By many accounts (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/iraq-changes-attitudes-118262.html) now the surge is working (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/surge-working-117344.html). Carl Levin just returned from Iraq and added his name to those who acknowledge this fact - to a point anyway (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/NEWS07/708210349/1001/NEWS). And yet, as I predicted a few days ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/tricked-ya-all-hehehe-119895.html#post564191) (I get it right once in a while) come September there's going to be one helluva fight over Iraq. John Kerry and friends intend to see to it there is a fight no matter what. From his latest email:


Here's the reality this week: Karl Rove is gone but a broken Iraq policy remains.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a party cling so disastrously to a policy that is as wrong as it is unsuccessful.

The pressure for change has been building day by day since I offered legislation last year to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, and still they insist on more of the same.

So, we need to push even harder.

This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course.

All summer, our friends at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have been organizing in swing districts and states across the country to put even more pressure on Republicans to do what is right and break with the President.

Now, next Tuesday August 28th, they and MoveOn.org will be holding events all around the United States to try to set the stage for the fights in September. These "End it in September" town halls and vigils will put even more pressure on Republicans, giving them lots to think about as they end their August recess in their home districts.

You can go here to sign up to host an event, or find out about events in your area.

It will be a big month ahead, and the chances of us getting a new direction are better than ever. A large event with lots of participation next week can set up our efforts for next month. We're getting closer; I can feel the mounting desperation in my Republican colleagues. But we have to make sure that any talk from them is backed up by real action. We won't stand for anything less than a firm deadline that will force this President to change policy.

Do what you can to turn August 28th into the largest series of events yet in the fight for a new Iraq policy.

I'll try to keep you updated when the legislation starts to move in September. It will be a busy month for the effort to get a new course in Iraq, so let's keep the pressure up on Republicans and get some movement on that.


Sincerely,

John Kerry

Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?

"This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.


Bobby

The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress because American citizens are AGAINST BUSH'S WAR OF ADVENTURISM AGAINST IRAQ and want the soldiers to STOP DYING IN THE LOSING CAUSE OF A *CIVIL WAR*. Republicans will be positioning themselves against the war for the 2008 election.

Steve , Even Hillary said the surge was working and Joe Biden now says that it is important not to cut and run.

Still I think the emphasis in Sept will not be the military course of the war but from the politics in Iraq. Besides the usual cookie cutter talking points that Choux gives us every time the subject comes up; the truth is that the Maliki government has until now dropped the ball .

The whole point of the surge was to give him cover so he could initiate a change in policy which would begin to end the factionalism . I am not convinced yet that he is up to the task although there has been some hopeful signs . He has seemed until recently hopelessly beholden to al-Sadr and Iran .

Former PM Ayad Allawi wrote a scathing op-ed about the Maliki government this week.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://washingtonpost.com)

He calls Iraq a "failing state" . He claims that Maliki is incapable of moving Iraq towards reconciliation .He may have a point given the number of high level resignations ,although he definitely overstates the problem . Also his solutions are based in fantasy ,;especially his call for greater international cooperation . He forgets that when the going got tough the UN bailed out. His call for Arab states to intervene is the worst idea from someone who claims to want an independent Iraqi state .It would weaken any attempt at factional unity .

Anyway he should be making his case to the Iraqi people and not to the Americans . It sounds too much like a campaign op-ed to me.

Maliki has as I mentioned above begun to show flexibility .He recently met with Sunni tribes in Tikrit appealing for unity .


"There is more uniting us than dividing us," he told sheiks in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. "We do not want to allow al-Qaeda and the militias to exist for our coming generations. Fighting terrorism gives us a way to unite."

Iraqi PM tells Sunni tribes: 'We must unite' - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-17-iraq-friday_N.htm?csp=34)

He also signed an accord with the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that commands the Badr Brigade, which has fought Sadr's forces in the south for control.So hopefully it is possible that al-Sadr has overplayed his influence.

globeandmail.com: Kurds and Shiites ally to support al-Maliki (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070817.wiraq17/BNStory/International/home)

None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

Chou,

You, like John Kerry and the moveon.org/Michael Moore types, have already made up your mind about what the report will say before it has even been written.

You have already decided, based on a Huffandstuff bloger's statements, that the Administration is going to be writing the report, not Patreus and his staff. Do you know that for a fact?

You have already decided that, no matter what the report actually says, it will be propaganda and lies. Are you a mind-reader? Do you know the future? And if so, why are you wasting time here when you could be making a killing in the stock market?

