The Beat

A Republican Takes the Lead on Iraq

posted by John Nichols on 11/27/2006 @ 01:30am

In radio and television interviews since the election, I have argued repeatedly that the November 7 vote did not just empower Democrats to do the right thing with regard to the Iraq debacle. It also freed up Republicans -- particularly Senate Republicans who have long been ill at ease with the neoconservative nonsense peddled by the Bush administration.

Now that the votes have been counted, the American people are ready for swift steps to extract U.S. forces from a no-win situation.

Yet, while Democratic leaders talk of "going slow," smart Republicans are recognizing the political opening and seizing it.

Case in point: Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post.

Hagel has long been blunter than his Democratic colleagues about the disaster that the Iraq occupation has become for the U.S. The Nebraska Republican was making comparisons between the Vietnam War, in which he served, and the Iraq imbroglio months ago -- at a point when most Senate Democrats were holding their tongues.

Hagel has now taken the mightly leap of declaring that it is time to "form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq."

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam," Hagel writes in the Post. "Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

While I might disagree with Hagel about the "honorable intentions" of the invasion and occupation, he gets no challenge from this quarter on his observations that the war has been "misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged" and that the Bush administration's approach has been characterized by "arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam."

Hagel is making precisely the case for withdrawal that Congressional Democrats should be offering at this point:

"The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq," the Nebraskan argues. "We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years."

Now, with a new Congress about to charge, Hagel writes, "It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq."

Democrats should be asking themselves: Why is a Republican taking the lead on the issue that played such a pivotal role in putting Democrats in charge of the House and Senate?

The honest answer is an unsettling one.

Right now, Hagel is sounding more realistic and responsible than most if not all of the Democrats who are positioning themselves for 2OO8 presidential runs. Indeed, with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, the first senator to call for an withdrawal timeline, out of the running, Democrats could use a candidate who speaks as directly as does Hagel about the need to get out of Iraq. While it is true that Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who may or may not be running, is a Democrat who has started to make some of the right noises, Obama has not begun to equal the directness of Hagel's declaration that: "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose."

This is not to say that Hagel, who entertains presidential ambitions of his own, should switch parties. He's still a domestic-policy conservative, and something of a hawk on foreign policy. Yet, he is the one saying that: "If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead."

If they are outflanked by Republicans like Hagel on the central issue of our time, Democrats will also pay a high price. They will lose the popular support and the moral authority that their November 7 successes gave them. And Americans, who polls show are ready for rapid withdrawal, will give their support to the leaders who are willing to say not just that it is time to bring the troops home but also, as Hagel does, that it is time for the U.S. to radically alter its approach to the Middle East.

Would that the Democratic leadership would say, as Hagel admit, that, "America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism is being published this month by The New Press. "With The Genius of Impeachment," writes David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, "John Nichols has produced a masterpiece that should be required reading in every high school and college in the United States." Studs Terkel says: "Never within my nonagenarian memory has the case for impeachment of Bush and his equally crooked confederates been so clearly and fervently offered as John Nichols has done in this book. They are after all our public SERVANTS who have rifled our savings, bled our young, and challenged our sanity. As Tom Paine said 200 years ago to another George, a royal tramp: 'Bugger off!' So should we say today. John Nichols has given us the history, the language and the arguments we will need to do so." The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (134)

  1. What Nichols, and more importantly, Hagel have said!! While Hagel is very culpable in not exercising his duty as Senator in oversight of the Executive and in his knee-jerk support of the Iraq invasion, and, alas, does not have the courage to admit his own role in the Iraq catastrophe, he is at least showing true understanding of the meaning of the Nov. 7 results - something the Dems seem incapable of grasping.

    In many comments appended to other articles by Nation readers, especially this one, the timid and politically frightened approach of the Democrats to Iraq, and their cowed approach to the present administration, has been noted and scorned. If Hagel and other like-minded Republicans end-run the Democrats on this, that party will truly be faithfully represented by their ass icon and sent to the pasture for another dozen years - or maybe even to the glue factory.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 06:08am

  2. "Yet, while Democratic leaders talk of "going slow," smart Republicans are recognizing the political opening and seizing it."

    So after the 2006 Midterms, we learn that...

    "The anti-war party are the Republicans"!??!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 07:12am

  3. After the Democrats' stunning election victory, you decide to overstate the case for a Republican in order to belittle the entire Democratic Party. Here are a few things you forgot to mention about Chuck Hagel:

    He voted against two plans calling for withdrawal from Iraq. He had offered nothing legislatively to effect withdrawal. He still can't come to grips with the immorality of the war.

    For these reasons, your commentary is extremely flawed. When one considers the fact that all the withdrawal plans have been offered by Democrats, the piece amounts to nothing but spin.

    It was a Democrat, not Hagel, who brought withdrawal to the forefront. John Kerry did so boldly with his The Path Forward [blog.thedemocraticdaily.com] at Georgetown University a year ago, October 26, 2005---most recently with his Real Security [johnkerry.com] speech speech at Faneuil Hall on September 9, 2006---and conclusively with the Kerry- Feingold amendment [johnkerry.com], which the Senate voted on June 22, 2006. Thirteen Senators, all Democrats, courageously signed on. If Senator Hagel reaches across the aisle to endorse this plan as the only Republican, he will earn the label as a leader on withdrawal among Republicans. Leadership on Iraq has been defined by the Democratic Party.

    The groundwork is laid. It's time for action, not more lip service from Republicans and procrastination from Democrats.

    Posted by DemsonBoard at 11/27/2006 @ 08:35am

  4. Vuja De.

    Poop or get off the throne. We don't have the poop, 50-100,000 more soldiers, so it's time to wipe and withdraw.

    Hagel has been one of very few realists throughout this mess. As such, few will listen to him, esp Chimpy, who is caught up in utopian fantasy.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/27/2006 @ 08:41am

  5. Bush: HOW DARE the Iraqi government meet and talk with its neighbors

    Maliki: HOW am I going to DARE to meet with YOU, BUSH?

    Here you have George Bush, telling this elected leader of Iraq that he shouldnt talk with his neighbors. All youre allowed to do with your neighbors is act like mad butchering Americans - I guess. What is that supposed to mean anyway? So then Maliki is about to lose his government - really lose his government - because he wants to meet with Bush. WHAT THE F*** IS GOING ON FOLKS?

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2006 @ 09:42am

  6. Posted by DEMSONBOARD 11/27/2006 @ 08:35am

    After the Democrats' stunning election victory, you decide to overstate the case for a Republican in order to belittle the entire Democratic Party. Here are a few things you forgot to mention about Chuck Hagel: ...

    _________ __________ __________ ___________ _____________

    A one-vote margin control of the Senate, and that with the courtesy of two independents, one of whom, a crypto-Republican, could switch the balance of power in an instant, together with only about a 5% majority in the House, is hardly what could be called stunning, especially in light of the incredibly egregious performance of the POWH and his party that should have obviated the possibility of any close election in the country. In fact, the Dem's supposed majority for passing bills in the House is just as perilous as in the Senate (where there are the likes of Liebermann, Nelson, Casey...) given the swelling in the ranks of the right-leaning Blue Dogs (shouldn't they be Red Dogs to go along with their GOP leanings?). My point is that the pusillaminous behavior of the Democrats, so pervasive over the last six years, has become apparently so ingrained that they are incapable of seizing the initiative when it is given them. And if they do not act quickly, the likes of Chuck Hagel ( whom I have worked against in every election ) will place it irretrievably out of their grasp.

    How one could read the following quote from my comment: "While Hagel is very culpable in not exercising his duty as Senator in oversight of the Executive and in his knee-jerk support of the Iraq invasion, and, alas, does not have the courage to admit his own role in the Iraq catastrophe ..." as in any aspect a positive view of Mr. Hagel is beyond me. It strikes me as, and was intended to be, a pretty damning indictment of his performance. I suppose unless every one of his regressive acts is listed and excoriated, that anything positive said will be regarded as a blanket endorsement. The danger of the likes of Mr. Hagel is that he is certainly one of the more intelligent rightists, one capable, as Nichol's points out, of taking the initiative away from the Dems and using it to reactionary ends. Failure to recognize the ability and threat of someone like Hagel is done at the peril of a more liberal society.

    The fact that the Dem leadership that matters, not the bankrupt Kerry nor the Cassandra-like Feingold, has taken so much off the table that should be there ( e.g. immediate, no-strings withdrawal ) portends ill of any effective, recognized role in resolution of the Iraq issue. The Dems cannot even formulate a coherent political strategy, much less a real "on-the-ground" one. Defend them if you will, their present activities do not suggest a positive prognosis for their success, for politics deals with the here and now, not what was said a few months ago. I hope against hope that I am wrong, but the realist in me only allows a glimmer.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 09:50am

  7. TIRESIAS,

    I could not agree with you more. Chuck Hagel indeed sees the writing on the wall and this high stakes game of chicken of avoding blame for the Iraq debacle the Democrats are playing with the Republicans will only backfire on the American people and the Democrats as a party. I have said before that if the Democrats do not force Bush's hand and force an exit out of Iraq, they (Democrats) will pay the ultimate price at the polls (as they should) in the November 2008 elections.

    Posted by TIRESIAS 11/27/2006 @ 06:08am | ignore this person

    What Nichols, and more importantly, Hagel have said!! While Hagel is very culpable in not exercising his duty as Senator in oversight of the Executive and in his knee-jerk support of the Iraq invasion, and, alas, does not have the courage to admit his own role in the Iraq catastrophe, he is at least showing true understanding of the meaning of the Nov. 7 results - something the Dems seem incapable of grasping.

