We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq.
| By User from Washington, DC - Jul 18, 2007 5:05:37 PM ET |
| Also listed in: Featured Bloggers |
From Think Progress:
Read More. . .
Because Republicans continue to block votes on important amendments to the Defense Authorization bill, we can make no further progress on Iraq and this bill at this time.
For these reasons, I have temporarily laid aside the Defense Authorization bill and have entered a motion to reconsider.
But let me be clear to my Republican colleagues -- I emphasize the word "temporarily". We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of a Defense Authorization bill. We must do both.
Read More. . .
Comments are closed for this post.
See Link
And also
See Link
I listed both links because I know some of you leftists don’t trust Foxnews… Since you won’t even allow presidential candidates to debate on their network… A Stalinist tactic as they are afraid they might have to answer a tough question or two… Effectively not showing us who they really are!
It looks like Harry’s Latest Folly, the All-Nighter, was a complete failure, in fact he has lost a vote or two from the last time he attempted to pull his political fundraisers at the expense of the American tax payers. It would appear that Congressional approval ratings have slipped further down the drain of the country’s toilet. This gReid led Congress has slipped off the charts from my last post yesterday and is a complete failure. Harry Reid is a miserable failure, and to use his own words, a loser. You <23 % ers have now slipped into a complete miserable <14% approval for your Dem led congress. Nice job! What a legacy, the worst approval ratings of ANY Congress in US history led by Mr. gReid. These numbers are at least two times worse than the latest approval ratings for Bush and the Whitehouse. Harry’s attempt at flaming the Bush administration has backfired and flamed the Dem led Congress. I can’t wait for 08!
See Link
Clinton Happens!
You said:
"All of you Libs who say we need to pull out or “Redeploy” somewhere “Where Al-Qaeda Is”, need to pull your collective heads out of the sand and other places where the sun doesn’t shine,"
Yesterdays de-classified NIE says al quaida has regrouped, and in strong numbers is in Waziristan along the Pakistan/Afghan border. The taliban is making a pretty good comeback as well since we fucked up by going to Iraq. And a little un-important side trip....this years Afghani poppy crop will set records. Heroin will be cheap next year! Just a little FYI for those of you with your heads in the sand and other places.
"America is indeed safer due to our military presence in Iraq."
Bwah ha ha! Hoooooey!
Have I got a deal for you! How about some ocean front acreage in New Mexico? I'll take PayPal.
Yuk, yuk! Hee, hee, hee.
"It is a fight against militant radical Islam being spread by radicals who hate us, our way of life and our country’s successes on the world’s stage."
This is called blowback by the CIA. They don't hate us for our "successes on the world stage", they hate us because we've been around a little over 200 years, a historical eye-blink, and arrogantly want to tell the rest of the world how to run their shit. WTF!
"Who is going to stop the genocide and the future threats of terrorism to be launched from an Al-Qaeda controlled Iraq?"
WHAT genocide? According to you, they're ALL al quaida. The Sunni kill the Shia, The Shia kill the Sunnis. What they need is a really strong dictator like Saddam to keep them from killing each other......oops, we hung him so he couldn't write any damning memoirs for past republican administrations. Damn it!
Regardless of what happens in Iraq, we will be facing al quaida future terrorist threats for the next 3+ generations. We are giving them practical tactical battlefield training and experience in Iraq as we speak. Lets go back and finish the job in Afghanistan, keep a relatively small strike force around Iraq when needed.
" The tired old argument that we need to fight them in Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda is no longer holds water."
Again, Yesterdays de-classified NIE says al quaida has regrouped, and in strong numbers is in Waziristan along the Pakistan/Afghan border. The taliban is making a pretty good comeback as well since we fucked up by going to Iraq. And a little un-important side trip....this years Afghani poppy crop will set records. Heroin will be cheap next year! Just a little FYI for those of you with your heads in the sand and other places.
Nice typin atcha.
Yes my brotha, we need to kick their asses back before the stone age there as well. Please Notice I also said we need to go after them everywhere.
“Again, Yesterdays de-classified NIE says al quaida has regrouped, and in strong numbers is in Waziristan along the Pakistan/Afghan border.”