You have assumed that every Republican and Democrat who has acknowledged that there has been significant progress in Iraq, and all those who were in favor of a pullout before but are now in favor of waiting until we have more data are all wrong. Do you have better sources of information of what is going on in Iraq than they do? What's your security clearance level?

It seems to me that YOU and John Kerry are the ones guilty of propaganda. You are already pushing an opinion on the report without even knowing what the report is going to say. You scream "Bush is a liar, Patreus is a puppet, the report is propaganda" from the highest mountains and we're supposed to believe that you aren't a propagandist?

Why not wait and see what the report says before slamming it. At least then you will know what you are slamming.

Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Elliot

Hello:

The war IS/WAS lost. You can't win a war that you've already lost I don't care how many "surges" you do. It's a civil war. The government is on vacation while our boys DIE.

I want OUT - NOW!!

excon

Excon,

So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war? Because it is "already lost"?

Boy, I'm glad that General George Washington didn't have you on his staff. Washington lost more battles than he won, and gained most of his command experience in the field by losing battles. Prior to winning at Saratoga, Washington lost in Long Island, Germantown, Brandywine and practically every other major battle in which he was engaged. After losing a quarter of his forces during the winter in Valley Forge, the entire future of the Continental Army was in doubt. Nobody thought, at that point, that we could possibly win the war. If we had taken YOUR advice that "we can't win a war that is already lost" we'd still be eating crumpets, drinking over-taxed tea, and singing "G-d Save the Queen".

A war isn't lost until one side or the other can't fight anymore and either surrenders or dies. The USA hasn't lost in Iraq. The Iraqis haven't lost in Iraq. The fighting continues, the enemy is dying or being captured, and fewer attacks against ou allies, civilian and military, are taking place. The enemy hasn't lost yet, but they certainly aren't winning either.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." --- Darth Vader

So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war?Hello El:

The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, plus Bush has been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you want to blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're going to blame the defeat on the Democrats.

The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

excon

Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.

I'm sorry.. I can't resist

"Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "

Hello El:

The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, and he’s been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you wanna blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're gonna blame the defeat on the Democrats.

The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

excon

Bush didn't lose this war any more than Clinton did when he let the US down after "they" attempted to assault the Twins the first time.

Hello Captain:

I don't care if you blame Clinton. He sucks the big one too. That does NOT make me feel better about Bush's defeat.

And, I'm well aware of the terrible, terrible future this defeat is going to bring to the region, and to US. As your fellow wingers will tell you, I'm not dovish on the region...

excon

PS> Yes tom, we lost when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

"This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.

Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.

The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

A propagandist complaining of propaganda. Ain't that something?


In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress

As Kerry's message shows and the Democrats admit (http://www.nysun.com/article/59744), they are no more concerned about losing their seats than the left is about Bush having success in Iraq.

Hello again:

Here's the worst part of this whole thing. We've got the best military in the world. We've got fighting men who DON'T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they've been ordered to fight haven't been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I've been in the military. You don't win a war by doing that.

Now, if we lost because our boy's just weren't good enough, that's one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

excon

None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

As always a thorough analysis. Good job, tom. Speaking of the UN and other developments (has the left been clamoring for the UN to solve this like everything else?)...

After the Bush administration pressed for weeks, Security Council Approves Resolution Widening UN Role in Iraq (http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/2007-08-17-voa21.cfm). Isn't that part of the "political solution" the Dems have been demanding?

Mookie welcomed this news (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070820-0425-iraq-britain-sadr.html) - conditionally:


'I would support the U.N. here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers,' he said. 'If the U.N. comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work.'

Since the UN's announcement, France 'more involved' in Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/20/wirq320.xml)


Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, arrived in Baghdad last night to deliver an unprecedented show of support for Iraq's beleaguered government.

It is the first visit by a French cabinet minister since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was vigorously opposed by Jacques Chirac, the former president.

An Iraqi official said that Mr Kouchner was the "most important VIP" to arrive in the Iraqi capital this year, outranking earlier trips by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, as well as Cheney, the US vice-president.

I'll leave the analysis of that one to you.

Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.

Of course. But that has already proven to change with time and as reality sinks in.


Bobby

excon, I'm not either, you seemed to have missed my point.


Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.

... so long as there are no bombs dropping on my street..

Hello again:

Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

Now, if we lost because our boy’s just weren’t good enough, that’s one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

excon



And I'll vouch that Excon speaks from experience. This has nothing to do with General George Washington and some two hundred and thirty years ago. Not even close. This has to do with Commander-in-Chief George Bush that may mean well (and I believe he does), but he has placed us in a poor predicament a long ways from home.



