State of the Union Address

Remove all ads!

Ragusa, there is a major difference between "discussion" and what the leaders of the Democratic party (and a few Republicans) have done on the floor of Congress and in front of the Press. They are doing everything they can to create division and make sure that the efforts in the Middle East are a failure as it is in their best interests, but it is not in the best interests of the American people. Seriously, if you need an example look at how excited Kennedy gets when he starts comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

This isn't just about winning or losing...the fact is that these statements are televised, politicized, and propagandized in the Middle East (as well as in the rest of the world). This encourages more people to assist the insurgents (resulting in the deaths of more US soldiers and Iraqi citizens), and damages our position with other leaders in the area who could assist us in resolving this issue. In my opinion the the only way that Iraq can be resolved is by getting the majority of the Middle Eastern countries to participate. Bush will never use this option, but whoever steps in after Bush is going to have to clean this mess up, and thanks to certain politicians (and in actuality this crosses the aisle) this will have to be done from a position that was weakened further than it needed to be by a bunch of politicians who were more concerned with their own careers and power base than anything else.

 

Darkwolf,
the insurgents surely have an eye at the US domestic audience, no doubt. But they would do that even without the Democrats being openly questioning a ... well, questionable policy.

With the argument 'dissent hurts the troops, so shut up' you can stall any discussion of presidential policies regarding war indefinitely, basically for as long as he only keeps bombing someone. Dissent and public discourse in America is a inalienable right. It's one of the things that made the country great.

I think the discussion about a 'right for public displays of dissent' at home is a American domestic issue and about posturing. The pro-Bush folks habitually heap blame on their opponents by accusing them of 'aiding the enemy'. Well, if that is so, they should be ready accept the blame for 'hurting the country' by insisting on an unwinnable war, much more as it has a good chance of extending to Iran soon.

To suggests the troops start to wail and waver (and I don't imply you in this Darkie) when Democrats are asking the Decider a few hard questions (which he habitually refuses to answer anyway) is an insult to their intelligence, and ultimately integrity.

Discussing the sense of a surge, or the sanity of bombing Iran is of an entirely different quality than marching in the streets behind Viet Cong and North Vietnamese flags chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh. The NLF are going to win", while other Americans were dying or being maimed under the US flag. The whole discussion is transparently phony.

What you see is IMO no factual debate but the beginning of right-wing historical revisionism of the "Stab in the Back" school. If the US lose in Iraq, it's because of the defaitist democrats who emboldened Iran - not because of Bush (and pigs fly). The "Stab in the Back" is the 'easy way out' explanation for something more complex, and more inconvenient. How about America's leaders rather seriously getting their grand strategy wrong? What about Bush's merry supporters? I see a palpable dishonesty in this.

The reality check has to start somewhere. As it is unlikely to happen in this Whitehouse, much less in its 'unitary executive' spirit ...

 

@ Darkwolf

I think it is disingenuous to say that the Democrats have a veto by having the ability to close the of "purse". You are essentially talking about the Democrats interdicting the supply lines of their own army. And that is not even guarenteed to end the war... Why would that end the war? Couldn't the soldiers instead be supported by other channels? The war in Iraq is not being fought with B-52's and cruise missles. The war requires bullets, gas, and food. Those things can be supplied by channels outside of King Hal. The supposed "veto" is not really such, as it is not absolute. It is not even close to absolute. In reality, as long as the chain-of-command remains intact, it is the Commander in Chief who is absolutely in charge...period. After 2008, since we will still be in Iraq then I am sure, it will be the responsibility of someone else to end the war.

Also...blaming politians for grande-standing is like blaming a doctor for washing his hands too often---it is a required task of the job; annoying, yes...but necessary.

The fact is that the problem in Iraq is the Iraqi people. They are not multi-culturists, peaceful, or secular. The nation is not even particulary sovereign, as their own inability to coalesce into a powerful whole has let their neighbors wield considerable power over them.

Sometimes you can't stop a bad thing from happening. America is not Superman, and we are better served by reason than by hope.

 

I almost spilled my coffee when I heared Cheney, with his usual gravitas, say in that interview with Wolf Blitzer that the Iraq invasion would have been fine and dandy, wouldn't it be for the Iraqi people.

Yo! Their fault. Alone. Nothing done wrong on part of the administration. Oh, these ingrates! Totally ****ed up by thirty years of Saddam's rule!

Who could have known the Iraqis would be so ... impertinent ... and dare refuse a perfumed prince like Chalabi fallen down from the heaven which's name is D.C.? A miracle I daresay! One would have expected that thirty years of dictatorship would have made them much more obedient.

 

Ragusa, lacking a silver platter, and only having their hands, a group could turn a given wooden plank into a few plates if that is what they wanted; instead they have decided it is better to destroy the plank so that the other person standing beside may not eat.

You are absolutely right in pointing out that we gave them a big ugly wooden plank...but they are the ones who chose to destroy it. I say let them eat the splinters.

 

I agree. The US should just see they screwed up, and for gods, and their own sake, leave, rather than, on top of it, dousing those splinters with petroleum and playing around with a lighter.

In any case, the fingerpointing towards about everbody else is just pathetic:

• It's Saddam
• It's the Baathists
• It's the Sunnis
• It's Islamofascism [sic]
• It's the Shia militias
• It's the media
• It's the democrats
• It's that the military didn't execute correctly
• It's the Iranians

It's NEVER pertinent or something you can be responsible for - like screwing up a plan that was ill-conceived in the first place.

And these clowns don't geven get laughed out of town.

