Feingold vs. Bush

Los Angeles -- US Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, will turn up the volume on his challenge to the Bush White House's failed approach to national security when he delivers a high-profile address Tuesday in this West Coast city.

The speech on national security, which will be delivered at LA's prestigious Town Hall forum, comes on the heels of Feingold's announcement that he will press for an Iraq "exit strategy" that would see US troops withdrawn from that country by December 2006. With his willingness to discuss a specific timelime for withdrawal, Feingold says, he is "breaking the taboo" that has stymied honest debate about the US mission in the Middle East and the point at which it can be declared complete.

The maverick senator is also drawing attention to a potential--if still decidely uphill--run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as a progressive alternative to prowar Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh.

Predictably, Feingold's decision to endorse a timeline has drawn criticism from those who believe that the only way to "support the troops" and "keep America safe" is to maintain an open-ended occupation of Iraq--no matter how deadly it is for Americans and Iraqis, no matter how unstable it makes Iraq, no matter how much it does to stir resentment toward the United States.

The Bush White House dismissed Feingold's plan with a predictable claim that it "would also send the wrong message to our troops. We are serious about completing the mission, and they need to know that they have our full support. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who, as the President has said many times, would just then have to wait us out."

Vice President Dick Cheney chimed in as well, declaring that "Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror, and victory there is critical to the future security of the US and other free nations."

Of course, Cheney was the visionary who announced on the eve of the invasion of Iraq that US troops would be "greeted as liberators." And the Bush White House is the operation that decked the President out in flight-suit drag for a "Mission Accomplished" photo opportunity at precisely the point when the occupation of Iraq was starting to go awry. So their credibility is shot.

But that does not mean that Americans will casually endorse Feingold's timeline.

While polls suggest that the citzenry is exceptionally ill-at-ease with Bush's handling of the war--almost two-thirds of those polled now disagree with his approach--they need to hear more about how critics of the war would:

A) Get US troops out of Iraq, leaving a complete disaster behind, and

B) Offer a sounder approach to the national-security concerns that White House political czar Karl Rove has so ably exploited since September 11, 2001.

That will be Feingold's challenge in Los Angeles.

So far, no Democrat who is seriously pondering a 2008 presidential run has offered a coherent statement of opposition to the Bush Administration's misguided strategies. Senators Clinton of New York, Bayh of Indiana and Joe Biden of Delaware are all strong supporters of the war and of the Bush Administration's general approach, while former North Carolina Senator John Edwards has sought to straddle the issues in much the same way that his running-mate on the 2004 Democratic ticket, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, has.

If Feingold can strike the proper balance between sanity and security--grounding his push for a withdrawal timeline and a more thoughtful foreign policy in a clear commitment to do a better job of funding homeland security and developing the nation's intelligence-gathering and international-policing capacities--he could emerge as a serious contender for the 2008 presidential nomination. At the least, he ought to be able to force the debate that must occur prior to the 2008 election onto the higher ground that Clinton, Kerry and other prominent Democrats have so far been unable or unwilling to occupy.

Comments (185)

1. I posted the following on a Yahoo group web site, and it seems appropriate to re-post it on this blog:

   I plan to put my personal support behind the presidential candidate (Senate and Congressionsal candidates) who presents a plan to resolve the Iraq War issue without adding more troops; who establishes a clear and near-at-hand deadline for getting out of Iraq; who provides an effective plan for capturing bin Laden; and who enhances America's security by addressing energy issues, our support of dictatorial Middle Eastern suzerainty, and trade and foreign policy with China.

   I hope that candidate will be John Kerry.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 2:13pm

2. Even if we pull out today, the sacrifices made by our troops will NOT be in vain. After all, they have accomplished much.

   1) Saddam Hussein is not in power, and his sons are dead. If you are for or against the war it does not change this fact.

   2) They have shown that there are no WMD in Iraq. I knew this in 2002, but for the slow learners out there this is an accomplishment.

   3) I am sure other readers can add to this list. Insert your own item here.

   Let's save the lives of all the troops that haven't been killed: Pull out today! The troops did a good job. I am thoroughly impressed by their performance. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

   Note to President Bush. Setting a timeline doesn't allow the insurgents to "outwait us". They can "outwait us" because they live there. The natives can ALWAYS outwait the foreign occupiers, regardless of whether you establish a timeline or not.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 2:21pm

3. FRANKGRITS: You are good!! Keep it up!!

   Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 2:49pm

4. Try as they might, not one person on the right has yet dealt with the strategic reality that providing a date for the pullout hands a perfect timeline for planning hostilities to our enemies. The only strategically defensible method here is to continue as if we have no qualms whatsoever about staying until the job is done, no matter how long it takes. Let's make sure that doubt about our resolve is NOT a tool they can use in planning against us.

   It took 50 years to win the cold war, and it was worth every penny and every year. Let's make sure we don't crap out on this one, as the Jihadists predict we will....and many wish to, fullfilling their predictions of the lack of resolve of a weak willed western culture unable to stomach the realities of war, and their ability to outlast us.

   Posted by MtnGoat at 08/22/2005 @ 3:13pm

5. DOH! Let's make that "not one person on the *left*"!

   Posted by MtnGoat at 08/22/2005 @ 3:14pm

6. MTNGOAT, Your post can be summed up in one sentence: Once we, as a nation, make a mistake we are not allowed correct it

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 3:34pm

7. MTNGOAT, Your post can be summed up in one sentence: Once we, as a nation, make a mistake we are not allowed correct it

   That presumes that we have made a mistake, something which we do not all agree upon.

   Besides, mistake or no, you didn't deal with the issue presented.... that of presenting our enemies with a timeline by which they can predict our actions and plan for those actions. Since when is is good strategy to tell your enemy exactly when you are going to quit?

   Posted by MtnGoat at 08/22/2005 @ 3:42pm

8. MTNGOAT, Your post can be summed up in one sentence: Once we, as a nation, make a mistake we are not allowed correct it

   That presumes that we have made a mistake, something which we do not all agree upon.

   Besides, mistake or no, you didn't deal with the issue presented.... that of presenting our enemies with a timeline by which they can predict our actions and plan for those actions. Since when is is good strategy to tell your enemy exactly when you are going to quit?

   Posted by MtnGoat at 08/22/2005 @ 3:42pm

9. Frank,

   "Dubya, "But still, what if…….?"

   At least you give "Dubya" enough credit in that in your little skit you have him asking what if questions, which infers at least some level of critical thinking = )

   It could have been worse, you could have just had him doing it without care of what people thought becuase he really was to ignorant to think they would care.

   At least with him being concerned of what other people would think, he is somewhat considering other's points of view.

   Oh hell this is sounding like a bad Bush excuse, never mind keep going your stuff is funny!

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 3:45pm

10. MTNGOAT Ok, I'm on the left, and here is my strategy to win the war on terror. Go after and get the terrorists who harmed us! OSBL is still out there. If we pull out of Iraq and put our troops where they belong, in Afghanistan, we can send a strong and clear message to terrorists that, not only will we not back down, but we WILL NOT BE DISTRACTED from our cause!!! So far, on the right, the war on terror has been nothing but one big show that has nothing to dso with 9/11 or terrorism. That is why the terrorists are winning, not because we are weak willed, but because our leaders have an agenda other than protecting our citizens against those who harmed us. Now if those of you on the right can give us on the left an answer as to why Bush got distracted from the real mission of finding the people who harmed us and how we can get back to the real war I'm all for it. So far all I've heard was "stay the coarse." Well if the coarse is wrong why stay on it? If I'm trying to get from point A to point B and take a wrong turn I will never get to where I'm going unless I make corrections. Please tell me how the right plans on getting OSBL in Iraq I would love to hear it.

    Posted by zakquiet at 08/22/2005 @ 3:47pm

11. MTNGOAT, You should direct that question towards someone who advocates "setting a timeline for pullout." I do not. I advocate just pulling out now. Don't set a timeline, just leave Iraq now. Keeping troops in Iraq cannot solve our problems there, it is our problem there.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 4:03pm

12. "That presumes that we have made a mistake, something which we do not all agree upon."

    Can you explain how being distracted from catching OSBL and fighting those who attacked us isn't a mistake?

    "Besides, mistake or no, you didn't deal with the issue presented.... that of presenting our enemies with a timeline by which they can predict our actions and plan for those actions. Since when is is good strategy to tell your enemy exactly when you are going to quit?"

    The timeline also gives the Iraqi provisional government and the military a deadline to work with. They would be facing the very real choice of getting their act together or civil war. If civil war is the end result the UN would get involved thus spreading the cost and military personel out to more nations. Not a good thing but not as bad as what W. has done. Bush made a mess there is no good solution anymore the best one is to set deadlines to force them to get things in order. Also if we make a real effort in Afghanistan the very limited resorces of the terrorists would have to be redirected as well. They can't wait us out if we move to where the are hiding now.

    Posted by zakquiet at 08/22/2005 @ 4:11pm

13. Feingold is a phoney. He has as much chance winning a LIB nomination as McCain does a republican one. NONE ZILCH NADA....Lot of noise signifying NOTHING

    Posted by aludra at 08/22/2005 @ 4:23pm

14. Oddly enough, McCain could win the presidency easily if nominated by the GOP because he is so respected by many libs.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 4:27pm

15. mtngoat:

    You ask the wrong question when has anyone really tried to find an out to get our troops out. There has been alot of what if's from those like your self who feel we have to prove that this war wasn't a farce perpetrated by a fool while saving face. Since we are dealing with what if's how about this we pull out our troops by say Jan 1 06 and let everyone know about. The current rise in terrorist acts around the world and the threat of creating a terriost nation should bring the global community running if only to protect thier back sides. This solves the questions of how to best defend our troops and opening our options in reguard to finding Osama. We need to take this to them without strangling ourselfs. not chasing a hole to find oil in.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/22/2005 @ 4:34pm

16. "Oddly enough, McCain could win the presidency easily if nominated by the GOP because he is so respected by many libs."

    And many conservatives like him as well. Some (like me) do not because of his pro-choice stance, but hey.. you can't have everything. It's not like who ever the Dem's put up against him will be pro-life.

    Lessor of two evils... again...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 4:34pm

17. Zero,

    Please explain what you mean by the following statements:

    If Feingold wants to run on ending the war, then he needs to tell people who want the war ended that it can happen in less than a year and a half. That's ridiculous.

    Posted by ZERO 08/22/2005 @ 4:14pm

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:36pm

18. MTNGOAT:

    Iraq is only "jihadist" because we have created them a training ground. The Department of State's 2001 edition of its "Patterns of Global Terrorism" did not list a single act of global terrorism linked to Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2005 @ 4:38pm

19. I hope I don't drift too far off topic with this, but why do the Republican Presidential Nominee prospects keep looking better & better to me than the Democrats with regards to Iraq? Chuck Hagel compares Iraq to Vietnam here. Sorry to say it, but most of the Democratic hopefuls & those whose names are thrown around most of the time on this site (ie: Clinton, Kerry etc...) still seem to be strong supporters of the war & want to escalate it. If the polls are true, the Dems are going to have serious problems if they run a pro war candidate or one in favor of escalating the war by sending more soldiers.

    Posted by thejman at 08/22/2005 @ 4:48pm

20. MTNGOAT, " ...lack of resolve of a weak willed western culture unable to stomach the realities of war and the ability to outlast us." Huh? Most of the world is scared to death of our willingness and readiness to go to or create war. Come on, this is just that old macho crap the the right wingers repeat ad nauseum. "What will the world think of our lack of resolve? We'll be perceived as a paper tiger again?" I know the "jihadists" were stated as the ones who would be able to outlast us. Let'em outlast, or whatever the hell that means. My brother leftists are repeating the same old stuff(as I will do again)-Iraq was not responsible for 09/11! OBL is on the loose. No WMD'S. This was known by non-coerced intelligence personnel before the invasion. Unfortunately it is always going to be "my country right or wrong" every single time a republican president begins a military offense. Our oppostion will always be portrayed as the rantings of leftists too weak willed to stomach the efforts of empire.I always thought guys who have to continuously attach themselves to the jingoist macho right wing(and women for that matter)have a screw or two loose and have the need to beat the hell out someone or something(a demonized foreign dictator will do-especially if the demon has some nice natural resources that can be "freed" for democratization.) Live and let live, man. Peace. That's really all us lefties are saying. Our country is really rich and powerful. We don't have to prove ourselves anymore.

    Posted by wjfalcone at 08/22/2005 @ 4:49pm

21. UPDATE: After days of manipulation and bullwhip bullying by the U.S. ambassador, the delegates tasked with drafting an Iraqi constitution submitted a draft to the Iraqi parlament. Since it has not been voted on, it is incomplete. The vote will be delayed THREE MORE DAYS to allow more negotiations to satisfy Sunni concerns. The U.S. is now aligned with the Shiite faction, which wants a government ruled by Islamic law. In other words, the U.S. is willing to have an Islamic theocracy so that the Bush crowd can claim success.

    Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 4:56pm

22. Phil...the world is so full of unsurprises today....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/22/2005 @ 5:11pm

23. warning: I'm a moderate republican and war supporter.

    I thought this article in the current issue of US News & World Report might interest some of you.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050829/29barone.htm

    Posted by aganesan at 08/22/2005 @ 5:18pm

24. It is mind boggling to me that anyone who understands even a little about Islam could really believe that democracy could take root in a country like Iraq. When their entire lives revolve around an autocratic religion people cannot think in terms of democracy. In a democracy where freedom of religion and from religion is the law, the state by definition has to take precedence over religion, but in some cultures nothing can come before religion. A moderate theocracy is probably the best we can hope to get in Iraq. All the purple thumbs in the world will not bring democracy to a culture that requires half the people to honor their religion by living in personal tents or behind veils, etc. It is highly unlikely that those purple thumbs coming from behind the veils really voted their own choices or voices. They voted as they were told by the men - the religious leaders. If women are not treated as equals, there can be no democracy. The oly way a theocracy could be democratic would be if half the religious leaders were women.

    Posted by tamco at 08/22/2005 @ 5:22pm

25. But, we must remember that creating democracy for the Irauis was just an afterthought brought in the appease the American masses when no WMDs were found. Creating democracy where it cannot exist is tilting at windmills indeed.

    Posted by tamco at 08/22/2005 @ 5:26pm

26. Thejman,

    "I hope I don't drift too far off topic with this, but why do the Republican Presidential Nominee prospects keep looking better & better to me than the Democrats with regards to Iraq? Chuck Hagel compares Iraq to Vietnam here. Sorry to say it, but most of the Democratic hopefuls & those whose names are thrown around most of the time on this site (ie: Clinton, Kerry etc...) still seem to be strong supporters of the war & want to escalate it. If the polls are true, the Dems are going to have serious problems if they run a pro war candidate or one in favor of escalating the war by sending more soldiers."