Bobby

It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .
The Sunnis are coming on board because they've realized that they can get arms from the US if they help get rid of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who they never liked that much to begin with because they are foreigners. After AQM is gone, those arms will be used in the struggle to regain the Sunnis' "rightful" place as rulers over the Shiites. The Shiia-Sunni civil war is going to continue whether the US is in the middle of it or not. Putting ourselves in the middle only guarantees that both sides will hate us.

This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=40612da90ba4337c&ex=1187928000&pagewanted=all)gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying. A couple of excerpts:

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

Of course. But it's already proven to change with time.

Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.

I'm sorry ..I can't resist

"Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "


Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's on a roll.

I love that film.

Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.



George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?



Bobby

The Washington Compost printed an interesting article on the Democrat shifts today, Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025.html).


Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.

And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.

The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."...

For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.

For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) made a round of calls yesterday to freshman Democrats, some of whom recently returned from trips to Iraq and made news with their positive comments on military progress. "I'm not finding any wobbliness on the war -- at all," Emanuel said.

The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, pleading: "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."

"For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House press secretary who is helping to head Freedom's Watch.

GOP leaders have latched on to positive comments from Democrats -- often out of context -- to portray the congressional majority as splintering. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), an Armed Services Committee member who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said many of her colleagues learned a hard lesson from the Republican campaign.

"I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator John Edwards issued a scathing attack on Clinton's remark. But he said there has been "progress in Al-Anbar province."

"Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. "You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning."

There's enough there to chew on for a while.

In a July 30 New York Times Op-Ed article, “A War We Just Might Win.”

As of late:
Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. “If anything, I’m more willing to find a way forward.”

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla. [the surge] “has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.”

Brian Baird, D-Wash. [he will no longer support measures to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, because] “We are making real and tangible progress on the ground.”

There does seem to be a Democrat “Surge” too.

This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying.

First I'd like to thank them for their service and wish Staff Sergeant Murphy a speedy recovery .

If I'm not mistaken the 82nd Airborne ;as fine a unit as our military has ;is stationed in and around Sadr City presently . This may give them a limited view of a subsection of the battlefield in their ancedotal account ,but hardly a birds-eye view of the theater .Nor do I believe they have the expertise to judge the effectiveness of the surge beyond the neighborhood they occupy.In my post I clearly say that the areas controlled by al-Sadr have not been addressed as of yet but that I believe a time of reckoning is at hand .

They write about things that they would have no first hand experience or knowledge of, even to go as far as to criticize us for refugees still living outside the country's borders, which obviously they can't verify.

Certainly if I'm to listen to the opinion of the troops then I should take into account the opinions of all of the troops and not just this select few . Here are some vets of the war with opposing views to the one presented in the op-ed.

Print Article (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070809/NATION/108090053/1002&template=printart)

Vets For Freedom (http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/)



That being said they do make a couple of comments I agree with in the article and it was the main focus of my reply


Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux...

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers.

Like I said ,the purpose of the surge is to give cover to the politicians so that a political settlement can be obtained. It certainly doesn't foster a stable environment when the politicians in Washington keep threatening to pull the rug out.

George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?



Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.


Bobby

Hello again:

Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

I quite agree. Then it's a good thing that Patreus isn't doing that anymore, isn't it.

So... if we were only "losing" because we were giving back what we took, and now we aren't doing that anymore, doesn't that mean we aren't losing anymore, even according to your definition?


You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

Excon

Only if we cut and run.

(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html)speechlesstx (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html) agrees: That seems to be all these people can come up with. If I had a dollar for every time I heard or read "Bush lied"... I just googled Bush lied and got "about 2,330,000" hits.That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

There is no reason to believe that, if we are successful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

Elliot

[url="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

It tells me that 2 million fools are parroting the "Bush Lied" line without knowing what they are talking about. They don't know what lies he's supposed to have told, much less whether they really were lies or not.

Elliot

Wow, talk about living in a vacuum. :D

Hello again, El:

I think we're talking about two different things... Not surprising, really.

There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think?? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him...

Remember when he said we won... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political... And it was wrong...

Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn't matter what Patraus is going to say. We've heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnam AFTER the war was lost. And it's going to matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

Is it a shame?? It is. Is it dangerous for us?? It is. Did Bush lose it? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

excon

Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.

Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:


Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.

Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.