 

Ragusa, you missed the point...but I know better than to try to make you understand, so I give up.

LNT

Nancy isn't living up to her promises.

No it isn't necessary, and the only reason it exists is because we stand for it. An impassioned plea should always lose out to a calm logical presentation...but the majority of people in this country aren't interested enough to pay attention, and an impassioned plea will always win out in that case.

Edit:

Believe it our not I agree with you on this. This is probably a revelation here, but there was a specific event in the forming of the Iraqi "Democracy" that changed my position on this.

Iraq is a powder keg, and it is inevitable at this point that it is going to blow up, and the killing that will occur in the upheaval will make Saddam's slaughter of Kurds and the civilian deaths in the war this far look small in comparison. I only hope it doesn't take on proportions of the Iraq/Iran war.

 

Well, you won't stand for it...

However, I will. I like to do things other than just watch my representative. For example, a couple days ago I went snowboarding. I beat the black diamond, although my entire left side is fairly certain I was defeated. Seriously, the wreck drew loud groans from spectators. Awesome.

But regardless, I need politians to loudly let me know what they are thinking.


Edit...

BTW, the whole Ragusa/Darkwolf meeting of minds...

Please do not agree again. I come here for enjoyment you both realize.

 

So a "new direction" sounds like an idea to you? Ok, should we go north, south, east or west? A "new direction" isn't and idea, it is an abstract. But then the government loves abstracts as it keeps us from ever being able to really hold their feet to the fire for their lack of effectiveness.


One of the behaviors of highly effective individuals (and organizations) is to make plans with measurable goals, set benchmarks, and verify progress...I guess there is a reason these people are in politics, because this is something no politician would ever want the American people to expect of them, and we never do.

 

I don't know...

It might not be such a bad thing that our government is somewhat ineffective. There is a great line in 'David Copperfield'... (tracking it down now)...

Ok, kind of a long quote, but great stuff...

...erm...page 232...ok

 

Baloney! Ted Kennedy made these comments on MtP this last Sunday, and I agree with him:

You said:

Give me a break with that kind of talk. George Bush and those who voted to put him into office knew what they were getting into. Now, all of you are complaining that the other side can't fix the mess. That's quite an argument you have there....

Again, I can't help but agree with Kennedy:

How much longer are you going to ask our country and its troops to suffer for this failed policy? And to be sure, when people are dying by the truckload over this lunacy, you are darn right we are critical.

You flatter yourselves....

 

Oh boy, a one year deadline...but without any teeth because we would re-evaluate at the end of the year...yep major revolutionary stuff that is.

No, I am complaining because the Democrats promised a new direction and then they aren't providing one.

Umm, did you not see the part above where I said I am in favor of pulling the troops out now?

Quit being a jerk Chandos...I am not a neocon and you know it.

Going back to something you said before:

Yes, it would be foolish for them to show their hand a present the supposed "new direction" before every bit of political advantage can be gained from it...after all, it is only American soldiers who are dying, and we all know the opinion the leading Democrats hold of our military.

For 8 years Democrats have been able to sit back and complain about every action and non-action taken by the Republicans without recourse as they always fell back on the "fact" that they were powerless...now the shoe is on the other foot with the Democrats controlling Congress and they are going to have to stand up to the same criticism. Fair is fair.

 

Darkwolf, by now you should have realized that everyone that isn't liberal is a neocon on these boards.

 

Even if one were to concede that point, the way Bush & his pet congress(es?) used the military the past five years or so suggests the Republicans feel similarly.

Not that that excuses anyone who feels that way, in either party.

 

Sorry, it seems you were misrepresensting yourself:

If it walks like a duck...

And it quacks like a duck...

Then it must be a....

 

Really? Well, how would you identify such a political species of duck? How about Fred Barnes, Fox News pundit and also regular Op-Ed writer for the Weekly Standard?

It's acually quite despicable, what I've been seeing on this thread. It ducktails nicely with the neocon chant that anyone who is critical of the war, obviously wants America to lose/can't stand the military/wants to weaken America at home and abroad, blah, blah, blah.

Here's another from head duck, William Kristol:

Yes, of course they would rather see America "lose."

or this, again from Kristol, writing in the "Weekly Standard," which is very similar to the trash-talk I have seen on this thread:

Perhaps I did not recognize the duck without its swiftboat. Oh, the election will soon be here - time to go "swiftboating" again.

 

Chandos, Wolfie,
I believe I understand neo-cons reasonably well, and I have seen none of their ilk here. Not even Shralp for instance, who was just a wingnut.

Let me put you in drawers: I'd label Wolfie as a 'hawkish libertarian leaning conservative'. I'd label you a 'progressive liberal'. Any of you correct me if I'm wrong.

You both understand that Bush is a problem, and probably want him gone, but that doesn't seem enough common ground.

Most moral, or most certain.

Get more sceptic, either of you might be wrong.

 

"Trying to win in Iraq is like trying to un-burn a stick"

I forget where I heard that, but it seems to describe the situation quite well. From what I can see there is no victory or solution on its way. Americans (Of whom I am one) have to accept that our government, and by extension all of us, have screwed up. No plan short of a time machine could bring about a peaceful, democratic, and united Iraq within the next decade.

Instead of trying to come up with new 'plans for success' we should face up to the facts and try to salvage what we can. Any chance at a descisive victory is gone. If we had wanted that we should have made a plan (One based on reality) before the war. Now the best we can hope for is that the situation does not degenerate into a genocidal civil war that spreads across the region.