    Which will make things interesting, I don't like Kerry or Hillary due to their standings on social issues, and for me those trump all normally.

    I do think the war in Iraq is just due to many reasons I have posted before that have nothing to do with WMD's, however think Bush has done a horrible job as commander in chief, and don't believe he is being completely honest with the public.

    Could it be that I, the socially conservative Todd actually votes for a democrat in '08, that hasn't happened since….

    That just hasn't happened!

    Someone call Guiness.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 5:27pm

27. No time to write, busy at work but this article sums up better than any why I'm still pro-war. It's by arguably the best (and my personal favorite) political writer today, Andrew Sullivan. I'm a republican that reluctantly voted for Kerry in the last election mostly because of the massive post-invasion misjudgements by the Bush administration and the prisoner abuse but not because I didn't believe in the war effort or it's overall strategy.

    http://andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20050702

    Posted by aganesan at 08/22/2005 @ 5:36pm

28. Not Gonna Happen

    Posted by aludra at 08/22/2005 @ 5:52pm

29. Is anyone thinking that the terrorists "waiting us out" seems like a bit of an oddity? It doesn't seem to me that they are waiting very patiently.

    Posted by j.m.knight at 08/22/2005 @ 5:56pm

30. Zero,

    Thanks for the explanation.

    I concur with what you are saying; end the damn war, and quit all this talk about what we will do at the end of 2006.

    A helluva lot of lives could and most likely will be lost by the end of 2006.

    Get on with ending this damnable war, and right soon!

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 6:01pm

31. Todd,

    On McCain on abortion:

    http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

    Doesn't read to me like he's pro-abortion.

    And please, people, McCain wil never get the nomination for president. He's fiscally responsible, for one thing, and he's not a toe-the-line Bushie. Hasn't a chance in hell of occupying the Oval Office.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 6:14pm

32. The whole "they'd wait us out thing" is a canard anyway. What would they be "waiting" for, exactly - ? Waiting for us to leave so they can, what - go ahead with what they're doing already? More of it? Less? Go ahead being terrorists? Does anyone actually believe that us staying there is in any way going to have any impact whatsoever on what these so-named terrorists are doing except possibly to mean that they'd stop killing Americans in Iraq, or stop killing westerners anywhere, now that there are no infidels in their midst? This whole red herring Bush uses regarding "waiting us out" is, as usual, nonsensical. It means nothing and is useful only insomuch as it sounds to those who don't bother to listen literally like some kind of bonafide rationale. Another naked emporer situation....

    Posted by mewsician at 08/22/2005 @ 6:21pm

33. Zero,

    You got my vote. When are you announcing your run for President of the U.S.?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 6:49pm

34. And be sure to just say that you inhaled and loved the living hell out of it.

    :)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 6:55pm

35. Okay, we can't just pull out. Like it or not... support what created the mess or not, we have an obligation to the people we "freed" to prepare them for the struggles they now face. Clearly, even those who "greeted us as liberators" have no interest in us staying, but we can't just throw them to the wolves. They are clearly not prepared. They need a standing army and internal security apparatus of their own (who else is offering to train them? Iran? Syria?). And they need a functioning government, with a structured mechanism for addressing their deep and serious differences peacefully.

    You can set a timetable, it can be agressive and even absolute. But, to leave yesterday is to screw a country full of people who don't deserve it.

    If they invite us to stay - maybe establish a base - we should consider it, but first and foremost we have to let the Iraqis make their own decisions about their own country - something they may not be very good at, since they haven't had much practice the last few gazillion years.

    Posted by j.m.knight at 08/22/2005 @ 7:18pm

36. JM KNIGHT:

    Okay, we can't just pull out.

    We could not just pull out of Viet Nam 30 years ago.

    Like it or not... support what created the mess or not, we have an obligation to the people we "freed" to prepare them for the struggles they now face.

    Like it or not, support what created the mess or not, we had an obligation to the Vietnamese 30 years ago to prepare them for the struggles they now face.

    Clearly, even those who "greeted us as liberators" have no interest in us staying, but we can't just throw them to the wolves.

    We couldn't just throw the Vietnamese to the wolves...

    They are clearly not prepared. They need a standing army and internal security apparatus of their own

    The Vietnamese were not prepared.

    And they need a functioning government, with a structured mechanism for addressing their deep and serious differences peacefully.

    Ditto for the Vietnamese 30 years ago.

    to leave yesterday is to screw a country full of people who don't deserve it

    Ditto Viet Nam 30 years ago

    first and foremost we have to let the Iraqis make their own decisions about their own country - something they may not be very good at, since they haven't had much practice the last few gazillion years.

    Many thought the Vietnamese wouldn't be very good at making their own decisions 30 years ago, since they also hadn't had much practice, what with being a French colony and then US surrogate.

    Viet Nam did not fall off the earth. They actually did quite well. The Iraqis will make it on their own also. Let's not be so arrogant as to think that the "primitives" can't survive without us...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/22/2005 @ 7:43pm

37. I'm missing the point. Feingold is brave enough to offer that we should be out of Iraq in no less than a year and a half?

    Brave Democrat, braver than most, alas. So tell me, Russ, what are we going to do in the next year and half except to kill more Iraqi's and Americans. Perhaps you are thinking we need the time to meet for group grope, to talk out our feelings, and to make sure the sons of dead Iraqi's aren't going to shoot our kids in the back as we attempt to quietly depart.

    What are you trying to prepare us for , Russ, when all is already long since lost.

    Or are you playing us along, knowing all the while that as long as the GOP and the neocons are running the table in Iraq, we won't soon be gone? They have a bigger plan, which is why there was no exit strategy. Unless we impeach Bush soon, Russ, he will hand the torch in 2008 to neocon phase II. Why are you even playing along slightly, gratuitously?

    We have "overstayed" our welcome in Iraq, Russ, though in truth we crashed the party we forced them to hold 'til the wee hours, in our honor, because they had no choice but to throw the damned party. Russ Feingold, you're a nice guy. But nice guys imperil us all just now. With your kindness, we all finish last.

    How many are you willing to sacrifice on both sides in the next year and a half, on the chance that we can somehow retract from the situation with lessened world impact. How do you explian it to the parents who's children died from now until then just so that the U.S. could save face?

    c.

    Posted by carrion at 08/22/2005 @ 8:08pm

38. I'm missing the point. Feingold is brave enough to offer that we should be out of Iraq in no less than a year and a half?

    Brave Democrat, braver than most, alas. So tell me, Russ, what are we going to do in the next year and half except to kill more Iraqi's and Americans. Perhaps you are thinking we need the time to meet for group grope, to talk out our feelings, and to make sure the sons of dead Iraqi's aren't going to shoot our kids in the back as we attempt to quietly depart.

    What are you trying to prepare us for , Russ, when all is already long since lost.

    Or are you playing us along, knowing all the while that as long as the GOP and the neocons are running the table in Iraq, we won't soon be gone? They have a bigger plan, which is why there was no exit strategy. Unless we impeach Bush soon, Russ, he will hand the torch in 2008 to neocon phase II. Why are you even playing along slightly, gratuitously?

    We have "overstayed" our welcome in Iraq, Russ, though in truth we crashed the party we forced them to hold 'til the wee hours, in our honor, because they had no choice but to throw the damned party. Russ Feingold, you're a nice guy. But nice guys imperil us all just now. With your kindness, we all finish last.

    How many are you willing to sacrifice on both sides in the next year and a half, on the chance that we can somehow retract from the situation with lessened world impact. How do you explain it to the parents whose children died from now until January 2006 just so that the U.S. could save face?

    c.

    Posted by carrion at 08/22/2005 @ 8:12pm

39. ilovephysics/carrion, can you articulate a position that is compelling in a stump speech to the general public? Maybe you're right about getting out immediately, I'm no global policy wonk. But, it just sound like a reasonable thing to do to just abandon the Iraqis. If you can't convince the people, you can't gain the postion from which you can actually do something about it.

    Posted by j.m.knight at 08/22/2005 @ 8:22pm

40. Bush supporters start caravan to counter Sheehan war protest

    KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

    Associated Press

    VACAVILLE, Calif. - A caravan proclaiming support for U.S. troops began a tour through California on Monday and stopped in the hometown of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war mother who gained national prominence during a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

    Conservative activists and military families embarked on a tour they are calling "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" and are planning rallies in several California cities before heading to Crawford, Texas.

    "It's time to lay down the anger. We need to continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold those men and women with their boots on the ground," said Debra Johns, head of the Northern California Marine Moms, who helped organize the caravan.

    "That's not the message being made" by the mother of the fallen soldier, Johns said during a rally in Sheehan's hometown, where about 30 Bush supporters gathered outside the Vacaville Reporter newspaper.

    Vacaville was among several stops for the caravan, which is being sponsored by Move America Forward, a Bay Area-based group. Other rallies Monday were scheduled in San Francisco, Sacramento and Fresno.

    Several supporters said they have family members serving in the military, and some said they knew Sheehan and her son, Casey.

    Toni Colip, 50, of Vacaville, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her son opposes Sheehan's activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.

    "He said, 'Don't dishonor me, don't walk on my grave,'" Colip said.

    Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, died last year in Iraq. She began a protest vigil Aug. 6 on the road leading to Bush's ranch, an act that has encouraged anti-war activists to join her and prompted peace vigils throughout the country.

    She vowed to remain until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke.

    The pro-Bush caravan plans to join fellow supporters who have set up their own camp in downtown Crawford as a reaction to the Sheehan-inspired vigil. Bush was in Salt Lake City on Monday, where he spoke to a national veterans group to rally support for the war.

    Several of those in the caravan said they understood Sheehan's anger but disagreed with her protest.

    "This is not the way to honor her son," said Lori Judy, 49, of Vacaville, whose son, Tim, served in Iraq.

    Drivers waved flags as the caravan left Vacaville on its way to Sacramento, led by a recreational vehicle and a moving van covered with a sign reading, "Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me."

    Posted by aludra at 08/22/2005 @ 8:31pm

41. Numbers to ponder:

    In the 15 years we spent in Vietnam, our casualty rate was 8 in 10,000 troops serving in Vietnam; and most of those casualties occurred in the latter part of the Vietnam War.

    As a comparison, in Iraq we are experiencing a casualty rate of 5 in 10,000 troops serving in Iraq; and we appear to have a long way to go if we stay the course that Bush prescribes.

    You know, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska could be on to something when he says that Iraq is taking on the tones of the Vietnam War. Some of us felt that way when Bush spoke those infamous 16 words; the parallel was that the Vietnam War was escalated based on the Tonkin Gulf lie and Iraq is based on the WMD lie.

    The numbers provided in this post were calculated by me and based on information primarily gained from Wikipedia and personal memory.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/22/2005 @ 8:39pm

42. ilovephysics/carrion, can you articulate a position that is compelling in a stump speech to the general public? Maybe you're right about getting out immediately, I'm no global policy wonk. But, it just sound like a reasonable thing to do to just abandon the Iraqis. If you can't convince the people, you can't gain the postion from which you can actually do something about it.

    Posted by J.M.KNIGHT 08/22/2005 @ 8:22pm

    Look it boils down to the Sheehan message. There is no noble cause. There was no noble cause to begin with, and there is no noble cause to end it. All that can be acxcomplished by withdraw1ing immediately is to spare future bloodshed to our own children and to the innocents we kill in Iraq. That we have created an insurgency in Iraq where there was none before is an offense to mankind that our highest officials should be held accountable for.

    What other message do you want? That is the message. Most of those in power in this country lied others who were also in power into war If you want me to wrap this message in bouquets, so that at is more acceptable, sorry, no can do.

    Our sons and daughters and countless civilians have died in Iraq so that the dollar would not be supplanted by the euro as the controlling currency in the sale of oil. Obviously those invested heavily in oil wouldn't want to go down this way. So, our children haven't died so thart we can have oil, but they have died to prop up the strength of our currency on the international market.

    A couple bucks a kid? Sounds about right. You tell me, how do we sugarcoat the truth to parents, that WMD, Saddam and terrorism were never factors in the Neocons long look at war in the Middle East. You tell me, how do we whitewash the true vulgarity of this administration in the way thatr could be embraced in Kanopolis, Kansas.

    You want sound bytes selling "the truth?" Forget it. Sound bytes were invented to sell lies, which is why this administration has been so successful. Lies are easy because everyone WANTS to believe them. So sound bytes work.No one wants to believe the truth, particularly when it's this ugly. There is no sound byte that can make most people capable of handling the truth.

    Posted by carrion at 08/22/2005 @ 8:58pm

43. Oh, and another thing. Osama bin Laden is, for all intense and purposes, a piece of fiction, a focal boogey man that was necessary of the moment to do the false attack in Afghanistan as a means to get where Bush really wanted to go. OBL may be real, or he may have been an invention (or at least his role in 911). The fact the administration lost all interest in him fairly early on speaks volumes. And in truth, whereas it once mattered whether he was fact or fiction, it hardly matters now.

    Posted by carrion at 08/22/2005 @ 9:19pm

44. Some of you in your post Vietnam protestors victory memories, conveniently leave out the genocide that took place after we left Vietnam. I have many Vietnamese friends who escaped after the fall. Their horror stories should be repeated to anti-war protesters like those on this site until burned into your memories.

    Just a few facts to counter the distortions like that stated by ILP who I normally find interesting when he says the Vietnamese actually did quite well after we left.

    www.cnn.com An estimated 1.7 million people died from execution, starvation, ill health and overwork during the Khmer Rouge's 1975-1979 brutal rule. None of the regime's top leaders has been brought to trial, although the government has signed a deal with the United Nations to create a U.N.-backed tribunal.

    Following a brutal, five-year war between the Khmer Rouge guerrillas and a U.S.-backed government, the victors marched into Phnom Penh April 17, 1975, driving its residents into the countryside at gunpoint to become rice farmers and slave laborers.

    The Khmer Rouge victory preceded that of communist forces in Vietnam which captured the South Vietnamese capital, Saigon, on April 30, and forced remaining U.S. personnel to flee the country as they had earlier in Cambodia.

    A little perspective for all of you who think that the US and especially conservative administrations are the real killers:

    With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.

    Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

    In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

    http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/sod.chap6.htm

    Over a million South Vietnamese were killed by the NVA after they took over South Vietnam. Most of these were either straight out executions with manh of them in the "Re-education Camps".

    Approx. 250,000 were deaths of the famous Boat People who tried to escape out into the China Sea. Their deaths must be laid at the feet of the Communists.

    I think either some of you post all this junk out of plain old ignorance. However, some of you do it intentionally because your hatred of Bush and anyone who finds a necessity for war outweighs the affects that would result from these truly thoughtless and racist solutions like "get out now".

