Just Say No To Troop Surge, It’s Up To Congress To Stop The Madness
The Bush administration made disastrous mistakes in battling the insurgency and running the occupation
At this point, with Iraq in the midst of a civil war/insurgency/unbridled lawlessness, it’s not about winning the war, but saving face for the president.
In his latest and most cynical move to save his reputation, the commander-in-chief is going to send another 20,000 combat troops to Baghdad.
Thousands more of our finest and brightest dispatched to the hellish chaos of Baghdad, to improve Bush’s place in history books.
A commander-in-chief who was AWOL for a good stretch of his stint as a National Guard pilot, would be well advised to listen to his generals. Most of his commanders advised the president against sending more troops to Iraq.
But instead of listening to his generals, Dubya has replaced them with “yes men” who will endorse and implement his “surge”.
Enough American soldiers have died in vain, it’s time to stop the madness. America spoke loud and clear in the midterm elections: End the war! Bring our troops home!
The Democratic-controlled Congress must stop Bush — by any means necessary.
I would prefer for Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, but I know they don’t have the gonads for that.
Old liberal warhorse, Sen. Edward Kennedy, plans to introduce legislation to forbid Bush from sending additional troops to Iraq without congressional approval, by using the appropriation power. In other words, Congress, shouldn’t fund Bush’s madness.
History will judge the presidency of George W. Bush as a colossal failure. If Congress doesn’t put a stop to the madness, history will judge them as a bunch of cowards.
I write a weekly column for a small town newspaper in Virginia, and I also write for several Web sites. Please leave a comment or send me an email at: rreyes4966@aol.com | More from Robert Paul Reyes
Stumble It!
January 14th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Do you even know what “AWOL” means? If you obtain permission to do something or go somewhere, you’re not awol.
And exactly how could you call Teddy a “warhorse”? By your definition of “awol” he was awol. He spent his tour eating snails and chugging wine in Paris. Not to mention, he tried to avoid being drafted several times (as did John Kerry, but not George Bush), but when he failed, he joined up and used his family’s pull to get a cushy posting. It’s a shame he didn’t use that pull to learn how to drive, when not to drive (drunk), and the morals to at least try to save someone drowning (especially when it’s your fault).
And by the way, the reason the Femocrats won’t try to impeach Bush is because they at least have enough sense to know they would never win a majority again. Showing their true insanity to the public is not a good thing (for them).
January 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Bush and Kennedy are both polarizing figures; leave the personalities out of it and any sane person will come to the conclusion that the war is irrevocably lost and we must bring our troops home now.
January 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Where do I begin?
Impeachment is for crimes (like perjury), not for a difference of opinion or plans. If that were the benchmark more than half of our Presidents would have faced impeachment hearings.
Mistakes were most definitely made. I was still in the Air Force during the beginning of the Iraq conflict and I blame many of the problems on the fact that we did not have enough troops in our first wave.
Rumsfeld had a dream of shaping our military into a lighter and smaller but still more capable force during his tenure. I believe he wanted to use this as a showcase for this concept. We should have followed standard doctrine and gone in with about 300,000 or more instead, but that is easy to say long after the fact.
I can say with certainty that several top commanders were worried about this, but in every conflict we have ever had there are always a few that worry a strategy won’t work.
As for all of the AWOL stuff, please!! And spare me any documents you might have to prove it.
Kerry’s couple of months of service are a joke. He spent 10 times that much time accusing the military of acting like the hordes of Khan. 99% of our military absolutely despise him. He’s right up there with Jane Fonda.
And if you want to talk about history judging Presidents look no further than Carter who will be compared to Harding for all eternity and Clinton who looks worse as every year goes by.
Here’s a suggestion for your next article. What did the Clinton administration screw up so badly that Sandy Burglar was willing to risk prison to cover up it up? To rob history and the people of their government’s documents is deplorable.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Patriot wrote:
“And if you want to talk about history judging Presidents look no further than Carter who will be compared to Harding for all eternity and Clinton who looks worse as every year goes by.”
