than can name the secretary of the Treasury (what's that new guys name again, the Goldman Sacs bird watcher..) Hell I can't ven name the secratary of the Treasury. Anyway, we got to play it cool and come out straight on against the war. We have to get elected first. Maybe we democrats and our candidates should develop some code words like the repuglicans use to signal to our base certain 'not need to be even said' nods and winks to avoid this.

Posted by Curt Rhodes at 08/01/2006 @ 5:27pm
CPT - OK...I've had just about enough of being demonized by neocon warmongers because deomcrats (and most Americans) want to ADMIT that we were GROSSLY wrong to go into Iraq in the first place and and we should LEAVE! All of this "cut and run" crap from the right wing scheme machine is sickening. We (under the "leadership" of GWB) did something wrong. We need to admit it and fix the problems we have caused. All of your rhetoric about leaving when things get tough is absolutely idiotic. This is about leaving because we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Posted by mikewalker at 08/01/2006 @ 5:36pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2006 @ 6:34pm |

the seekers - thats my favorite john wayne movie - george lucas said that some of the wide panramas of the old west as well as the dramatic elements of the film inspired star wars. cool movie - the duke at his best

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 6:47pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/01/2006 @ 6:40pm

The Gulf I agree....at least in theory. We should also start considering methane clathrates off the end of the continental shelf. After all, when global warming pushes the thermocline deep enough it will destabilize and volatilize massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere very quickly. Methane Burp

The ANWR....naw. Isn't worth the 6 month of oil estimated to be there. Although, someday it will be TOO valuable regardless. Of course, if the permafrost starts melting, you aren't gonna build any platforms or pipelines anyway because it will be a swamp.

Posted by leftofcenter at 08/01/2006 @ 7:09pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/01/2006 @ 7:01pm

"well h. w., whats really happenning with that hussein bandito?"

"huh?"

"hmm...where's black dick cheney? i think i need to talk to him..."

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 7:12pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/01/2006 @ 7:28pm

i hope he has a fortunate rebirth. sympathy for his family and survivors. another martyr to lies and bullshit. impeachment is only the first step...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2006 @ 7:39pm
We will never see a wingnut admit that the fool they voted for lied us into Iraq and then botched the entire operation.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/01/2006 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person

Frank, over the weekend,I watched an old movie called "The Caine Mutiny". There was Bogart as Queeg, ranting about the "missing strawberrys" and "finding the duplicate key to the pantry" all the while botching virtually every action the ship took. And at the eventual trial, Queeg hysterically defending his actions by citing the mistakes of others, the disloyalty of his crew, etc., all the while twirling his little metal balls and refusing to admit his mistakes (which, as Jose Ferrer playing the defense lawyer points out, are classic symptoms of a paranoid loon!)

So now I come to this site and I suddenly have this image of CPT, typing away with one hand about how we're all disloyal cowards while he slowly twirls his little metal balls with the other hand...

Posted by Lillian at 08/01/2006 @ 7:41pm
Today Tucker Carlson commented (with a smirk and a tone) that the democrats can't find a "common voice" regarding their position on the war. He then implied that we were better off with the republican lead because of their unanimity and consistency. Many journalist, editorialist and talking heads on TV like to criticize the democrats for not having a singular party line, and for changing their position. Carlson is hardly alone in voicing this concern and portraying same in a negative light (perhaps condemnation of) the Democratic Party as a whole.

But are these really fatal errors?

A change of opinion, and difference in opinion, do not indicate that a political party lacks an effective platform. Consider the alternative that we have dealt with under the Bush administration: a republican congress that blindly and collectively follows their party line. A congress that appears to be focused more on consolidating political advantage as opposed to doing what is right. Which is a more cancerous flaw?

Consider the following situation: some investors purchased shares of Cisco Systems Inc in March 2000 and paid $60 to $70 dollars per share. These investors may have relied on professional advice, or followed the advice of a friend, or worse acted on emotional impulse. Regardless they owned the stock at a market and at an expensive price.

Many of these investors were able to liquidate their Cisco positions before the stock plunge to the teens.