    In many comments appended to other articles by Nation readers, especially this one, the timid and politically frightened approach of the Democrats to Iraq, and their cowed approach to the present administration, has been noted and scorned. If Hagel and other like-minded Republicans end-run the Democrats on this, that party will truly be faithfully represented by their ass icon and sent to the pasture for another dozen years - or maybe even to the glue factory.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 10:19am

  8. MASK,

    Hardly MASK. There is no anti-war party. There is simply one war party with two rightwings, a (d)emocratic and a (r)epublican one.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 10:21am

  9. the realist in me only allows a glimmer.

    Posted by TIRESIAS 11/27/2006 @ 09:50am | ignore this person

    Now I know Tiresias didnt mean "realist" in the sense of a realist vs. idealist, that kind of realist has done nothing but create messes for America for decades and "said" it was necessary.

    Chuck Hagel is the "glimmer of hope" of the Republican Conservatives. Without Chuck Hagels intelligence, the Republicans have no glimmer of hope. Its interesting to see Liberal Democrats conserned about not having much hope - when Republicans are beyond hope, because this disaster in Iraq belongs 100% to the mental disorder called Conservatism. You can "say" that the disaster in Iraq partly belongs to Liberal Democrats - after January 2007 you can "say" that. But that is just coverup and retreat for what everyone just saw. Republicans have to be able to get up, each day, and tell themself that anybody who doesnt support the disaster in Iraq is a traitor - that is all they have. Republicans dont have anything else - they`ll sell out on all their ideals - except authoritarianism and all its stupidity, which causes mess, after mess, after mess, for America. Do Conservative Republicans still think James Baker is going to cook something up to help Iraq? When are Conservative Republicans going to wake up and say Chuck Hagel is our only glimmer of hope?

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2006 @ 10:24am

  10. Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 10:21am

    I think that was my point.

    Addendum...heard Donna Brazile, Gore's former campaign manager, on CNN this weekend. She said what's going around from the Democratic "leadership"..."We have to wait to see what the Iraq Study Group comes out with".

    For all the hoopla here at "The Nation" and elsewhere, the election may have been about Bush's failures in Iraq, but the Dems certainly didn't win because they were presenting an alternative...or dare I say...OPPOSING view on it.

    Yet in the post-2006 aftermath, suddenly "miraculously" the election was about "minimum wage" or "universal health care" or any of a thousand OTHER things (note Ms vanden Heuvel's proclamations in her latest)....but NOT the war in Iraq....or with Pelosi's push for Murtha and Hastings, corruption either!

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 10:36am

  11. but can any reasonable anti-war congressional figure honestly say what will happen if we withdrawal? even the new yorker magazine published a comment which discusses the illusion of a better (even just slightly better) outcome if we withdrawal entirely in 12 months. the new yorker, as you know, is easily one of the most reasonable areas of political discourse on the left wing.

    can any liberal (i myself included) honestly describe what would happen in the event of a phased withdrawal of US forces in iraq? almost 4,000 people died in october alone. 4,000! those numbers will almost certainly go up if we left.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 10:53am

  12. i am calling for a phased withdrawal, effective immediately, over 12 months, but i simply cannot stomach the impact of it. it makes me sick.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 10:54am

  13. So, I guess Mask`s point is he`d rather be playing the Republican hand right now?

    Some people used to like to use the phrase "Liberal Democrat". Hey - did a Liberal Democrat drag this country into the disaster in Iraq? No. Did a Liberal Democrat go the last 6 years and keep YOUR taxes the same? No. Conservative Republicans did that. Those who have said "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal", saying the word Liberal 45 times in every sentence - hey - look at the harm that your Conservative ideology has caused.

    Now, every time these people say "Liberal", they are reminding everyone about people who KNEW who bad the disaster in Iraq would be, TOLD everyone who would listen how bad the disaster in Iraq would be, and still is telling everyone how bad Conservative Republican policies are going to get if we let them. What did we hear? "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal". Liberal Democrat this, Liberal Democrat that. Hey! - Liberals were right. Liberals didnt drag America into Iraq. So everytime you say "Liberal" now you are just reminding America who didnt drag America into the disaster in Iraq. So thats why Mask isnt a conservative moderate democrat disaffected with the liberal left anymore. Apparently, given the disaster in Iraq caused by Conservative Republicans and consistently opposed, thoroughly opposed by Liberal Democrats, appartenly anyone who doesnt like the Liberal Left has a personal issue with intelligent people - wonder why?

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2006 @ 10:55am

  14. Withdraw immediately, result: far less bad than anyone predicted and far less bad than it is right now.

    Posted by conshame at 11/27/2006 @ 10:57am

  15. TIRESIAS,

    I see you'd rather credit lip service and debate an imaginary plan that would let the Bush admin and America off the hook for invading Iraq based on a lie and destroying tens of thousands of lives, Americans and Iragis, and devastating Iraq "( e.g. immediate, no-strings withdrawal )." The fact is Senator Kerry's plan is the most realistic plan for immediate withdrawal.

    Posted by DemsonBoard at 11/27/2006 @ 11:01am

  16. An immediate withdrawal from Iraq leaves our multi-billion dollar bases that have been built with inadequate security. There is no way out folks........our government has set up permanent camp there, and will stay with or without the will of the people. It's probably fun for them to watch us little folks argue about our party issues, when they only represent one large party......and YOU weren't invited.

    Posted by jpolston at 11/27/2006 @ 11:21am

  17. Withdraw immediately, result: far less bad than anyone predicted and far less bad than it is right now.

    and just allow genocide to ensue? i truly fear what will happen if we withdraw immediately.

    this is why i support a phased withdrawal.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 11:33am

  18. Posted by DARLADOON 11/27/2006 @ 10:53am

    but can any reasonable anti-war congressional figure honestly say what will happen if we withdrawal?

    __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

    Can anyone? No! But that should not paralyze us so that we continue to put at risk our young ones (and older too!) serving in Iraq, our incredibly and perhaps irreversibly stressed economy, our civil rights, our eroding military structure and more Iraqis dying from the insane tribal bloodshed. I cannot quite recall who, but recently someone observed that in similar situations where there was a foreign invader, stabilization occurred rapidly after the departure of the interloper. This is the desired end, but can the situation be significantly worse than the present civil war the US is supervising and that it created?

    Failure to act because of inability to predict the outcome should not prevent doing what is right for this nation. The harm done to the Iraqi people is inestimable, and perhaps the most shameful international action in US history, but we do them no good by staying there nor by hanging around and allowing more of them to be slaughtered as well as our own. If, after the US leaves, Iraqis decide on further bloodshed, at least it is their choice, albeit one that we enabled. Regardless of what we do, the blood stains America and all the perfumed words of the apologists will not wash it from her hands. I tend to agree with those who counsel getting out as soon as possible since our presence only invites more and increasingly intense violence. And now the government says the insurgency has sufficient funding to continue indefinitely. This is clearly not a no-win situation, it is a situation abysmally lost.

    America destabilized the Middle East in a fashion that will probably exact an exorbitant price for many years and by staying, what little stability there is becomes more tenuous and the price the US will pay soars ever higher. For a debacle of this magnitude, there is no way to have anything but an ugly denouement. The incredible harm done by the POWH, his party and those thoughtless citizens and politicians who supported this international crime is of historical proportions and the US may well pay such a high price that it will be debilitated politically, economically and militarily for decades to come.

    Erratum: In my previous post I am chagrined to note the word used should have been spelled "pusillanimous."

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 11:58am

  19. I cannot quite recall who, but recently someone observed that in similar situations where there was a foreign invader, stabilization occurred rapidly after the departure of the interloper.

    the foreign invader was probably the united states, in which case stabilization definitely did not occur "rapidly". every country that we have invaded, or meddled with, took decades to recover. some have never recovered.

    look, i am for a withdrawal, but we need to face up and be honest about the consequences. brutally honest. the benefits are obvious, but the costs? we need to be honest about them.

    otherwise, we fall into the same trap that the bush administration did when it denied photographs of caskets coming back from iraq.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 12:06pm

  20. every country that we have invaded, or meddled with, took decades to recover. some have never recovered.

    Posted by DARLADOON 11/27/2006 @ 12:06am

    Does this woman know ANY history, or just know "what she thinks" is history?!?!?

    The Federal Republic of Germany was established in 1949. Japan enacted its post-war constitution in 1947 and American occupation forces left in 1951. Both countries were back to pre-war economic levels by the mid-1950s.....i.e. ONE decade from their surrender.

    Vietnam?...maybe, but then again they were Communists not capitalists like the Germans and Japanese.

    I suppose she could claim we "invaded" South Korea in 1950, if she wishes to be a North Korean apologists, but again by 1963 (ten years after the armistice) South Korea was doing PRETTY good.

    Let's see we invaded Nicaragua, Haiti, Grenada in the past...but given they weren't in that great a shape BEFORE we invaded, I don't think we could get blamed for what happened to them AFTER we invaded.

    Where else, DD?

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 12:40pm

  21. Posted by DEMSONBOARD 11/27/2006 @ 11:01am

    I see you'd rather credit lip service and debate an imaginary plan that would let the Bush admin and America off the hook for invading Iraq based on a lie and destroying tens of thousands of lives, Americans and Iragis, and devastating Iraq "( e.g. immediate, no-strings withdrawal )." The fact is Senator Kerry's plan is the most realistic plan for immediate withdrawal.