From Wikipedia:
An ABC News poll about presidential greatness, taken 16-20 February 2000, asked 1012 adults nationwide, “Who do you think was the greatest American president?” [8]
Abraham Lincoln (19%)
John Kennedy (17%)
Franklin Roosevelt (11%)
No opinion (10%)
Ronald Reagan (9%)
George Washington (8%)
Bill Clinton (7%)
Theodore Roosevelt (4%)
George H.W. Bush (4%)
Thomas Jefferson (3%)
Harry Truman (2%)
Richard Nixon (2%)
Jimmy Carter (1%)
Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
A Gallup poll about presidential greatness, taken 7-10 February 2005, asked 1008 adults nationwide, “Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?” [11]
Ronald Reagan (20%)
Bill Clinton (15%)
Abraham Lincoln (14%)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (12%)
John F. Kennedy (12%)
Other/None/No opinion (5%)
George Washington (5%)
George W. Bush (5%)
Jimmy Carter (3%)
Harry Truman (2%)
Theodore Roosevelt (2%)
Thomas Jefferson (2%)
George H.W. Bush (1%)
Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
Richard Nixon (1%)
A Washington College poll about presidential greatness, taken 11 February 2005, asked 800 adults nationwide, “Thinking about all the presidents of the United States throughout history to the present, who would you say was America’s greatest president?”[10]
Abraham Lincoln (20%)
Ronald Reagan (15%)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (12%)
John F. Kennedy (11%)
Bill Clinton (10%)
Other/Don’t Know (9%)
George W. Bush (8%)
George Washington(6%)
Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
Dwight Eisenhower (3%)
Jimmy Carter (2%)
Thomas Jefferson (2%)
Richard Nixon (1%)
John Adams (
January 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Any sane person should come to the conclusion that we can’t lose this war without giving up on the future of western civilization. Not that that matters to RPR.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The war is already hopelessly lost. President Bush defined victory as establishing a democratic government in Iraq that’s able to sustain and defend itself. A government that would be friendly to the United States and an enemy of terrorism.
Iraq will never have anything resembling a democracy. The puppet government holding power, will crumble as soon as we leave Iraq, whether we leave in 6 months or 6 years.
Thanks to Bush’s misadventure, Iraq is now a bastion of terrorism.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Patriot said,
“Impeachment is for crimes (like perjury), not for a difference of opinion or plans. If that were the benchmark more than half of our Presidents would have faced impeachment hearings.”
http://www.avoiceforfreedom.com/impeach.html
Why should Bush be impeached?
Election fraud:
The Supreme Court ruled that ballots not be counted because “the counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view (Scalia wrote the 5/4 majority decision), threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election.”
Translated into english this means that the court disallowed votes to be counted because they might show that Bush lost! This scam was perpetrated upon the citizens of the US by a partisan court in collusion with Bush. The relationships between Bush and the so-called “Justices” on the court should be investigated, as well as the relationship between Bush and the many election irregularities which occurred in Florida during the 2000 election. The fact that Bush’s brother is governor of that state should not be overlooked in this investigation.
Influence peddling:
The relationship between Bush and ENRON, as well as other large corporations, bears investigation. Within months of Bush’s inauguration, the entire energy plan of the country was suddenly pouring increased billions into the coffers of these large energy corporations, companies Bush has had business dealings with for decades. The administration then, through Vice-President Cheney, sought to hide the influences which oil company and other executives had in forming the Bush energy plan. In addition Bush has gone out of his way to change or sidestep environmental regulations in order to increase profits for large corporations. All this while CEOs are raking in record billions in salaries and stock options while the average US citizen is seeing her/his wages decrease, jobs are being lost to low-paying and slave labor in other countries.
Violation of oath of office:
Bush is not defending the constitution, he is attempting to bypass it. Under his authority, Bush’s Attorney General has done more to set back the progress of civil liberties and rights than any other AG since McCarthyism. The Bush Administration advocates US citizens spying on each other a la Orwell’s “1984.”
BUSH AWOL:
Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, but he skipped out on the last 18 months of his tour of duty, and was never prosecuted. Most people end up in a military prison for doing something like that.
Those are some examples of why Bush should be impeached. Impeachment would mean a thorough investigation leading to a trial.