Was the greater error the purchase price and timing of the initial investment, or was the tragic error the unwillingness to address the falling stock price as it continued to inflict damage to the value of the portfolio.

I will always be interested in the madness of crowds and feel sorry for those people who are unable to address their mistakes. Ask yourself if you how you manage the negative impact of a decision that doesn't go according to plan. Has Bush taken too large a gamble without our country and not provided any risk management strategy?

C Mark McClellan CPA Marietta GA

Posted by mccl8808 at 08/01/2006 @ 9:56pm
i think that we the schmucks of this country need to makes some compromises on our issues and come together to look at what's really going on with our government. to ask some unsettling questions and not fear having them answered. and not be derided for asking them.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 01:50am
How does the US get out of Iraq?

Clearly, this is a question that should have been answered before the invasion. Any decision to invade should have been contingent on a satisfactory answer to the question.

There was no satisfactory answer in 1991, which is one reason the first Bush declined to have the troops go to Bagdhad then. The decision was clearly explained at the time by then-Secty. of Defense Cheney, who of course later would go on to sell his soul to Bush II as veep and embrace the folly of invading.

And there was no satisfactory answer in '03. There may be no answer now.

And the american people are divided as well, into three roughly equal camps. About a third want to stay, about a third want to begin immediate withdrawal, and about a third want withdrawal, but not immediately, if the Gallop numbers are to be believed. (And I see no reason why they shouldn't be).

Thus, politicians seeking reelection are faced with no clear consensus. No matter what path they choose, it will only satisfy about a third of the voters. The other two thirds will be open to pandering from opposition candidates.

All of this leads to the grim conclusion that, in the face of divided public opinion and divided opinion in congress, the inertia of the situation will result in no or very little impetus for a change in the status quo.

So we are stuck in Iraq due to inertia, the reason being that the operation was undertaken without a viable exit strategy to begin with. We can thank the Supreme Court for appointing a president of monumental incompetence to get us to this point, but we cannot, as yet, do anything to change the circumstance, I fear.

The likely outcome is that our country will have to be bled for years to come, until we achieve a consensus for (and a political will for) immediate withdrawal.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/02/2006 @ 06:53am
FRANKGRITS & FREEDOMPLEASE:

How is it not a war? We have an invasion by foreign troops, the defeat of the native regulars, followed by an uprising of native irregulars, who are killing said foreing troops, and being killed by said foreign troops, by means of standard weapons of war.

How is it not war?

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/02/2006 @ 06:57am
Remarkable, isn't it?

According to the blogs and "The Nation", total opposition and "re-deployment by Christmas" is a "political winner" for Democrats and "the way the majority of Americans feel"....YET...

the Democratic leadership don't believe the blogs or "The Nation"...

now....why is that???

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 09:04am
Sorry, FRANKGRITS but your last post really isn't relevant to the issue of what a war is. You say there is no opposing army. This is because the opposing army has been defeated.

You say it "has nothing to do with" one reason or another, yet the issue of reasons is not relevant to the issue of "is it a war or isn't it".

You cite WWII as an example of a real war, which curiously enough contained all the elements present in the Iraq war. So your example is actually a confirmation of the fact that the war in Iraq is a war. Specifically, I can cite examples from WWII of the following: Defeat of a native regular army; rise of a partisan insurgency; use of booby traps against foreign regulars; infiltration of a war zone or occupied nation by third-party combatants; civil unrest and civil war within an occupied nation, and any other example of violence that you claim is not war. So perhaps you are the one who needs to revisit the history of WWII.

Then you go on to pose a question that is, again, irrelevant to the issue. Finally, in your third paragraph, you think you "clue" me about regional public opinion (of which I am already aware), which again has nothing to do with the question I posed to you.

In summary, you have written a rather condescending post, most likely because your argument has been refuted. Which explains why you avoided the question.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/02/2006 @ 09:35am
Not all Democrat Representatives are silly weak cream-puffs who do nothing but try to enable the idiot out of Texas; my own representatives are just fine - they are Democrats and they are good people who stand up for what is right.