    The firestorm of responses should be interesting but not enlightening as I have found now after a month of listening that those on the left with a reasoned and fact based approach to world problems are few and far between.

    You may wish if you really want to load up to see my post on Ari Bermans site.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 9:25pm

45. If the analysis is correct, the only viable solution would be:

    Replace the president, as Reagan replaced Carter.

    The new guy, he tan take a new course. Everyone will be relieved.

    The only problem is, because the left is so wrong on almost everything else, no one trusts them with guns.

    And to most americans, the war is not the big issue.

    SO they can't run on the war, because they will get killed on the other stuff, just a bush killed off kerry and gore.

    Yes, Gore lost.

    And Lee didn't hand his sword to grant, thinking he was a blacksmith, expecting him to sharpen it up so he could skewer more "damn yankees".

    He surrendered.

    Get over it.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 9:28pm

46. -JMan: You're right on the money with the Democrats being wish-washy once again. Can anyone out there argue from the point of view that we truly have two separate parties in the U.S.? Personnally, I feel its time for more than just two choices.

    -Tamco-5:22pm: Interestingly enough, as Islamic states go, Iraq used to show the least potential for theocracy, that is until the series of devastating events of the past quarter-century, beginning w/ the Iran-Iraq war. During the '70s, Iraqis enjoyed wealth, education and healthcare seen few other places in the middle-east. Islamic law was an afterthought. Of note, Bin Laden considered them infidels and propositioned the Saudi royal family to rely upon Saudi assetts and mujahadeen to remove Iraq from Kuwait in '90, as had been done to the Russians in Afghanistan. Lastly, it wasn't until the early '90's that Saddam added "Akbar Allah" -God is Great, to the national flag. Furthermore, I'd argue that the crippling sanctions of the past decade and a half have pushed the common people back towards their tribes and religion. Without upward mobility, people tend to seek and latch onto some sense of group identity.

    -Afganesan: After your repeated requests, I read your posted article (it was solid). I believe if we pull out tommorow, a greater civil war will ensue. I also see strong evidence that a civil war is inevitable, no matter how long we stay. My question to you is whether or not you believe a civil war will be staved off by our current desire "to hold the course"? At least one of my buddies who reports from the north of Iraq swears that it is worse now than it was during the last tour, a year and a half ago. Granted, this is one mans opinion, but knowing his job, political beliefs and our friendship, I have no reason to believe his reports would be slanted.

    Zero: I second your nomination for prez.

    -For the record, I feel the only possibility (not to say its by any means definite) of achieving democracy in Iraq is to put the place on lock down with the addition of at least another 200,000 troops. With a rifle squad on every corner, this would provide one thing: Security, which is the one precursor necessary for any real development. However, this is neither politically desirable nor possible given our troop strengths. Back to the drawing board(?).

    Posted by Jimbo113 at 08/22/2005 @ 9:34pm

47. Kevin,

    "Todd,

    On McCain on abortion:

    http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

    Doesn't read to me like he's pro-abortion.

    And please, people, McCain wil never get the nomination for president. He's fiscally responsible, for one thing, and he's not a toe-the-line Bushie. Hasn't a chance in hell of occupying the Oval Office."

    WOW, I'm liking McCain more and more, I had read or saw something else that portrayed him as openly supporting abortion rights.

    I agree with his stance provided on that page you provided. Abortion is ok in the case of rape, incest or the risk to the mothers life, but not as a "choice" for some woman who gets drunk on a Friday and has a wam-bamb-thank-you-mam and ends up with child. Don't kill a child because it's a "choice" for a woman who used poor judgment (oh man, I can feel the flames coming already on this one)

    But seriously, I'm liking McCain more and more, you don't think he'll get the GOP nod Kevin?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/22/2005 @ 10:15pm

48. Hey: Love Liberty ... After the US pullout from Vietnam, the US government apparently provided some support to the Pol Pot regime, as, it warred with the post-US regime in Vietnam.

    Care to comment?

    Thanks to Jimmy Carter, from 1975-1978 Pol Pot killed approx 2 million of his own people. He was overthrown in 79, and Carter initiated and unfortunately Reagan continued to provide humanitarian aide. A great deal of this was pushed by those typically liberal career state dept people who saw it as a hedge against the Chinese and in the stupid words of one diplomat "we were trying to reform a tiger into a pussy cat".

    It wasn't smart by any means but it was Carter and his boy Brzezinski who royally screwed that up.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:18pm

49. evidently from perusing the calvacade of Frankgrits theater scripts, one thing is clear:

    GET a LIFE!!!!!!

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:20pm

50. frank, you're awesome. absolutely hillarious. In my mind's eye, your script pretty much matches what i would picture as what really went on.

    Posted by jakesteed98 at 08/22/2005 @ 10:40pm

51. Actually Frank, I found most of it offensive, but then you think conservatives are offensive so we are at a draw.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:43pm

52. FRANKGRITS: You're killing me! I love it! LOVELIBERTY: And now the U.S. government is good buddies with the Vietnamese Communists because they let U.S. corporations exploit their workers in slave-wage jobs. Don't you see the irony??

    Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 10:47pm

53. Frankly Phil, I disagreed with the way we "normalized relations with the Communists there. This is one Vet that still isn't over the war. Just as I haven't forgiven Kerry (whom I knew in the VVAW), I don't forgive the enemy who killed so many friends after the war was over.

    I have maintained my ties with the Vietnamese people, even living in what is known now as Little Vietnam, a region in California that is the home of the largest population of Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam.

    Slave jobs? Just because your think that everyone in the world should be paid equal to US wages doesn't make it slave wages. Minimum wage in the Philippines is about $4.50 a day, but you would have been one of those union jerks who complained here when I provided jobs there for unskilled people at $8-10 dollars a day.

    I hope I don't live long enough to see the socialist vision you and others have perpetrated on the US implemented even more than we have already incorporated.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 10:59pm

54. Boy, as KC noted today, liberals have me pissed today. It's a good thing my county votes more than 70% Republican, the most in California. Even my city which has a majority population that is either Hispanic or African American votes mostly Republican.

    Thank goodness! I don't know what I would do if I actually had to live and work with liberals. I'd probably end up like that Michael Douglas character, you know the movie where he is shown with the short sleeve white shirt and shot gun in hand. Well, at least I live in a state where the judges are so liberal, no one ever gets executed.

    Well, time to go kick the dog and slap the wife around (not really for all of your libs who don't understand conservative sarcasm).

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:05pm

55. hmmm

    Feingold has always been a canny politician.

    I think he sees an opportunity to place himself apart from the herd.

    The democrats have no natural leaders. Mrs. Clinton has too high of negatives. Biden is just too nasty. Like a smarter version of John Kerry, who couldn't even win against President Bush.

    He has a good chance to win the nomination for 2008.

    He has always run like a grass-roots pragmatist. Making a show of idealism and principle.

    He stakes out a position as an outsider.

    Not Anti - war, but wants it done soon.

    Middle of the road on most issues. (forget the McCain Fiengold thing)

    Strongly pro- "choice", through the 4th trimester.

    I think he would resonate with the Democrats soul searching, back to the grass roots angst.

    And he looks so clean, and so nice, that even if he favors all the depravity of the left wing, it won't stick to him.

    It is a good strategy. He could likely win the nomination.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:06pm

56. Hey, LL

    I live in Waukesha, Wisconsin!

    96% voter turnout, over 90% republican, if I recall correctly.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:08pm

57. No waiting at the polls. Not where republicans are in charge.

    That only happens where Democrats run things.

    (Is it incompetence, or is it that Democrats don't care about democracy? Hard to say...)

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:09pm

58. (I'm not a republican, and not a democrat. I rarely vote. I'm just observing)

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:10pm

59. Mockery is quite different from humor.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:12pm

60. Amen Jonb!

    Posted by love liberty at 08/22/2005 @ 11:16pm

61. (It is also a lot easier)

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 11:25pm

62. LOVELIBERTY: If you despise liberals so much, why do you keep hanging around our website? Maybe you like to talk to smart people sometimes...

    Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 11:30pm

63. If Kerry runs again I will never support him. Kerry did not have the courage to to speak out against anything, neither NAFTA nor the war. The 20% that voted for Ross Perot is still out there looking for someone to vote for. Kerry did not even know how to get their vote.

    I do not consider throwing Saddam out an accomplishment if the new constitution turns out to be an Islamic constitution. It is not an accomplishment to prove something that was known all along does not exist. I did not read the NYT or the LA Times but listened to the Weapons Inspectors who never changed their story. Maybe we should kill many thousands in other countries to prove WMDs do not exist.

    I did not appreciate the McBush soap opera.

    I do not believe we won the Cold War consciously. Corruption finally bankrupted them. Just like the corruption in this administration may bankrupt us.

    I think the U. S. should set a date for withdrawal, promise to re-build the country and award all contracts to Iraqis. This will solve part of the 60% unemployment problem and offer gainful employment to insurgents. You will never make friends with relatives and neighbors of the 120,000 killed and the hundreds of thousands maimed. The U. S. should leave before they make more enemies.

    All the talk about Afghanistan ignores the fact that we should never have gone in there in the first place. I read an article by a Russian colonel that warned the U. S. not to go in because Russia was there 10 years and accomplished nothing. In spite of the fact that the U. S. was thousands of miles farther from Afghanistan than Russia and would have serious logistical problems they thought they were so much more powerful than Russia that they could do the job that Russia failed to do. Afghanistan is a failed state and is much worse off than it was. As a matter of fact the only thing they can afford to grow is the most expensive cash crop in the world, opium.

    The rest of the world considers the U. S. a threat. What happens when countries view a country as a threat is to band together. Like the largest joint military exercises in history taking place between China and Russia.

    Posted by real_timexx at 08/22/2005 @ 11:44pm

64. LL wrote:

    "GET a LIFE!!!!"

    HaHa. Pot calling the kettle black.

    LL - you spend more time than most posting on this website....

    this is your life. Who are you kidding?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:48pm

65. Hey folks, I'm proud to live in Olympia, Washington, where a Republican couldn't get elected dogcatcher! The city council recently voted to declare Olympia a nuclear-free zone. That means no Navy ships with nuclear weapons are allowed into the harbor. Ya gotta love it! It's great here.

    Posted by philbq at 08/22/2005 @ 11:52pm

66. LL wrote:

    "Frankly Phil, I disagreed with the way we "normalized relations with the Communists there [vietnam]."

    Well, with Iraq about to become an official islamic state, since it's constitution cannot conflict with islamic law, we're going to see women officially become second class citizens in the new iraq. Will LL love the new normalized relations with Iraq? Probably so, can't diagree with George Bush, that's treason.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:52pm

67. According to Love Liberty's stats, he doesn't physically live near many liberals....

    so he seeks them out on a website for hours on end every day.

    Perfect irony.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/22/2005 @ 11:57pm

68. frankgrits:

    keep it up, you're quite funny, no matter what the neocons on the website say.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:02am

69. PhilBQ wrote:

    LOVELIBERTY: If you despise liberals so much, why do you keep hanging around our website? Maybe you like to talk to smart people sometimes...

    To which I respond (in my most Lindbaughesque tone)

    True, he does.

    And fortunately for him, there are a few of them here. (Sportsguy comes to mind, and FRIEHEIT, and of course, Yours Truly!)

    Translation: Insulting people's intelligensce is childish. Even when done in "fun". It is the sort of thing that Ann Coulter and Rush Lindbaugh make their living from. I would expect more from a true progressive.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:05am

70. Does anyone else see the similarities between Love Liberty and Lieutenant Dan from Forrest Gump? LL truly only believes life is worth living if it's also worth dying for on a battle field. LL commented on another thread that his lineage has battled in American wars for a long time. LL and many like him just like fighting, it's in their blood.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:06am

71. go figure. I misspelt intelligence.

    Oh well.

    Did he do it on purpose?

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:09am

72. Sorry. Never saw Forrest Gump. Not into popular culture.

    So I can't help ya.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:10am

73. "Then up spoke brave Horatius, the captain of the gate. Qwoth he, Unto all mankind death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better than facing fearful odds For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods. And for the tender mother, who dandled him to rest And for the wife who nurses his baby at her breast..

    (Excerpted from "Horatius at the bridge" , by Thomas Babington, Lord Mackalay.)

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:13am

74. Humor, I love.

    I had a pretty good laugh at my Rash Lindbaugh impersonation.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:15am

75. Not trying to PUNish you too severely...

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:15am

76. And you are right. The president should be (an old fashioned word) grave.

    At this time.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:16am

77. Frank.

    I admire your restraint in that post.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:18am

78. JonB:

    you can't deny the humor in the same conservatives consistently seek out a politically liberal forum to complain that liberals are posting their feelings about whatever issue is being discussed.

    It's a politically LIBERAL forum. The anonymous right of center posters who come here can't possibly think they're going to convert the anonymous left of center posters to Bush backers. Perhaps the Bush backers are just upset because they have nothing to do. Your man won the Presidency and your party won both houses of congress.

    What else are you looking for? Go out in the real world and enjoy your victory. How can you still be so unhappy? Or, if you're not unhappy, I think it's rather ironic that non-liberals would choose to spend a hefty amount of your free time on a liberal web site.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:19am

79. Well, being employed by the evil empire (capitalism) I need to go beddy bye, so I am well able to do my duties tomorrow.

    All y'all have a blessed evening.

    One parting thought:

    Since in Islam, doctrine is what ever the religious leaders say it is (Sorta like catholicism, except with 100 popes)

    A constitution based on Islamic Law would be entirely subject to interpretation. No problem with the practice of legislating from the bench, as it is endemic.

    With the different factions of Islam, how will they reach concensus? It looks like partitioning is the only reasonable alternative.

    Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 12:23am

80. JonB wrote:

    "partitioning"

    partition what? the islamic constitution in iraq? how?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:27am

81. JONB: Your spelling error (intelligensce!) is rather ironic, don't you think? URMYGYRO: You nailed it ,man! These rightwingers hate liberals so much, they spend all their time here at our website ranting on us. I still contend they come here to talk to smart people, because they don't know any in their rightwing echo chamber.

    Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 12:27am

82. Speaking in a serious foreign policy mode: I can't believe the smart people in the State Dept. and analysts at CIA believe that a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran is good for U.S. interests in the long term. The Bush mob is just desperate for any constitution so they can declare the war a success. And they feel an affinity with the Shiites: they are similar religious fanatics.

    Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 12:51am

83. PHILBQ:

    we're magnets for neocons and conservatives and republicans the likes of Love Liberty, JonB, Oksportsguy, etc. They get enough authoritativeness and conformity from Rush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carr, Savage, etc. and their listeners/viewers (except JonB, of course, he doesn't consume any "popular culture"). So they come here for some actual debate.

    They love us, they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:53am

84. Freiheit:

    good thing you're here to consume the "riviting" humor.