The Republicans began to investigate Clinton, and set the impeachment process in motion, the day Clinton was inaugurated. They didn’t need to have any reasons other than that they were mad they (Bush Sr.) had lost the election. They spent millions investigating and eventually impeaching Clinton and they had nothing. They lost their case. The Democrats should be as aggressive in investigating and prosecuting Bush. I am sure that Bush would be found guilty of numerous criminal offenses.
Impeach Bush
January 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Thanks for the great data. You can find a poll to prove anything. I think for myself. Polls mean little.
Fact is only a couple lunatic percent mentioned Carter and you can always count on a few yahoos who can only remember the name of the last president when asked for a name.
When considering Presidents and their legacy I trust my own opinions and those of students of history to provide a good analysis.
You know as well as everybody else that we all keep learning more and more about the corruption of the Clinton administration.
Nice job of skirting the real points of my response.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
So now we’ll start the election stuff huh?
That has been covered over and over again. Time Magazine did a thorough report about two years later. They counted every possible vote that could be counted for Gore and even in that scenario Gore lost.
How come I don’t hear liberals condeming Gore for his motion that invalidated over 10,000 absentee votes from military members overseas in that election? I’ll tell you why. Becasue they know the vast majority of military members are conservative.
The Libs cry was “let every vote FOR GORE be counted”.
January 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
RPR Said: “Impeachment would mean a thorough investigation leading to a trial.”
No. The reason the Democrats don’t launch a thorough investigation is because they know their pathetic evidence would fall apart if placed under scrutiny.
And don’t talk to me about Military Justice. I spent an entire career in the Air Force JAG department and I ran a Military Justice Division when all of those accusations were made.
I reviewed copies of the records myself when they were released. He wasn’t the most skilled pilot by a long shot, but he showed up for duty when he was required to. He even volunteered for additional duty one time.
He wasn’t Gung Ho, but he met the required point amounts for the time.
Do you really think Dan Rather would have used forged documents if the real ones proved anything?
January 14th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
BTW. I went to your link and the case cited by your Vermont liberal buddies is miss cited and referred. Their argument is faulty on the facts alone.
Don’t they have any good wacko lawyers in Vermont? We could loan them a few thousand from here in California if they need them.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Halo,
You say Kerry and Kennedy both tried to get out of being drafted… Unlike GWB. BUT… Kerry went to Vietnam, and came home with medals.
Where Was George?
Not in Nam.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
It’s interesting how you liberals, truly, all sound alike. First you throw a bone to any conservatives out there by offering a few transparent platitudes about the US armed forces being the “bravest and most disciplined” in the world. Then you contradict this phony sentiment by stating that winning the war was easy and that they merely defeated “rag tag minions”, which generally is an easy task that even the French could handle. So, in essence you are saying that the bravest and most displined military in the world had an easy time of it in 2003, is that correct?
Immediatly afterwards you start crying because the bravest and most disciplined you so admire now have something tough on their hands, i.e., putting down an insurgency. However, Robert, the fact is that if the president would just quit reading the New York Times editorials before breakfast, and unleash the troops you only pretend to admire, it would become all too evident who would really own the peace in Iraq. A little hint, it wouldn’t be the “mighty Mahdi army.”
The democrats are so afraid that Bush just might do just pull it off after all that they are publicly threatening to defund the effort and leave 20,000 troops short of bullets just to spite the president. Now there’s some patriotic blood for you, and you have the nerve to bring up impeachment.
Actually,the US military has been fighting a pc war since Saddams fall and if Bush has one fault it’s been letting it go on this long. Bush had the momentum when he killed Zarqawi(sp), why he stopped there is a mystery. He needs to do some head cutting himself, starting with that little Islamic garden dwarf with the rotten teeth, Mooky al Sadr. Then he needs to start shooting any Iranians found to be helping the Shiites. If Iraq is lawless it’s because the sheriff (US forces) is forced to take orders from the lawyers in Washington who won’t let him shoot the bad guys.
And why are you so quick, Bob, to declare defeat? Don’t you at least want our boys to give it one more go? And who says they died in vain, you? What conceit! What arrogance!
It’s not so bad when Cindy Sheehan cries like a bitch, because she is one. I just can’t stand it when the men on the left imitate her. It’s not becoming.