[URL="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

From the ones I've read it tells me there are an awful lot of deluded people out there that want us to believe "Bush lied" but they don't want to tell us exactly what those lies were.

Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.

Hello again, El:


There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. excon
Exactly: Which bears out my theory that foreign policy cannot persist against domestic policy in a free democracy. Viet nam clearly showed this, and Hitler noted this, and that is why he turned to fascism.

Hello again, El:

I think we're talking about two different things..... Not surprising, really.

There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think??? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him......

Remember when he said we won.... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political..... And it was wrong...

Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn’t matter what Patraus is gonna say. We’ve heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnat AFTER the war was lost. And it's gonna matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

Is it a shame??? It is. Is it dangerous for us??? It is. Did Bush lose it?? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

excon

I wonder if you would have felt the same way as you do now if we had won the war in Vietnam? If we had done the job as we should have... that is, taken and kept the land, killed the enemy, gone full out, beaten North Vietnam and the VC both politically and militarily, and had the support of Congress and the people back home... would you still feel the same as you do now about the war in Iraq? Would you still be advocating for a pullout, or would you instead be telling both parties in Congress to get behind the troops and support the war?

You are looking at Iraq through Vietnamese-colored lenses. I am looking at Iraq from the current strategic and tactical picture. And because of that, we naturally have different opinions.

Vietnam was decades ago, Excon. Things are different today. We have a better army, better training, better equipment, lower casualty rates, better support from the indiginous people, and we finally have a general who is kicking a$$ and not bothering to take names.

The only thing that is the same is the POLITICAL situation back home. Even you have stated that we are winning on the ground in Iraq. The only thing holding us back from victory, by your own admission, is the anti-war political faction back home. Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout. My solution is either defeat or convert that faction to my way of thinking and support the war and the troops. Yours is a defeatist stance that says "we can't win even if we win". Mine is an offensive position that promotes victory.

As Steve put it, your stance snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. He titled this question quite well.

Elliot

You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

There is no reason to believe that, if we are sucessful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

Elliot


Elliot-


Thanks. Perhaps with the bases closing in Germany Dubya's idea is to move us permanently into the Mid-East region. You know my stand from way back. So just as reminder to the others: I thought we should had blasted the Saddam controlled Iraqi govt buildings, military installations, and a few mountains until we made parking lots. But not with A-bombs like we did in Japan. BTW our govt certainly had no problem dropping those Atomic bombs then. Now as with the continuance of the Iraqi war campaign I was just as satisfied that we toppled the then Saddam's govt control and brought him to justice. It would had suited me better to start re-deployment phases then. Personally I think Iraq was going to have civil upheaval despite our involvement and will continue after whenever we leave. The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.



Bobby

Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout.Hello again, El:

Nope, it wizzed right over your head. Didn't you hear it? It went wooooshhhh as it zipped by.

I'm not anti war - I'm anti going to war and NOT winning it!

That's what we did in Vietnam, and that's what were doing in Iraq. In fact, I WAS for kicking a$$ in Vietnam. But we didn't try to win. We held back. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job. Therefore, in my view, ALL 58,000 dead Americans lives were wasted.

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

excon

Elliot has a very good point. But the differences are a little more between the lines when we try to compare Viet Nam with Iraq.

When the US entered the conflict in south east Asia, it was primarily for "humanitarian" reasons. We perceived someone was being oppressed and we were attempting to stem the flow of Communism. But the American public didn't agree that the battle belonged to us on humanitarian grounds and it was more political: Democracy vs. Communism. The difference is now, in the south central Asia, Iraq, the concern has a global ramification: jihad. "They" will follow us here. And they've proven they want to.

The outcome of this and our presence there is far more important now than in Viet Nam.

Why isn't this obvious?

bases closing in Germany it's Dubya's idea to move us permanently into the Mid-East region.
Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.


The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.
Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.

Why isn't this obvious?Hello again, Captain:

We're back to square one. Why wasn't it obvious to BUSH? Why didn't he TRY to win?? Why didn't he send in a half a million men? Why aren't they lined up on the Iranian border? Why is Bin Laden still free?

The danger IS obvious to me - always has been. But, talking about the danger, and DOING something about it are two different things. Bush tried to do something about a SIGNIFICANT danger, ON THE CHEAP. It didn't work. It had NO CHANCE to work. In my view, if you're not going to DO something about it, and we have not, it's better to stand aside.

This surge is too little and much too late.

excon

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now??? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.

excon
We were kicking butt in Vietnam up until the time Congress decided to defund the effort. We were doing it with counter -insurgency also .