    How can we help you love us liberals more?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 12:59am

85. I just don't understand the rational for 'staying the course'. We're supposedly staying until we train enough troops to be able to deal with the insurgency. Well, if we train them properly, as we claim we are, who cares if the insurgency knows when we're pulling out? Then what's the true message? We don't know how many troops to train? We don't know how to train Iraqis to be self sufficient soldiers? Or are we unknowingly just training insurgents because we just can't tell them apart from the true patriotic American-loving Iraqis? Boy, is this war screwed!

    Posted by D1od1o at 08/23/2005 @ 12:59am

86. By the way, gentlemen (and ladies if any are lurking):

    check out the following website, it is truly AMAZING stuff (I didn't provide a link, just copy and paste into your address bar).

    http://www.yoke.cc/sidewalk.htm

    ENJOY.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:01am

87. For the rightwingers, talking to us is like porno: they are drawn to it, even though its sinful! They can't control themselves...they are masochists! Gluttons for punishment!

    Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 01:04am

88. D10D10:

    We see eye to eye on this issue. I posted the following on Peter Rothberg's current blog on Saturday, 8/20/05 @ 5:56pm:

    "I'm not opposed to the U.S. establishing a military base with some troop presence in the region. I am opposed to the current administration not setting goals and timetables for the Iraqi government to establish their own self-sufficient military and police. The Bush administration's only excuse for maintaining a large military presence in Iraq after the Iraqi constitution is ratified and elections take place will be that Iraq still needs help with security of their borders and internal security. I agree that the Iraqis need to take over their own security and this can't be established if we leave them alone to it before they're capable of doing it themselves. However, without setting goals and timetables, it's too convenient for the Bush administration to say that we can't reduce our troop presence. Set a goal for number of troops and police, set a goal for the type of training and make sure the military and police recruits pass standardized tests of training, and then sell the Iraqis all the weapons and ammo they need to defend themselves.

    Again, it may seem redundant, but it's important to say, we need to set goals for the Iraqi's to shoot (pun intended) for and then aggresively persuade them to achieve the goals, so our troops can stop doing their job."

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:10am

89. LL and JonB:

    both of you take off once the questioning becomes pointed. This is the third thread in less than a month in which I've asked both of you difficult questions and you have ceased posting on the thread.

    So sad.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:22am

90. Oh come on,Freheit! Don't be such a fuddy-duddy! I always laughed at jokes about Clinton and Gore. Bush is not a deity! He puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like you.

    Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 01:24am

91. Freiheit:

    which perceptions and beliefs have you thought "long and hard" about as a result of debate on thenation? Which debates have not given you even a scintilla of doubt about your preconceptions and beliefs?

    I'm interested to see on what topics liberals are actaully making inroads with the non-liberals who participate on this website.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:25am

92. frankgrits:

    great counterpoint about the jokes at the correspondents' dinner. Now that's a classic case of vulgar humor. I'm personally not against vulgar humor, but anyone who thought what you wrote is inappropriate must certainly have seen the inappropriateness of being the commander-in-chief and joking about your false motive for war when the soldiers you sent to war are dying. Talk about vulgar.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:31am

93. Frankgrits:

    I'm not trying to change anyone. I'm here for enertainment. But if Freiheit claims the debate on this website has made him question his preconceptions, then I'm interested in hearing about the specific preconceptions he's been forced to question.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:33am

94. That being said, Frankgrits, I don't doubt you're pessimism that Freiheit won't indulge my request.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:39am

95. I know it was a rhetorical question, but "what kind of lives have they led to be able to offer support to a man like that" is a question I want to answer.

    My father voted for Bush, and now he regrets it. He wanted to believe Bush when he said "we can't wait for the evidence in the form of a mushroom cloud". He wanted to believe we'd find the smoking gun in Iraq. It never materialized. And since then, epsecially since Bush won re-election, the official motive for invading Iraq has changed often. My father is deeply religious and has served in the U.S. military. He had faith in the administration to do the right thing, but he sees the convering of tracks for lies, and he says, "Bush will have some serious answering to do when he meets his maker".

    I, unlike my father, don't participate in religious affairs and I don't believe in the afterlife. The afterlife could exist, but I know for sure we are all mortal. We all die. I don't know what happens after that. If anything does, I'll cross that bridge when I get there, if nothing happens, then I'll just experience the dreamless sleep (although is 'experience' the right word?) Nothingness and infinity and eternity are simply concepts the human mind cannot understand.

    Anyway, getting back to the question, I don't think everyone who voted for Bush is evil, I think they simply have too much faith that government officials will do the right thing. But those that laugh at a joke about not finding wmds while troops put there to find those wmds are dying: that is evil. No doubt.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 01:58am

96. Zero:

    I'm not so sure the "conservative" movement is dying. They have the presidency and both houses of congress.

    Do you think in November 2006 the democrats will win seats back? Do you think a democrat will win the presidency in 2008? What's the timeline for "dying"?

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 02:13am

97. I don't know how many posters on this board ever fought in one of America's foreign colonial wars, but I have. Certainly no one that I know of in the current Bush administration has any colonial war experience; nor, for that matter, any experience in war whatsoever. It shows. Certainly their nearly two-and-a-half years of continual, uninterrupted bungling in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) demonstrates conclusively that they have no understanding of nor interest in these disasters -- which explains why they just keep making things worse. Senator Russ Feingold (D) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R) have just about had enough. I have to wonder what took them so long.

    When I first went to Vietnam in the summer of 1970, we indoctrinated know-nothings in the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent thought we had a job to do training the Vietnamese "to fight for their country" so that we American 'boys' could stop doing that. We used to ask sardonically: "How come Nixon promised to withdraw the troops two years ago (in 1968) but two years later he sends us there?" Answer: "You've got to understand something about Tricky Dick Nixon. He really meant that he couldn't withdraw us from Vietnam unless he sent us there first!" Oh. I see.

    Imagine our surprise when almost no "friendly" Vietnamese showed up for the training, working, fighting, and dying we had scheduled for them. (In all fairness, some of them did show up occasionally, with their weapons locked and loaded, threatening to shoot us if we didn't feed them. But I digress . . .) Anyway, the honored objects of our benevolently homicidal intentions had already figured out that the phrase "their country" when uttered by a clueless, robot American meant "the obscure foreign policy goals of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger." What Vietnamese could or would ever fight and die for that? I blush to admit it, but even after 32 weeks of intensive foreign language training and another 11 weeks of counter-insurgency school, I had not figured that one out. A couple of weeks in Vietnam, though, served to educate me in a hurry. The Vietnamese basically couldn't understand why we invading Americans didn't fight our proxy war against Monolithic World Communism (i.e., the Mystical Dread of the panicked American reactionary right) somewhere else: like Russia or China. Why did we have to involve them? When I heard something similar the other day from an unnamed Iraqi: namely, "Why don't the Americans fight their war on terrorism somewhere else?" I got the picture immediately. Deja-vu all over again.

    You see, just like in China a few decades previously, the American government had chosen to "support" (if not "invent") a lifeless, puppet government in Vietnam that would look like the natives but not actually seek its legitimacy from them. In theory, this colonial compradore class (much like the British Tories in Colonial America) would sell out its own fellow citizens for pampered, favored treatment by the rich, occupying power. Who needs to grub for votes among landless, share-cropping rice farmers when you can shake down American Congressmen and Senators for millions of dollars almost daily? The stupid American taxpayers, after all, wouldn't know (or even miss) the difference. They seldom do. Anyway, it all worked for a few years and made a few Chinese, Vietnamese, and Americans extremely rich. Most of these people or their descendents own considerable real estate and financial assets in America today. I believe Madame Chiang Kai Shek died only last year, in New York City, at the ripe and rich old age of over a 100. Your tax dollars at work.

    As in China and Vietnam, the bought and crippled puppet government in Iraq can't afford to raise, train, and equip a competent professional army because that army's generals (called a Junta) or one of their kind (called a Generalissimo) would just take over the government and establish a military dictatorship: sort of like Pakistan, for example, or the former Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Therefore, none of the Shiite or Kurd factions that now have their own private militias to terrorize their fellow citizens (i.e., "their own people") want to see any Iraqi army develop -- because that would just mean putting the former Sunni army and police back in power again. Better to plead eternal weakness so that the Americans will stick around indefintely killing the Sunnis for as long as possible. Let me advise you, children, to regard as completely ridiculous any meaningless prattle you hear about "Iraqification" programs to "train the Iraqi people to fight (i.e., die) for their country" so that American 'boys' (and 'girls' now) won't have to do that for them. Take it from one who has gone there and done that. The Iraqi people have already figured out that the phrase "their country" when uttered by a clueless, robot American means "the obscure foreign policy goals of Dick Cheney and the not-at-all obscure Machiavellian divide-and-conquer objectives of the Israeli Likud Party." What Iraqi would or could possibly want to fight and die for that?

    Sad story -- at least from the dying GI's point of view -- but who cares about him or her, anyway? Don't we just recruit their "trailer trash" types in a Wal-Mart parking lot? Can't we always get more of that expendible stuff if and when we need it? "Dulce Et Demorum Est, Pro Patria Mori."

    The sliding towards the exit has already started and, in fact, has begun to pick up steam. You can always tell the tale when you see the ticket-punching begin in earnest. For those unfamiliar with the term, this means to watch for the luminous "Don't knock the war, it's the only one we've got" careerists getting out of town while their resumes can still get them a better job elsewhere. Two cases in point: (1) Ambassador John Negroponte bailing out of Baghdad embassy for an "intelligence" job blaming the CIA because it Can't Identify Anything the neocons want identified, and (2) genius General David Petraeus ditching his "training of Iraqis" for training fellow American officers at the Army War College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. If either of these "bright lights" had any clue what to do in Iraq they would have stayed to do it. Instead, they "got," as the saying goes, "while the getting was good." Game. Set. Match. No one with an ounce of reputation or credibility wants any part of this turkey.

    So who gets the "loser" tag pinned on their now-exposed naked posteriors? Certainly not the prevaricating fools who instigated and then bungled this mad crusade -- at least they hope not. Watch the end game unravel here, fellow Crimestoppers. I once served in America's Fig Leaf Contingent. I know. American soldiers today fight and die in Iraq (and Afghanistan as well) only for "Peace With Honor," an obscene and deliberatly meaningless euphemism no more real than the phony "sovereignty" (i.e., share of the blame) handed to the Iraqi puppet regime over a year ago. I know. I served in the "Peace With Honor" Fig Leaf Contingent. I can tell you what it really means. It means, as Umberto Eco charitably says: "Peace; but not immediately." It means, as I uncharitably say: "War; so that it may continue." Young American soldiers (or infidel "targets," as the Iraqis view them) continue to fight and die so that their fellow Americans who sent them away on a fool's errand can bring them home late in the evening, like thieves in the night, dead or dismembered, to darkened runway strips somewhere out of sight, in shame and disgrace, unmet and unmourned, lest these "scapegoats for the king's ambition" cast even the slightest shadow of accountability on the phony luster of the boasting braggarts who sent them needlessly to their doom.

    We can have our troops home by this Christmas: December 25, 2005. We don't need to -- nor can we afford to -- wait another year. The Iraqi people can take it from here by themselves. They certainly can't make any more of a mess of things than we have. They'll probably do a whole lot better once we get out of their way. Help like ours, nobody needs.

    Posted by Michael Murry at 08/23/2005 @ 02:21am

98. Rio Bravo:

    do you expect anyone to read a post that long? This is meant to be dialogue, not homework.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 02:23am

99. Michael Murry:

    post was too long, but very informative.

    Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 02:28am

100. RIO BRAVO:

     You could have gone through basic training in the amount of time it took you to write that post.

     Why not join Pat Tillman and his "872 comrades" and die for the cause you believe in? Are you too cowardly? Are you too afraid to back up your own words with actions? I believe it's yes to both.

     Sign up for the military Rio Bravo, quit wasting time on this website. As you said, you believe your children and grandchildren's fates depend on it. Surely you're not expecting others to die for your children if you're not (that's state sponsered welfare - all good conservatives are against welfare - you're not?)

     And, how can you be proud of Bush if he's willing to capitulate to Iraq becoming an Islamic state?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 02:40am

101. LL:

     I think it may be worth pointing out that what really militarized the Khmer Rouge and allowed them to gain enough momentum to do what they did, were the facts that: 1) because of King Sihanouk's principled refusal to support the war effort in Vietnam, the US instigated a clumsy coup in Cambodia (where I currently live among those bearing the scars of American largesse) that installed a corrupt and incompetent leader, Lon Nol, whom we later abandoned when it was no longer convenient for us to support him, thus ensuring that the KR would roll right over him, and 2) massive amount of illegal bombs that the US secretly dropped on Cambodian civilians at the behest of Nixon, Kissenger, et alia. American hands were covered in blood long before Carter took office, but surely you know that. But I digress...

     Posted by PRIMITIVENERD at 08/23/2005 @ 03:46am

102. For those who need it short and sweet:

     We invaded Iraq to depose a dictator we did not fear to deprive him of weapons he did not possess in retaliation for an attack upon us in which he did not participate.

     And:

     We lost the day we started. We'll win the day we stop.

     Posted by Michael Murry at 08/23/2005 @ 04:26am

103. All of the above indicates the KEY problem that Democrats are going to have in 2006 with ANY "united view" on Iraq...

     there is none.

     One poster even claimed that Feingold's "December 2006" plan was just as bad as the "pro-war Democrats" because EVEN THAT wasn't quick enough. When you've got members of the liberal base who think Feingold is "too pro-war", you've got the makings of some real problems.

     Along with ...a thread I read on Daily Kos, in which Moulitsas (sp?) stated that in 2 weeks he had a plan to "make the DLC radioactive", if they did not jump onboard the "Sheehan/anti-war movement" band-wagon.

     2006 is shaping up to be Chicago 1968....and all the Chuck Hagels in the world (of which there's only ONE), doesn't mean a "bad time" for Republicans to counter it.

     Posted by Mask at 08/23/2005 @ 06:52am

104. "LL, What, no sense of humor. You've got to laugh at these guys. They wrote the script."

     Frank and LL, I'm a conservative and can laugh at myself and the administration, I think it's hilarious. Obviously over the top and not the way it really happened but funny non the less.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 07:36am

105. RIO BRAVO: What a load of bullshit that was!

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 08:12am

106. Rio Bravo, Great piece. I get it and see the serious threat we face. Here is some more info to back your claim. Unfortunately, there are some who won't understand this threat until they are handed their head like Nick Berg.

     The Fourth Rail August 15, 2005 The Seven Phases of The Base By Bill Roggio

     With the fourth anniversay of the hot war between al Qaeda and the West approaching, it is interesting to see how al Qaeda's strategy and objectives have evolved since the United States committed to engaging in open warfare.