    __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

    Nietsche observed that "no intelligent man supports a party" so, although I consider myself a liberal, I feel no great attachment to our so-called "liberal" Democrat party. You appear to have a different attitude that unfortunately prevents your grasping my points. First point: Kerry is not a mover and shaker in this game; he is not of the Dem leadership - he is, as I said, politically bankrupt. So he can say whatever he wishes, offer whatever plan he will, even be it good, and it is useless in the face of a leadership that is vapid and pusillanimous (got it that time!). He is as marginalized as Sanders or Feingold. My point is that the problem is the Democrat leadership or actually, the lack thereof. Second point: Until my posting after yours noted above, I endorsed no plan other than to indicate Hagel was end-running the Dems on an issue that should be theirs. My point was purely political and had nothing to do with the merits of any plan other than the obvious conclusion that the US is helpless to affect the course of events in Iraq. Third point: The Dems are playing a stupid political hand and may well be on the permanent dead-party list after the '08 elections.

    As to the rapid evacuation of Iraq: Perhaps you have not looked at independent news sources and would rather follow the Dem party's spin doctors, but your description of loss of life and devastation of Iraq is happening RIGHT NOW and is continually intensifying even with our ineffective increase of "coalition" troops in Baghdad. It is clear that the US does not have the number of troops nor resources now to contain the insurgency and the incipient civil war. The argument of turning things over to the Iraqi police and military is fatuous given their documented riddling with tribalism and insurgent operatives and their proven inability in action. So how possibly could the US be more effective than it now is with the present debacle and, at the same time, be able to continually reduce its military presence? Perhaps the US is to control the situation by increasing the number of troops in Iraq and that increased military presence will somehow create a decreased military presence? Sounds like an argument by the Red Queen.

    Gen. Shinsheki's projected numbers of troops needed for the invasion, which were at least somewhat realistic, are not available now and that was a number projected before this ill-considered war when the US would have control of Iraq at the outset. Now that control is gone and Afghanistan is falling apart too. The NATO/US troops and commitment are nowhere close to what the USSR had in that country and we should expect it is going to be held without US military commitment - or even with it? And where is all of this US occupying force coming from? From a people who just voted to get out and be done with it? With these considerations, I can see no rational argument for phased withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq is as lost as Gettysburg; the best thing to do is follow Gen. Lee's example and get out quickly.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 1:15pm

  22. Posted by TIRESIAS 11/27/2006 @ 1:15pm

    Not sure "Gettysburg" and "Lee" are the examples you want us to follow, TIRES.....Gettysburg in July 1863.....Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865...almost two years later!

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 1:46pm

  23. Not sure "Gettysburg" and "Lee" are the examples you want us to follow, TIRES.....Gettysburg in July 1863.....Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865...almost two years later!

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2006 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person

    The intended context was wisely leaving the field after losing a battle, not surrendering an entire army at the end of a war which, I doubt very much, the US would do in this situation or would even need to do.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 1:54pm

  24. CONSHAME,

    It is going to take more than Chuck Hagel to get America out of Iraq. He will need the solid backing of the American people to demand a withdrawal. No doubt both wings of the war party will be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. But that's the way it's gotta be.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 2:28pm

  25. Chuck Hagel is for Chuck Hagel...and is in deep trouble in Nebraska....he may lose his eat, as he is hemoraging supporters..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 3:02pm

  26. correction,...seat. not eat, ......although none could make a case..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 3:03pm

  27. TIRESIAS says:

    "So he can say whatever he wishes, offer whatever plan he will, even be it good, and it is useless in the face of a leadership that is vapid and pusillanimous (got it that time!). He is as marginalized as Sanders or Feingold. My point is that the problem is the Democrat leadership or actually, the lack thereof...

    ...The Dems are playing a stupid political hand and may well be on the permanent dead-party list after the '08 elections."

    Wow! That opinion places you among the group of prognosticators who always claim that the Republicans at least do somethings right and the Democrats are dead or dying.

    The group that's always wrong!

    Posted by DemsonBoard at 11/27/2006 @ 3:15pm

  28. Posted by DARLADOON 11/27/2006 @ 12:06am

    look, i am for a withdrawal, but we need to face up and be honest about the consequences. brutally honest. the benefits are obvious, but the costs? we need to be honest about them.

    __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

    Brutally honest? How is that possible beyond what has already been said? You, yourself, admit that the outcome cannot be predicted with any semblance of certainty. But what can be said?

    1. The violence is increasing in number and intensity.

    2. The strife is becoming increasingly sectarian

    3. The Iraqi police and military are compromised

    4. The Iraqi police and military are inadequate in the field

    5. The insurgency is now financially self-sustaining

    6. The destruction of the infrastructure is unabated

    7. Iraq is in virtual civil war

    8. The Iraqi government is incredibly corrupt

    9. The Iraqi government is NOT under complete control of the US

    10. Money sent to rebuild and otherwise provision Iraq is mostly wasted and ineffective.

    11. Deaths of Americans and Iraqis are accelerating

    12. The British have just announced massive troop withdrawals (relative to their numbers)

    13. The "coalition" forces are unable to counteract the insurgency and daily lose effectiveness and are steadily losing what little control they have.

    So what can be done to change this? Perhaps a ground force of one-half to three-quarters of a million troops trained for such action. Where do we find troops trained in that fashion and in such numbers? No place!

    We are spinning our wheels and all we have to show for it is more death and destruction.

    Of course I appreciate your concern, but Iraq is now high tragedy and, as with The Medea, the outcome is horrifying, and it is inevitable. All the hand-wringing one can do will not change this, and the world will cast the same gimlet eye on Iraq as it casts on Darfur. In this particularly horrifying tragedy, the poor Iraqis are truly the agonists and, alas, the US is the antagonist and the other member's of the coalition, the GOP and around half of the American electorate are the deuteragonists. The most sad thing is there is no protagonist. And that is why it is so truly horrifying. The Iraqis will bear the initial horror but, true to the form, I believe America will also pay a desperate price for this tragedy of its making by its failure to recognize demented and evil leadership and to endorse it a second and nearly a third time.

    The brutally honest truth is that it is going to be quite horrible, regardless, and the only thing we can do is stop further damage to the US; we obviously cannot control the damage the Iraqis are doing to themselves. And yes, the Iraqis will suffer enormously, but they are doing that now. What they are enduring now is far worse than any tyranny of Saddam (not that I in any way condone the actions of that monster -inserted for those who rush to misunderstanding), and what they endure after the US departs may or may not be worse. At some point the US must put the fate of the Iraqis entirely in their own hands. We have some options with intelligent and subtle diplomacy with Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran but "intelligent and subtle" are not words that usually come to mind when thinking of the present administration. The only solution is political and I believe achieving that is only exacerbated by the presence of the US military.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 3:40pm

  29. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 3:02pm

    Chuck Hagel is for Chuck Hagel...and is in deep trouble in Nebraska....he may lose his eat, as he is hemoraging supporters..

    __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

    Well, of course he is for Chuck Hagel, he's a Republican isn't he? And his own brother observed that "Chuck never met a rich man he didn't like." And he was a Nixon aide during those years so he learned at the Master's knee.

    As for his difficulty in Nebraska, there is some truth there. But it really depends upon the GOP party there for Nebraskans would vote for Moloch were he/it a Republican. [Look at how they voted this November...Nelson exception noted below] So if Chuck can keep the state party on his side, he will survive. However, nothing scares the average Nebraska voter more than a show of intelligence but Chuck knows how to play old boy and be dumb for show. Bob Kerrey, the inexplicable exception, probably got by with being smart because he had a Congressional Medal of Honor and an opposition with no discernible opposable thumbs. Otherwise, Nebraska Dems like Ben Nelson get elected by running to the right of the GOP candidate. The Dems may find someone right of Hagel, but nobody of Hagel's stature is even near the horizon. My bet is the Huskers will hold their noses but vote for Hagel, especially if he looks like a serious Presidential contender.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 4:01pm

  30. Can I just ask....

    IS there some "consensus" solution or plan from "progressives"?

    I know the Dems don't have one, but anybody out there on the Left tell me what the "progressive plan" is?

    Is it out phased withdrawal with all troops out by July 2007? Or "pull back to Kurdistan"? Or what?

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 4:15pm

  31. At some point the US must put the fate of the Iraqis entirely in their own hands

    yet shouldn't we be concerned about the most vulnerable of iraqis, many of whom will most certainly visit their deaths if we depart too soon?

    (i'm being devil's advocate, so i can see where this goes.....)

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 4:20pm

  32. "Well, of course he is for Chuck Hagel, he's a Republican isn't he?"

    No, he is not..he is a rino..but there is nothing conservative about him.Be careful of your labels.

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 4:31pm

  33. Tire,

    I live her and he is in trouble... " However, nothing scares the average Nebraska voter more than a show of intelligence "

    very condensending and rude...and inaccurate. Ben Nelson is elected becuse he represents the belief of Nebraskans as a whole, dem and republican...this, I believe, represents honest government and an honest offical, a rarity for sure,..the fact is they voted for Kerry because he represented their beiefs...then someone changed? think it was kerry of 2 millions other people who changed? There is a reason Kerry doesn't come back to Nebraska, and umeployment is a factor....there is also a reason the national media likes him.....he is not a conservative anymore..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 4:37pm

  34. correction,..Think it was Kerry or 2 millikon....

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 4:37pm

  35. JOHN MAASCH, There is a preview button for posts! Why don't you add a little variety to your life and give it a try?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/27/2006 @ 4:59pm

  36. There are two viable ways to go in Iraq. Option A: More troops and reqion-wide summit meetings that include Iran and Syria. This option is problematic for several reasons - most americans oppose sending more troops; we don't have more troops; and Bush's arrogant cowboy/bully style of diplomacy won't permit him to talk to Syria and Iran.

    Option B: Get out now. This option is also problematic for several reasons - the country will have to be partitioned first if civil war and slaughter are to be avoided; Iraq may very well become a safe haven for terrorists (it is a haven now, but not safe); the US will lose influence over what happens in Iraq, including what happens with the oil; and it will be evident that the US was defeated, at least politically.