Hillary and Joe Lieberman are disgusting - they are silly weak little George Bush enabling little twisting in the wind little cream puffs. They dont care about what is happening, they go along with George Bush - now George Bush is not a man but to these silly little innocent fools he's like a bad boyfriend leading them into their sick fantasies of supporting mass killing and fascism and destroying America - fantasies they dont want to admit to - but will let George Bush who is masculine relative to themself. Bill Clinton must have done something that went outside the agreement with another woman, here's Hillary going off on a killing spree with George Bush, telling him I always wanted a man to come along and lead me into supporting fascism and killing and War Profiteering. And then Joe, kissing his sweetheart George Bush in his own little soft-porn flick on the airwaves - with children being massacred in the background - people being tortured, burned, raped, bombed, the Salvadoran Option for Iraq getting off the ground - and sick little Joe Lieberman standing there with a dammn grin giving George Bush a hickey for giving that weak runt Lieberman the slaughter of his dreams.

I dont go along with the Ralph Naderites, who want to get rid of the Green Party. Ralph is never going to find a President who agrees with him 100% of the time - never. What we can do, is stop the wholesale assault on America by Conservative Republiucans and put in leaders with milder tastes.

Posted by conshame at 08/02/2006 @ 10:32am
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 09:04am

do you have an answer?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2006 @ 10:56am
do you have an answer?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 10:56am | ignore this person

Sure....re-deploy by Christmas (or July 2007, if you like).

Now....do I have a POLITICALLY VIABLE answer?...nope.

The reason the Dems are being "vague" is because any answer they put out before November 8th, 2006 can come back and bite them on the ass. Too quick a pull-out and they get tarred as "cut & run" and lose the Americans who "hate the war, but don't want to lose it either"....

too slow a pull-out proposal and the bloggers and other Hard Left turn on them like they turned on Joe Lieberman.

So....their stance on Iraq is...and will continue to be for 99 days...vague.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 11:40am
To get an update on the sterling progress in Iraq check out the current fiasco of rebuilding at Off Track

Posted by leftofcenter at 08/02/2006 @ 11:57am
LILLIAN

So now I come to this site and I suddenly have this image of CPT, typing away with one hand about how we're all disloyal cowards while he slowly twirls his little metal balls with the other hand...

Posted by LILLIAN 08/01/2006 @ 7:41pm | ignore this person

Firstly i never said "disloyal cowards" perhaps this is a feeling that just comes over you.

Secondly please, try and maintain a sembalance of decorum and lets not go there in talking about ones' genitalia, merely because you disagree with my views.

MIKEWALKER

All of your rhetoric about leaving when things get tough is absolutely idiotic. This is about leaving because we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Posted by MIKEWALKER 08/01/2006 @ 5:36pm | ignore this person

Forgive me, but at this point in time, it is ridiculously irresponsible to pullout because in your opinion we shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Irregardless, we are there now and are not leaving until the Iraqi govt can get a better control of the situation. And despite the usual doom and gloom there are indicators that it will,(now quote the latest violence here) despite short-term and knee-jerk reactions we are in this for the long haul, get on board or at least get out of the way.

(Here come the mindlessly insulting rants)

PS

I really am not intending to insult or enrage anyone.

Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 12:05pm
Posted by CPT 08/02/2006 @ 12:05am | ignore this person

Actually, CPT, LIL's reference to "metal balls" is a ref to Captain Queeg's nervous habit in "The Caine Mutiny" not genitalia.

Which is interesting on a few points...1. Your posts bear no resemblance to Queeg's ramblings. 2. Queeg, as noted in "Barney Greenwald" (played by Jose Ferrer in the 1956 movie) was a tragic, even maligned character, who was as much, if not more, victim of the crew of the "Caine" as they were of him.

and 3. LILLIAN bears an incredible resemblance to the "Tom Keefer" character (played by the pre-Nice Guy "My Three Sons" dad Fred MacMurray) in the film. (Rent it and you'll see what I mean)

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 12:35pm
MASK

I stand corrected, having not seen the movie.

Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 12:41pm
CPT, for what it's worth, you may be the closest some of the people who post here have ever gotten to a military man. So just by showing up you're providing a valuable public service. I'm tempted to post a correction every time a knee-jerk insult is flung at you, but I'd never get anything done if I did.