     The Word Unheard points us to an article in Spiegel Online by a Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who is believed to be a reliable source of information on al Qaeda. His main source for this article on al Qaeda strategy is none other than Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda's military commander who is currently operating from Iran.

     al Qaeda's purported strategy can be broken down into seven "phases" which span from 2000 until 2020, at which time they believe the global Islamist Caliphate will be established and they will acheive "definitive victory." Here are the phases, which are followed by commentary when appropriate.

     The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere." al Qaeda can claim some success in the First Phase, as the organization is now the preeminent terrorist organization on the planet. The attacks of September 11 were cheered throughout the Islamic world. The global media disseminates Al Qaeda commander's speeches. Each and every terrorist attack is followed by suspicious of al Qaeda involvement. And the US did indeed bring the war to the Islamic world in Afghanistan and Iraq, however not against Islam itself. But this came at a price, as Islamist Afghanistan and friendly Saddam-governed Iraq were lost.

     The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states. So far, the Second Phase has been a failure. The Arab and greater Islamic Street has been essentially silent in its support of al Qaeda. The perception that al Qaeda's cause is popular as hundreds of Islamists enter Iraq monthly is overshadowed by the tens of thousands of Islamic fighters who enter Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union. al Qaeda has generated new recruits, but not nearly enough to replace the experienced operators and managers that have been lost under the American onslaught in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

     Winning the Second Phase is important from a ideological standpoint. Defeat in Iraq would seriously harm the credibility of al Qaeda and weaken their mystique. They would possess a losing ideology that could not stand up to the Great Satan. Allah would have abandoned them to the privations of the infidel.

     The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

     The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism. The Third and Fourth Phases can essentially be condensed. The potential spread of jihad and instability to Iraq's neighbors of Turkey, Syria, (and while not mentioned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait) as well as Israel highlights the importance of an American victory in Iraq. Iraq, as a failed state, would provide al Qaeda a base to create instability in bordering countries, setting the stage for overthrow by the Islamists.

     It should be noted that Syria is playing a dangerous game by allowing al Qaeda to use its soil to conduct operations in Iraq. The jihadis are developing contacts, networks and obtaining recruits, which can eventually by turned against the Asad regime.

     For the record, it seems al Qaeda has already laid the groundwork for the Third and Fourth Phases. There are reports al Qaeda seeks to establish itself in Gaza to strike Israel, and Turkish vacation spots, including cruise ships are believed to have been the target of a just-foiled al Qaeda plot. Islamic countries have been the target of numerous al Qaeda attacks {see flash presentation, 2M download), and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been in open war with al Qaeda for several years. Saudi oil facilities have been a target throughout.

     The United States will not allow another Islamic state to fall to al Qaeda's ideologues. The lesson of September 11 serves as a reminder of what happened when Afghanistan became a sanctuary and de facto al Qaeda state.

     The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order. The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

     The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half million Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

     Phases Five, Six and Seven are merely the dreams of al Qaeda, as the prospects for al Qaeda's success in phases One thru Fourth are looking grim at the moment. Despite media portrayal of defeat in Iraq, the Iraqi people are fighting the insurgency and the Anbar region is set to be reduced as an al Qaeda rear area. The jewel of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, fell almost four years ago, and al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have not come even close to retaining control. There are rumors of a serious rift between al Qaeda and the Taliban, as the Taliban believes its woes were created by closely allying themselves with Osama's cause.

     However, in the event of the United State loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, an inevitable showdown with al Qaeda would ensue. Open confrontation with the West, as well as the possibility of a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring the full military might of the Western World (those who value their freedom). The current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Southeast and Central Asia and within the borders of Western nations would be tame in comparison to what would come. The Japanese, Germans and Italians discovered in World War II the price of wakening the American military psyche.

     The West would basically have two options: (1) blitzkrieg 21st Century style - the full mobilization of its military and an accompanying sweep of the Islamic crescent, without regards for Politically Correct warfare; (2) nuclear war. Both campaigns would be designed to fully eliminate the Islamist threat, and the Muslim infrastructure, which allowed for the rise of al Qaeda's ideology.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/23/2005 @ 08:48am

107. Today's New York times editorial on the Iraqi constitution says it all.(www.nytimes.com) The Sunni were pushed aside. In its desperate rush for any constitution, the U.S. allowed the Kurds and Shiites to break up Iraq, and abandon all the stated ideals of a unified, secular democracy. The Kurds will secede, and the Shiites will have an Islamic theocracy. It is a recipe for death and destruction. For this, much blood and billions of dollars have been spent.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 08:50am

108. REDSTATEMAN: I'm sorry if I offended you when I refered to you as "Redassman". It's because you seemed so angry. I prefer civilized discourse. But I must say your latest manifesto is scary and loony.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 09:13am

109. Philbq, What's so looney about it?

     Posted by redstateman at 08/23/2005 @ 09:22am

110. REDSTATEMAN:Your choices: a blitzkrieg through the Arab crescent or nuclear war...scary and loony. This is self-evident. I need not say more.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 09:28am

111. Philbq, I get angry when we try to present facts to support our claims and then have them automatically dismissed as right wing propaganda, BS, or just dismissed entirely. Then insulted on top of that. It seems that civil debate only applies to those who agree with you. Phil, If you look at my previous post. I don't start insults. I only reply to them in kind when they are thrown my way. Apology accepted though. I have to go to work now. I'll try to check back later.

     Posted by redstateman at 08/23/2005 @ 09:36am

112. FrankGrits, been enjoying your "book." Too funny.

     Todd, re your 10:15pm post: I don't post much because I don't feel like I can really contribute to the dialogue; I'm not as well-versed as some of the others here on Iraq and other issues so if I post it's usually just to vent. However, if Ari or someone else posts a topic relevant to abortion, you will have a worthy opponent. Reproductive rights and women's rights in general are what I'm best at. Looking forward to sparring with you in the future, and explaining why a woman who made a mistake shouldn't have to bear a child as punishment.

     Posted by RG at 08/23/2005 @ 09:43am

113. URMYGYRO---Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan not Iraq. Are you against our involvement in Afghanistan? Are you against American involvement anywhere?---Len

     Posted by Len Mosse at 08/23/2005 @ 09:51am

114. RG,

     Nice to meet you. I'll be here when that discussion comes along = )

     You stated: "Reproductive rights and women's rights" is your specialty.

     The rights of the baby are my specialties.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 09:59am

115. I read a piece in the Washington Post about who fights and dies in this war. Deaths come predominately from soldiers from a low-income, rural background. That is a numerical fact that is beyond argument. The dying is being done mostly by poor people. Military recruiters have a hard time recruiting from upper-middle class areas, even from areas that are largely Republicans, who support the war. So the Republicans who wave and wear the flag are very strongly in support of the war, as long as somebody else fights it. It's a rich man's war, like Vietnam.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 10:16am

116. Michael Murray:

     Excellent post. All I hear from the lurkers on the Right is the sound of crickets. A post as good as yours usually does that.

     Hman

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 10:24am

117. Let me second that. Good job, Mr. Murray.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 10:30am

118. In response to ILOVEPHYSICS 08/22/2005 @ 7:43pm about the comparisons to Vietnam. There is a very big differance between the two. Vietnam was against a faction that if it won had the backing of other communist regimes, a political structure, and army to maintain order. Iraq would be a black hole with no army, no stability, and no help in the region. If you wish to compare Iraq to something you should compare it to what we did in Afghanistan at the end of the cold war. As you recall once the Soviets left so did we. What was left was anachy which lead to the Taliban. So if you wish to make comparisons please make the right ones.

     To Redstateman While I admire the reading on the subject you have done and believe you have a good grasp of the suject matter. I have an objection to your post of 08/23/2005 @ 08:48am that I must respectfully submit.

     "And the US did indeed bring the war to the Islamic world in Afghanistan and Iraq, however not against Islam itself. But this came at a price, as Islamist Afghanistan and friendly Saddam-governed Iraq were lost."

     I'm sure you are refering to this piece of bad information.

     "What was known, were serious indications of on-going collaboration, as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait."

     This was not Known. I would like to see any serious evidence to back this claim up. Saddam had nothing to give since he was, in effect, nutered from the first war. Saddam was a secularist who used Islam when it suited him. True Muslums hated him for it. Iraq was not an AQ state with Saddam in power. It only became possible for AQ to gain a foothold in Iraq after Bush took over. Saddam was FAR from friendly to their cause. He was against anyone who could pose a threat to his power as OSBL did. The only connection they had was a hatred for the USA. All credible accounts of the contacts made from AQ to Saddam where low level and rebuffed by Saddam's regime. HE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. So please quit trying to make the connection between the two.

     Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 10:36am

119. ZAKQUIET:

     to put this simply you are wrong. Saddam's intelligence had many meetings with members of al qaeda, there is no disputing this, period. you might not like to hear it and it doesn't say that saddam and al qaeda were best firends but they had a history of meeting. maybe they were discussing russian littearature or saddam's romance novels,not likely, but they were still meeting, so wake the hell up. as i have said before, go to the weekly standard and look into what stephen hayes and thomas jocelyn have documented based on our and other countries intelligence and you can't refute that they met and had many common interests. he gave $25,000 to the widows of suicide-bombers, this is also irefutable as well. He took in billions a year from oil kickbacks and had plenty of money to pay whomever he wanted. What you believe he build 100 million dollar palaces and couldn't afford to pay suicide bombers in palestine 25,000. come on, use your head. even opponents of the war concede these points because it is true. saddam at times opposed islamic terrorists when they were trying to undermine his control, but in the late 90's he realized that they could work together and shared a common enemy, so their relationship became more friendly. he also harbored known and wanted islamic terroritst abu nidal, so he wasn't as hostile to islamic terrorists as you think, especially when he could use them to his advantage.

     Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:11am

120. JMKNIGHT, You raised an excellent point in your 8:22 PM post:

     can you articulate a position that is compelling in a stump speech to the general public?

     For me personally, the answer is "probably not." I am no politician, and I do not know if it is possible to reduce any important issue to a 5 second sound bite and not oversimplify it. Actually, that is one reason that I have such a negative opinion of the GOP. They pander to people by using soundbites that are designed to generate an emotional response instead of a thoughtfull deliberation.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 11:14am

121. PHILBQ: all wars are fought by the poor unless there is a draft and even then they are poportionaltely fought by the poor. this has been the same way for thousands of years, with very few exceptions. (maybe rome, because military service was more valuable and higly regarded then wealth, crassus is a perfect example) remember this is a voluntary military so all those who are fighting are those who voluntered for service, knowing full well they could be involved in a conflict at any point (we are all lucky they have the courage or desire to join,and they deserve the upmost respect) i would also point out that the military is overwhelmingly supportive of the republican party, so there are many republicans that are dying and fighting.

     Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/23/2005 @ 11:20am

122. JONB, Per your 9:28 post when you say "Yeah, Gore lost...get over it".

     Sounds like you need to get over it! You are the one who brought it up. Do you think that if you keep repeating your lie long enough, it will be accepted as truth?

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 11:27am

123. General Comment

     Whatever the merits of invading Iraq (and I still maintain there were none at the time), Bush's policy isn't working. Where there was no effective international terrorism in Saddam's Iraq, it is a principle feature of US occupied Iraq and it isn't getting any weaker. This is not the result for which we had hoped.

     The question is whether we stay or leave. Over this, we can have legitimate open discussion. What do we mean by "getting the job done"? That's a slogan, not a program.

     Broadly speaking, the US invaded Iraq for because Saddam's regime was deemed to be an immediate threat to US national security. Had there been any truth to that, it would have been a legitimate reason to go to war. However, Saddam's regime was not such a threat and any such that has arisen in Iraq has arisen as a result of invading.

     The immediate problem is the ability of international terrorists to do in Iraq since the invasion what they had not been able to do before: use Iraq as a training ground for new terrorists and as a staging area to launch future attacks that destabilize the Middle East. The attacks on London last month invalidated any claims that it is necessary to remain in Iraq to contain terrorists to Iraq and eventually defeat them there. A rocket attack launched in Jordan on military targets by Iraqi-based jihadists shows that since the US invasion of Iraq, the menace of international terrorism has spread and strengthened.

     This is unacceptable.

     By leaving, will we strengthen the new Iraqi government's ability to subdue international terrorists now operating in Iraq? If the answer to that question is no, then what do we need to do bring that event about and keep terrorist subdued in the meantime? Is it possible to prevent Iraq from disintegrating into civil war? Indeed, has she already disintegrated into civil war? The recent terrorist attack on a Baghdad bus station were clearly aimed at other Iraqis, not foreign troops; it was not an act of resistance to colonial occupation.

     Mr. Bush's policies, like his reasons for invading Iraq in the first place, no longer have credibility. While it does no harm for Mr. Bush to propose remaining constant in the policies he had followed thus far, it is hard to take them seriously any longer. It is moments like these, when confronted with a leader who is an idiot intent on stubbornly pursuing what has failed miserably that one sees the advantages of a parliamentary constitution where, when things are going this badly, the Prime Minister and his government fall on a vote of no confidence and another government under new and hopefully wiser leadership put in its place.

     Senator Feingold's proposal of a timetable for withdrawal, right or wrong, is a legitimate part of the discussion we need to have. So are, right or wrong, proposals of increasing troop strength.

     It's time to do some business or get off the pot. Let the discussion begin.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/23/2005 @ 11:30am

124. LL, in reply to your 9:25 post regarding the Vietnamese after we left. You rightly pointed out an oversimplification in my post, and I should have taken more time to explain.

     First of all, I agree with you that the immediate aftermath in Viet Nam was not good. Many people were "purged" (a ghastly euphemism) and having been associated with the US was a high risk factor. The loss of life was tragic.

     My post was referring to today, the present time. Viet Nam has peace, a vibrant economy, and even trade with the USA. They turned out all right, despite the horrific events that occurred along the way.

     You also neglected to mention that it was the communist Viet Nam government that finally deposed Pol Pot. I am sure that you are thinking "it was also the communist NVA that got Pol Pot going in the first place." Yes, and that was a mistake with tragic consequences, but you should at least admit that they corrected their error!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 11:35am

125. Phil,

     "So the Republicans who wave and wear the flag are very strongly in support of the war, as long as somebody else fights it. It's a rich man's war, like Vietnam."

     This may be true for some, but you can't make that argument as definitive for all. My family meets the accepted definition of middle class. We are a dual income family of professionals, I'm in business to business sales, my wife in a registered nurse. So although our needs financially are well met, I still support my son's decision to enlist in the Marines after high school.

     I don't buy your argument "as long as somebody else fights it" at all bro.