    The third option, "stay the course", is not viable.

    So, ladies and gentlemen, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Our only choice is to pick our poison.

    This is what we get for electing fanatic morons in 2000 and 2002. I know most people here didn't vote for them, but we still have to live with it.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/27/2006 @ 5:11pm

  37. Darla - right on - phased withdrawal is fine with me. I disagree with you, when you say that a quick withdrawal would be bad for Iraq - I couldnt disagree more. But a phased withdrawal is fine with me - I live on planet Earth, and a phased withdrawal is fine with me: its moving in the right direction.

    Poseidon also makes the point, that the Disaster in Iraq belongs to "both wings of the war party". Both wings of the war party do not include "Liberal Democrats". Demonized forever as being un-patriotic, demonized as not supporting the military, demonized as wanting to hug terrorists - yet Liberal Democrats are always right. Liberal Democrats are always right - Liberal Democrats never stop telling the Conservatives how Disastrous their policies are going to be, Liberal Democrats are consistenly CORRECT, Liberal Democrats are patriotic and Liberal Democrats have a ZERO percent stake in George Bushs Disaster in Iraq.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 11/27/2006 @ 6:08pm

  38. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006

    No, he is not..he is a rino..but there is nothing conservative about him.Be careful of your labels.

    Ben Nelson is elected becuse he represents the belief of Nebraskans as a whole, dem and republican.

    __________ __________ __________ __________ ______________

    Re Hagel as rino: Oh sorry, an aide for Nixon, a Nebraska Republican and a rino... you mean he does not wear jackboots and brown shirts, does not goose step, manages to think for himself once in a while, does not always robotically parrot whatever he is told to, and IS largely conservative rather than being a radical reactionary? .....right, how could he be a TRUE Republican?

    Re Nelson representing all Nebraskans: Pure Nonsense!! I certainly did not vote for him nor did anyone I know. Quite a few voted for him because they were terrified that he would lose and that would lose a seat in the Senate for the Dems...I never had such a qualm. But to think he has real support among Dems is delusional....if many voted for him, they held their noses. Further, should the Dems ever have a sure control of the Senate where his seat is not needed, Nelson will be without a job quickly since no Dem of even the slightest progressive inclination would vote for him. Nelson was a Republican until he fell out of favor with the state GOP bosses and then he went Democrat...a typical path in that benighted state for those who run afoul of the reactionary elite. I think he failed to spit polish his jackboots and his kick in the goose step was not high enough. He has, however, retained his parroting ability.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 7:07pm

  39. MASK,

    I stopped listening to Donna Brazille the minute I knew that she was Gore's campaign manager. Essentially, there is a high stakes game of chicken between the two wings of the war party. The question that they are asking themselves is who will blink first? Meanwhile, the carnage and destruction continues............

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 10:21am

    I think that was my point.

    Addendum...heard Donna Brazile, Gore's former campaign manager, on CNN this weekend. She said what's going around from the Democratic "leadership"..."We have to wait to see what the Iraq Study Group comes out with".

    For all the hoopla here at "The Nation" and elsewhere, the election may have been about Bush's failures in Iraq, but the Dems certainly didn't win because they were presenting an alternative...or dare I say...OPPOSING view on it.

    Yet in the post-2006 aftermath, suddenly "miraculously" the election was about "minimum wage" or "universal health care" or any of a thousand OTHER things (note Ms vanden Heuvel's proclamations in her latest)....but NOT the war in Iraq....or with Pelosi's push for Murtha and Hastings, corruption either!

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2006 @ 10:36am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:16pm

  40. I disagree with you, when you say that a quick withdrawal would be bad for Iraq

    this is the single most outrageous statement in this thread.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 7:21pm

  41. DARLADOON,

    The backwards logic that keeps the neocons feeding the Iraq slaughterhouse with American steers is that "everyone predicts what is already happening" and that is more chaos and civil war. They make it sound as if

    A) The U.S. can control the outcome of of what happens in Iraq

    B) The U.S. should want to control the outcome of what happens in Iraq

    It is not the job of America to determine these peoples' fate. That is the meaning of SOVEREIGNTY, MEANING THAT THOSE WITHIN THAT GOVERNMENT AND THAT COUNTRY SHOULD CONTROL THEIR OWN DESTINY.

    but can any reasonable anti-war congressional figure honestly say what will happen if we withdrawal? even the new yorker magazine published a comment which discusses the illusion of a better (even just slightly better) outcome if we withdrawal entirely in 12 months. the new yorker, as you know, is easily one of the most reasonable areas of political discourse on the left wing.

    can any liberal (i myself included) honestly describe what would happen in the event of a phased withdrawal of US forces in iraq? almost 4,000 people died in october alone. 4,000! those numbers will almost certainly go up if we left.

    Posted by DARLADOON

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:25pm

  42. DARLADOON,

    A "Phased withdrawal kept us in Vietnam another ten years. That idea is the kiss of death.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:27pm

  43. Apart from the sickenly increasing numbers on the left column-- look at the number of articles posted just today, concerning Iraq and the mayhem, on the righthandside:

    http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

    The way I see it, we can decide to continue to be a part of the death and destruction in Iraq for another 10 years, and there's good reason to believe we're adding more to it if we stay-- not deminishing it in any way, shape or form, -or- we can leave asap, deciding-- 'no' we do not wish to add to the death and destruction any longer. It's their country and if they need humanitarian help-- sure, either way, we're phasing our troops out at a rate of 10k every month. That's my plan.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/27/2006 @ 7:30pm

  44. CONSHAME,

    Call me a liberal and I will gladly say thank you. I have no idea why people went to this nonsense called "progressive". If you are a liberal, like I am, you should be proud to stand up and say so. But to set the record straight, conservative is not what caused the mess in Iraq. True conservatives would have never got this nation into the Iraq debacle. Bush and his cronies are radical rightwing fanatics, there is NOTHING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT THEM.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:31pm

  45. OK 15k every month.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/27/2006 @ 7:32pm

  46. JPOLSTON,

    That is why America should take a tip from the Spanish. When Bush lap-dog Jose Maria Aznar was caught red-handed lying about the training bombings in Madrid as retaliation for its invasion of Iraq, the Spanish people promptly, and rightly kicked his party out of power. Zapatero, who promised to remove troops from Iraq if elected, delivered on that promise. If Americans truly want out of Iraq, then the pressure has to be put on the gov't to make it happen. And if they stubbornly refuse, then Nov 2008 they go by way of the so-called Republican moderates in Nov 2006.

    An immediate withdrawal from Iraq leaves our multi-billion dollar bases that have been built with inadequate security. There is no way out folks........our government has set up permanent camp there, and will stay with or without the will of the people. It's probably fun for them to watch us little folks argue about our party issues, when they only represent one large party......and YOU weren't invited.

    Posted by JPOLSTON

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:36pm

  47. MASK,

    All bases should be turned over to the Iraqis and the final ultimatum should be given to Maliki which sorta goes like this:

    You have sixty days to cut a deal with your Sunni and Kurdish brethren. We will be completely gone in sixty days, no questions asked..................On day 61, you are on your own. The country is yours, we will send funds for aid and reconstruction, but you have the option of cutting a reasonable deal (SHARING THE OIL REVENUES AS WELL) which all sides can live with, or having your society completely destroyed in a never-ending bloody civil war trying to get it all..........IT'S YOUR CHOICE,(IRAQIS,) NOT OURS (AMERICANS)....................

    Can I just ask....

    IS there some "consensus" solution or plan from "progressives"?

    I know the Dems don't have one, but anybody out there on the Left tell me what the "progressive plan" is?

    Is it out phased withdrawal with all troops out by July 2007? Or "pull back to Kurdistan"? Or what?

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2006 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:47pm

  48. " However, nothing scares the average Nebraska voter more than a show of intelligence "

    "very condensending and rude...and inaccurate."

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person

    Of course that is the problem you would have with the post. In reality, it was hilarious and completely accurate. I have told you many times that the only electorate you are in touch with is that of your home state.........and then only those who dont think too hard.

    Furthermore, I think the post can only be condescending if you know how to spell the word. Condensending........lol. You might have well have spelled it condomsending.......then we would think you were a condom salesman.......you could advertise it as: The rubber in this product is equal in IQ to the average Nebraska voter!

    Posted by jpolston at 11/27/2006 @ 7:48pm

  49. Just remember if we stay there the 10 years some generals predicted we would, it looks like this:

    Year ___Vietnam US dead _______Year__Iraq US dead

    1961-65____1864_____________2003-06____2965

    1966_______6053______________2007____14,829

    1967______11,058______________2008____27,731

    1968______16,511______________2009____42,983

    1969______11,527______________2010____30,088

    1970_______6065_______________2011____15,645

    1971_______2348_______________2012_____5476

    1972________561_______________2013_____1314

    TOTALS

    KIA_______58,191_____________________141,031

    WIA_____153,303_____________________375,142

    MIA________2338________________________5641

    How- increase the troop levels in Iraq by pulling out 25-50k from Germany, SK and Japan.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/27/2006 @ 7:50pm

  50. It is not the job of America to determine these peoples' fate.

    dude, we trashed their country, turned it into a raging inferno, killed scores of thousands of people, allowed hospitals, ministries, museums and schools to be pilfered, botched the security, stole their oil, etc, etc, etc. don't we owe them something? i'm not saying we should remain, but how can we just leave now?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/27/2006 @ 7:56pm

  51. LIBERALPRIDE,

    Finally, another proud liberal. Although I commend you for that, let's be realistic about one thing though, neither liberals or conservatives are always right. Both sides have been wrong on occasion. But the larger point is that honest liberals and honest conservatives would not have done this. Those who voted for and who wish to continue this insanity are radicals of the worst kind. These radicals are people who hate their country so much that they will support any lunatic policy for any reason given even when it has been proven that it hurts their country. That explains why they accept ALL ONE MILLION new and false rationales that Bush keeps coming up with to justify the Iraq war.