The military learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. They came up with what has been called the Powell Doctrine. They decided they would not occupy the space they captured ;they would go in with massive force ;achieve a limited objective ,have an exit strategy before you even go in. They stopped training for counter-insurgency for the most part .

This doctrine actually served well in the limited nature of Operation Desert Storm . But again the objective was limited ;push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but in the end leave the enemy standing .

The problem is that our enemies went to school and studied the lessons of Desert Storm. They correctly determined that they could never defeat us in a conventional war. Therefore they were not going to fight us in one. They opted instead to create an asymmetrical battle field .

The military planned for this war as a modified version of Desert Storm and was unprepared for counter-insurgency operations . Blame whoever you wish for that . It was a decision they made 25 years ago. It took time to realize the battle plan was not working and needed revising . It also took time to find the General who was up to the task.

This is not unusual either . Lincoln went through many Generals and many battle plans before he chose Grant and Sherman. The Civil War was lost almost until the fall of 1864 .But in the end it was won.

Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:

Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.


I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.



Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally:

"Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so."



I answered: George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already. My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?



Bobby

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.
Isn't Democracy just awful, just think what America could accomplish if it were a Fascist Nationalist Government, and public opinion didn't matter.

And in south central Asia, we're confronted with an enemy that has many faces and many nationalities: they don't wear uniforms; they have no discernable military assets, only militants that are brainwashed or "kidnapped" into believing their death by any means serves a higher purpose. And they realize, this war doesn't have the public intestinal fortitude to obtain what is necessary to declare victory.

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

By all reports, we're not doing that anymore.


Do I believe that he’s really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

I never said you were a , Excon. That wasn't my point. My point is that you experienced Vietnam, and that experience is leading you top believe that that is how the USA fights all wars. It's not that you don't want t win, it's that you don't think the government wants us to win. This isn't an issue of you being a coward, it is an issue of your experience dictating your position. Which is fine. We all make decisions based on our experience.

My experience has just been different from yours. My experience includes Granada, Nicaragua, and the Gulf War. I believe that if the people and the government are behind the military operation, we CAN win and we WILL win. In your experience, the people and the government simply CAN'T get behind the military, and therefore we will lose. I disagree. I think they can get behind the war, and the war is therefore, winable. And given the trend-shift over the past 6 months in the polls with regard to support of the war in Iraq and support for pulling out of Iraq, I'd say that things are beginning to shift back towards support of the war. People like the results they are seeing from the surge. They are making that fact known. And as a result, some of those who supported a pullout are now backtracking from their statements. For the first time, the pressure is shifting toward THEM to stay the course, not on Bush to change it.

Clearly the support for operations (for kicking a$$) will be there is the plan is effective and is working. So far, the surge is working. Ergo, the support is growing.

Elliot

Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.


We know the bases were already closing. The point is where some of these people may end up. My brother is located (stationed) in Germany, but currently is in his third mission in Iraq under the current President. His base will close I think 2008, and his MOS personnel will be coming back to the States. But this doesn't mean that others will not be going abroad, nor that that the future plans don't call for this eventually. Personally I do hope we give more attention to detail at home. Thankfully Bush can't be elected three times.



Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.


Yes. But Saddam was not a child, he was the leader of a country that we did business with and we were willing to comply.


Bobby

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

Yes. It's how we are trying to correct this misjudgment. I was for bombing their govt back to the stone ages. But Bush chose his way and I think excon makes an excellent point.



Bobby

I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.

We at least agree the reports shouldn't be dismissed, and presumably the battle lines drawn beforehand as Kerry and co. are doing.


Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally...

Bobby, forgive me, but when someone makes a statement like "George Bush needs to surrender his ideology" I think that's a candidate for further clarification before continuing the discussion... especially since this was my post to begin with :cool:


Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already.

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.


My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?

Bobby, I don't patrol these posts that carefully. I had not seen your follow up and had no idea what "second post in consective days" I had allegedly avoided until now. Cut a guy some slack there will you? I will most certainly take a crack at it. :)

...But Bush chose his way...Bobby

Bush had his hands tied by lack of public and congressional support.

They're more concerned with opnion polls and their prospects of re-election than getting this important task completed without unnecessary losses.

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.

Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.

That's a big help there NK, it only strengthens our point. :D

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.