Yes, My left leanin, gun packin friend, but you cherry picked your info as it also stated that we have “seriously damaged” their leadership and their operations and that Iraq is now the central front for their terror groups and that is echoed by Bin Laden’s #1 jihadi, Al-Zawahiri, in his latest Terror video. The NIE Report (At least what they are willing to show us poor little plebes…) delivers good and bad news as well about our current intelligence about terrorism and homeland security, depending what side of the isle you lean on, the good side, or the evil side…LOL! This is a quote from the report...
The NIE findings state that U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts have "seriously damaged" al Qaeda's leadership and operations, but that the group still poses "the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests."
See Link
You said, “The taliban is making a pretty good comeback as well since we fucked up by going to Iraq.”
Are you saying that NATO isn’t capable of putting down a bunch of decimated Taliban thugs stoned on heroin (I hear they have a good poppy crop this year!) with the help of the 20,000 plus US troops we have over there kicking the shit out of them daily? Are you buying into the news reports that only report how many civilians we kill? When was the last time you heard about how many Taliban we have killed? I have a friend who flies daily missions in an AC130 gunship there and the last time I spoke with him he told me that the Taliban do not win against US Troops. According to him, they can run but they will only die tired. I believe his stories any day over the leftist news orgs that are over there, only reporting the bad news on their jihad against Bush and the USA.
You still haven’t presented any logical answers to the heart of my main questions, Who will stop the genocide if we leave before Iraq’s own security isn’t strong enough to stop a radical Islamic takeover and, How does what you are wishing for, make me, my family, and my friends any safer?
It has been a pleasure discussing this in a civil tone with you PD, unlike others who post here! Even though we agree that we don’t agree, we both realize that we’re all in the same boat together. And unlike our gReid led congress is capable of, that’s progress!
Clinton Happens!
You asked:
"You still haven’t presented any logical answers to the heart of my main questions, Who will stop the genocide if we leave before Iraq’s own security isn’t strong enough to stop a radical Islamic takeover"
I don't swallow your premise re: genocide. What I see is mutually agreed upon hostility between 2 muslim factions. That would be a civil war. A Shia vs. Sunni civil war.
Why are we in the middle of their civil war? Why are we players in their nightmare? Why aren't we deployed elsewhere zooming in with all our high tech shit on al quaida targets when our Iraqi buddies identify them for us? Who are our Iraqi buddies, Sunni or Shia? Cmon, CH, this is a mammoth clusterfuck!
We are an occupying force in the middle of a civil war between 2 parties that will kill each other whether we leave tomorrow or 20 years from now. We DO have to stay long enough to figure out all that hydro carbon, oil stuff though, huh?
"How does what you are wishing for, make me, my family, and my friends any safer?"
I'm not sure that ending this CF in Iraq WILL make you and yours safer, but I don't believe for a second that staying there makes you any safer either. You think we're kicking al quaida ass. I think we're creating generations of jihadis. Maybe we're both right (or wrong). We're unwitting and unbending microcosms of our polarized society.
Two distinctly opposite and sincere American perspectives, my brotha!
PS: I did do a little cherry pickin', didn't I? If its good enough for my prez, its good enough for me!
Now back to our other point…
“Why are we players in their nightmare?”
Because we, Bush, Repubs and Dems started a war over there, the only difference is, the Repubs have the spine to finish the job, the rest are wimps who throw the first punch of a fight and then run to Mommy.
“Why aren't we deployed elsewhere zooming in with all our high tech shit on al quaida targets when our Iraqi buddies identify them for us? Who are our Iraqi buddies, Sunni or Shia? Cmon, CH, this is a mammoth clusterfuck!”
Agreed, it’s a clusterfuck, but all wars have a history of being a clusterfuck. If we pullout before the Iraqi’s can handle their own security, we won’t have any Iraqi buddies as they all will be slaughtered by terrorists.
“We are an occupying force in the middle of a civil war between 2 parties that will kill each other whether we leave tomorrow or 20 years from now.”
Ok then by that logic, why are we In Kosovo. That is a civil war but I hear nothing from your side as to when those troops are going to be redeployed… Perhaps because a Dem put them there??? Or maybe just maybe it is the right thing to do.