    Darla - right on - phased withdrawal is fine with me. I disagree with you, when you say that a quick withdrawal would be bad for Iraq - I couldnt disagree more. But a phased withdrawal is fine with me - I live on planet Earth, and a phased withdrawal is fine with me: its moving in the right direction.

    Poseidon also makes the point, that the Disaster in Iraq belongs to "both wings of the war party". Both wings of the war party do not include "Liberal Democrats". Demonized forever as being un-patriotic, demonized as not supporting the military, demonized as wanting to hug terrorists - yet Liberal Democrats are always right. Liberal Democrats are always right - Liberal Democrats never stop telling the Conservatives how Disastrous their policies are going to be, Liberal Democrats are consistenly CORRECT, Liberal Democrats are patriotic and Liberal Democrats have a ZERO percent stake in George Bushs Disaster in Iraq.

    Posted by LIBERALPRIDE

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 7:56pm

  52. Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Sixty days or totally out?

    Ignoring the logistics (which are tremendous), where to? Kuwait or Kurdistan (and, I've heard floated, western Iraq)?

    Posted by Mask at 11/27/2006 @ 7:57pm

  53. Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person

    You are preaching to the choir poseidon. I would love nothing more than for the american public to understand that there are no plans to EVER pull out. Unfortunately, the average american doesnt understand our investment in the region. You dont spend billions of dollars building some of the largest military bases in the world with state of the art technology.........only to hand it over to Iraqis. We were supposedly rebuilding their country and providing them with electricity and water...........whoops........we forgot and spend the money on mega-bases instead. Let the fight between brown people and white people last forever I say........it's not like we are members of the same species or anything.

    Posted by jpolston at 11/27/2006 @ 7:58pm

  54. DARLADOON,

    You must have missed this one. How do we correct some of the damage we caused, this is one way to do it:

    MASK,

    All bases should be turned over to the Iraqis and the final ultimatum should be given to Maliki which sorta goes like this:

    You have sixty days to cut a deal with your Sunni and Kurdish brethren. We will be completely gone in sixty days, no questions asked..................On day 61, you are on your own. The country is yours, we will send funds for aid and reconstruction, but you have the option of cutting a reasonable deal (SHARING THE OIL REVENUES AS WELL) which all sides can live with, or having your society completely destroyed in a never-ending bloody civil war trying to get it all..........IT'S YOUR CHOICE,(IRAQIS,) NOT OURS (AMERICANS)....................

    Can I just ask....

    IS there some "consensus" solution or plan from "progressives"?

    I know the Dems don't have one, but anybody out there on the Left tell me what the "progressive plan" is?

    Is it out phased withdrawal with all troops out by July 2007? Or "pull back to Kurdistan"? Or what?

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2006 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 7:47pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/27/2006 @ 8:00pm

  55. Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 7:31pm

    Bush and his cronies are radical rightwing fanatics, there is NOTHING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT THEM.

    _________ __________ _________ ___________ _____________ _______________

    Precisely, which is why I always refer to them as reactionaries or radical reactionaries. But it is not only the POWH and his cronies, it is the POWH, his cronies and his party. It is the irresponsibility of the press and other media to fail to make this distinction. Were it made, it would significantly improve the public dialog. Just as the radical reactionaries in control of the GOP have their rino's, real conservatives should protest the reactionaries as being cino, conservative in name only.

    You could not be more correct: true conservatives would never have gotten the US into this nightmarish imbroglio.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/27/2006 @ 8:09pm

  56. FYI people....contrary to popular belief. the military is not stretched....

    From the Wikipedia file....

    The military of the United States, officially known as the United States Armed Forces, is structured into five branches consisting of the:

    United States Army United States Marine Corps United States Navy United States Air Force United States Coast Guard All the branches are under civilian control with the President of the United States serving as Commander-in-Chief.

    All branches except the Coast Guard are part of the Department of Defense, which is under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, who also is a civilian. In peacetime the Coast Guard is placed as part of the Department of Homeland Security, while in times of war they can be placed under authority of the DOD through the Department of the Navy. [2]

    Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of whom are in the Army and Air National Guard).[3] There is currently no conscription. Women are not allowed to serve in some combat positions, but they are allowed to serve in most non-combat MOS. Due to the realities of war some of these non-combat positions see combat regularly. [4]

    How come nobody is advocating we pull out in other places (particulary in Europe) and let those countries fend for themselves?

    Posted by ACook at 11/27/2006 @ 8:37pm

  57. More from the Wikipedia file....

    Overseas

    As of 1999, the United States occupied military bases in 30 different countries.[6] Some of the largest contingents are:

    Germany 69,395

    Japan (United States Forces Japan) 35,307

    South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 32,744

    Italy 12,258

    United Kingdom 11,093

    As of mid- 2006, nearly 150,000 U.S. troops are currently deployed in the Middle East. Most of these forces are currently engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

    Within the United States

    Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters

    A total of 1,112,684 personnel are on active duty within the United States including:

    Continental U.S. 900,088

    Hawaii 33,343

    Alaska 17,714

    Afloat 109,119

    Guam 3,784

    Puerto Rico 1,552[7]

    Posted by ACook at 11/27/2006 @ 8:45pm

  58. if the armed forces are not stretched thin by the Iraq occupation, how come some units are on third and fourth and even fifth tours in Iraq?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/27/2006 @ 9:39pm

  59. Because JR, there was no formal declaration of "war" by Congress in the conventional since. They are the only ones that can declare war, not the President. Although he is Commander-in-Chief, he cannot move any troops without their expressed authorization.

    They blame the President for the chaos in Iraq, when in fact, they need to turn the spotlight on themselves. Both the House and Senate Armed Services committees along with the intelligence committees should have thoroughly vetted all of the intelligence gathered on Saddam and Iraq.

    Look it up in the Constitution. Congress was supposed to be the checks and balances against the Executive Branch.

    Case in point, go back to President Bill Clinton when he asked Congress to allow troops in Kosovo. They told him no and he went around them and got NATO involved.

    Posted by ACook at 11/27/2006 @ 10:53pm

  60. Unless Congress issues a formal declaration of war, the active troops will not go into battle.

    Posted by ACook at 11/27/2006 @ 10:54pm

  61. "I have told you many times that the only electorate you are in touch with is that of your home state"

    What you ntell people "many times" has no effect on them, or me...we consider you a clown and tolerate you as a fellow human. Your opinions are just those..opinions, and as such really have no value to anyone else who hold you in no esteem..

    And I don't care what you think of me or my opinions... or the voters of any state..don't care or value your opinions..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:19pm

  62. you're not drinking again are you maasch?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:21pm

  63. "You could not be more correct: true conservatives would never have gotten the US into this nightmarish imbroglio"

    This is the only statement of value on this site since I have started to drop in for a few chuckles...

    There are no real conservatives left in government,which by definition places most of you solidly in the front row of the kook section who hammer away at conservatives as republicans in todays government...they don't exist.

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:23pm

  64. ah..., yes, the voice from the wood shop we all take so seriously...speaking of front row seats in the kook section...sure Will, all of who use you as an example of waste are of course drinking...

    Now, go back and make some more saw dust..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

  65. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

    so I take it thats a yes

    lush

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:27pm

  66. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

    and I'd be careful speasking form the front of the kook section while sloshed maasch.

    you might fall over

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:28pm

  67. Sure, Will, sure...hey, Bushfools has another poll for you...enjoy

    Useless kook...sawdust king...a pro at that. Impressed beyond repair..

    you really should place me on your ignore list.

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:31pm

  68. Posted by ACOOK 11/27/2006 @ 10:54pm

    At this point what would motivate the congress to declare war in the region? A nuke shot to Israel from Iran? But that's 10 years away and no one believes the hsuB admin as far as wmd intel in Iran or anywhere else.... so we get out. Put those billions in alternative fuel research, like shooting for the moon.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/27/2006 @ 11:33pm

  69. damn kook, you fell back into nichols thread again you big lush

    (and don't be so hard on yourself kook. you're not useless, you're drunk)

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:36pm

  70. And even more boring here...I can only imagine the horror of living in your house..boring kook.

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:38pm

  71. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/27/2006 @ 11:33pm

    I'll bet in 10 years, before ALGORES end of the world, the US is in a full blown war with the Islamic Middle East of all stripes after we are attacked on our soil again...after they deem the US an easy mark after the cut and run show is completed...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/27/2006 @ 11:40pm

  72. And even more boring here...I can only imagine the horror of living in your house..boring kook.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:38pm

    that would be horrible kook. No booze and me laughing at you all day long... for me of course it would be hilarious.

    so you ought stop on by kook

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:42pm

  73. I'll bet in 10 years, before ALGORES end of the world, the US is in a full blown war with the Islamic Middle East of all stripes after we are attacked on our soil again...after they deem the US an easy mark after the cut and run show is completed...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:40pm

    holy shit the lush is seeing multiple ALGORES

    put the bottle down kook

    Posted by Will C. at 11/27/2006 @ 11:43pm

  74. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:40pm

    But if we have alternative energy by then we won't have to actually go over there-- just send them some presents like santa claus and just do a fly bye. And I think they'll know that too. Naw the ones that will be attacking us will be the energy corporations so we won't even try to come up with an alternative energy source they don't control...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 12:04am

  75. But if we have alternative energy by then we won't have to actually go over there

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/28/2006 @ 12:04am

    but would they then hate us for our freedom... from them? and if not I'm sure the kook right will come up with some reason far from the truth and short on reality

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 12:11am

  76. "I have told you many times that the only electorate you are in touch with is that of your home state"

    What you ntell people "many times" has no effect on them, or me...we consider you a clown and tolerate you as a fellow human. Your opinions are just those..opinions, and as such really have no value to anyone else who hold you in no esteem..