January 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
An additional 20 or 21 thousand troops is way too little, way too late.
In order to put down an insurgency, end the civil war, establish law and order, secure Iraq’s borders with Syria and Iran, you would need to at least double the 140,000 troops we have in Iraq.
Then we would need to put a brutal, ruthless dictator in charge, say someone like Saddam, in order to keep the country from dividing into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni mini-states.
Our soldiers will die in vain –Â it’s a lost cause!
January 14th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Kyle said,
“Halo,
You say Kerry and Kennedy both tried to get out of being drafted… Unlike GWB. BUT… Kerry went to Vietnam, and came home with medals.
Where Was George?
Not in Nam.”
************************
He was AWOL: Absolutely Wasted On Liquor
January 14th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I repeat – RPR, you have no idea what awol means. Bush was given permission to help out a campaign in Alabama, and he did. He was a fighter pilot, and those of us who actually have fought (and been wounded )for America have no problems with his service. What’s the odds you’ve fought for America, Robert?
As for you Kyle, Kerry was in Viet Nam 3 1/2 months. Most of us were there a year or two. We didn’t have the pull to get us out, nor the cowardice to try. While I didn’t know him, I knew plenty of his type – little cowards who shoot unarmed teenagers (who were running away) in the back, then cry about a band-aid wound (that the doctor who treated him says was a band-aid wound) until they give him a purple heart to shut him up. He’s a coward, and a gigolo.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Robert, you are doing your best to prove liberals are liars. You people talk about how people can’t help their situation (oh, say with substance abuse), but anyone who actually defeats their addiction you taunt them about it. Really adult there, dontcha’ think? And to top it all off, you people love (practicing) drunkards like Ted Kennedy and you laud them as though they were angels. His nephew gets busted and goes into rehab (for the umpteenth time) and you people cut him complete slack. You liberals have absolutely no honor, and you are too childish to even understand what that means.
P.S. As I said before (and you totally ignored before), you’re doing your best to prop up the enemy’s morale. If we do lose this war (and we could, but we don’t have to) it will be YOUR FAULT! Well, yours and the Liberal Democrats, and their other toadies, the MSM (you know – what you dream of being).
January 14th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Oh, I almost forgot: you said – Iraq will never have anything resembling a democracy.
Your racism is showing again. I guess you think them Ay-rabbs are just too plain dumb, huh?
January 14th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Squiggy wrote:
“Oh, I almost forgot: you said – Iraq will never have anything resembling a democracy.
Your racism is showing again. I guess you think them Ay-rabbs are just too plain dumb, huh?”
It’s not their ethnicity that is a stumbling block, it’s their religion. Islam and democracy are not compatible.
Iraqis have no history, and no desire for democracy. They will NEVER have a democracy, that I guarantee.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Try this on for size Robert:
The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush’s fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.Newsweek
On the other hand Kerry tried to avoid service with a student deferral but was refused by the draft board:
The Harvard Crimson newspaper followed a youthful Mr Kerry in Boston as he campaigned for Congress for the first time in 1970. In the course of a lengthy article, “John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress”, published on February 18, the paper reported: “When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.”Revealed: how ‘war hero’ Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty
and this, it seems our little Democrat firebrand had no desire to do hazardous duty:
“”I didn’t really want to get involved in the war,” Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”
But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed — and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.”a href=http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml>”Whoops, I screwed up!”
So what we do know is that Bush wanted combat duty and was turned down due to the lack of experience and outdated fighters and Kerry wanted a cushy safe position and wound up in the s***. Three quick self-inflicted wounds in 31/2 months later he was back home where he could safely bash his fellow soldiers.
Now that’s what I call a man of honor.
January 14th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
As for
additional 20 or 21 thousand troops is way too little, way too late.”
They are scheduled to be deployed in Baghdad. There are currently about 9000 American troops in Baghdad so this will in effect be quadrupling the number of American troops.
“In order to put down an insurgency, end the civil war, establish law and order, secure Iraq’s borders with Syria and Iran, you would need to at least double the 140,000 troops we have in Iraq.”
Wow General Reyes, where did you get your military command training, Westpoint? Maybe OCS AIT and US Army Command and General Staff College?