One of the fascinating things that I see on these pages is the inability of many otherwise intelligent people to comprehend that, yes, good people really do volunteer to risk their lives defending their country. I try to be charitable and hope they just haven't thought it over yet.

Have an explosion-free day.

Posted by MyParadigm at 08/02/2006 @ 1:01pm
Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 12:35am | ignore this person

Actually Mask, when CPT continually refuses to admit the mistake that is Iraq and continuously calls into question the patriotism and bravery of those who oppose it, he sounds quite 'Queeg-like'.

And, you forgot to mention that lawyer Greenwald also quite correctly notes that Queeg is a paranoid psychotic.

And finally, most of us who have been at this board for any length of time have well noted your pentiant Mask, for constantly criticizing (the Dems and Nation writers) yet, when push comes to shove, you flatly refuse to take a stand of your own. Pretty much EXACTLY like the Fred MacMurray character in the film.

Posted by Lillian at 08/02/2006 @ 1:04pm
Lillian, you simply cannot expect a soldier to advocate anything but victory. Retreat is failure, and cowardly to boot. That's why we have civilian authority.

Sometimes an ex-soldier like Murtha will speak up when retreat is called for. But a serving soldier in the field, never.

That's no excuse for calling folks back home traitors when they think their boys are fighting for nothing. But that kind of thing usually comes from chickenhawk neocons. If CPT gets into that, I retract my defense.

Posted by MyParadigm at 08/02/2006 @ 1:32pm
MYPARA

I have never called and never will call people who diagree with war...traitors.

I will forcefully argue against their point of view...but i do know MOST who disagree with the war do not fit that definition.

I do understand in the heat of the argument it is easy to take a rebuttal as an accusation of treasonous motives, but that is never my intent.

Posted by CPT at 08/02/2006 @ 1:46pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/02/2006 @ 1:04pm | ignore this person

No, LILLIAN, I DO take stand on issues...it's just not the stand you like.

Name one and happy to give my view on it. As far as Iraq goes, it's a failure and we might as well do a Murtha-style "re-deployment" (see, you and I agree on that, I'd guess).

Frankly the "Tom Keefer" quality I ascribe to you is how Keefer made personal attacks on Queeq (from the outset of his command), simply by virtue of the fact he didn't LIKE Queeq or his command style...just as you went after CPT, with a personal attack of an allusion to a mentally disturbed character from a novel/play/movie, simply because he has a differing view on Iraq.

AND ascribed thoughts to CPT that he's never posted ("disloyal cowards"), while no doubt taking umbrage at ANYBODY who would take your statements to their often ludicrious but logical ends.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 1:49pm
ILP,

Ah when is a "war" not a "war" that is the question?

I definitely think we were in a war in Iraq, but it appears to have ended three weeks after it began. As per Presidential decree.

Let me ask you a question to answer your question.

To whom should we give the papers of "unconditional surrender" to sign?

Who are we currently at war with?

Are you suggesting that the nation state of the United States of America can actually have a "war" with a non nation state?

If that is your contention then phrases like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty are legitimized as actual Wars (and I'd now hate to tally up the USA's all time historical win / loss record!)

Using, or in this case misusing, the term "war" legitimizes an extraordinary amount of power within the executive branch. To grant that power ad infinitum in this case is to end the experiment once known as Constitutional Government. As the current "war" (I'm referring to the Iraq occupation) has no known enemy and thus, no defeatable enemy. It also has no parameter for victory and thus it has no end. Therefore, we have an Executive branch that has no equal branch of government and never will ever again so long as the executive feels like it.

If the "objective" of the "war" AGAINST Iraq was to remove WMD's it has been accomplished. The War is therefore over.

If the "objective" of the "war" AGAINST Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein it has been accomplished. The war is therefore over.

If the "objective" of the "war" AGAINST Iraq was to remove the Baath Party from power it has been accomplished. The war is therefore over.

Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2006 @ 2:38pm
During WWII we fought Germany, Japan and Italy for awhile, all in less time than this joke. We declared war on all three after we were attacked and the country actually sacrificed something. Now we are so fat and lazy as a country, we don't even realize what we are losing. We should all mourn the loss of life and the prestiege of the U.S., which will take decades to restore.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/02/2006 @ 09:56am

FRANK, During WWII Germany and Japan defeated many standing armies in places such as Yugoslavia, Greece, and France (in the case of Germany), and the Phillipines, Viet Nam, and China (in the case of Japan).

However, the axis powers faced continued resistance in these and other countries, and were unable to completely pacify them. Was the ongoing fighting in the occupied countries not war? In China it could be argued that the nationalists and communists were fighting a civil war during the Japanese occupation (which was mainly restricted to the coastal regions).

There are many more examples. This is why I suggested you should review WWII, for it contained all the elements that now present in Iraq.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/02/2006 @ 3:25pm
FREEDOMPLEASE, I refer you to my post of 3:25pm

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/02/2006 @ 3:28pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/02/2006 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person

IF the Dems don't re-take the House or Senate (which I doubt they can screw up so badly this fall....Howard Dean's "help" regardless)....I think Rangel would find a quick "out" from his promise come 2008. (Remember, he'd be re-elected this fall to a 2 year term, that he'd "naturally" finish out).

Reminds me of the stir over "www.wikipedia.org", where staffers from Ed Markey's (D-MA) office went in and "corrected" Markey's campaign promise to not seek more than 3 terms.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 3:42pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/02/2006 @ 2:38pm

The objective of "the war" is to get hamsters to vote Republican

Posted by nathanhale at 08/02/2006 @ 3:46pm
ILP,

No, an insurgency is rarely, if ever, a nation state "war". When the IRA "fought" for 20 years against the British the British were not in a state of War. The Spanish are not at "war" against the basque seperatists.

An occupation is almost by definition a "policing" activity not a state of war.

Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2006 @ 3:50pm
Of course, there are exceptions.....such as an out civil war where the "objective" is clear....which is to reinstitute a viable working government / reimpose the old law of the land etc.

However, that can hardly be extended to an occupation happening some 6,000 miles away from one of the warring factions. Especially given that no quantifiable parameters have been set.

Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2006 @ 3:58pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/02/2006 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person

Would that mean that from 1775-1783, we fought the...

"American Revolutionary Insurgency"???

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2006 @ 4:11pm
That's what British textbooks called it in the 19th century

Posted by nathanhale at 08/02/2006 @ 4:45pm
Nathanhale is of course correct in that England did not recognize the American Revolution as a War as to do so would give legitimacy to what to them was just a terrorist action.

Of course, the American's were at war as were the members of the IRA and the members of the Basque Seperatist movement.

Saying we (as a nation state) are still at War with Iraq means we are intent on changing some sort of geograhical claim of Iraq or intent on regime change in Iraq etc.

IN OTHER WORDS WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ.

We cannot identify a group, an organization, or anything with which we are at War with on the soil of Iraq.....thus the action in Iraq is by definition an occupation.

Calling it a war is both wrong and EXTREMELY dangerous to the existence of constitutional government in the United States of America.

AND THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO "RIGHTIE" AS YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT "SOCIALIST" HILLARY HAS A DAMN GOOD SHOT AT BEING PRESIDENT IN 2009 AND WHO IN THE HELL KNOWS WHAT KIND OF INSANE MANIFESTO SHE'LL IMPOSE WITH SUCH HUGE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS!

Posted by freedomplease at 08/02/2006 @ 5:12pm
Unbelievable. The topic is the Bush debacle in Iraq and the headline is "Dems on Iraq: Still Vague, Out of Touch."

No wonder we can't vote them out of power. We're tarred with the same bruch no matter what atrocities the Bush team commits.

It should be enough that the Dems oppose the attrocious Bush agenda and are the nation's only hope. They have given their general beliefs that they want to withdraw. They are not required to give specifics until they have the benefits of the executive branch intelligence.

That's the way the game is played. Let's not let these current jokers change the rules on us.

Posted by fernboneyard at 08/02/2006 @ 10:21pm