Steve, as you know, I'm originally from Texas and love you like a Dallas Cowboy brother. Elliot and I have disagreed, respectfully, on how the Iraqi war campaign has been executed for years now. I don't know that we would be leaving Iraq anytime soon. In fact, I never said that we would. Kerry may have ideas otherwise and sure he may be trying to represent the Democrats publicly, but to be quite honest with you, since Kerry is not running for election I don't pay much attention to his personal agendas. To the mans credit though, I do think last election he got a bad rap concerning his Vietnam service compared to Bush, that did less. But overall, I see Kerry as another very wealthy politician with lips moving to fan a breeze. Most of the Democrat hopefuls are for immediate re-deployment in phases, not immediate full pull-out. The Republicans, with exception of a few, want to gradually cede the govt control over the Iraqis than eventually leave. I would think, and I'm guessing, that the majority of plans, either way would call for leaving some bases in place.

To suggest that the critics are wrong for not supporting Bush's view is a misconception. Many of these people are just as patriotic and privileged to disagree with the President, as I. Of course there are always a few that lose the respect for the Presidents position of authority, but not all critics disagree with the President for the same reasons. The Jihads challenge is perplexing and one that I've put much thought into since it goes beyond a few countries. We still have not found Bin Laden and we can't be everywhere. I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.



Bobby

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.


I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby
The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.

The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.


That's another good issue. One that excon brought up awhile back. I don't recall the exact wording but to paraphrase: How much has the President, since being in office, changed the power structure of decisions to fit his own agenda, or likewise Congress, for that matter?



Bobby

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby
You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.

That's another good issue. One that Excon brought up awhile back. I don't recall the exact wording but to paraphrase: How much has the President, since being in office, changed the power structure of decisions to fit his own agenda, or likewise Congress, for that matter?!



Bobby
Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don’t see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.

You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.

My friend, then you better mention that to every candidate that's vying for the highest office in our land. Each individual: Republican, Democrat, and Independents, thinks they can either change the current war campaign with redeployment phases, gradually cede the government back to the Iraqis, or have the power to stay the course. Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.



Bobby

My friend, then you better mention that to every candidate that's vying for the highest office in our land. Each individual: Republican, Democrat, and Independents, thinks they can either change the current war campaign with redeployment phases, gradually cede the government back to the Iraqis, or have the power to stay the course. Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.



Bobby
They talk a good game, but once they're inside the circle, it's a different picture.
Mighty bold claims until they know the facts that are the reality.

Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don't see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.


No! There's nothing new on the horizon. Brand "A" and Brand "B" have been out for themselves and/or to tow the party line for decades now. That's why I have a problem with most politicians and why I have no problem voting Independent. Our nation refers to it as, "Politics as Usual." But even though they are aware of the fact, they are still the same sheep being led to the voting booth with the same results, although different poisens.



Bobby

They talk a good game, but once they're inside the circle, it's a different picture.
Mighty bold claims until they know the facts that are the reality.


Oh most of them know the rules. But I've often said the President runs 49 States. Nevada has our own separate red hot-line phone in the White House and when it rings the President runs to answer, "Hi Big Money, Can I help you." :)




Bobby

No! There's nothing new on the horizon. Brand "A" and Brand "B" have been out for themselves and/or to tow the party line for decades now. That's why I have a problem with most politicians and why I have no problem voting Independent. Our nation refers to it as, "Politics as Usual." But even though they are aware of the fact, they are still the same sheep being led to the voting booth with the same results, although different poisens.



Bobby
It has been said that there were times when the choice of the voters on Election Day was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; however, do you believe it is always that way?

It has been said that there were times when the choice of the voters on Election Day was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; however, do you believe it is always that way?

No. For example: if we base our votes solely on the Iraqi issue, our current international relations and home security, I do think that this election will provide the mass choices of varying views. But this is the exception to the rule since we have a war campaign continuing during an election year. Of course there are a many other issues that bring mostly failed promises. However, outside of that until we get more voices into the public fray and part of the National debates, for many people it will be "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" or the lesser of two evils again.


Bobby

No. For example: if we base our votes solely on the Iraqi issue, our current international relations and home security, I do think that this election will provide the mass choices of varying views. But this is the exception to the rule since we have a war campaign continuing during an election year. Of course there are a many other issues that bring mostly failed promises. However, outside of that until we get more voices into the public fray and part of the National debates, for many people it will be "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" or the lesser of two evils again.


Bobby
I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.

Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don’t see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.
The foundations he has undermined are the constitutional guarantees that the government may not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process of law.

The foundations he has undermined are the constitutional guarantees that the government may not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process of law.