Oh wait! I bet you pulled that number out of your…thin air.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Will Malven, I don’t expect you to listen to armchair General Reyes, but maybe you will listen to these authorative voices:
“Senior army officers in Iraq have told me we need more troops to do this mission,” said the retired general, who asked not to be named because he does business with the Pentagon. “They are not bemoaning. Not griping. It’s just what they feel they need.”
He said the most-often repeated figure is six to eight more brigades, or more than 50,000 MORE TROOPS.
From Netscape Politics:
1999 simulation: 400,000 troops needed in Iraq
Politics – A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now. And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
***********************************
The number of troops needed to get the job done in Iraq varies widely, but most experts agree that 21,000 additional troops is a sick joke.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Will Malven wrote:
“As for additional 20 or 21 thousand troops is way too little, way too late.
They are scheduled to be deployed in Baghdad. There are currently about 9000 American troops in Baghdad so this will in effect be quadrupling the number of American troops.”
Baghdad is a city of 6 million souls. There are competing Shiite factions, roving bands of criminals, Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists. Guns are as plentiful as copies of the Koran. The Iraqi soldiers have proven themselves to be cowardly and ineffectual. 20 thousands American combat soldiers won’t make any difference.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Comment deleted. Off topic.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Roger Paul Reyes: In message 23 you have created URLs that display the text of the URL. As the URLs are extremely long, this entire discussion has become unreadable. Would you mind editing the URLs so that only a short text is visible while still linking to the site?
i.e. [a href=http://reallylongurl.com]short description[/a]
If you replace the square brackets above with angle brackets, you can create URLs which don’t mess up your blog.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:26 am
oops, last post should begin “Robert Paul Reyes”.
No offense intended.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Dr Damage: I am severly HTML-challenged. Thanks for your tip. I followed your instructions still couldn’t get it to work.
January 15th, 2007 at 4:56 am
RPR, your opening paragragh is a mishmash of muddled thought and defeatism.
“President George W. Bush may be a fundamentally decent man, but his refusal to accept defeat in Iraq has led him to make fundamentally immoral choices.America has the bravest and most disciplined army in the world , and in a short time we defeated Saddam’s rag tag minions. But winning the war was easy, the impossible part is winning the peace.”
Bush was not elected to head up defeat. It is his job to refuse defeat. Any fool can give up. As the Chief of the Armed Forces it is his job to prosecute the war to the best of his ability, not run away.
You give sychophantic adulation of an army with little understanding of anyone elses armed forces. To describe it as the bravest and most disciplined in the world is simple ignorance and hubris – and entirely unecessary. Praising is not supporting it. Most of the troops over in Iraq are sadly lacking in the sort of training, equipment and strategies needed to clear the situation quickly. They, like the British did in NI, are having to learn as they go.
Winning was not ‘easy’, it was superbly done with a huge and intelligent effort, backed by the most modern weaponry.
Winning the peace is something very few armies in any age has managed well. It is not a function of armed forces to ‘win the peace’, but to win the war.
Nevertheless, the armed forces – all involved in the allied effort – are doing pretty well.
You seem to think that wars can be won with few casualties. In the past few years of this massive endeavour, 3000 troops have given their lives. In the battle of the Somme, 20,000 died in the first DAY. Get some perspective. As far as wars go, the losses have been miniscule.
Look at reports other than what the American public gets. Listen to better soldiers than you are used to. Try Gen Lamb. He is the Brit i/c. His record is impeccable (CO of 22 SAS – undoubtedly the best soldiers in the world).
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/DispatchesFromBaghdadASoldiersViewOnIraq.htm
You say, “Enough American soldiers have died in vain”. Well they certainly will have died in vain if your counsel is adopted.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Amfortas wrote:
“You seem to think that wars can be won with few casualties. In the past few years of this massive endeavour, 3000 troops have given their lives. In the battle of the Somme, 20,000 died in the first DAY. Get some perspective. As far as wars go, the losses have been miniscule.”
************************
Soldiers die, that’s an unescapable consequence of war. I agree that 3,000 soldiers killed, in a war of that magnitude is a very small figure.