How about Korea??? Why are we still in that quagmire? 30,000 – 50,000 troops there after 50 plus years??? Why don’t I hear for a pullout from that war zone? Perhaps because a Dem put them there? Or maybe just maybe it is the right thing to do.
What about Germany and Japan? That war has been over for 60 years yet we are still “occupying” those countries??? Perhaps because a Dem put them there as well???? You guys have selective hatred for war… Its OK when a Dem president starts it but when a Repub starts one, there is hell to pay. Even when both sides know it is the right thing to do, political quest for power always blinds.
You have danced around the question but I have yet to hear how pulling the troops out of Iraq is making us safer.
How’s that sand feel around your collective necks??? LOL!
As Always, Its great venting at you, thanks and take care,
Clinton Happen$!
You seem to be a bit fired up. Are you on a mission?..LOL
Like Bu$h you seem to be worried about our safety, indeed you might be drinking the same koolaide. If you are going to use cliches' use something that hasn't allready been parroted by the entire Neoconservative cabal. "We've got to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." that sort of thing.
"Who's going to stop the genocide?" Well at least 600,000 Iraquis have lost their lives and who knows how many injured so far in this occupation of a country that has allready been defeated.
Have you ever toyed with the idea that Cheney Bush & Co. could be the terrorists here. Lets fight them here so that we don't have to fight them over there.
Al Quaida is centered in Saudi Arabia who does business with the Bush family and the Iraquis never have liked Al Quaida, not even Saddam liked them. So today what do we once more hear Holy Joe Lie-berman say..."Al Quaida, the ones who caused 911 are in Iraq".
"Someone once said, the best defense is a great offense! How sweet it is…" Yeh right, but don't let it bother you if I tell you that I am not offended.
Cheers...G:
Long time, no see.
I particularly liked this paragraph you wrote:
""Who's going to stop the genocide?" Well at least 600,000 Iraquis have lost their lives and who knows how many injured so far in this occupation of a country that has allready been defeated.
Have you ever toyed with the idea that Cheney Bush & Co. could be the terrorists here. Lets fight them here so that we don't have to fight them over there."
Pretty much in the eye of the beholder, or put another way, its a matter of perspective, or taking another tack, walk a mile in the other man's mocassins, or "one man's hero is another man's terrorist".
Any way you slice it up we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place.
Glad you're back!
You seem to be a bit fired up. Are you on a mission?..LOL
Like Bu$h you seem to be worried about our safety, indeed you might be drinking the same koolaide. If you are going to use cliches' use something that hasn't allready been parroted by the entire Neoconservative cabal. "We've got to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." that sort of thing.
"Who's going to stop the genocide?" Well at least 600,000 Iraquis have lost their lives and who knows how many injured so far in this occupation of a country that has allready been defeated.
Have you ever toyed with the idea that Cheney Bush & Co. could be the terrorists here. Lets fight them here so that we don't have to fight them over there.
Al Quaida is centered in Saudi Arabia who does business with the Bush family and the Iraquis never have liked Al Quaida, not even Saddam liked them. So today what do we once more hear Holy Joe Lie-berman say..."Al Quaida, the ones who caused 911 are in Iraq".
"Someone once said, the best defense is a great offense! How sweet it is…" Yeh right, but don't let it bother you if I tell you that I am not offended.
Cheers...G:
You said, “Al Quaida is centered in Saudi Arabia” and “Well at least 600,000 Iraquis have lost their lives and who knows how many injured so far in this occupation of a country that has allready been defeated.”
According to most lefties and Dem pols, I thought they all were in Afghanistan & Pakistan. According to this website,
Link
the # is 73,611 as of 07/14/07.
According to this website Saddam is responsible for nearly 300,000 dead as the results of unearthing the multitudes of mass graves. The estimate is even higher if you consider the mass killings from use of WMD’s on his own people and war casualties from the Iran/Iraq war.