    And I don't care what you think of me or my opinions... or the voters of any state..don't care or value your opinions..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:19pm | ignore this person

    John...........I have been drinking so I'll keep this short. I know you dont care for me or my opinions, and the feeling is mutual. I guess my question is then: Why do you post on this progressive website when it is obvious that almost no one here shares your same narrow view of the world. That is to say, there aren't many NEBRASKA republican views being espoused here. I could tolerate it easier if you could spell, or if you actually said something meaningful once in a while. However, you have shown yourself to be a person who cares little for the common man......a viewpoint that those who write for this site, and those who care about progressive values have little tolerance for. It would be like me going to redstate.org and posting about the genocide in Darfur........it's pointless.

    Posted by jpolston at 11/28/2006 @ 02:35am

  77. MASK,

    The war began in March and Bagdad fell before May 1, 2003. Sixty days to withdraw is a lot longer than it took for them to get there. If those troops can be amassed to take the country down they can be withdrawn at the same pace. I personally see no reason for troops to remain in that region. They should be brought home to the United States. Also, troops held hostage in South Korea on the 38th parallel should be withdrawn and brought home as well. It is long past time for the empire to be reduced...................

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/27/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Sixty days or totally out?

    Ignoring the logistics (which are tremendous), where to? Kuwait or Kurdistan (and, I've heard floated, western Iraq)?

    Posted by MASK 11/27/2006 @ 7:57pm | ignore this pers

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 04:24am

  78. ACOOK,

    You get no argument from me on this one. I see no logical reason for troops to remain in Europe, North Korea, or the Middle East for that matter. I am all for saying let's fold up the empire and let these other nations defend themselves.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 04:28am

  79. ACOOK,

    What you just described was a valid reason for impeachment. Congress has to take back the power to declare war. Having presidents sending troops anywhere they wish for any frivolous reason has not worked out too well for America in the long run. Unless the U.S. is directly attacked, then only Congress can make a formal declaration of war, period..............

    Because JR, there was no formal declaration of "war" by Congress in the conventional since. They are the only ones that can declare war, not the President. Although he is Commander-in-Chief, he cannot move any troops without their expressed authorization.

    They blame the President for the chaos in Iraq, when in fact, they need to turn the spotlight on themselves. Both the House and Senate Armed Services committees along with the intelligence committees should have thoroughly vetted all of the intelligence gathered on Saddam and Iraq.

    Look it up in the Constitution. Congress was supposed to be the checks and balances against the Executive Branch.

    Case in point, go back to President Bill Clinton when he asked Congress to allow troops in Kosovo. They told him no and he went around them and got NATO involved.

    Posted by ACOOK

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 04:31am

  80. JOHN MAASCH,

    Nice of you to agree with me..............

    JOHN MAASCH

    "You could not be more correct: true conservatives would never have gotten the US into this nightmarish imbroglio"

    This is the only statement of value on this site since I have started to drop in for a few chuckles...

    There are no real conservatives left in government,which by definition places most of you solidly in the front row of the kook section who hammer away at conservatives as republicans in todays government...they don't exist.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 04:34am

  81. JOHN MAASCH, WILL C.,

    Everyone knows that you two love each other........(LOL)

    JOHN MAASCH, WILL C.,

    ah..., yes, the voice from the wood shop we all take so seriously...speaking of front row seats in the kook section...sure Will, all of who use you as an example of waste are of course drinking...

    Now, go back and make some more saw dust..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm | ignore this person

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

    so I take it thats a yes

    lush

    Posted by WILL C. 11/27/2006 @ 11:27pm | ignore this person

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:25pm

    and I'd be careful speasking form the front of the kook section while sloshed maasch.

    you might fall over

    Posted by WILL C. 11/27/2006 @ 11:28pm | ignore this person

    Sure, Will, sure...hey, Bushfools has another poll for you...enjoy

    Useless kook...sawdust king...a pro at that. Impressed beyond repair..

    you really should place me on your ignore list.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:31pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 04:36am

  82. Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 04:28am

    Er, if we bring or troops home, who will intimidate the gov's in those regions for US corporations out there? True, most are now international anyway and would survive even if the US became another 3rd world economy...hhuummm, you don't suppose that's the plan? Lower our standard of living enough to decimate our middle class/income and pay a lot less for the protection that our military provides to them? Ergo, strong middle class, less war. Seems we the people have a pretty clear stake in running our own government; not so much running others.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 08:45am

  83. er, ipso facto, more than ergo since it seems more factual than fiction, I would think. But then again...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 08:51am

  84. Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 04:24am

    First ...the logistics.

    It IS a lot more difficult to extricate 140,000 troops from a country in the middle of a major "upheaval" (or go NBC and say "civil war"), than it was to mass them in SAUDI ARABIA AND KUWAIT and push them in.

    Ask or research it yourself. Going in, we merely had to brush aside the Iraqi Army. Coming out, we'll have to PACK, and provide cover for the transports as they leave. Also, we'll have to make sure that the "last guys out" aren't getting blasted.

    Nobody I've seen offering a "redeployment plan" seems to say it could take less than SIX MONTHS, and most say it MUST involve moving troops FIRST into Kuwait, if not Kurdistan, well before they are evacuated from the region (something almost nobody is calling for).

    Second, onto that topic....nobody in leadership is calling for the total extraction of US forces from the Middle East...nobody. It may be the dream of the American/European Left (and of course maybe Iran, Al Queda, Hamas, and Hezbollah), but it ain't happening.

    It would ratchet up Iran's position in the region to totally dominant...and (much to the dismay of those who think it would bring "peace") would cause Israel to ratchet up their military responses, without US forces as a "buffer" to Muslim aggression, and might lead to another regional war.

    Hence, nobody is calling for "total extraction from the MidEast"....who is in the know and in power.

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 08:57am

  85. Er, Mask, I am. I do not think they give a rat's ass if our troops stay and die. We are not in control there and should leave if we believe in our own reason for being a nation.

    XXXXXXXX

    Iran vows to help Iraq with security

    By Edmund Blair REUTERS NEWS AGENCY November 28, 2006

    TEHRAN -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad made the pledge at the start of a visit to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, whose trip was delayed for two days because of a curfew imposed after bombings Thursday that killed 202 persons in a Shi'ite Muslim stronghold. The curfew was lifted yesterday.

    "The Iranian nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq, and any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given," Mr. Ahmadinejad said, Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported.

    "We have no limitation for cooperation in any field," he said.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad was speaking shortly after Mr. Talabani's arrival and just before the two presidents held formal talks.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 09:08am

  86. Come on lets face it, the hsuB admin isn't an Iraqi brother any more than the US ever was/is-- the hsuB admin is more a corporate bitch. The question is, are we the people one too.

    Sorry but telling my kids to go die for corporate profits isn't part of my "other jobs as assigned" citizen description.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 09:22am

  87. Everyone knows that you two love each other........(LOL)

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 04:36am

    I love all mankind... even the kooks

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 09:36am

  88. It IS a lot more difficult to extricate 140,000 troops from a country in the middle of a major "upheaval" (or go NBC and say "civil war"), than it was to mass them in SAUDI ARABIA AND KUWAIT and push them in.

    Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 08:57am

    actually it's easier. You can secure your route out of iraq much more easily than you could secure the ingress routes.

    know something about the military before you start flapping your jaws about it mask.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 09:41am

  89. Because JR, there was no formal declaration of "war" by Congress in the conventional since.

    yeah right. whattaloadofcrap. three and a half years of war, and you come with this stuff?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 09:43am

  90. if my memory serves me there was no formal declaration of war in Vietnam either. that shoots your point to hell for sure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 09:56am

  91. HSUBFOOLS,

    And therein lies the problem. Until the American people get past stage III and force a withdrawal, the carnage will continue.

    Er, if we bring or troops home, who will intimidate the gov's in those regions for US corporations out there? True, most are now international anyway and would survive even if the US became another 3rd world economy...hhuummm, you don't suppose that's the plan? Lower our standard of living enough to decimate our middle class/income and pay a lot less for the protection that our military provides to them? Ergo, strong middle class, less war. Seems we the people have a pretty clear stake in running our own government; not so much running others.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 10:23am

  92. MASK,

    Don't talk to me about logistics. I am well aware of the logistics "problem" if the safe routes were cut off. But that is not the case here. Obviously, if it is being contemplated on sending more troops in, then obviously there must be a way out. The safe routes out are there and it is only a matter of having the will to use them to exit Iraq.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 10:25am

  93. "Until the American people get past stage III and force a withdrawal, the carnage will continue"

    I believe once we cut and run, the carnage will begin and you will be sickened at the blood bath that will follow...it will be worse when we leave...and when we do bolt, you will blame the US for the coming blood bath...won't you?

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 10:39am

  94. Pos, you are kidding yourself if you think there are safe routes out of Iraq. Blitzkrieg in reverse is not nearly as effective.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 10:41am

  95. I believe once we cut and run, the carnage will begin and you will be sickened at the blood bath that will follow...it will be worse when we leave...and when we do bolt, you will blame the US for the coming blood bath...won't you?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 10:39am | ignore this person

    this is very old. we have been hearing this for three years now. staying, the situation has gotten much worse. staying longer will make things much worse still.one thing is for certain, when we leave american troops will no longer be killed and maimed. we did not invade Iraq to stop a civil war there, but we started one, the law of unintended consequences.

    we are now told that Iran is training Shia militias. WE are training the same shia, so what's the problem?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 10:47am

  96. JR,

    I believe this to be the case.