     Furthermore: "Family income. It was hypothesized that with the end of conscription the military would become the employer of the disadvantaged and poor (Congressional Budget Office, 1989). However, with the emphasis on recruit quality and programs such as the Montgomery GI Bill and the Army College Fund, the military may attract significant numbers of the middle class."

     from: http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper29.html

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 12:23pm

126. CMBENNETT23 on your post on 08/23/2005 @ 11:11am. No, I am not wrong I guess we will have to diasagree on this. The meeting you are speaking of were inquiries that were rebuffed. The Weekly Standard is far to biased toward the right wing to be used as validation to your claim. If, as you said, there was a working relationship why did AQ not have established camps in Iraq until after we got there? Why do they have to cross the border from Iran and Syria now if they were established there to begin with. $25,000 given to the widow of a suicide bomber? If it is true why so little? Why would the bomber have needed the incentive to carry out his mission from God? I may delusional but at least my delusion is based off muliple sources of information with a much more unbiased view of the world than The Weekly Standard. I suppose Fox news is also a good source of balanced, unbiased information as well.

     Posted by zakquiet at 08/23/2005 @ 12:33pm

127. ZAKQUIET, I actually did raise that comparison, but on another blog at this website. I actually speculated that your position may be correct, to wit: Our position in Iraq is more like the Soviet situation in Afghanistan.

     However, that is not the issue. The issue was the arguments being made by JMKNIGHT and their similarity to the arguments made years ago in favor of continuing on in Viet Nam. My purpose was to debunk his arguments by using an historical parallel.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 12:39pm

128. OKSPORTSGUY: You are an exception to the overall numerical trend. The numbers don't lie. Neither do the recruiters. Go to any university and ask the College Republicans, who staunchly support the war, how many are volunteering to sign up. Listen to their lame excuses. You and your family are to be respected for putting your life where your mouth is. Few upper-income Republicans have family in this war. That's a fact. So the war is painless for them. It's easy to be a cheerleader when someone else's family has lost a loved one forever.

     Posted by philbq at 08/23/2005 @ 1:25pm

129. Phil,

     "It's easy to be a cheerleader when someone else's family has lost a loved one forever."

     I couldn't agree with you more here. Our family has two people serving currently, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq.

     I fully believe in standing up for your beliefs.

     The difference between a conviction and a statement is one's willingness to die for the former.

     Hey, that sounds pretty good, I'm going to start quoting myself on that line..

     Or would that be considered too self-righteous?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:34pm

130. OK - I don't buy your argument "as long as somebody else fights it" at all bro.

     "Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."

     Source: My 12:38am post on Berman's Memo to Democrats blog [thenation.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:34pm

131. OraibI,

     "OK - I don't buy your argument "as long as somebody else fights it" at all bro.

     "Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."

     Source: My 12:38am post on Berman's Memo to Democrats blog [thenation.com] "

     The difference between a conviction and a statement is one's willingness to die for the former.

     OKSG 1:34p.m. post

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:37pm

132. Damn, I just quoted myself didn't I?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:38pm

133. OK - The difference between a conviction and a statement is one's willingness to die for the former.

     Hey, that sounds pretty good, I'm going to start quoting myself on that line..

     Or would that be considered too self-righteous?

     Nah, it's called self-aggrandizement - the kind of thing that Bush does. Or, is that megalomania behavior that Bush exhibits? Or does Bush practice egotheism?

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 1:43pm

134. OKSG, I'm LOL dude!

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 1:50pm

135. Oraibi,

     dude...

     I was going to look up the word "aggrandizement" at diktionary.com, to prove you were making up a word, but I couldn't get the page to load, they must be having Internet problems.

     Todd.. the dum konservative.

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 1:54pm

136. self-aggrandizement - self-promote, self-exalt, etc.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:02pm

137. Todd,

     You're not fooling anyone by calling yourself a "dum konservative"; except maybe yourself.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:04pm

138. In the famous words of a Bush-like president (Richard M. Nixon): "Let me just say this about that...": Fiengold is a hero! In the style of Joe Biden, Boxer, Kennedy, et al. And I'm NOT a LEFTIE nor a RIGHTIE!

     A timeline for exfiltration of this international crime or this sanctioned black operation in SW Asia is not unsound at all! JOKER (Jim Carey) queried: "RIDDLE ME THIS BATMAN..." ...if Bush was really worried that dem' dumb ol' insurgents (who are incidently NOT from Iraq, Einstien - try Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) hearing about the infamous hypothetical "pull-out date" that critics like the ol' "shucks and grits" "honest-abe" Trent Lott (R) disigenously moans on and on about, then why wouldn't the insurgents just strategically STAND-DOWN (stop all hostilities) today???!!! [Folks, put on your thinkin' caps now...] Then Bush would be forced to pull-out, as within a few weeks of the hypothetical terrorist-stand-down would make the whole Iraqi Freedom black-op wholly moot, now wouldn't it? So the specious argument that Bush, Rove, and his crew offer in opposition is WHOLLY FLAWED on it's surface. Duh... what else is new?

     OFF-TOPIC

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

     The NATION has an irritating habit of closing down topics just when they get really interesting. I know they have server space limitations. I can't believe that they closed the PATRIOT ACT topic on my last post about actual PATRIOT ACT civil rights violations. Therefore I would like to invite any truly DEEP THINKERS who are into "gestalt" (forest & trees/big-picture thinkin') to use the GOOGLE Group* called GESTALT7 to continue THE-NATION closed topics or to start their own quasi-political/current events diatribes. Well read "Cranks", intellectual RIGHTIES, All LEFTIES, all neutrals are all welcome. Pro-OBL "Habibs" and scum-spammers are not. So feel free to exploit the place to continue your bipartisian thought-process threads that get closed out here. You can sign up for a free GOOGLE GMAIL account if you want to remain anonymous. I would like to assume that when topics get summarily closed out or you want to make contact with a really interesting poster for a more in depth conversation, you'll instinctively jump over to GESTALT7 to post your-well-thought out POV...

     :-) ONLY DEEP THINKERS NEED JOIN (-:

     *http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Gestalt7

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/23/2005 @ 2:13pm

139. President Bush charged Tuesday that anti-war protesters such as Cindy Sheehan, who want the troops brought home immediately, are "advocating a policy that would weaken the United States."

     Bush blames protesters for weakening U.S. [msnbc.msn.com]

     Now the President of the United States joins his surrogates in attacking a Gold Star mother. Click on link above to read article about Bush's comments.

     There seems to be no decency in the man.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 2:28pm

140. Rio Bravo wrote:

     "It make sense that you would praise a expo'se on a war started by JFK"

     Right. Eisenhower had nothing to do with it at all. Right.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/23/2005 @ 2:40pm

141. RIO BRAVO:

     You never fail to disappoint Rio Bravo. A typical knee-jerk reaction, and again I am not surpised that your comments are directed at me as opposed to what MM had to say. What is your point? Because the Democrats intensified the Vietnam War, MM's views, and my support of them, are somehow hypocrtical of our critisim of Bush's policies? You are so clever breaking out your 10th grade history text! I forgot that Kennedy and LBJ escalated the war, and yes, they were also Democrats. You win the most inane post of the day! If you want to attack my views, maybe you should pay attention what I say on this board before trying to attack with such a juvenile argument. You would see plainly that while I am highly critical of Bush and his war in Iraq, I express a broad opposition to U.S. imperialist objectives set in motion by both Democrats and Republicans alike. You really should think before you speak.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/23/2005 @ 3:18pm

142. Rio Bravo and Redstatesman,

     Thank you for bringing some illumination to an otherwise dark and dreary bastion of loathing. Your posts raised my spirits!

     Mr. Murray,

     I left just as you were entering so our comparisons cannot be the same to begin with. However, I am thankful that most our my buddies and the vets and Vietnamese living here now share nothing in common with your vitriol

     I remember people like you when I was a member of Vietnam Veterans against the War (1971,1972). John Kerry was like you but even worse when I met him back then. Even McGovern seemed a little embarrassed by Kerry at our group meeting. I had joined even though a Republican because there just weren't many young people on campus who I could related to. VVAW eventually kicked me out when they found out I was working for Republicans in the '72 campaign.

     Thankfully, yours is a minority view among veterans (although admittedly given the numbers who served, still a significant number). But then we have always had vets who never learned to appreciate all the great things about this country as a result of their military service.

     You just happen to fall into that minority group we call malcontents.

     Love Liberty

     10 generations of family military service

     All Patriots, no malcontents

     Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 3:38pm

143. Oraibi,

     " You're not fooling anyone by calling yourself a "dum konservative"; except maybe yourself."

     Ah.. ok, is that an admission from you Oraibi that I may be intelligent even though I'm a conservative?

     Developing ones "moral compass" is crucial to ones development as a human being. Naturally the human tendency is to develop ones ethical reasoning around egotism, prejudice, and one very big factor in this development is the mass media and the particular different types of media that influence people.

     We must acknowledge some areas that we as humans all are predestined to exude, which is egocentric memory, egocentric myopia, and finally egocentric blindness.

     Egocentric memory refers to conveniently "forgetting" facts and evidence that does not support ones claims, while conveniently remembering evidence that does.

     Egocentric myopia refers to the tendency to think from within ones own narrow point of view.

     Egocentric blindness refers to not noticing facts that contradicts our favored beliefs or values.

     With these thing in mind….

     One can argue that egocentric memory would explain why a conservative conveniently "forgets" facts that support the existence and meaning of the Downing Street memo, in the same way egocentric memory also causes progressives to "forget" that not all conservatives are uneducated.

     One can argue that egocentric myopia provides an explanation for why many Christians support the war in Iraq because of religious beliefs pertaining to apocalyptic events described in the Christian bible in the same way that egocentric myopia provides an explanation for liberals that stereotype conservatives as uneducated.

     One can finally argue that egocentric blindness provides an explanation for "Bushites" who continue to support the war even in the face of the facts that no WMD's have ever been found in Iraq in the same way that egocentric blindness provides an explanation for progressives that stereotype all conservatives as uneducated even though the facts show that many conservatives are well educated.

     If my line poking humor at the stereotype of conservatives being dumb, while at the same time writing posts that were at least thought provoking, and intelligent, helped illustrate to some progressives that not all conservatives are uneducated, then the line was a success.

     Todd (the maybe kind of sort of intelligent conservative)

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/23/2005 @ 3:38pm

144. OR,

     It should be no surprise to you that having listened to the presidents remarks, I applaud him and say amen!

     If you inject yourself into the political dialogue, your political views are fair game for debate and criticism.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 3:43pm

145. PHILBQ,

     Now that I know you are from the Olympia area, maybe you are actually my brother who lives up in that area.

     Our dialogue used to be very heated because he sounded indentical to you. Since last November, we no longer even communicate by email (his choice not mine). He doesn't talk to my parents either who are pretty conservative, but not quite at my level.

     It must be the water or something up there that causes such hatred of conservatives. A once fairly conservative state, Washington used to reject Californians because of their liberal ways. Now it has become a haven for the far left.

     What a waste of some beautiful country.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 3:48pm

146. LL, Man I am really disappointed in your response to MM. You call him a malcontent because he calls it like he sees it!?!? Come on, you sound like KMG4 now...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 3:56pm

147. OK,

     I never underestimated your level of intelligence or any other conservative, and I tell my friends not to do it either.

     I assume that conservatives are the smartest folks on earth, and I address my efforts in accordance with that principle. That is why I said you were "dumb like a fox" in a different post.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 4:07pm

148. OR,

     It should be no surprise to you that having listened to the presidents remarks, I applaud him and say amen!

     If you inject yourself into the political dialogue, your political views are fair game for debate and criticism.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 08/23/2005 @ 3:43pm

     LL,

     Your point is not clear; please expound on your meaning of the above statements.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/23/2005 @ 4:08pm

149. Message on the website,American Gold Star Mothers, Inc.

     "Cindy Sheehan is currently in the news. She and her organization have no connection whatever with American Gold Star Mothers, Inc. We are a 501 C(3) organization and, as such, do not engage in political activities. We do support our troops. After all, they are our children."

     http://www.goldstarmoms.com/agsm/Home/index.htm

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/23/2005 @ 4:58pm

150. FALSE EXITS

     Part I. Feingold

     Certainly, one might expect that at some point that a U.S. Senator of the opposition party in a two-party political system, might speak up, as Russ Feingold has done, and call for a date-certain withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, ahead of other possible anti-war '08 presidential candidates, and over against pro-war Senators Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh. The Nation's columnist John Nichols seems to endorse this idea as a good way out of Iraq.

     In fact, it would be disastrous. .

     It would leave unassailed those responsible for the carnage, and for leading the jackass party along, thus failing to confront the way of thinking that manipulated us into it. And, by doing so, would deprive this party of the jackass, upon whom the people had to depend to stop Bush and the neocons, of the one means of political, not to say personal salvation possibly remaining for them. Without which they could claim no justification for existing, except to serve lying mass serial murderers.

     That only means of salvation is, if I may be forgiven for saying so, to kill the NEOCON in themselves. The NEOCON is, for instance, what comes out in Pat Robertson's "cheaper than starting a war" shot at taking out Venezuela's Chavez. (see below). Mentioning the threat this "leftist leader" Chavez (Reuters) posed by bringing in "Muslim extremism." One-upping Ari Fleisher? – who could forget that "For the price of a single bullet" quip of the ex-White House public relations guy, the morning of the day the Washington D.C. area sniper attacks began. I digress; but not really. The topic is salvation, and the most glaring degenerate case of sin calling for this commodity is surely blaming and punishing another for what one is guilty of, oneself. If Jesus Christ ever promised anything at all to those who listened to him it would be to deliver them from this particular mode of self-abuse – although it would not be easy, almost as if calling on them to be born again. Forget that sh!t, though. It's long, long past the point where that could do any good for those with NEOCON in their soul. There is an old alchemical tale that Adam smuggled some antinomy, the ultra-black metallic dye, when he and Eve were kicked out of Edin. ("Stibnite Republicans", unredeemed unredeemable Old Adam souls stained forever, taking everything to hell with them that will fit into their cart.)

     No. While it is fitting that the Progressive strain in the state of Wisconsin's history, from Republican Lafollete in the 30's to Democrat Gaylord Nelson of the 50's should have provided soil for growing a Mid-West ‘liberal' voice now, it is too late for that strain to efflouresce. Too much has gone down, even directly connected to Joe McCarthy, Appleton, John Birch Society, Sensenbrenner stain of Stibnite Republicanism, controlled by NEOCONS – subsuming all tokens of concession, compromise, diplomacy as attitudes consonant with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. And they mean it: look what happened to Wellstone next door in Minnesota. If Feingold, representing (in the sense of vorstelung: presenting as a message) the multicultural Jewish + Catholic message riding in on Wings of Liberalism, he cannot be half-assed about it. He will, at best, go the way of Michael Moorem, who followed up a decent high-concept film effort with half-assed arguments, totally collapsing the anti-war balloon.