Good point and interesting subject. I found this article:

"Congress, Bush and The Real Constitutional Crisis

Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 01:09 PM

America is in the midst of an authentic constitutional crisis as the Bush Administration moves to reduce Congress to little more than an irrelevant focus group and achieve what no U.S. President has ever achieved: a true above-the-law presidency.

These are the stakes: Will the United States save what is left of its constitutional democracy by restoring checks and balances among the three branches of government?

When the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the White House by calling off the Florida recount in 2000, many pundits applauded the action because it allegedly headed off a constitutional crisis. That was a phony rationalization that disguised what is now apparent: the real post-Florida 2000 constitutional crisis is the Bush Administration's unprecedented, Constitution-destroying lust for power.

The fight should not be measured against partisan positioning for the 2008 elections. Democratic and Republican political consultants will view the crisis that way because that is their job. Consultants are hired to win elections, not save the Constitution. Congressional Democrats must look past the powerpoints of their consultants. So should Republicans, who are struggling to distance themselves from Bush's negatives without asking the White House for a divorce.

But, there is now no other choice. Bush's drive to place permanent barriers between the people and their government, to lift the presidency above all laws, must be stopped.

Earlier this week I wrote about the dangerous cultural narrative that frames Congress as an inept community. Our hero myths often include an inept community that must be saved by the lone hero. This cultural narrative has led to a broadly held view that Congress is just such a community.

For those Democrats and Republicans in Congress who remain captive to consultant myopia, I offer this observation. Political experts criticize Senator John Kerry for failing to adequately counter-attack the Swift Boaters. Kerry's mistake, however, was that his campaign behavior undermined his own mythic narrative, the narrative of a courageous Vietnam war hero. Voters who rejected Kerry did so not because they believed the Swift Boaters and were suspicious of his Vietnam valor, but because of the apparent lack of valor that was happening right before their eyes.

Congress is now being Swift Boated by the Bush Administration. Americans will judge the valor of Congress, not as presented in ads in 2008, but as witnessed in real time, right now. Polls are no doubt suggesting that voters want Congress to address health care reform and the deteriorating economy. A political fight with Bush over the constitutional balance of power will look like a distraction, like politics as usual, like so much partisan squabbling. Today, it seems that Congress is overcoming that fear and preparing for the fight. They are moving in the right direction with the subpoena of Karl Rove and the opening of a perjury investigation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We should applaud these actions, and pray for more.

The Bush gambit is to permanently derail progressive policy goals by building an impenetrable wall between the people and their government and by asserting ultimate and absolute presidential authority. These ambitions are made obvious by the Administration's actions: Bush's unprecedented veto threats; the obvious "we-don't-really-care-what-you-think" attitude of Gonzales during his committee testimony; the Administration's questioning Senator Hillary Clinton's patriotism when she asked for details of Bush's Iraq plans; the refusal to disclose details of the Administration's emergency government plan.

Even a temporary eviction from the White House beginning in 2009 would not deter the neoconservatives and their anti-democratic allies. A Democratic president will have her/his hands full cleaning up the Bush garbage. While a Democratic president would probably resist further steps along the above-the-law path, it's unlikely a president will willingly give up any power that has accrued to the presidency during the Bush reign. So, the right wing reasons, we'll just pick up in 2012 where we left off in 2008.

The federal courts, packed with conservative appointments, will also do what they can to establish permanent barriers between the American people and their government.

Congress has no choice but to destroy those barriers now. The crisis cannot be reduced to a messy or selfish partisan confrontation. Truth is, many Republicans are as interested as Democrats in saving our constitutional democracy. The further truth is, the stakes matter much, much more than any potential partisan consequences for either major party.

In the end, the battle for the future of America may make necessary the impeachment of a president who is very publicly moving to destroy our constitutional form of government. It may not seem the politically prudent thing to do. But this is a president who lied us into a war, who uses his pen to make laws (constitutionally reserved for Congress) through signing statements, who commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal to protect himself from scrutiny, who believes he has the right to declare anyone he wants an enemy combatant and then "disappear" that person the way we taught our tyrannical and thuggish client-state dictators to do during the Cold War. If these are not sufficient to justify a legal and constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, exactly what would a president have to do before we would impeach him?

Republicans and Democrats in Congress can look at our predicament and decide to save their own asses; Democrats running against Bush; Republicans running from Bush. That would be politics as usual.

Or, they can act fearlessly to save the country, and, despite what today's polls might tell them, earn the gratitude of voters who today might be wishing the nightmare will just come to an end. But the best way to end a nightmare is to wake up.