See Link
Just where are you getting your info from? Seems quite inflated to me…
And speaking of clichés, This $$$ thingy you guys like to do when mentioning Bu$h and then adding the “ler” to the end of that is getting a little old as well isn’t it? Can’t we start to rise above all of this hatred and try to find a solution to this problem rather than cause a mass genocide because you guys hate Bu$h $o badly? Just pulling the troops is an unacceptable solution without any plans for the future afterwards. I have heard Nothing from Dems except defeatism and “its Bu$h’s fault”. You know, Bu$h isn’t running for president again don’t you ole Geezer. Your emotions are getting the best of you as well as your “Fu$$y Math” LOL
Good to have you back, I was worried sick!
Clinton Happen$!
Even studies by the Bush Admin's State Department say the ranks have swelled immensely due to our presence in Irag.
Sorry but we aren't safer, so you should really not let your hatred for the labels liberal and left distort your own judgement. You are being manipulated and your too ignorant to see it. Try reviewing some actual information instead of just repeating what you hear from Bill and Rush.
Well done Harry...
No votes on any other Iraq amendments — not the toothless Warner-Lugar amendment, not the Ken Salazar amendment that would force adoption of the Baker-Hamilton plan, nothing.
The Pentagon’s priorities won’t become law until a Defense Authorization bill is passed, the Pentagon’s fiscal 08 priorities won’t get funded until this standoff is resolved — and this won’t happen until the GOP allows a vote on the Iraq withdrawal measures.
Cheers....G:
Here's a fun video:
Link
See Link
And the current estimated number of living veterans is 26,403,703, that is, according to infoplease.com...
See Link
According to this logic, roughly only 1 in 11 Americans are allowed to have an opinion on this subject... Pretty silly argument isn't it. Like I said, propaganda!
Take care PD!
Clinton Happen$!
I actually just posted that link cuz I knew Linus would get a kick out of it, ya know, like Saturday morning cartoons but glad you watched it too.
I'm always amazed and amused at the myriad of messages each individual gleans from the same damn post. Its that personal perspective thing again.
You sure got a different message than I did from what you call my little "propaganda" video. It had its pitiful propaganda moments, like the fat gay kid, but the short interviews were a bright spotlight on chickenhawk attitudes and I found it damned entertaining!
You took it serious and assumed I wanted to stifle their opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I saw it as satirical comedy colored by the absurd assumptions of the "haves" regarding their role and the role of the "have-nots" in our culture. I was literally laughing out loud!
I picked up a 3 or 4 page list somewhere of Congressmen, Ex-Presidents, TV Anchors and other influential folks. It states who served in the military, how long and which branch. It also states who dodged and by what method or methods. (cheney and Limbaugh are neck and neck as to who's the king, but I don't want to get side-tracked).
I'm astounded at how many bad-ass war supporting repub politicians and right wing media heroes (to be fair, a number of dems too, but not near as many) had bad knees, ass boils, hemerhoids, fallen arches, acne, hang-nail, herpes or some other exotic affliction like "kids or college" that kept their "patriotic" asses out of uniform. This little video tells me that great tradition is being passed on from generation to generation. Its a great luxury and hypocricy to want your peers to go kill and be killed so you can further your education, get on with your life, and not be touched by the reality of war.
You read me wrong on this one. It is the RIGHT of EVERY American to have, hold and espouse any opinion on any public matter, war included. All other things being equal, I just give a little more weight to the opinion of vets. I noticed from your post yesterday (your AC130 buddy) that you seem to do the same. Just a personal thing.
Here's my opinion:
I personally don't think anyone should be allowed to even run for President unless he staffs at least HALF of his cabinet with veterans. The exception to this, of course would be if he were a vet himself. All you Clinton haters should like that idea. Sounds a little harsh even to me, but I find most vets alot less trigger-happy than non-vets.
You've probably heard me harangue everybody on this blog about the positive aspects of mandatory national service, AKA, the draft. An equitable draft. Deferments for EXTREMELY severe physical or mental disabilities only. Physically and mentally challenged people have some amazing gifts that would be very handy in support roles.
Everybody serves! If you are a CO (conscientious objector) or have strong religious convictions against killing your fellow man, you can serve in the Peace Corps or Americorps, but you WILL give your country 3 years of service.
A draft would provide the country with better adult citizens after their service and there would be more solidarity with each other as Americans through this universally shared experience. A little "shared sacrifice" is a powerful bonding tool, and would have the added benefit of de-polarizing America a little bit over time. We desperately need that.