     Feingold's exist is no way out, any more than John Kerry's bid offered one. It is more of the same old same old, whose success would guarantee perpetual injustice.

     Part II. Lynching Pat Robertson ("Conservative U.S, evangelist called for the assassiantino of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying the leftist leader (sic) wanted to turn his country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremists."") WAIT! – you say. "This isn't lynching Pat Robertson going on here; this is Pat Robertson lynching (well, issuing death threat to) Venezuela's Chavez!" Ah, I sigh. "Don't you see that's how you are supposed to think it? It's lynching the ol' "conservative U.S. televangelist" star of the long, long running TV show "the 700 club". I wouldn't be surprised if some Protocols of Zion Jew put him up to it. The picture of the news crew on CNN in such high dudgeon (HEY!- WHATTA WEIRDO NUTCASE … calling for the leader of another country's life? … criminal is what it is…oughtta be a law.)

     But if the subject of state authorized assassinations was brought up for serious discussion one would be obliged to mention, at least – in addition to the DC sniper shootings, above, whatever was behind them: (1) the CIA's covert operation in Northern Iraq in '96, about the same time Netanyahu and Christian right-wing conservatives were tying the knot, stringing some Kurd faction along to take out Saddam Hussein; word of which apparently reached the dictator, who had the place wiped out, as well as one could follow it – only Newsweek was dealt in then, it seems. (2) The shooting of Sheik Yassin in Gaza authorized be the Knesset, carried out by the Israeli Defense Force from, it was announced, a U,S. Apache helicopter in 2003. After which, in response, it was said at the time, Falluja explodes with violence against U.S. "contractors", 4 bodies are hung swaying in front of American cameras from the bridge there, and a very, very cruel road opens up ahead between Baghdad and there. The month was April.

     Posted by jones at 08/23/2005 @ 5:19pm

151. CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF August 17, 2005

     To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

     Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

     We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

     Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

     I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

     The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

     Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

     Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

     These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

     But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

     On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

     Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.

     COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

     Posted by nationsucks1 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:52pm

152. CINDY SHEEHAN: COMMANDER IN GRIEF August 17, 2005

     To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

     Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

     We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

     Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

     I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

     The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

     Dowd's "absolute" moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don't understand like "absolute" and "moral." It seems that the inspiration for Dowd's column was also absolute. On the rocks.

     Liberals demand that we listen with rapt attention to Sheehan, but she has nothing new to say about the war. At least nothing we haven't heard from Michael Moore since approximately 11 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. It's a neocon war; we're fighting for Israel; it's a war for oil; Bush lied, kids died; there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Turn on MSNBC's "Hardball" and you can hear it right now. At this point, Cindy Sheehan is like a touring company of Air America radio: Same old script and it's not even the original cast.

     These arguments didn't persuade Hillary Clinton or John McCain to vote against the war. They didn't persuade Democratic primary voters, who unceremoniously dumped anti-war candidate Howard Dean in favor of John Kerry, who voted for the war before he voted against it. They certainly didn't persuade a majority of American voters who re-upped George Bush's tenure as the nation's commander in chief last November.

     But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

     On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement. Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger." She says "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years." She calls the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system" and says, "This country is not worth dying for." I have a feeling every time this gal opens her trap, Michael Moore gets a residuals check.

     Evidently, however, there are some things worth killing for. Sheehan recently said she only seemed calm "because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead." It's a wonder Bush won't meet with her.

     COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

     Posted by nationsucks1 at 08/23/2005 @ 6:52pm

153. ALUDRA has demonstrated what he thinks of the new "ignore this person" option...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 7:12pm

154. RIO BRAVO, You just don't get it.......probably never will.....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/23/2005 @ 7:49pm

155. LL and RB, This war is not just about attacking a country that didn't attack us first. I suspect that you don't consider the Iraqis human enough to warrant true human rights like you might want for yourselves so you just don't care about that. Maybe you also don't care about the 1,874 American soldiers killed (so far) and the thousands seriously wounded. Anyway, they're getting paid for it and nobody lives forever and that's just war. But by the end of this year we will have spent 200 billion dollars on this war. That amount unfortunately is just the tip of the iceberg. This war is so important to the Bush administration that they chose to fund it with debt. At the same time that they were refunding our Social Security surplus to the wealthiest Americans, they were funding the war with debt. They are still funding the war with debt. How can you, as conservatives, ignore this? Honestly, take a moment to list your ideological beliefs as 'conservatives' and then see how closely our current government upholds these ideals. I sometimes wonder that some people just want to root for the winning side as if life was just a football game. I know you realize that when you root for an NFL team, that the actual people on the team are in it for the money and for personal reasons that have nothing to do with you. When they win, you don't really win just because you're wearing their colors. Hypocrisy is OK in football, but not when people's lives and our country's future are at stake. In the future, when you're intently listening to every one of Rush's words or when you're praying along with Pat Robertson, don't fall for all that Ra Ra stuff. They're laughing all the way to the bank with your money.

     Posted by D1od1o at 08/23/2005 @ 9:27pm

156. Rio Bravo,

     Thank you. I have not been posting anywhere else for a while. I am very busy with a global ministry and an insurance business. I took time out to really gauge for myself what is the level of sincerity, competency, truthfulness, and objectivity, of liberal bloggers. It is now quite clear that with some exceptions (and Kevin Collins being the most standout example), there is no willingness to even entertain anything other than the daily rantings of "Bush lied, Bush is a murderer, blood for oil, get out now, taxcuts for the wealthy, and all the other stereotypical mantras of the far left".

     I will probably start cutting back on my postings here as I need to concentrate again on some of our new ministry centers in other countries and our board has asked me to get more involved with the public interface regarding the expansion of our mission training center in California.

     I will provide some information in the next few weeks for my blog that hopefully will begin in late September after my oldest son's wedding (unless my trip to the Philippines is moved up).

     Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 10:20pm

157. OR,

     the presidents comments were in regard to Cindy Sheehan and those who share her political views. I was noting my agreement with his statements and adding (as we have previously discussed) that when someone like Ms. Sheehan interjects themself into the political dialogue, then your views are open for analysis and agreement or criticism. As I have also stated before, it should not extend to personal commentary. Neither should it to the president whom many of you don't just disagree with, but call all manner of disgusting, offensive, and slanderous names.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/23/2005 @ 10:25pm

158. LL,

     Of all people, a minister should really try to avoid hypocrisy. Remember that if you swim in it and you can't see it or feel it, it will drown you. Do you honestly think that Jesus would have supported the Iraq war? Maybe, you're able to reason out that contradiction too, but I can't. Next time you're praying, go ahead and tell Jesus that you sincerely feel he would have supported the likes of the Iraq war during his time on earth.

     Posted by D1od1o at 08/23/2005 @ 10:36pm

159. As to how Jesus would view this war, I doubt he would say too much about it.

     There were all sorts of evils perpetrated by the government of his time. He only used them for an example, but never commented on them directly.

     For example, he said "Do you think those galileans, whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices, were more wicked than the rest of the men of galilee? I tell you no! But unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

     Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 10:54pm

160. It seems odd, that those who do not claim to know Jesus so often think they know what he would do or say.

     Posted by jonb at 08/23/2005 @ 10:55pm

161. I have no particular interest in "opinion" simply for opinion's sake. Everyone has an opinion. We all know that. I do prefer informed opinion, however, and respect expertise wherever I can detect its presence. I have commented on Mr. Nichols' column here in support of withdrawing our military forces from Iraq -- and later Afghanistan -- not only because of my own experiences serving in the Vietnam War but also because of all that I have subsequently learned about such misguided conflicts in the last thirty years. At any rate, when the lynch mob stampede to war against Iraq began in earnest in 2001, I easily recognized another trumped-up "Gulf of Tonkin" propaganda blitz and argued against getting swept up in the manufactured hysteria. Obviously, some listened and/or thought the same way, just not enough of us. So, some two-and-a-half years later in Iraq, we now find ourselves about where Richard Nixon left us as he found his own presidency crumbling in 1973. Every known military option had failed and a recalcitrant puppet regime in Saigon couldn't stand on its own but held on desperately to us so that we couldn't leave. Not too long afterwards, a Democratic Congress simply cut through the Gordian knot of endless, stalemated dithering and eliminated funding for the misadventure as Alexander Hamilton advised more than two centuries ago. Then, what would have happened anyway in 1954 happened anyway in 1975 -- only with a much greater legacy of hatred and violence to overcome.

     America's failed intervention over two decades in Vietnam largely mirrored its previous failed intervention in China. As I tried to point out previously, the dependent puppet Nationalist regime in China, like the long series of dependent puppet regimes in Vietnam, failed to develop a national army and national legitimacy because the weak puppet government chose to keep itself in power by keeping its army (which it saw as principally a potential rival for power) weak and divided against itself. As an advisor sent to advise just such a corrupt and conflicted military mess, I quickly discovered what I know Americans serving in Iraq have now discovered -- namely, the cross purposes and petty vendettas that make "standing up" a national, Iraqi "army" nothing put a pathetic, cosmetic advertising jingle. I therefore have a very good and deep appreciation of why Lt. General David Petraeus (and Ambassador John Negroponte) recently bailed out of the hopeless enterprise and returned home to pursue more rewarding career opportunities. I know of many military veterans and experts -- hardly any of them "liberal" -- who understand this precisely: as well, if not better than I do. The active-duty types, though, can't say so publicly -- Cheney and Rumsfeld have ordered them not to (so they leak like sieves these days) -- but as an old civilian I face no such obstacles to speaking the truth. I know from whence I speak.

     Having said all that, I do not oppose continued military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan solely on the grounds of practical expediency, although those reasons now should weigh the most heavily as we try to salvage our army (and national economic future) before the Bush Bunch destroys it for a generation. You can't do a wrong thing the right way; and since we did a very wrong thing by invading Iraq and destroying it as a unified political entity (probably for the forseeable future) we can only now withdraw from our mess and let others -- more knowledgeable and competent -- straighten things out. Given the demonstrated ignorance, incompetence, and mendacity of the Bush adminstration, the American people -- like much of our contemporary world -- can place no confidence in its ability to straighten out anything. Staying the Curse, will only pile the bodies and rubble higher.

     Once out of Iraq, America will then face the huge task of rebuilding its army and reserve forces (unfortunately, a huge boondoggle windfall for the old military-industrial complex) and restoring its name and reputation in the world. That will probably take at least a decade, but it needs to start as soon as possible -- which means withdrawing American military forces expeditiously from Iraq first and Afghanistan later. More power to Senators Feingold and Hagel for recognizing this reality and moving to get out ahead of the swelling crowd that already understands and approves the urgent need for intelligent disengagement from the terrible twin tar babies, Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Posted by Michael Murry at 08/23/2005 @ 10:56pm

162. Frankgrits,

     I too believe that OBL must be found, but he won't be found in Afghanistan. Try Pakistan, but wait, they're our ally and besides they do have WMDs. Better not mess with them. In Afghanistan, we're protecting a democracy that generates 60% of their GNP from Opium production. Can anything be more screwy than the mess we've gotten ourselves in over there?

     Posted by D1od1o at 08/24/2005 @ 12:01am

163. Michael Murray: I, as Vietnam -era protester, very much enjoy your thoughts on that war and this one. And I agree with your conclusions.

     LOVE LIBERTY: We have given you facts, and you have only propaganda. And now you need Limberger to speak for you. Very sad...

     Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 01:23am

164. I appreciate the kind and thoughtful comments and my "ignore" list has no doubt filtered out the unkind ones, so I'll just say here a few things in return.

     One: The government of Pakistan probably knows the whereabouts of Osama What's-His-Name, but they don't care much about turning him over because they fear losing US military aid -- for sort-of chasing him around in the mountains -- if they did. A perverse dis-incentive, I know, but probably the case. Anyway, he demanded that we leave Saudi Arabia; we didn't at first; he bombed us; then we did leave Saudi Arabia; so I don't know where that leaves the score at the moment.

     Two: Whether we or anyone else ever finds Osama or any other incarnation-of-pure-evil-at-the-moment won't change our pariah status in the Middle East in the slightest. Someone else will just take his place -- if they haven't already. If some foreign soldier kicked down my front door and hauled me, my dad, and brothers off to prison for "being of military age," leaving my mother and sisters at home alone for criminals to rob and rape, I don't think I'd have to check up with Osama bin Laden or anyone else to figure out how I'd feel about that. The idea that our "innocent" actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with the violent reaction they have caused seems too ludicrous to entertain. As long as we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, people will attack us in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they don't want us in Iraq and Afghanistan, because we don't belong in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Three: Somehow the idea seems to have gotten loose in the land that Americans who join our military somehow lose their identity as Americans. I guess we just pidgeon-hole them in some subliminal "canon fodder" classification. Then, we send them abroad where foreigners can kill them so that the foreigners don't have to come to America to do that. Jihadi "terrorists" swarm into Iraq and Afghanistan today because if you want to kill an American for what America has done to your country over the past half century, you can't find a cheaper and easier place to kill so many of them than in Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't have to build a boat or a plane, or even buy a ticket: you can proably just walk or hitch a ride to the killing fields. Whoopeee!

     Four: So far in only a little over two years, the "insurgents" have killed 2,000 and wounded 14,000 of our troops using nothing but "improvised" (meaning, cheaply and cleverly assembled) left-over bombs, garage-door openers, egg-timers, and automobiles. Think of what they'll do when Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (among other interested observers) start supplying them with some really heavy shit. What we gave to Osama to kill Russians with in Afghanistan, the Russians and Chinese will more than give back to Osama to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whoopeeee! We haven't seen anything yet -- and I don't want to see it.

     Five: Bush the Bumbler has landed us smack in the middle of a land that eats crusaders for breakfast and has for a thousand years. Every school kid in the Middle East knows all about the heroes and battles (and the successful battle strategies) that have driven invaders out time and time again. The locals don't plan on leaving. They have nowhere else to go. The idea that somehow they won't "wait us out" would make me laugh if it didn't make me want to pull out what remains of my hair in exasperation. When did America stop thinking and start reciting stupid, self-hypnotizing slogans to itself? The Lebanese "waited out" the Israelis for twenty-two years. The Vietnamese "waited out" us Americans for twenty-years -- and the French for fifteen years before that. The Arabs "waited out" the Christian Crusaders for two hundred years. The invaded always "wait out" the invaders. For crying out loud!

     I apologize for the length of the post. I just had to get all that bile out of my long-suffering spleen.

     Posted by Michael Murry at 08/24/2005 @ 03:06am

165. As long as Israel occupies Palestinian land, there will be hatred of the U.S. for arming and funding Israel. Clinton tried to bully Arafat into signing a totally unfair agreement, and everybody could see the U.S. is not a fair arbiter, but instead an agent for Israel.The pro-Israel lobby,AIPAC, is very powerful in American politics. If Israel would agree to pull back to something resembling the internationally-recognized 1967 borders, I would have hopes for peace. Until then, Moslems will blame the U.S. as protector of Israel.