Congress can interrupt the narrative of its own ineptitude and restore the dignity and power of a people who are willing to govern themselves. But to do so, we must be awake to the real constitutional crisis that is at hand."


_____________________________________________


Bobby

Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.
Well, that's a right charitable way to put it, Bobby. Personally, I think he's a party boy who got in WAY over his head, let himself be bamboozled by a bunch of swaggering "big thinkers" into doing a series of very stupid things, and is now in a state of deep denial, trying to run out the clock so he can eventually blame his successor for the messes he's made. It's always worked for him before, maybe it will again.

I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.

Bobby

There are few who would disagree with that. However ,the homefront is not a military matter. Returning the troops home to defend the homefront is a strawman . There was a long thread about domestic use of troops and most agreed that even when they had a role their usage should be to a limited degree.

We can defend the borders and I think the national will is there to do so . I think the elected officials for the most part have ignored or misread the national will in this regard .





I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.

DC

This will serve as a part of a response to your follow-up posting about the political parties

Yes, the New Deal was a tipping point in the last century ,but I think the current and historically the differences in American political parties traces back to the debates of and about federalism the founders had . To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men . There was the Federalist Papers published by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay ,and there was also the lesser quoted anti-Federalist essays written by founders like Patrick Henry ,George Clinton ,and a few others like Richard Henry Lee . The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.

Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.

Bobby

The article you posted starts will a big fallacy that needs correction . I will comment on the rest of it later .

The Supreme Court did not appoint President Bush . He was elected . The Florida electors gave him a majority of the electoral college vote in 2000 . That is the constitutional system we have.

I disagreed with both Al Gore getting the Fla. Supreme Court involved in the election process and in the SCOTUS ruling on the case. I have no desire to rehash the many times in previous postings I showed that Bush would've won even if the endless recounts were allowed to continue .Suffice it to say that an independent group of news outlets did recounts of their own and their conclusion was that Bush had more votes then the final tally at the time that Fla. Sec State Harris ;using her proper role in the Fla. election system ,called off the recounts.

All both courts accomplished in their improper and unconstitutional role of arbitration was guarantee that any future national election will be bogged down by endless court challenges. We have seen that damage and delay the results of a few state elections already. The 2004 election almost had a similar situation in the Ohio count . The courts have guaranteed a big pay day for lawyers hired by the political parties but they have undermined our electoral system almost beyond repair . Bottom line... the courts have NO role in the electoral process .The founders were very clear that the States controlled the process.

For anyone wondering why I have contempt for the courts the above is a classic case . Also ;in case anyone is wondering... in 2000 I cast my vote for Ralph Nader [I live in NY so my vote was not really going to make a difference. I am still registered independent ]. I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action .

Edit . I will not comment on the rest .

To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men... The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.

Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.
Yes, it's good to be reminded of this. Politics has always been and always will be a rough and tumble undertaking by people who are utterly convinced that they're 100% RIGHT, but still usually manage to find a compromise that avoids bloodshed. When they fail to do so (as in, say, Iraq today) there is bloodshed, aka civil war.

I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action . I am completely nonplussed by this.

I guess it comes as a complete surprise ,but I am not alone . There are many of us who became Bush supporters after we saw his tremendous leadership following 9-11. I can point to someone like Christopher Hitchins as an example of someone who was a convert . Comedian Dennis Miller is anther prominent example.

Well, that's a right charitable way to put it, Bobby. Personally, I think he's a party boy who got in WAY over his head, let himself be bamboozled by a bunch of swaggering "big thinkers" into doing a series of very stupid things, and is now in a state of deep denial, trying to run out the clock so he can eventually blame his successor for the messes he's made. It's always worked for him before, maybe it will again.

Wow, I am always amazed that Bush can be smart clever, tenacious and sneaky enough to steal elections, rewrite the constitution in his favor, undermine our rights and have a stranglehold on congress while at the same time being an incompetent boob that couldn't find his a$$ without Karl Rove's help.

Wow, I am always amazed that Bush can be smart clever, tenacious and sneaky enough to steal elections, rewrite the constitution in his favor, undermine our rights and have a stranglehold on congress while at the same time being an incompetent boob that couldn't find his a$$ without Karl Rove's help.
I agree with your list of accomplishments, but of course, they weren't his alone. Presidents never seem to lack for help, however misguided their policies may be.

I agree with your list of accomplishments, but of course, they weren't his alone. Presidents never seem to lack for help, however misguided their policies may be.
What would it have been like if Al Gore had won the Presidency? Can you imagine it?