A draft would probably make chickenhawk misadventures like Iraq obsolete. If there was a draft, the American people wouldn't stand for a war of choice, we would and should only support a war of necessity. We would look a little closer, and think a little more clearly about whether or not to go to war if the sacrifice was universal for all families.
With a draft there wouldn't be as much of a disconnect between the civilian populace and the military families as exists today. The all volunteer force is only a success in the eyes of the military industrial complex. It is not a success for the collective well being of our society.
Another benefit to the draft would be to get rid of "private contractors" to provide security, prepare meals, etc. Take the profit out of war, you will have less war.
Economics 101, for all you corporate-loving, no-bid-contract fans out in Giveemhell land.
Now that I've pissed off both sides of the fence, I think I'll take a nap.
Love,
Poor Daddy
Link
At least he takes this so far as to deny tax funding for stem cell research. To be consistent, therefore, we should also deny tax funding for any military activities in Iraq that would result in the taking of human lives, even if it is in the hope of saving lives. Consistent with this, I therefore would like to propose a new three point plan for Iraq to replace the current use of taxpayer-supported U.S. troops.
1. The No Iraqi Left Behind.Voucher Plan, which would not involve any tax dollars.
Each Iraqi family will be given a voucher to spend for protection by an approved private militia of their choice. Al-Qaeda will not be an approved option. Blackwater, Haliburton, and various Kurdish, Shia and Sunni militia would be approved. The vouchers would be funded from Iraqi oil revenues. Oil would be pumped by private corporations who would also be able to bid for protection from private militias.
2. The Fox News Media plan, paid for by Rupert Murdoch
Iraqi TV will be replaced with Fox News, which will convince all Iraqi’s to support President Bush in their well-known fair and balanced manner. Meanwhile, Fox News will launch another happy talk news offensive to remind us of the success of Operation Cakewalk, Operation Dead Enders, and Operation Last Throes.
3. Better Puppets, orchestrated behind the scenes by the usual suspects.
Karl Rove will direct Alberto Gonzales to fire our current puppets in Baghdad and replace them with new and better puppets, “loyal Bushies” more to our liking, all without legislative approval, hearings, or oversight either by Americans or Iraqis. Any questions will be deflected by claims of executive privilege.
This plan will at least get us through the next year and a half until we can elect a new Decider.
Great proposals!
I do have a suggestion for your third proposal, the Better Puppet Program. All potential Iraqi leaders applying for the Better Puppet Program will be required to watch five videos prior to application.
1. The prior puppet Saddam/Rumsfeld "handshake in the palace" video, circa 1980 something. Copies of this video may be a little difficult to find these days for obvious reasons. If unavailable, a series of stills will work just as well.
2. The Saddam "coward hiding in the spider hole" and captured video. This should be interspersed with short clips of all the comments by American leaders emphasizing his cowardice and filthy condition.
3. A slide show of all the Ooooday and Qooosay dead body stills. I'm sure there are thousands of them available in various archives both in Washington and Iraq. These applicants may secretly wish martyrdom for themselves, but probably not for their whole family.
4. A video comprised of brief, damning excerpts from the Saddam trial. Not the whole trial, you understand, just the short humiliating stuff we were allowed to see here in America.
5. The last required video would be of course the Saddam hanging video. This one could be "enhanced" a bit with him pissing his pants, crying and screaming for mercy.
If they still want to apply for the US Puppet position after seeing these videos, I'm sure they are the compliant toadies we are looking for so we can "put a better face" on Iraq and can "continue to fight them over there".
See Link
Also, See… Link
And of course you left out this…Executive Order 13435 encouraging federal agencies to support research on stem cells that does not involve the destruction of human embryos, and to rename the “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry” the “Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry.”
See Link
But you wouldn’t even thinking of crediting Bush for funding some types of stem cell research now would you Leo…
Clinton Happens!