I am not against the war because we are suffering causalities; I’m appalled because we are suffering causalities in a war that we can’t win, indeed in a war that we have already lost.
January 15th, 2007 at 6:05 am
When you quote someone who agrees with you, it is invariably something like “Senior army officers in Iraq have told me we need more troops to do this mission,†said the retired general, who asked not to be named because he does business with the Pentagon.” Why do these “senior army officers” and “the retired general” never give their names? Is it because they are made up out of thin air?
And, General Reyes, how can you say we’ve already lost? Can you prove it? I know you’re trying your best to help us lose (you and the Femocrats, and their bfb’s the MSM), but how can you prove we are losing? My co-worker (who just got back from Faluja), and my son-in-law (who just got back from Baghdad) say otherwise.
January 15th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Rob, history can tell us many lessons. During WW11 a significant portion of France was self-administered by Nazi sympathisers, the Vichy. They had a strong hand in hampering the allies as we, Brits, Americans, Canadians, etc, (the same old mob of fall guys) fought our way across Europe. Just like the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq. They also were active as an anti-resistance, fighting the French, their neighbours, people in the same town, village, street, who were trying to liberate their country with our help. Just like the people in Iraq. Thankfully, we didn’t heed the voices saying ‘give up, it isn’t worth it’. And there were plenty of voices saying we had done enough, that the war was unwinnable, we should leave the French to their fate.
At the end of the war in Europe France was in a similar state as Iraq is now. Lots of reprisals, hundreds of thousands murdered. The murder of collaborators went on for over ten years. The destruction was considerably worse of course. Mainly from allied attacks rather than german occupation. Things were so bad that years later, well after ‘Peace’ was declared, The French Prime Minister asked the British Minister of the day, Anthony Eden, to allow France to merge with Britain, become part of Great Britain. He was turned down, but he persisted and suggested that France be allowed to join the British Commonwealth and have the Queen as the French Head of State. France was in dire straights right into the 60s.
(These facts by the way are generally unknown and only coming to light now, as the 60 year rule on British Cabinet documents allow the release of things that were kept secret).
Wars and their aftermaths are messy. Defeatists will always be around. Some even try to give their whole damn country away! Don’t join them, Paul.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Robert, FYI:
the correct html for posting a link is:
short name
You have to enclose the url in quotation marks.
Cheers
January 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Dang I used the code too well.
example is my last link which is messed up.
a href=http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml>â€Whoops, I screwed up!â€
It should have been entered as
[left carot]a href=”http://entire url”[right carot]short name
replace left carot with
January 15th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Sorry, last attempt.
after the short name, put /a between left and right carrots
January 15th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Well chalk one up to the calendar. I am actually in somewhat agreement with Reyes today.
I was very against this invasion at the beginning when the majority of our country was for it (note: this is, and never has been a war).
When most of the country turned against it several years later I became more for it as I took the notion that because we had already made the big mistake in the first place, we need to see it through.
Now I’ve done a complete 360 and feel we need to just get our people the hell out of there. Screw the consequences.
The current Iraqi government has certainly proven there blood-thirsty enough to take care of there population in a manner they see fit.
My reason for this 360. With the recent handling of executions and past reports of torture houses by the current Iraqi government it has become abundantly clear they are no better than the regime we ousted.
One ting regarding that poll of best presidents. I am very surprised to see Dwight D. Eisenhower so low on the list.
He was a very smart and a visionary man. He saw and warned us in his last Presidential Address to never allow what he called the “Military Industrial Complex” to get too much power.
Its a shame we didn’t do a very good job at that.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am
If you follow this thread, and try to keep in mind what the original article and proposition were, it becomes apparent why our discourse in this country has lost its relevance and its ability to stay on point.
The constant, “my guy went to Nam, my guy was in the Nat. Guard”, “your guy lied to a grand jury, your guy took a bribe”, etc. and then these Hannity and Colms moments actually get tied into the debate at hand!
Regardless where your beliefs reside, is it fair to say that we need simply state the problem and , using the actual circumstances TODAY, debate the solutions? Ted Kennedy and his son, and their affairs with bridges and Ambien have so little to do with this its laughable. Being a cheerleader for your side does not equate to discourse. Later there can be time for the kids to scream “he started it!” but wouldn’t it be nice if the adults tried in earnest to sort it out first?