     Posted by philbq at 08/24/2005 @ 09:29am

166. Phil,

     "Until then, Moslems will blame the U.S. as protector of Israel."

     And most Christians in America certainly hope that the U.S. does always stand by Israel. I'm sure I don't need to bring up all the scripture as to why Christians support the Jews, although I can if needed.

     Many Christians believe that the Jews are God's chosen people, the apple of his eye; and that the apocalyptic events that are coming involve the world coming to fight against God's people, the Jews.

     Knowing that other scripture states that those that bless the Jews will be blessed, and those that curse the Jews will be cursed, Christian Americans feel that their blessings, (and possibly salvation) can only come through backing, supporting, and fighting on the side of Israel (including me).

     See:

     "EVANGELICAL SOLIDARITY WITH THE JEWS: A VEILED AGENDA? A QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF PAT ROBERTSON'S 700 CLUB PROGRAM." Review of Religious Research; Mar2005, Vol. 46 Issue 3, p255-268, 14p

     "Whose Holy City? Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." Transformation; Jan2005, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p63-64, 2p

     "Christian Fundamentalists and Public Opinion Toward the Middle East: Israel's New Best Friends?" Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited); Sep2004, Vol. 85 Issue 3, p695-712, 18p

     "Prophecy,Politics,and the Popular:The Left Behind Series and Christian Fundamentalism's New World Order." South Atlantic Quarterly; Fall2003, Vol. 102 Issue 4, p773, 26p

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:23am

167. Sorry for all bold above, I meant to bold Phil's quote, not all of it.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 10:24am

168. OKSG:

     So Christians have to stand by Israel, no matter if Israel is unreasonable and no matter the expense? By your view every other other religion and all secularists must have this dogma force fed on them, and deal with its consequences. Sorry, but whether you like it or not we are a secular nation. If you want to change that try and redraft the Constitution. You complain often that secularists force their views on abortion and gay marriage on Christians. Your stance is the flip side. I do not sign on to your particular views of scripture or find it authoratative for dealing with foreign policy. Why should our secular nation be strangled by this? Can't you support Jews without doing it at the expense of other groups or if it is detrimental to the U.S.?

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 10:41am

169. Hman,

     "I do not sign on to your particular views of scripture or find it authoratative for dealing with foreign policy.

     No problem, I'm not suggesting that you must.

     "Sorry, but whether you like it or not we are a secular nation."

     Yes we are, however that doesn't mean that Christians can't factor in their religious beliefs in how they vote, who they support, and what countries we would prefer we ally with.

     "Can't you support Jews without doing it at the expense of other groups or if it is detrimental to the U.S.?"

     No, I won't change my religious beliefs and who I support because you or other "groups" don't like them. Would you change your beliefs and who you support because your support might offend other groups?

     Furthermore, your question is framed in the "when did you stop beating your wife" framework, particularly in regard to the "detrimental to the U.S." part.

     Many people would disagree and argue that support for Israel IS NOT detrimental to the U.S., in fact it would be in our best interest for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with religion to stand behind Israel.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 11:09am

170. JonB, D10D10:

     Those with a hard religous agenda are always "on God's side" so the justness of wars they raise and fight...be they Islamic extremists or western Christians...goes without question unto themselves. Whether you think the "other guy" is wrong or not, be certain that he thinks his own cause is just....just as you do.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 08/24/2005 @ 12:00pm

171. OKSG

     We are not talking about merely "offending" other groups, we are talking about actions that resulted in 3000 deaths. If I had a belief which would elicit a response that would entail the death of my family, I would think about a compromise, wouldn't you? Is there no room for compromise in your mind? You'll probably say, no, not down the barrel of a gun, but we have the chicken and the egg here. We claim Isalmic terrorists are using violence to achieve their ends; terrorists claim they are responding to U.S. military violence and occupying wars. At this point, I do not care becasue we are both killing each other. I think it is better for everyone to temper things and try to get to some sort of compromise as opposed to a neverending war of civilizations.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 12:16pm

172. Hman,

     "I think it is better for everyone to temper things and try to get to some sort of compromise as opposed to a neverending war of civilizations.

     I agree that some compromise can be made, you make the argument that "our side" (Israel and those that stand by her) do not compromise. Remember that earlier thread where we discussed egocentric blindness, regarding conveniently "forgetting" evidence that doesn't support your beliefs and values, while remembering evidence and facts that support your beliefs?

     What exactly do you call this?

     Israel Seals Gaza Strip to begin Pull out [news.yahoo.com]

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 12:41pm

173. Below is an excerpt from an email sent out by MoveOn.org:

     The resolution, known as the Homeward Bound Act (House Joint Resolution 55), was introduced by Jones, fellow Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Democratic Congressmen Neil Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich. It would require the president to put together a plan by the end of the year for bringing home all U.S. forces from Iraq--with troop withdrawal beginning no later than October 1, 2006. It is an important step in the right direction, and with Republican co-sponsors it creates real pressure to change course.

     There are 50 members of Congress who have signed up as co-sponsors of the Homeward Bound Act. That's a good start but we need more--our goal is to have more than 100 co-sponsors by the time Congress returns September 6. If we can do that it will show that Cindy Sheehan's vigil has added to the pressure on our leaders to come up with a real plan for Iraq.

     After you make your call, please let your friends, family and colleagues know about the Homeward Bound Act by forwarding this e-mail or calling them.

     Congress has a duty here that they shouldn't ignore. Our troops have done everything we've asked of them in Iraq. Now it is time for politicians to do their job.

     They are requesting that everyone call their respective Congressman and ask him or her to sign on to the Homeward Bound Act - House Joint Resolution 55.

     I have already made my call and I hope you will do the same.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 1:29pm

174. OKSG:

     I was not pointing out that the Israel has never compromised, only that your view of salvation seems pretty rigid. If we take it to its logical conclusion our policy directives are subervient to Israel's.

     Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2005 @ 2:07pm

175. MM, you are quite right about the "waiting out" baloney and it is nice to see someone else posting it besides me.

     As for your warning

     Think of what they'll do when Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (among other interested observers) start supplying them with some really heavy shit. What we gave to Osama to kill Russians with in Afghanistan, the Russians and Chinese will more than give back to Osama to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     we must add to the list Iran, which has already supplied "shaped charges" to insurgents, which were used to kill 14 marines in an amphibious asault vehicle earlier this month.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:02pm

176. OKSG, Why don't you Christians get together and start donating to a defense fund for Israel? The money would go to the Israeli state, which would in turn use it to buy weapons from the US.

     That way you could put your money where your mouth is, instead of putting my tax dollars where your mouth is. I would be glad to support 100% you not having you tax dollars used to fund gay marriages and abortions and other stuff you find so much more offensive than war and torture.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/24/2005 @ 3:08pm

177. Physics,

     "OKSG, Why don't you Christians get together and start donating to a defense fund for Israel? The money would go to the Israeli state, which would in turn use it to buy weapons from the US. That way you could put your money where your mouth is, instead of putting my tax dollars where your mouth is. I would be glad to support 100% you not having you tax dollars used to fund gay marriages and abortions and other stuff you find so much more offensive than war and torture.

     I see your point, and would support that idea actually. On a personal note, my wife and I sew seed money into a ministry that helps dispersed Jews around the world dating back to the atrocities that went on during WW2, and helps relocate them back to Israel. I wouldn't have a problem at all tithing additional seed money specifically for an "Israel defense fund", if you could get Medicaid to stop paying for abortions.

     Officials in Michigan and Montana as well as Arkansas, Kentucky, North and South Dakota, and Utah refuse to abide by the rule, which took affect March 1994 and calls for states that receive Medicaid funds for health care of the poor to pay for abortions of poor women whose pregnancy was result of rape or incest. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 3:18pm

178. Pentagon orders 1,500 more troops to Iraq. They will be joining the 138,000 troops already there. Click on link to read story.

     Link: More Troops to Iraq [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 4:52pm

179. OKSG:

     "And most Christians in America certainly hope that the U.S. does always stand by Israel. I'm sure I don't need to bring up all the scripture as to why Christians support the Jews..."

     Uhhh... what true Christains would that be? Do you mean the so-called Christians that order wet-work teams to whack duly elected democratic leaders in South America? Where is the documented evidence that the people who were allowed to squat on land in Palestine in 1948 and take it from the 300 year old indigenous population (like Americans took the American-Indians land - "Manifest Destinty"?) are ACTAULLY genetic relatives of the bible's "House of Shem", or any one's biblical "house" for that matter? Didn't Jesus (incidently executed by the ancient Italians at the behest of the JEWISH Sandehrin and their misguided followers - "Give us Barabbus!") predict that the Romans would destroy everything including all vital statistics in 70 CE? And did Cestius Gallus actually do just that in 70 CE? Hmmm... and didn't Jesus (aka "THE MESSIAH" by Christians) tell the Jews to give up their old teachings and follow his new ones and become CHRISTIANS, which a lot did? The rest is history, as they say (that is until the apostate Emperor Constantine corrupted everything in the 4th century at Nicea).

     Has the recent very sucessfull and scientific COHANIM PROJECT which uses MtDNA to locate any genetic Israelite relatives today actually identified ANY of the Lakud Party and their jaded followers as being even remotely related to Aaron (Moses' brother) or any one else in his biblical line? Or are all of these people actually just Europeans of Slavic and Tuetonic anscestory? Who's conning who here? Chosen race indeed!

     I mean we need a better reason to allow Ariel Sharon and his Lakud party call the shots in the 21st century "theater of operations" other than that he is supposedly of some self-appointed "Chosen Race" that Dubya' has bought hook-line-and-sinker. This guy has our American-made nukes, jets, and ships. He returns the favor by fatally attacking us in 1967 (i.e. USS Liberty), spies on us in Washington (Clinton's pardoned friend, WashDC cell phone spying company, Congressman's dead girlfriend, etc.), and the so-called jury is still out about why his "Institute" boys were filming the WTC from Fort Lee NJ under the GWB on 9/11!!! TRUSTED friends don't need to spy on one another!

     Guess who else doesn't want us out of Babylon (Iraq)?

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/24/2005 @ 5:40pm

180. Michael Murray:

     You meant: "Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori" - To children ardent for some desperate glory. Or as Bush-1 and JEB coined "OFU's children". OFU or "one fodder unit" used in '85 and today by Republicans as a codename for an "American Tax Payer".

     All I can say is houah brother! Your Wal-Mart comment was right on! As were others. Also I hear ya' on the (Mr. Guatamala - "bodies? what bodies? where?") Negropoint-head comment. However the "Can't Identify Anything" is a lot smarter on what they can or can't do than what the "huddled masses" will ever know. They can't do real miracles ya' know? But they try...

     Remember this group's claim to trade-craft brilliance is due to the best minds in domestic-milint-humint. Namely NAZI SS Major General Reinhard Gehlen and other mysterious and nefarious German lesser known Dulles-hired "Project Paperclip" bad boys. In '47 president Truman originally wanted them to be a paper-pushin' milint clearinghouse under Hillenkoter and Vandenburg. I know you were gonna' say Wild Bill Donovan and Allen "wtf his name was" Dulles where the real trade-craft brain-trust came from.

     Today they have evolved into entirely something else. Now they hire people like Jennifer Garner (i.e. TV's "Alias") to adverise their so-called international "good" works. However, people shouldn't believe everything bad coming out of this admin regarding them. A certain slam-dunkin' ex-DCI will be releasing a book very soon like the "Imperial Hubris" guy did recently. I think it will deal with where "all the bodies are buried" - so to speak. And I don't think it will be vetted by the Bush yes-men and ex-shoplifters either.

     "Oath... we don' need no stinkin' oath?" - Mexican bandit Rick Garcia from Blazing Saddles 1974 (i.e. "badges")

     Posted by spooky_sr at 08/24/2005 @ 7:22pm

181. Spooky_SR,

     I look forward to reading the ex-DCI's book. I hope it provides clear and convincing evidence on the intelligence information was used.

     I recall reading "Puzzle Palace" when I was traveling to Greece, and it was an excellent read - maybe the ex-DCI's book will be the same.

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:14pm

182. Should have read "on how the intelligence was used".

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:16pm

183. Sadr, a strident nationalist whose followers deride rival Shi'ite Islamist leaders for their time in exile in Iran, has joined leaders of the Sunni Arab minority in denouncing the draft constitution as a recipe for the break up of the state.

     Link: Iraq Shi'ite intra-sectarian clash [news.yahoo.com]

     Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/24/2005 @ 8:35pm

184. Spooky,

     "Uhhh... what true Christains would that be?

     The ones like me, that go to church, tithe money to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and help heal the sick.

     The ones that believe there is good and evil in this world.

     The ones that believe in right and wrong, black and white.

     And the ones that believe...

     "More than 70 percent of Americans, meanwhile, believe that U.S. support for Israel makes attacks against the United States more likely, yet most Americans favor continuing such support nonetheless."

     from: "The Ties That Bind." Foreign Affairs; Mar/Apr2004, Vol. 83 Issue 2, p8-12, 5p

     "and standing by Israel until the Palestinians understand that they will get nowhere with violence."

     from: "Bush's Middle East Vision." Survival (Oxford University Press / UK); Spring2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p155-165, 11p, 1 map

     " The reason is President George W. Bush is widely considered the most pro-Israel President since Harry S. Truman, who first recognized the Jewish state's right to exist."

     from: "CAN BUSH CEMENT HIS INROADS AMONG JEWISH VOTERS?" Business Week; 5/5/2003 Issue 3831, p45, 3/4p, 1c

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/24/2005 @ 8:42pm

185. REDSTATEMAN, you post about the threat we face was great and i would have never read it without you. thanks. We actually all knew what OBL and thus Al Qaeda wanted and planned for the world. But exposed black on white and coming from such character is real worthy. But something is puzzling me when you say it backs your claims. Hussein never talked about bringing the war against islam right there in Iraq. And they were harbored mainly in Afghanistan. It has been admitted by the Administration that Saddam Hussein got no tie with Al Qaeda (after insinuating the opposite to make rationale for the Iraq Operation Freedom). your post mention "Winning the Second Phase is important from a ideological standpoint. Defeat in Iraq would seriously harm the credibility of al Qaeda and weaken their mystique." But i can't find this in the spiegel piece but only such websites. http://boards.conservativelife.com/viewtopic.php?t=48802 http://rightwingnews.com/ http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/the_seven_phase.php I don't know for the Bill Roggio.. but the previous ones are obviously... well the URL speak for themselves... I wouldn't talk about rightwing propaganda.. so you can't be angry about it.. but still these are not Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein words... unlike the 7 phases plan.

     Posted by Fabrice at 08/26/2005 @ 05:25am