I respect, but do not necessarily agree with, anyone who holds that embryonic stem cell research is unethical. A number of thoughtful Catholics hold this position. If the Decider really believes that embryonic stem cell research is unethical, then to be consistent he should try to ban it, not merely prevent its federal funding. If it is murder, then privately funded murders should be outlawed. A libertarian might well argue that the issue is taxpayer funding for something that is unethical or that some taxpayers morally object to. I can understand and respect that position as well. The Decider’s position is that because it destroys life in order to save it, embryonic stem cell research is unethical and should not be federally funded. But to be consistent, he should also defund the Iraq War because surely we are taking human lives there in the hope of saving lives and surely some, perhaps a majority of taxpayers, object to it. In short, part of W’s brain believes that destroying human life in order to save human life is unethical and therefore ineligible for federal tax dollars. And part of W’s brain supports the destruction of human lives in Iraq by federally funded U.S. military personnel in order to save human life. How does he reconcile these positions except to believe that American embryos are more alive than Iraqi adults?
Does not the War in Iraq either raise future taxes or the national debt and further lock the country into a culture of death? Why should the taxpayers be forced to gamble like this with our money? We live in a capitalist society. If private contractors can provide security for Paul Bremer and others, then they should provide security of the rest of Iraq. Link There are, in fact, private groups and companies lining up to support the pro-deathers (to use your term) in Iraq. It is time to let the capitalist market handle the problem.
Link
There are serious ethical issues here, but the political discussion seems to merely muddy them. See also Link
Clinton H’s championing of Bush’s non-embryonic stem cell research contradicts his position that federal research is a boondoggle. But the boondoggle issue is different from the President’s moral argument.
The reason the federal government has subsidized basic research for more than half a century (I remember 1957 and Sputnik) is that the time horizon for basic research to pay off is much longer than Wall Street is normally willing to fund. The National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, NASA, etc. are doing research that may not pay off for a decade or more. Wall Street looks at the next quarter when setting stock prices. The Human Genome project is a case in point. The research was hailed as vital, but was not a money maker.
Speaking of boondoggles, let’s turn to the federal warfare state and compare apples and oranges. We are talking tens to perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars for stem cell research. The Iraq War has cost the U.S. taxpayers almost half a trillion dollars, and now costs $275 million every day, $11 million each hour, $191,000 every minute, and $3,180 each second. Total costs for the war could easily top a trillion at the rate it is going.
It is not clear how many embryos might be sacrificed in stem cell research, but the number could be carefully controlled. And as noted above, many embryos are currently discarded by fertility clinics. The number of Iraqi’s killed since our invasion has been estimated as high as a million with no end in sight. Link
The number of U.S. military deaths is currently over 3700 also with no end in sight, and that figure does not include civilian contractors, allied forces, the very seriously wounded, and those with very serious emotional scars. Link
Apples and oranges? If the “current occupant” stays up late worrying out embryos that will likely be discarded anyway being used for research, how can he sleep with a million deaths on his hands and no end in sight?
I happen to hear from more than 200 friends/soldiers and spouses of soldiers of how the soldiers are frustrated at your depictions of gloom and doom, and abject hatred and failure. These people were upset at having people firning on them, but all re-up several times because they don't want to leave the progress they made.
there are unhappy people in even the sunniest of jobs, and to hunt them down, and portray them as the attitude of the whole is not only an injustice to the other soldiers, but to those who willingly died for the cause.
You want to be a help, then quit being the problem!
Make the solutions to help get things on their feet.
An even better idea would be having the experienced lawmakers and servants to the people- Yes, dispite your Democrat haughty mindset/group mentality- you are our civil servants-meaning you answer to us!! Instead of fighting in your 8 year war on George Bush and the Republicans- go forth and be a demonstration to the people who are to be your counter-parts in Iraq. Make them get serious and show them the ropes, so they can get that government going, and you can be successful at bringing our troops back. Doing this, you will appear as one of the "good guys" for being 'pro-active', rather than 're-active'.
Oh yeah, when it comes to making comments on Talk Radio personnel, and other people..Get your facts straight before you and others in Congress begin squawking on them! You end up with egg on the face, when others simply look at the comments in the context from which the comments were intended. By getting the whole conversation before the quote and after the quote, you can then try to make some competant commentary.
This is said in order for you to not be a laughing stock to your party and supporters, not to mention your opponents.