I hate to admit, but I take more of RPR’s side here, it is Islam that is not compatible with our touchy feely vision for middle east democracy. 6 days or 6 years from now, we leave and the leader du jour will be dragged through the streets within hours while some Al Sadr wanna be takes his (temprary) place in the palace.
Noonan’s column the other day was pretty good on this, and she finally made the point that the notion of Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists if we leave is silly. It was a haven, it is a haven, and it will be a haven, and Iraqi haven or not, it does not slow the terrorists. They can rent a temporary office in Des Moines and sit at a proper conference table and plan attackes.
But the other contention really has built in double speak. There are those, myself included, who have felt we should take the gloves off and shoot to kill, use overwhelming force, etc. etc. We all know that what we are saying means a lot more civilian casualties and we are OK w/ that, its a condition of war after all, correct? I subscribe to this theory wholeheartedly, and agree with the “look at Dresden” analogies.
BUT we, those on the right who would gladly watch that strategy unfold, grow indignant at the idea of civilian deaths in the chaos that follows our withdrawal. “Why they’s be slaughtering weach other” we say, thousands killed. I’m guilty of that justification previously. Then it occured to me, am I saying that the casualties of innocents are ok if its us managing the chaos but if militias are killing in the streets, sans American soldiers, its an atrocty?
Oh, the numbers, the magnitude you say, would be much greater w/out us there. So now we’ve entered the realm of the subjective, a dangerous place indeed, whjere we decide that XXX,XXX dead in our gloves off agression is ok because X,XXX,XXX in a post U.S. presence bloodbath is unacceptable? Does no one but me feel a tad uncomfortable with those opinions?
Make a case for the surge, and staying , etc, etc., but leave off the terrrosts haven, and the “killing fields” arguments…they are lame.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Conservatives, please don’t look at the Iraq situation through the prism of your political idealogy.
A sober assessment of Iraq sees chaos, sectarian strife, banditry and tribalism.
Only a huge influx of troops, with a shoot to kil mentality, will bring law and order. But then we would have to stay in Iraq forever or install a ruthless dictator.
Iraq is a hopeless cause — period!
January 15th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Physician heal thyself.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
And of equal profundity…
“Shop and compare before you buy? Briliiant!”
January 16th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Robert, you asked for it you got it. Here is a link to Thomas Sowell, and he gives it the way you asked for it.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011607.php3
We haven’t yet lost anything, but we still could. Do you want us to win?
January 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Boy.
It sure must be a cold day in hell as I’m actually backing Reyes on this one.
Squiggy asks “Do you want us to win?”
Win What Squiggy?????????
Win the war? There has been no official war declared by our government.
The whole “War on Terror” is a sham. Anyone with an sense has always known that.
The War on Terror is simply a convenience for the Military Industrial Complex. It allows them, or our government (pretty much one in the same) to invade ANYONE without officially declaring war on ANYONE. The only justification needed for us to send in troops is to say that so-and-so is a threat to the War on Terror. It doesn’t even have to be true. We would not be in Iraq is things were being based on the truth.
January 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
The military-industrial complex? You do realize using terms like this brands you a nutjob, don’t you?
And as for saying “we’re not at war”, that’s even worse. First off, it’s a difference without a distinction. Let’s call it a “holiday”. We’re “at holiday” with Islamofascist killers. Doesn’t really change anything does it? Second off, as for Anyone with an sense has always known that, next time you want to show of your sense of superiority, and claim people with sense MUST agree with you, check your spelling. Maybe you won’t seem so goofy.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Robert, are you not going to comment on the article by Mr. Sowell? How come anything that hurts what you say is ignored? Just in case, here it is again:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell011607.php3
January 19th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Sowell may be a brilliant economist, but he’s not a very good political editorialist.
However, I do agree with the last paragraph of his essay:
“That government is a product of our “nation-building” under the banner of a “democracy” for which Iraq may not have been ready.”
Iraq is not ready for democracy. Iraq will never be ready for democracy. Iraq has no desire for democracy.
Some peoples, usually because they are blinded by religion, prefer slavery over freedom.