    Once we leave the Iranians will be dominant in the area and will flex their muscle on Israel,which we will back, and they want to be the new Caliphate...JR, I hope I am wrong, but they(Iran) will cut off oil to us, backed by clowns like Chavez...they will make an number of errors and miscalculations and will bring the world to a major war...we will be at war with the area for real in 10 years if the Iranians continue on the path we are ignoring.

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 10:58am

  97. the carnage will begin

    the carnage has begun a long time ago, take your head out of the sand, Maasch. have you noticed that the world has passed you by?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 10:58am

  98. And we will have to do what Patton never would do in Europe..pay for the same real estate twice...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 10:59am

  99. The real carnage JR, the real carnage...I think this is just a warm up to the main event coming...IMO

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 11:00am

  100. POSEIDON, HSUB, even my young friend WILL....fine. If that's your plan, but you don't matter.

    Who IN LEADERSHIP (I suppose among the incoming Democratic Congress) is calling for a "total pull-out of the Middle East" or even "out in 60 days"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 11:11am

  101. the real carnage.

    as opposed to the unreal carnage? we know one thing for sure, continuing the occupation will increase the violence. how do we know that? by looking critically and realistically at the last three years. no one can predict the future.

    you are assuming the occupation has kept a lid on the violence, contrary to actual events. it has not done so. why would you assume otherwise?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 11:23am

  102. And we will have to do what Patton never would do in Europe..pay for the same real estate twice...

    actually they did. there was a little thing called the battle of the bulge.

    the situations are so different now from WW2, that no meaningful parallels may be drawn.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 11:25am

  103. Just heard on the radio a pretty prominent politician lay out a plan.

    It called for a withdrawal, but only out of Baghdad to desert bases in Iraq and some to Kuwait, over a period of six to eight months.

    Sound reasonable?

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 11:36am

  104. Sound reasonable?

    Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 11:36am

    that's my plan

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 12:03pm

  105. the situations are so different now from WW2, that no meaningful parallels may be drawn.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/28/2006 @ 11:25am

    the biggest difference between WWII and the conservative quagmire in Iraq is that there are no movies about the latter for maasch to watch and get his talking points from.

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 12:11pm

  106. I'll bet in 10 years, before ALGORES end of the world, the US is in a full blown war with the Islamic Middle East of all stripes after we are attacked on our soil again...after they deem the US an easy mark after the cut and run show is completed...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/27/2006 @ 11:40pm

    This is a good demonstration of the disconnect in right-wing thinking. Neither staying in Iraq nor leaving Iraq has much to do with stopping an attack within our own borders.

    If islamic extremists want to attack US military personnel, then ok you might have a valid point. But if they want to attack buildings and other infrastructure, or attack US civilians, then Iraq is totally irrelevant.

    Just another example of how the political right will repeat nonsense over and over to try to brainwash people.

    Withdrawal from Iraq does NOT equal attack in America!! And you rightwingers have nothing to support such a ridiculous statement.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/28/2006 @ 12:15pm

  107. The real carnage JR, the real carnage...I think this is just a warm up to the main event coming...IMO

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 11:00am

    Were you talking about these kind of numbers Maasch? Not kind at all.

    Year ___Vietnam US dead ______Year__Iraq US dead

    1961-65___1864_____________2003-06____2965

    1966______6053______________2007____14,829

    1967____11,058______________2008____27,731

    1968____16,511______________2009____42,983

    1969____11,527______________2010____30,088

    1970_____6065_______________2011____15,645

    1971_____2348_______________2012_____5476

    1972______561_______________2013_____1314

    TOTALS

    KIA____58,191______________________141,031

    WIA__153,303_______________________375,142

    MIA_____2338_________________________5641

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    South Vietnamese _____________________Iraqis

    KIA___230,000_______________________611,800

    WIA___300,000_______________________798,000

    North Vietnamese ___________________Insurgency

    KIA__1,100,000______________________2.926,000

    WIA___600,000______________________1,596,000

    Total Civilians Killed

    _2-4,000,000__________________5-10,000,000

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 12:26pm

  108. Will,

    Go back to work...you are stealing from those who sign your checks...more saw dust needed...now!!

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 12:38pm

  109. Bush fools,

    What are you going to paste when Bush leaves office? You may have to actually get a job...

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 12:39pm

  110. No fools, not those...I think you will be pasting many more numbers after the US bolts and then return...

    You should work for an insurance company or some other industry that relies on nothing but tabulated numbers..

    Posted by john maasch at 11/28/2006 @ 12:41pm

  111. Will,

    Go back to work...you are stealing from those who sign your checks...more saw dust needed...now!!

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 12:38am

    is your bedding getting a little low in your snooze cube in the habirail matrix?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 1:35pm

  112. "I believe once we cut and run, the carnage will begin and you will be sickened at the blood bath that will follow...it will be worse when we leave...and when we do bolt, you will blame the US for the coming blood bath...won't you?"

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 10:39am

    Uh, John... We invaded, we started this shit. If it contunues after we leave, please explain to everyone/anyone, how it is not our fault.

    We made this bed. We shall lay in it.

    I love my country too. And I don't want us to be wrong/screw up. But it is too late. We already screwed the pooch. So it is our fault there is war now and it will be our fault, when we leave it unstabilized. (Which it will be, either way. Some here, like Darla think we have a responibility to clean up our mess before we leave. And I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible, so I am for immediate withdrawl).

    How can you really be proud and a patriot, if you don't have the balls to admit when you screwed it all up? Who's fault is the mess this invasion made, if not the invaders? (Can you not wrap your head around the concept of being proud to the do the right thing, even if it is after the fact? Can you not concieve of America being wrong? Would you then, fix it? Or deny, obsfucate and distort the truth)?

    What about your concepts of "personal responsibility? Can you not extrapolate this to "national responsibility"?

    Vote more thoughtfully next time and we won't have to figure out how to clean up your messes.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/28/2006 @ 2:01pm

  113. Bush fools,

    What are you going to paste when Bush leaves office? You may have to actually get a job...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 12:39am

    Write any wrong. Already had over 30 different positions. Kept two that pay the most-- 6 figures easy. My dad gets 3 retirement checks. So stop playing the sharecrop landowner. Swear repubs like the ‘boss of everyone' role so's they don't have to compromise that lint size soul for anything too strenuous.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 2:07pm

  114. No fools, not those...I think you will be pasting many more numbers after the US bolts and then return...

    You should work for an insurance company or some other industry that relies on nothing but tabulated numbers..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/28/2006 @ 12:41am

    Ha, I did used to work for an insurance co. a long time ago. 70% commission; felt like I was robbing people I was supposed to be helping. I did auditing for lots of dif institutions and drawing down funds from fed and state. Made a lot of money for other people. Never felt like making too much for myself though. Don't really need it. Distracting. Rather make art.

    As for returning to Iraq after we leave-- it'll be just like hsuB going to Vietnam for the first time (and not being too chicken), only it may be Pres Clinton during her second term. Obama VP? And the numbers will be good.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 2:43pm

  115. JOHN MAASCH,

    AND THE BACKWARDS LOGIC IN THE UPSIDE-DOWN UNIVERSE CONTINUES: YOU PEOPLE LIVE IN A STATE OF DENIAL THAT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE U.S. CAN IMPOSE PEACE IN EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH:

    Where do you people come from? You possess the intellectual capacity of a box of cut hair from the local barbershop. You can not be familiar with my positions, otherwise, you would not have made such preposterous statements. 140,000 troops in Iraq and we have over 100 attacks a day, on average 110 Iraqis killed and many more wounded daily, on average 2-5 American GIs killed daily, a Prime Minister who can't meet with the President of the United States in his own country not to mention the fact that he can't visit the rest of it outside of the American fortified greenzone. All of this after a war that has lasted longer than WWII and that has killed more Americans than the Sept 11 2001 attacks. I am not concerned with the Iraqis killing themselves. If they are not smart enough to cut a deal that everyone can live with, then let them finish what we started, the complete and utter destruction of their own society. American troops do not need to be sacrificed to your God of War by being put in the mniddle of an Iraqi civil war. Same for Israel and Palestine. If Arabs and Jews don't want peace, fine, let the slaughter continue until someone says "I QUIT". U.S. aid should be cut to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. As for Darfur, If Africans are to stupid to stop warring over two religions that did not even originate from their continent, (christianity and islam) then fine, let them destroy their own society as well. You rightwingers claim that you want peace in far away lands but then support a police state with built in suppression in your own homeland. You have not been able to defeat the insurgency in Iraq in four years. What makes you think you can still do it barring the use of nuclear weapons?

    JOHN MAASCH,

    "Until the American people get past stage III and force a withdrawal, the carnage will continue"

    I believe once we cut and run, the carnage will begin and you will be sickened at the blood bath that will follow...it will be worse when we leave...and when we do bolt, you will blame the US for the coming blood bath...won't you?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 2:48pm

  116. JOHANNESROLF

    No way out eh? Perhaps you need to stay away from the juice......

    JOHANNESROLF

    Pos, you are kidding yourself if you think there are safe routes out of Iraq. Blitzkrieg in reverse is not nearly as effective.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 2:52pm

  117. JOHN MAASCH,

    The only way to get your head out of the sand so you will oppose this lunatic policy is to revise history and make Bill Clinton President. I can promise you if he had done what Bush has done, you rightwingers would go nuts condemning this failed war. You would worse than call for impeachment, you would call for Clinton's execution.

    JOHN MAASCH

    The real carnage JR, the real carnage...I think this is just a warm up to the main event coming...IMO

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 2:56pm

  118. Does anyone find just about everything hsuB says about Iraq totally disengenuous and contradictory, like he doesn't even understand the ramifications of what he's saying:

    Bush says U.S. won't withdraw from Iraq

    By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

    RIGA, Latvia - Under intense pressure to change course, President Bush on Tuesday rejected suggestions Iraq has fallen into civil war and vowed not to pull U.S. troops out "until the mission is complete."

    Bush set the stage for the Jordan talks with a speech at the NATO summit here and at an earlier news conference in neighboring Estonia. The president said he was flexible and eager to hear al-Maliki's ideas on how to ease the violence.

    Bush has been coming under increasing pressure, both overseas and at home, to reach out more to other countries, particularly to Syria and Iran to help with a solution in Iraq.

    Such a recommendation may be among those issued by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to finish its work next month.

    Bush has resisted such talks, and he renewed a warning on Tuesday to both Iran and Syria not to meddle in Iraq. Still, al-Maliki's government itself has made overtures to both countries.

    "As far as Iraq goes, the Iraqi government is a sovereign government capable of handling its own foreign policies and is in the process of doing so," Bush said in Tallinn.

    In both Baltic countries, Bush on Tuesday saluted their persistence in eventually prevailing over Soviet occupiers, and he said it was a good example for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 2:58pm

  119. MASK,

    No one from either wing of the war party has advocated my plan because no one from the war party wants to end this war. So bask in your delight of "we don't matter" and watch the mounting death toll of Americans. I guess they don't matter to you either?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

  120. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/27/2006 @ 7:50pm

    Just remember if we stay there the 10 years some generals predicted we would, it looks like this: [depressing table of Nam troop losses vs. projected Iraq troop losses follows]

    ________________________________________________________________________

    But what would be even more horrifying, would be an equivalent projection of the loss of Iraqi lives over the same intervals. Even if off by a factor of three, the projection for the troops is ghastly and, given the response of the voters on Nov. 7, it is very unlikely they would tolerate such carnage over such a period of time.

    Nevertheless, this is one more, and powerful, argument for immediate withdrawal. To me, the basic point is that we are totally ineffective now in controlling the slaughter, and there is no evidence we will improve just because we hold on or even insert more troops. The idea of troop increase is specious because only a quite small fraction of the troops are trained for an occupation, and, even then, only from the aspect of policing and not pacification.

    In spite of Wikipedia's numbers, quoted elsewhere, these are not really more available forces. The US has treaty obligations that require troops being stationed in many places. And what would Kim Jong Il do when looking into the demilitarized zone and observing only a thin cordon of US troops? [Yes, I know they are no longer stationed in the immediate DMZ; it does not change the point.] The observation made earlier that, were so many troops available, they would already be in the Iraq rotation is telling and the best evidence of unavailability. Further, as noted by several observers, the US is already stretched so thin that were there a major menace requiring military response, the US would be quite limited in what it could do and might even be significantly vulnerable.

    The situation seems to admit of no solution that prevents additional and increasing bloodshed and untold grief. The cost to the US may be condign given the nation's appalling leadership, irresponsible representatives, feckless media and thoughtless voting that has brought the country to this pass, but the price exacted from the poor Iraqis is ineffably tragic. What has occurred is, arguably, a war crime and were it not for the extreme power of the perpetrator, The Hague's cells would be full.

    Posted by Tiresias at 11/28/2006 @ 3:01pm

  121. Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 2:56pm

    I concur. I submit that 'more', not less, will die the longer we stay in Iraq.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 3:03pm

  122. " because no one from the war party wants to end this war."

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

    POSEIDON, I deliberately didn't NAME the politician I was referring to here (Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 11:36am) to see how the counter responses would come down.

    By your standard, if such a plan "doesn't care" about the mounting death toll in Iraq.....then neither ME (or WILL see below)....

    or....JIMMY CARTER want to end this war! (Carter on "Diane Rehm" on NPR 11-12 today)

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 3:05pm

  123. that's my plan

    Posted by WILL C. 11/28/2006 @ 12:03am

    Congrats, WILL....according to POSEIDON, you, me, and JIMMY CARTER are in favor of keeping the war going!

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 3:05pm

  124. MASK,

    All foolish, silly, childish little games aside. I never made the point that no one would die during withdrawal and I never made the point that no one would die after withdrawal. Clearly people will die before, during, and after withdrawal. The question becomes who will do the dying to save Iraq? The Iraqis, because it is their country, or Americans, who foolishly think that they can impose their brand of democracy around the world and who want peace, freedom and stability in other lands but who want suppression, aristocracy, and a police state in their own homeland?

    MASK

    " because no one from the war party wants to end this war."

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

    POSEIDON, I deliberately didn't NAME the politician I was referring to here (Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 11:36am) to see how the counter responses would come down.

    By your standard, if such a plan "doesn't care" about the mounting death toll in Iraq.....then neither ME (or WILL see below)....

    or....JIMMY CARTER want to end this war! (Carter on "Diane Rehm" on NPR 11-12 today)

    Posted by MAS

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/28/2006 @ 3:13pm

  125. Posted by TIRESIAS 11/28/2006 @ 3:01pm

    Yeah, I think hsuB should get decked out in combat gear and do some 'leading' over there in Iraq to show how committed he really is....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 3:23pm

  126. Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 3:13pm

    I never said you DID make those point....you made THIS point though:

    "No one from either wing of the war party has advocated my plan because no one from the war party wants to end this war. So bask in your delight of "we don't matter" and watch the mounting death toll of Americans. I guess they don't matter to you either?"===Posted by POSEIDON 11/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

    So I ask again....is JIMMY CARTER part of one of "either wings of the war party"?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/28/2006 @ 3:26pm

  127. Ok, the whole hsuB admin should get decked out in combat gear and go fight in Iraq. It would definitely get them some belated street cred that is currently vacuous.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 3:27pm

  128. JOHANNESROLF

    No way out eh? Perhaps you need to stay away from the juice......

    I did not say no way out, that's a lie. I said there are no safe routes out. neither one of us will no for sure until it happens. as for the juice, that is just a slur by a small mind.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/28/2006 @ 3:48pm

  129. Go Big, Go Long, Go Home, or 'Go hsuBless'

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 4:19pm

  130. Congrats, WILL....according to POSEIDON, you, me, and JIMMY CARTER are in favor of keeping the war going!

    Posted by MASK 11/28/2006 @ 3:05pm

    where does he say that again?

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 4:57pm

  131. hsuB's grand ability to unite and not divide...oh so suave in his negotiations.

    Bush berates hesitant Nato allies

    BBC, Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 18:57 GMT

    US President George W Bush has berated Nato members reluctant to send troops to Afghan hotspots, demanding they must accept "difficult assignments".

    Speaking just before a Nato meeting in Latvia, Mr Bush said members must provide the forces the alliance needs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 7:00pm

  132. BLITZER: I assume you believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the

    removal of Saddam Hussein, was a huge -- with hindsight, was a huge

    blunder.

    CARTER: Well, when you throw in the removal of Saddam Hussein, I

    don't include that. But I think that the original invasion of Iraq, and

    all of its consequences, yes, were a blunder, including what happened

    with the leadership.

    BLITZER: In the scheme of things, how big of a blunder was it in

    terms of foreign policy blunders that American presidents h made?

    CARTER: One of the -- it's going to prove, I believe, to be one of

    the greatest blunders that American presidents have ever made.

    BLITZER: Bigger than Vietnam?

    CARTER: I think it's going to be a close call, but perhaps much

    more vividly known by the rest of the world than Vietnam was. And, of

    course, my answer is predicated on not knowing what's going to happen in

    the future.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2006 @ 7:13pm

  133. oooooooooooo carter on the offensive... that's gotta hurt

    Posted by Will C. at 11/28/2006 @ 7:54pm

  134. Hey what's with the sucking up to Hagel? He voted to let Bush send the troops to Iraq. My whole state's congressional contingent voted against it - one former Republican Independent, a Democrat and another independent. We just elected a freshman Representative who won on the promise to figt to get us out of Iraq. Both my Senators are for getting out.

    Not a word about the fact that Hagel is a flip flopper on Iraq, let alone an abysmal voting record on women's rights, labor issues and the environment. How about calling the guy a plain and simple opportunist?

    If you inked more stories about the groundswell of public support for anti war candidates maybe the Clinton's, Kerry's and Obama's would begin to feel the warmth, but when you play fluffer for a Conservative who smells the Whitehouse sheets and criticize Democrats in general for not having any anti-war cred when there's been literally throngs of them clamoring to end the occupation since before it started, even against the political headwinds of 2002,03 and part of 04, you might as well buy some elephant ears and make a hotel reservation for the GOP convention in 08 - you're the GOP cheerleader for the sacred middle.

    Posted by grnmtnboy at 12/01/2006 @ 5:30pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
8 Comments
Posted at 9:45 ET

» The Notion

Lifting the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan | "The deaths of three American soldiers in a Taliban suicide attack on Wednesday lifted the veil on United States military assistance to Pakistan." So began a Feb 4th piece by Jane Perlez in the New York Times.
Laura Flanders
Posted at 9:39 ET

» The Beat

John Murtha: The Old Soldier Who Said "Bring the Troops Home" | His Iraq War debate with Dick Cheney highlighted the difference between the modern era's sunshine patriots and winter soldiers.
John Nichols
77 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
44 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Welcome to Palinland | Though Sarah Palin's National Tea Party Convention keynote garnered applause when she invoked Ronald Reagan, the real sage behind her speech was Barry Goldwater.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
207 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
40 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman