March 27, 2007

Reid Scores A Victory On Iraq By Backing Defeat

Harry Reid won his most important victory as Senate Majority Leader today by unexpectedly passing the supplemental spending bill for Iraq with the mandatory timetables for withdrawal within 12 months. Two Senators, Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel, reversed their stand on the automatic withdrawal from less than two weeks ago, when the Senate last considered it:

Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.

The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats' win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would "not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy," adding: "It's now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq."

Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto. The Senate vote was also the first time since Democrats took control of Congress in January that a majority of lawmakers have supported binding legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

The Senate withdrawal provision, which sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending U.S. combat operations, is tucked into a $122 billion package to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a must-pass bill that Democrats view as their best shot at forcing Bush to change direction. The withdrawal language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago.

At least we have a clear statement from the Democratic majority in Congress. They have declared defeat while we still fight in Iraq, and they spent over $20 billion in pork to make that declaration stick. They still want to make Bush responsible for the withdrawal, but they've quit trying to cover their tracks with clever tricks about readiness definitions to do so.

I could go on and on about the many stupidities in this approach, but it won't do much good. We can talk about how giving timetables only emboldens the enemy to persevere and to keep their powder dry. I could point out the folly of having a rump force remain behind to fight only al-Qaeda -- as if they wear uniforms and our troops have the time to determine whether AQI or native insurgents are attacking them before responding. We've done all of that many times before, and yet the Democrats insist that their approach is the most reasonable.

What next? The President will definitely veto this bill, and the Democrats do not have anywhere near the votes needed to override. That means that Congress and the White House will have to reach some sort of compromise, or else theoretically allow the troops to remain in Iraq but without the funds to either fight or come home. If the President doesn't veto it, he has to start retreating in four months, to which he will not willingly assent. It will take weeks to unravel, and in that time I believe that Congress will work on a much smaller supplemental to keep funding going while the negotiations ensue. Reid, however, wants to wait until after the spring recess to start even on the conference committee talks, which will drag out the event even further.

Undoubtedly, Reid won big by declaring defeat. No one really expected this to pass, but Reid managed to talk Hagel and Nelson into reversing themselves, when even the ladies from Maine remained steadfast. He and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that the last election had its consequences, even if it took them several variations on the defeatist theme to do so.

One thing is certain: Chuck Hagel can skip the exploratory committee for the 2008 race.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9520

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reid Scores A Victory On Iraq By Backing Defeat:

» Quote Of The Day from Ed Driscoll.com
"They're running away with their little curly tails between their legs", writes Glenn Reynolds, adding, "It's a disgrace, but par for the course for this bunch". Not at all a surprise, of course. But very far removed from how they... [Read More]

» Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.03.27 from Old War Dogs
Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post must include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the sun [Read More]

» 2007.03.27 Iraq/Surrendercrat Roundup (Updated, bumped)
-- Hagel shows true colors, Senate keeps cut
from Bill's Bites
By The Way, It’s Official … Jules Crittenden … we can win in Iraq, we are winning in Iraq, and George Bush’s surge strategy is responsible for it. Not even the AP can ignore it* anymore: The US military has [Read More]

» Don’t you dare question our trading of pork for the sacrifice of the troops from Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
Not unexpected, as we knew yesterday. Not a problem because this thing is DOA via a veto, but interesting to note what Democrats find much more important than victory in Iraq - PORK! Via Victory Caucus as the dirty secret of the Senate appropriations ... [Read More]

» Simon says put both hands above you head. from The Crimson Blog
Now, Simon says put them down.Not so fast my “well-meaning” Democratic friends. Joined by Chief RINO himself, the Senate Democrats yesterday voted to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, putting them in squarely line with th... [Read More]

» President Bush Vows To Veto Troop Support from Radioactive Liberty
In a display of arrogance and hubris, President Bush denounced Congressional Democrats on Wednesday for a new Iraq War spending bill, that is needed to provide food and supplies to our baby killing troops. He vowed to veto any bill that included a prov... [Read More]

» Can Chuck Hagel save the GOP from the Bushies? from Divided We Stand United We Fall
I would have liked to be that fly on the wall. When Dick Cheney was informed that Chuck Hagel decided to put principle over party and vote for the resolution. On this day, Dick Cheney was not "the decider". On this day it was Chuck Hagel who cast the d... [Read More]

Comments (95)

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:01 PM

Chuck Hagel

The greatest strategic Republican electoral failure in the history of the United States.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:02 PM

So let's all get together and send Chuck Hagel his thirty pieces of silver - he earned them tonight! Right along with all those lovely "conservative democrats" who took their bribes and voted with Mizz Nancy in the House.

Posted by OldDeadMeat [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:13 PM

Maybe we should send gift baskets for everyone who voted for the spending bill.

How about some salted pork and blood pie?

Posted by Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:15 PM

This kind of thing makes me wonder how the United States can effectively pursue ANY kind of foreign policy. It's tough enough to get a long term committment out of an ally when our own executive changes office every four or eight years... now our Imperial Congress has shown its willingness to leave the Iraqis to the next thugocracy that takes over after we abandon them.

When George Bush rightfully vetos this piece of treason, the entire MSM will trumpet how he just doesn't care for the troops...

A sad day in US History...

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:32 PM

History teaches us about Pyrrhic victories. Let us hope Reid isn't setting up our nation for one of those merely for the sake of increasing angry Hillary's chances.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:33 PM

Perhaps the Sunday before President Bush is to receive the bill and veto it, Chuck Hagel will be on the Sunday morning shows again but this time he will propose a "deal" for President Bush:
"Don't veto the bill and I (Chuck Hagel) won't proceed with my impeachment plans."

I would love to see Hagel's email cache tonight from parents, relatives and friends of Nebraska troops serving so proudly in Iraq.

On the other hand, perhaps Sen. Hagel will counter his criticism from Nebraska Conservatives by stating that he "got you $100 million for farmland restoration!"

Finally, a question. When a candidate files to run for the Presidency for a Political Party, can that filing be either refused or rescinded?

Posted by lawismylife [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:35 PM

This had better be a 1994 redux with the president vetoing this travesty, and the American people watching with dismay as its congress holds its collective breath until it's purple from its hissy fit. The downside is that President Bush will have soldiers in the field as the funding bleeds dry. Because of that, Bush had better use the bully pulpit, talk directly to America from the Oval Office, and, if need be, get some great communicators to help him with staging, media, etc (How 'bout those guys from 24?). In other words, Lead, dammit! Lead!

Dark days indeed.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:45 PM

Just so we're clear here on out to what Hagel and Democrats in the Senate voted against:

Question: On the Amendment (Cochran Amd. No. 643)
Vote Number: 116
Vote Date: March 27, 2007, 05:06 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 159
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Statement of Purpose: To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Vote Counts:
YEAs 48
NAYs 50
Not Voting 2


In essence Hagel's was the critical vote. He and Smith (R-OR) were the only Republicans to side with the Democrats.

Voters might want to hang on to this link whenever he runs for office and need to contact Hagel to let his campaign know what they think of his efforts.

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:48 PM

We will find out. I am not surprised, after all Congress is under the impression that Bush will veto and so they feel like they might as well appease their rabid base.

But I wonder how our allies will view this. No one will ever trust us to keep our word again if we leave. The Democrats can talk about healing our image all they want, but all they will have accomplished is to make us look like quitters. Why would anyone follow a quitter?

Posted by The Opinionator [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 10:50 PM

So much for Mitch McConnell's strategy. He let the Democrats stab our troops in the back. I have no faith that he and the other "republicans" in the Senate will not cave after the President's veto. Look for a timetable for our surrender in any final funding bill that passes. A sad day to be an American.

Hagel is particularly disgusting. After watching his country turn on him in Vetnam, he is doing the same to our troops today. He knows what this will do to the troops and did it anyway. Not only that, but he gave Ben Nelson cover on this as well.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:05 PM

Captain,

I remember how angry you were at the Republicans before the '06 election.

Happy now?

In '06 for the first time in my life I voted straight Republican including dog catcher. I knew what the stakes were.

Not to worry. I hear the Ds plan to increase taxes too.

BTW have we had a reduction in pork under the Ds?

I guess we are getting the government we deserve.

Sucks.

Posted by wham1000 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:08 PM

Ed Morrissey is as wrong on this one as he was before the elections last November. It’s not Reid’s defeat, its Bush’s. This administration has being wrong on every issue for the last 6 years. How can anyone still believe anything they say? But then half of this country are defeatist and unpatriotic!

Posted by viking01 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:12 PM

There are limits to what McConnell can do given what he inherited from procrastinator Frist and without the former majority. So I will withhold hasty judgement against him. Keep in mind that Bush faced 9/11 largely because of the mess he inherited from his neglectful predecessor. McConnell faces a similar challenge.

It is fairly obvious someone has quisling Hagel by the short hairs. It is a safe bet it is someone who couldn't care less about our military and maintaining its ability to defend us. I once thought it might be a domestic enemy (having his FBI file) but am increasingly concerned that Hagel's operators may be foreign such as Iran Oil for Votes just as there was Saddam / Annan's Oil for Food. He's become most squirrelly just before (the non-announcement announcement) and just after the British hostage situation.

Posted by Tom Holsinger [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:16 PM

Ed,

Bush promised to veto McCain-Feingold too, but he signed it.

Bush's word means nothing. Only his deeds do.

And his past acts all say that he'll cave in and sign this bill like he has all the others.

I'd love to be wrong.

But I won't bet that way. We're talking about President Bush.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:25 PM

Captain - So let me get this straight - Dems have declared defeat - right?

Ok - So, first, I guess would be to ask what exactly would be victory?
Is it the successful execution of an election? check
The overthrow of the old ruling regime? check
The trial and punishment of the old regime's leaders? check

What else are we looking for here? Complete and total peace with no terrorists whatsoever? That seems far fetched -

So instead of everyone saying dems want defeat, I would like to know what the hell is the measuring stick for victory?

Second of all - What is the plan for that elusive "victory"?
Is it to just keep putting more and more troops in Iraq until the whole country is completely stable? I want a damn answer on this - You guys think you are so clever always turning the question around to try and blame the democrats for the war you guys got us into - But I have YET (4 years!!!!!!!!!!) to hear what the hell the victory strategy is! Oh wait, you can't say because then you let the terrorists know what's in our 'playbook' right? So why exactly do you want the dems to let the terrorists know what's in the playbook?

You guys really have nothing to stand on here - You want so badly to say the surge is working - hell we all want something to work - But you guys want this surge more than ever - And you tell the over 60 percent of the country that doesn't buy it, to just give it a chance - But when we have given somewhere around 4 other surges (that were less publicized) a chance, and they failed miserably, we get a little tired of the exact same thing being done, but with a new name being put on it -

Give us a competent plan - Otherwise its not possible for us to admit defeat, because there is no damn goal (except the vague notion of total peace and no terror) - damn

Posted by Lucubration [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:25 PM

One might even say that having been treated similarly in Vietnam, Senator Hagel would take his decision tonight very seriously. Why must it be stupidity that rules his reason?

It seems to me that the most serious problem facing American politics is the ease and meretricious pleasure of looking down on the other side. I read Captain's Quarters because I find Ed's commentary to be thoughtful and quite well balanced--but between the occasional dig in the posts and the constant, dripping contempt in the comments section, I end up sad by the end of every visit to this site.

(Note: I stopped reading the DailyKos for this reason. Taking pleasure in, or--worse!--celebrating the fall of a political opponent is sickening as well as destructive).

Maybe we can do great things still in Iraq. It's possible. But maybe "fighting them over there" actually makes it *more* likely that we'll have to fight them over here, even as it guarantees that our soldiers and marines must lay down their lives and limbs over there.

Perhaps our staying makes it possible for the Iraqi people to build their own government and wage peace. Or perhaps it makes it more difficult, as they have little incentive to take care of their own affairs when we will take their bullets for them.

And the experts, from the Iraq Study Group to assorted generals to civilian authorities to the admittedly less expert American people, appear to feel that the second, and not the first, of the above are the more likely outcomes. If it would indeed be better for us and for Iraq, it seems undeniable to me that we should withdraw.

Maybe so. Maybe not. But I don't see any reason to be anything but sad about what has admittedly been a botched attempt at interventionist foreign policy. These are all bad alternatives, and I believe we get too caught up in which political party 'wins' at home.

Let's talk about it, by all means--but do we really need to compare Chuck Hagel to the most infamous traitor in history? Is anyone really stabbing our troops in the back, to the best of their knowledge?

While we cackle over small hypocrisies and oversimplifications, others are leading. I hope we learn.

Posted by TokyoTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:38 PM

Ed, I sure hope that Hagel does "skip the exploratory committee for the 2008 race." The country very much needs him right where he is.

You talk about how "giving timetables only emboldens the enemy" - but you conveniently beg the question of who the enemy actually IS. It is the Sunnis? The Shias? Every fucking Iraqi?

You rail at "Democratic majority in Congress [that] ... have declared defeat while we still fight in Iraq, and they spent over $20 billion in pork to make that declaration stick" - but come on, hasn't it been the Republican party that has really shown Democrats and the country what pork barrel is all about? And what is the Iraq war anyway, if not a tribute to budget busting pork barrel on behalf of special interests? What exactly have we bought there with the $500 billion spent off-budget, and still running to the tab of $150 million PER DAY???

And you might see this as declaring defeat, but isn't it really a message to the Shias and Sunnis that they're going to have to find a way to live together?

How ironic that it is the Democrats, and a few brave Republicans like Hagel, end up playing the role of the party of fiscal responsibility and a check on an imperial president who has been unable to find a problem that he couldn't make worse by unilateral and jingoistic approaches that somehow loot the Treasury while showering benefits on favored corporations.

Finally, you can call the Democrats the party of defeat, but who elected them, anyway? An American people - including many, many Republicans - who are fed up with this crap.

Having a Congress that stands up to the President makes this country stronger, not weaker, and it's a shame that Republicans have enabled every abuse of power and erosion of our liberties and national interests that have taken place under Bush and especially Cheney.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:38 PM

Re: Tom Holsinger at March 27, 2007 11:16 PM

Tom,

You can be as sure that Bush will veto any arbitrary timetable (for troop withdrawl) as you can be that Pope Benedict XVI is Catholic. Anything with a timetable, anything that ties the Commander-in-Chief's hands, is an absolute dead letter. Bush is doing this also for future Presidents. The Democrats have written this bill to twart one man, George W. Bush. The Democrats' message is, "US troops and purple-fingered Iraqis be damned. You're not worth supporting." Harry Reid's message to Iraqis is, "Surrender to al-Qaeda, or surrender to Iran. You decide which one. We don't care."


Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:42 PM

Pope Benedict XVI catholic? lol - yeah right - that guy is the most jewish pope ever


;-)

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:53 PM

Thanks for the convenient Hagel link, Anonymous. His staff can add my email to the 'disapprove' tally.

Posted by Fred [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 11:59 PM

Petri, R - WI has gone all Democratic party line, too.

So, we compromise to elect Republicans who aren't as Republican as we want but, hey, they're some kind of Republican. Sure looks like a losing strategy now.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 12:07 AM

May God warmly bless each and every single one of the Congressmen, both Houses, heartily, according to his actions.

May the time come when each of them comes to highly value his own community, and wish that he was highly valued by them, instead of receiving the respect he is richly due.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 12:12 AM

Since none of our coins are silver any more, it's hard to send 30 of something meaningful.

This does have a silver lining -- now the troops can see who believes in them and who does not.

ck,

What was Roosevelt's plan b during wwii?

Posted by BarCodeKing [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:06 AM

From my blog, November 8, 2006:

The Iraq War and the War on Terror are over. The American people were given a choice between the Stupid Party, which took them seriously, and the Dangerous Party, which does not. The voters chose the Dangerous Party. Expect the Iraq War to be de-funded and the troops quickly pulled out, just as the Democrats did in Vietnam in 1975, and also expect the Iraqis to get the same treatment that the South Vietnamese got: Having their financial and military assistance slashed to nothing and being left to the tender mercies of the wolves in their neighborhood.

Remember the scene in the movie "Animal House" where the Deltas have taken Flounder's cousin's Lincoln Continental out on a road trip and trashed it, and Flounder is sobbing about what his cousin is going to say. One of the leaders of the frat house says to him, "Hey, you f***ed up! You trusted us!" THAT is how America will be remembered if we abandon Iraq the way we abandoned South Vietnam. Unfortunately, it is exactly what I expect from the Democrats. And it will damage our foreign policy efforts world-wide for decades to come. No one will ever trust us again, nor should they if we cut and run.

The Democrats will block anything that is effective in the War on Terror. They will bend over backwards to preserve the non-existent constitutional "rights" of terrorist suspects, and will block wiretapping of possible terrorists overseas. The end result of all of this is predictable:

The odds of terrorist attacks will increase exponentially beginning on January 20th, 2007, because our Democrat congress will make it easier for our enemies to pull them off.

As I said, if you voted for the Democrats or failed to vote for Republicans, you deserve what is going to happen to you in the next two years. You buy it, you own it. I only hope that the body count isn't too high, and that if it is, we'll finally get serious about the War on Islamic Fascism. I don't expect that to happen unless something a couple of orders of magnitude worse than 9/11 happens, and I don't take much solace in the fact that most of the victims are likely to be Democrat voters in big cities in blue states. This time, though, unlike 9/11, they won't be able to say that they didn't see it coming.

Posted by muirgeo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:19 AM

Bush can veto the bill and in 15 months when we are in the same quagmire we are in now (but with another $175 BILLION spent and over 4,000 soldiers lost....then I think the Democrats may have a 60 % Senatorial majority to look forward to along with control of the presidency. Then this fiasco will end...and the blood of these 4,000 will be Bush's and his 25% supporters legacy.

Mean time just 2 months into this Democratic congress and heads are rolling....you ain't seen nothin yet boys. Congressional oversights back in town.

You might wanna start listening to people like Hagel and Barr because talk about a party lost in the wilderness. And man I could swear I could find all kinds of posts pre-2006 about how the Democratic party will never win again. When people see the truth of what the two parties leadership stands for I think ya'lls got some spalnin to do.


When the Walls come crumbling DOWNNNNN!

Posted by liontooth [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:26 AM

Finally, a question. When a candidate files to run for the Presidency for a Political Party, can that filing be either refused or rescinded?

I would assume the party can ultimately do whatever it wants to do, but, that would be after months/years of lawsuits.

Wouldn't it be easier and more symbolic for the RNC chairman to just announce Hagel is barred from entering the building where the Republican Convention is held in 2008?

Posted by WK [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:17 AM

Chuck Hagel, the true definition of RINO. Enough said.

Posted by toughluck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:37 AM

CK, Jesus dude, you don't have the slightest idea what our goal is over there? No wonder your views are so jacked up. You should really expand your reading. The goal isn't to rid Iraq of all the bad guys, it's simply to have a government stable enough to be able to control the situation themselves. If we leave Baghdad now and the terrorists (insurgents, whatever floats your boat) takes the place over, that's bad. If we can get stable security forces in place to defeat the bad guys themselves, that's good.

Can't believe I have to explain this, it's been the stated goal for years...

Posted by toughluck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:57 AM

TokyoTom: "You talk about how "giving timetables only emboldens the enemy" - but you conveniently beg the question of who the enemy actually IS. It is the Sunnis? The Shias? Every fucking Iraqi?"

The enemy in Iraq is any Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, or even Quaker using terrorist means to de-stabalize the Iraq.

"And you might see this as declaring defeat, but isn't it really a message to the Shias and Sunnis that they're going to have to find a way to live together?"

Yeah, worked great for the Israelis and the Palestinians.

"How ironic that it is the Democrats, and a few brave Republicans like Hagel, end up playing the role of the party of fiscal responsibility and a check on an imperial president who has been unable to find a problem that he couldn't make worse by unilateral and jingoistic approaches that somehow loot the Treasury while showering benefits on favored corporations."

WTF? Fiscal responsibility? Did you see the $20 BILLION pork in that bill? The rest of the post was just baseless rambling which doesn't elicit a response.

Posted by Sultanofsham [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:21 AM

Anyone have a breakdown on who got what of that 20 billion? I'd like to see what was given to Nebraska.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:36 AM

I said it when Hagel started publicly talking impeachment, and I'll say it again:

He knows he pissed off the MSM when he dragged them out to Omaha for his momentus announcement that he wasn't announcing anything, and he's desperate to get back into their good graces (remember how they were touting him as a "serious contender" for the White House just a couple of months ago?). Talking about impeaching Bush was step one, and got him quite a lot of favorable press time. Being a "maverick" and pushing to "bring the troops home" will get him even more plaudits.

Chuck didn't sell out for thirty pieces of silver: he sold out for an appearance on "Meet the Press".

As others have pointed out, it's even more disgusting that he IS a Vietnam vet and is doing to our troops in Iraq exactly what the dems did to the troops in Vietnam thirty years ago.

If he's still alive, bin Laden must be laughing his ass off right now.

Posted by Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:57 AM

Last weekend the Gathering of Eagles which had a couple of months to organise, showed in 3 times the numbers of the Anti-war Protestors who had an entire year to plan their protests.

So obviously the present Anti-War movement is not exactly on the same level as what some of us remember from the late 60s and early 70s

That said, someone refresh my memory, What exactly happened to Mondale's run for the Presidency?

IMO The Democratic Party seems to be bound and determined to run off the edge of a cliff.

Howard Dean, Moveon.org and other assorted irrational Bush haters, rather than trying to avoid this,seem to be petulantly complaining they are not stampeding fast enough.

We are back again in the same situation which prompted me to write

The Lemming Left

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:39 AM

M Simon,

The Republicans (directly or indirectly) enable the Dhimmicrats.

You guys got us to this point, Thanks.

I think you might be surprised by how long we can go without being "paid".

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:42 AM

toughluck - nice try -

First explain to me when we can be sure the Iraqi gov't is capable - Or are we going to just end up telling everyone its functional and haul ass out only to hear on the news that Iraq is just as bad as it is now? And we'll have spent billions more and lost hundreds more lives just to leave it the way it is now - Because god knows we can't stay there for much longer - We simply don't have the manpower or the money -
All of you guys advocating the prolonged stay in Iraq do realize that our military is way too thin right now, right? What are we going to do? Just keep waiting? Maybe another surge?
Be practical - New ideas NEED to emerge, and quickly - As you guys obviously are very passionate about the military, you must understand 150,000 or more military personnel stuck in Iraq does nobody any good -
And as for knowing when Iraq's gov't is stable or not - Well, having dozens of police killed routinely is not a good sign - Having a bomb go off next to the UN secretary general is a bad sign - Politicians afraid of leaving the green zone is not a good sign -

So what's the plan? Another surge?

I've heard for 4 years that we were a couple months away from taking this thing over - but it never comes to fruition - What's the plan guys? Just wait it out? Bankrupt everything but the military, leave us vulnerable, and incite a whole region even more than it was? Is that the plan? Because I sure as hell haven't heard anything else -

Posted by TheConfusedOne [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 5:29 AM

ck,

So, ummm, how many military personnel are stuck in South Korea? What time table do we have for withdrawing them? Germany? Japan? Kosovo?

I'm glad you're so damned concerned about the bombings and security situation there. So, here's the question for you to think about:
What happens with all of those bombs if the US withdraws?

Posted by Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 5:44 AM

I hope all the people like Peggy Noonan are happy. After all she said the Republicans needed to lose, well she and her whiney little friends got what they wanted.

Posted by TokyoTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 6:34 AM

Toughluck,

1. "WTF? Fiscal responsibility? Did you see the $20 BILLION pork in that bill?"

Yes I saw it. Think I'm thrilled? I'm just putting it in perspective against the expense of this little off-budget war, and against the greed of Republicans over the past six years in managing the Treasury. I'm not happy that Dems are in charge in the Congress - but we have Republican mismanagment to thank for that. At least they are trying to put an end to this nightmare, and to actually act like a party in charge of something besides simply looting.

2. "Yeah, worked great for the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Don't you realize that this case actually proves MY point? The billions we give to Israel creates powerful incentives from them NEVER to figure out a way to get along.

But come out with it - do you think that blanketing Iraq with American troops will do the trick of stopping all of the criminal and clan violence that was unloosened when we destroyed the Iraqi state? It has taken even the Catholics and Protestants of N Ireland 40 years to finally get past their Troubles - what chance do WE have of actually forcing any kind of reconciliation and creation of a strong national identity in Iraq??

3. "The enemy in Iraq is any Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, or even Quaker using terrorist means to de-stabalize the Iraq."

"Using terrorist means"? What bullshit is this? There is simply no effective state, and it is every man for himself, with people looking for safety in whatever clan/faction/religious identity they can find from the murderous depreadations of others, including plain old criminals.

Yet with all this violence, the latest polls show that 88% of Iraqis across all provinces (see the Economist piece below) want the US to leave, probably because of the fact that they feel so much less safe now than they did immediately after the invasion.

4. Here's a nice little story to brighten your day by the Economist, "Iraq; Mugged by reality; How it all went wrong in Iraq",
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8881663.

Conclusions?
"Such has been Mr Bush's failure that the autocrats of the Middle East say that they are trying to rescue Iraq from America and America from itself. It really is a debacle.

"It is not enough to say with the neocons that this was a good idea executed badly. Their own ideas are partly to blame. Too many people in Washington were fixated on proving an ideological point: that America's values were universal and would be digested effortlessly by people a world away. But plonking an American army in the heart of the Arab world was always a gamble. It demanded the highest seriousness and careful planning. Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld chose instead to send less than half the needed soldiers and gave no proper thought to the aftermath.

"What a waste. Most Iraqis rejoiced in the toppling of Saddam. They trooped in their millions to vote. What would Iraq be like now if America had approached its perilous, monumentally controversial undertaking with humility, honesty and courage? Thanks to the almost criminal negligence of Mr Bush's administration nobody, now, will ever know."

Well the Economist pulls its punches. This Administration has shown that it cares little for the health of the military or for the well-being of the injured soldiers, and that it still has no clear, hard-boiled and enunciated policy in Iraq. One is justified in concluding that the war continues only because those who have so damaged our national interests and put our troops in harm's way have no ambitions other than to not admit to failure during their terms in office. In other words, they care about covering their own asses more than they care about the lives of our soldiers or our national interests.

What Hagel is doing takes guts, and you here who are calling him a traitor ought to be ashamed.

Posted by NavySpy II [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 6:35 AM

And the living shall envy the dead.

Maybe it would take a nice dousing in urine to remind Mr. Hagel of what he has just done. Not suggesting it, just wondering if even that would sink the point home on his actions.

Strangely, the children of abusers do tend to abuse in their own right, years on down the road. I think we've just seen the political equivalent.

Even if President Bush does veto this travesty, we're still 6 feet into the sump. We then hae to have a supplemental by April 15. Do you think the Demo's are going to hurry at this point? Especially when they can try to paint this as Bush vetoing his own funds?

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 8:09 AM

When you read the posts by those who oppose the war and are happy that Reid has succeeded in taking this big step toward surrender, notice the tone and language. The poster is usually crowing because this is a defeat for Bush. Then ask yourself: who do these people think the real enemy is: the terrorists? Or George Bush?

Now, there's another, more rare type of quisling: the one whose posts drip with phony concern for the troops.

"We've lost over four thousand poor kids in this war (sniff!)! We've gotta (sob!) BRING THEM HOME before more are lost in this pointless war!"

I'm reminded of a World War II "information" (read: propaganda) film called "Divide and Conquer"; it was an expose of how the nazis used propaganda, lies, and fifth columnists to undermine the will of their victims to resist.

One scene sticks in my mind. A bunch of frenchies are waiting outside a shop. This matronly woman with a bitter, shift-eyed look suddenly bursts into tears. All the other frenchies naturally rush to see what's the matter. Tears running down her cheeks, she tells them, "My boy. He's dead. Dead! And thousands like him lie dead on the battlefields. Boys who never had a chance!" Naturally, she was a nazi agent spreading her defeatist poison among the frenchie people.

Remember this when you read a lib shedding crocodile tears about the brave troops in Iraq who've been wounded or killed. It's not about sorrow for the loss: it's about using their dead and broken bodies as propaganda against Chimpy McBushitler.

If getting even with him for whatever their diseased minds think he's done means losing the war, sacrificing the dream of liberty in the Middle East, emboldening the terrorists and subjecting our country to another humilation, then it's a small price to pay, and they'll pay it gladly.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 9:52 AM

M Simon

The Dhimmicrats who voted for the war are corrupt, cowardly traitors…no doubt.

But you trying to blame Capt Ed for what’s going on is an error. You share the blame with Capt Ed and the rest of the corrupt Republicans for the mess we are in.

You squeal that it is “our” fault for not voting for a Republican last election…and what if I lived in Nebraska, should I vote for their Repub?

But what have your Republicans done for us? They grossly enlarged the Nanny State…they spent more money than Clinton did…they stuck it to the taxpayers by giving us “free drugs”…they enlarged the Federal interference in education with the NCLB…did I forget anything? Oh yes, they made it harder for us to stop the corruption by crushing our First Amendment rights via McCain.

And the crowning achievement? The corrupt Republicans were too cowardly to stand up to the traitorous Dhimmicrats and are about to leave the troops stranded in another shithole. Your Republicans took us to war without ‘preparing the battlefield’ of public opinion. If we were to be at war, the Republicans should have been out front EVERY DAY telling the nation what was at stake. That’s part of the deal in a democracy: maintain public support.

This will be worse than Vietnam. At least after we abandoned our “allies” in SE Asia, we could say “It won’t happen again”. Some people might actually have believed us…that we would never abandon our “allies” in the field again. We’ve been chanting that mantra ever since. What are we going to say after we abandon our “allies” in Iraq? Who will ever trust us again?

Never again in my life will I support a Republican “sponsored” overseas military engagement. I’ve seen first hand that the Repubs are too cowardly to stand up to the Dhimmicrats…so if the Dhimmicrats aren’t in the WH leading the effort…I will not support the effort which will lead to killing more of my colleagues waiting to be abandoned by traitorous Dhimms and cowardly Repulicans.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 11:30 AM

Hagel has changed his mind in the last 12 days about imposing a timetable for withdrawal. The only thing that has happened in the past 12 days is that it is becoming increasingly clear that the Surge is working.

Since Hagel (mindboggingly and stupidly ) described the Surge as "the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the United States" it is hardly surprising he voted the way he did. If the Surge works he's history.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 12:32 PM

SwabJockey,

So far I don't regret my decision.

I do regret my support of the Dems "No Support for South Vietnam" in '75.

Look at it this way: I'm no Admiral Ghormley.

In for a penny. In for a pound.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 12:52 PM

"…so if the Dhimmicrats aren’t in the WH leading the effort…I will not support the effort which will lead to killing more of my colleagues waiting to be abandoned by traitorous Dhimms and cowardly Repulicans."

Do you really think the Democrats would bother themselves with defending this nation?

The Democrat Party is driven by its lunatic base. Have you ever grabbed an eyeful of these people? The only thing they might even think about defending is the right to take the last bong hit.

So if you're waiting for General Pelosi or General Reid to wage war, think again. The jihadists could be beheading Americans in Times square and Pelosi and Reid would be trying to pass legistation to subsidize Burhka purchases for low-income mothers.

And how will Pelosi look in her french designed, $10,000 designer hibab?

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 12:52 PM

SwabJockey,

I don't disagree that the Rs are very bad. Corrupt etc.

I voted the way I did for two reasons.

1. Winning (an Iraqi government strong enough to handle its own security).
2. The Democrats would be worse.

So far I'm right on both counts.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:02 PM

Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason, and he now isn't able to win it either. I can't think of the last U.S. President who deliberately started a war he then failed to go on and win. Even LBJ didn't start the Vietnam War.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:13 PM

The Democrats in Congress voted to approve a war they subsequently actively sabotaged for cheap political gain.

Has that happened in American history, Joshua Marshall, I mean sd dude?

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:19 PM

NoDonkey, while some (not all) of the Democrats in Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war, they didn't start the war. The "Decider" did. Although in hindsight it's very clear that Bush meant to have his war all along.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:39 PM

RE: starfleet_dude (March 28, 2007 01:02 PM)
Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason...

Ahaha! Inanity at its finest. [raising glass in tribute]

Please, starfleet_dude, do go on.

Posted by George [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 1:58 PM

What did the Democrats offer Hagel and Nelson to change their minds on this bill? Free Frank Warner wants to know. Was it an Interstate 80 bypass in Sarpy County?

Frank Warner thinks perhaps Saddam Hussein's name should be on that highway on offers a challenge to Name That Highway.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:01 PM

So since the Dhimmicrats didn't start the war, the field was open for them to actively sabotage it?

And if you don't accept that they've been actively sabotaging it, they sure haven't done a whole lot to support it. Which is just as unforgivable.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:23 PM

A.D., the only good reason to fight a war is when you have to, not because you want to as Bush did. Sure, there can be good bad wars like the U.S.-Mexican War that came out well for the U.S. in the end. But there was no good reason why the U.S. had to depose Saddam Hussein. Why? Because there was no threat to the U.S. worth going to war over, no strategic objective for the U.S. that necessitated a war, or any conceivable gain to be had that was worth the cost and the risk. Hussein could have been contained for 1,000 years for what Bush's war is going to cost the U.S. in the end. But President Bush wanted war for his own vainglorious reasons and got what he wanted.

NoDonkey, you can't make mere critisism of the Iraq war a reason for not winning it. Republicans took 100% control of the White House and Congress after 2002, and had years to win the war with no political opposition to tie their hands. Blame Bush for being stupid enough to start an unnecessary war and the Republican Congress for not having a clue as to how to win in Iraq.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:28 PM

M. Simon,

I'm not asking you to justify how you voted. You're the one who tried to blame this latest debacle on those who didn't vote for your Republicans.

I say again: When a democracy goes to war, the key is Public Support of the war effort. True in ancient Greece…true in modern America.

How many Repubs consistently worked on that front? How many Repubs stood up to the traitors?

Instead of focusing on their part of the war effort, they were working on getting their share of the pork.

I stand by my last comment. NEVER AGAIN. Even if that means we need to shrink from the status of "super power"....which will be inevitable after we retreat from Iraq then Afgan. Retreat we will...thanks to the cowardly traitorous Dhimmis...and their cowardly and corrupt Republican enablers

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:40 PM

SwabJockey,

Me.

Manzullo sent me a nice letter tthanking me for a blog post on a speach he gave in Congress.

Durbin? Obama? I wouldn't dirty my electrons.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:40 PM

"But there was no good reason why the U.S. had to depose Saddam Hussein."

So his continual violation of the cease fire he signed, that ended the first Gulf War, was "no good reason"?

His firing on the allied planes, charged with enforcing the "no-fly" zone, that he agreed to, that kept him from slaughtering the Kurds, amounts to "no good reason?".

I've tired of posting the multitude of Democrat quotes on the need for regime change in Iraq.

No strategic objective? I guess harboring members of Al Qaeda and all of the intelligence that pointed towards Saddam's development of WMDs (intelligence Democrats used to justify their votes on the war), didn't count? After 9/11, we were to wait for the second wave to hit?

"Hussein could have been contained for 1,000 years"

Just like we're "containing" Iran now, right? And when those brilliant diplomats who put their faith in "containment", have the rug pulled out from under them and now a British sailor is pleading for her life and wearing a hibab on TV, how exactly do they purpose to "contain" terrorism, with laughingly impotent "diplomacy"?

Saddam wasn't even close to being "contained". That was always a ridiculous lie.

Democrats have fulfilled Al Qaeda's predictions. Democrats have been every bit the feckless, amoral, rubber spined sellouts Al Qaeda predicted they would be.

Democrats should be brutally dragged out of Congress and mercilessly horsewhipped on the front lawn of the Capitol, for what they've done to undermine our military and our Commander in Chief during a time of war. What's left of them afterwards, should be thrown into Leavenworth and put on trial.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:45 PM

SwabJockey05, the reason why public support for the war in Iraq has soured is that the war has gone on for four years with no end in sight. No amount of scapegoating changes that basic fact. Considering there were no WMDs as advertised by the Bush administration, or that Iraq now looks to be stuck in the same sort of civil war that Lebanon was mired in for 15 years (contrary to the neo-con promises of roses and democracy) and it's no wonder the American public is having buyer's remorse now.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:48 PM

NoDonkey,

En Fuego!

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:53 PM

starfleet dude sez:

"Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason, and he now isn't able to win it either."

Gee, he managed to get most of the Dems-including Hillary and Jean Carry-to give him the authorization.

"I can't think of the last U.S. President who deliberately started a war he then failed to go on and win. Even LBJ didn't start the Vietnam War."

No, he only escalated it. It was actually "started" by another Democrat, namely Harry Truman, who sent the first American troops into Vietnam in the late 1940s.

By the way, we never did win Clinton's "War of Choice" in Kosovo, either. If we had, our troops wouldn't still be there.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:54 PM

More straw men from SF Dude.

SFDude, it's been five years and I haven't heard a single person on your side of the aisle address the central premise of the war on terrorism: that this is a war of ideas--democracy versus Wahhabist Islam.

Establishing a democracy in Al Qaeda's backyard is central to our goal, which is to prove that humans like democracy better than they like the slavery of Wahhabism.

But then your side isn't too keen on democracy anyway. You sneer at it every chance you get, you despise the choices that the Iraqis have made, and you tell the Iraqis daily that they would be better off with a dictator.

There is no doubt whose side you are on.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 2:54 PM

Star Fleet Dude,

Since the preliminary successes of the surge support for the war has gone up from 30% to 40%.

The idea that all Americans are against the war may not be correct.

Americans may be against losing.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:00 PM

Swabbie,
Don't give up so easily, man.

If we retreat like we did in SE Asia, then you can give up. But we haven't done that yet, and the Democrats do not have the votes to make that happen.

We are not a nation of quitters, so don't you be one.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:00 PM

So his continual violation of the cease fire he signed, that ended the first Gulf War, was "no good reason"?

Nope. Everytime it happened, U.S. forces blew them away with no casualties.

His firing on the allied planes, charged with enforcing the "no-fly" zone, that he agreed to, that kept him from slaughtering the Kurds, amounts to "no good reason?".

The "no-fly" zone was protecting the Kurds, exactly as you say.

No strategic objective? I guess harboring members of Al Qaeda and all of the intelligence that pointed towards Saddam's development of WMDs (intelligence Democrats used to justify their votes on the war), didn't count? After 9/11, we were to wait for the second wave to hit?

The 9/11 Commission said there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship that threatened the U.S., and the bogus intel about Iraqi WMDs was stovepiped up for public consumption by a White House that wanted the war regardless of what any legitimate intelligence said.

Saddam wasn't even close to being "contained". That was always a ridiculous lie.

Saddam Hussein was a toothless tiger in 2003, as the world was beginning to truly find out before Bush pulled the plug on the U.N. inspections that were threatening to deflate his rush to war. The only ridiculous lies were the ones that had Saddam on the verge of having nukes and weapons capable of striking the U.K. in 45 minutes.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:09 PM

sfdude,

You reinforce my point nicely. You continue to say that having Iraqis under Uncle Saddam's boot is better than providing them with a chance to forge a compromise that offers representation for all (aka a democracy).

Al Qaeda agrees with you.

Nice company you keep. By the way, you do not EVER AGAIN get to pretend you care about anyone who is not American.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:12 PM

"Everytime it happened, U.S. forces blew them away with no casualties."

So it's OK for Saddam to continue plugging away? If you were flying one of those planes, would you be happy with that situation? Good luck SDdude, those surface to air missiles haven't killed anyone, well yet, anyway! Real morale booster there.

Not to mention, the sanctions were going to collapse at some point, due to the UN's oil for bribes scandal and the leftwing "Iraqi children are starving because of the sanctions!" brigade.

And once the sanctions/no fly collapsed, the Kurds would have been slaughtered.

"The 9/11 Commission" was a rigged, partisan bunch of know-nothing ostriches who could have been replaced by the OJ jury. The Captain cites above a book by Stephen Hayes which copiously documents Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein and the US would be far better off, if Congressional Democrats joined him in the paradise in which he now resides.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:34 PM

NoDonkey,

Iraqi children *were* starving due to the sanctions! I read about one Iraqi mother who hated us for that. You won't hear the left talking about THAT--at least not now.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:40 PM

SFDude, it's been five years and I haven't heard a single person on your side of the aisle address the central premise of the war on terrorism: that this is a war of ideas--democracy versus Wahhabist Islam.

Bostonian, if the U.S. was at war with Wahhabist Islam, the U.S. would be at war now with Saudi Arabia, the home and chief sponsor and supporter of Wahhabism. The premise of being at war with "Islamofacism" is flawed, and is nothing more than a slogan that's being used to justify the war in Iraq.

Since the preliminary successes of the surge support for the war has gone up from 30% to 40%.

The idea that all Americans are against the war may not be correct.

M. Simon, the proof is indeed in the pudding, but if Bush's "surge" becomes a Vietnam-like escalation of forces with little result (except the one of allowing Bush to not lose Iraq before January 20th, 2009), support for the war will end up going down even further.

So it's OK for Saddam to continue plugging away? If you were flying one of those planes, would you be happy with that situation? Good luck SDdude, those surface to air missiles haven't killed anyone, well yet, anyway! Real morale booster there.

NoDonkey, given that over 3,200 U.S. men and women have lost their lives in Iraq and over 22,000 have been wounded there as well, the possible casualty count of enforcing the no-fly zones absolutely pales in comparison.

Not to mention, the sanctions were going to collapse at some point, due to the UN's oil for bribes scandal and the leftwing "Iraqi children are starving because of the sanctions!" brigade.

If the U.S. had used it's considerable influence after 9/11 to push to keep the sanctions in place against Iraq, they would have continued and been effective enough to neutralize Hussein's regime.

FWIW, the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan and did it's job by objectively going over the evidence for and against any links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. They found nothing which justified the U.S. going to war.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:44 PM

Bostonian,

That was a big leftwing cause celebre, which they conveniently discarded, once they fabricated the "Saddam was contained" lie.

So according to the left, "containing Saddam" (which they were NOT at all big on when it was going on), would have consisted of a sanctions regime that was starving children, a "No-Fly" zone that tolerated the Iraqis firing on allied planes, assassination attempts against Americans and a "come and go" policy for known terrorists.

And lets not forget about all of those pesticides the Iraqi Army for some reason needed to protect their ammo dumps from insects (the fact that pesticides are a precursor for nerve agents of course never occurred to the Iraqis).

Splendid containment. Might as well allowed Saddam to put together his own Freikorps and to put together a Luftwaffe, for airshows only, of course.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 3:58 PM

SF dude. In the future don't reply to anything I write. I think you are an absolute idiot. Unlike the rest of these guys, I'm not a masochist and I don't have time for idiots. You will be ignored.

Bostonian, Did you ever read my last comment to you on the "simpson" thread? Pls do, you were 180 out. You say my comments sound like a “quitter”. Interesting…I guess you could take it that way. I lettered in two sports in HS and almost made the wrestling squad at a Big Ten university. The positive side of that is that I don’t know how to quit…the down side is that I’m a “hands on” kinda guy. Right now I’m looking for someone to CHOKE. Unfortunately, there are far too many Republican cowards looking like likely choking candidates…and Dhimmis ready for No Donk’s horse whip.

I guess it’s easy to throw the “quitter” term around…honestly been called a lot of things before, but not that one. Usually I ignore the name callers…but sometimes they end up trying to pick up their teeth with broken fingers.

You say we didn’t retreat yet? I just saw Pelousy on CNN…what a piece of work. She told Bush to “Calm Down”…and “…that the American people have decided to end the war.” You’re right that they can’t override a Veto…but then what? We have billions ready to be spent on RTD&E…in each service. We going to send that to Iraq instead? How long will that last? How much will Bush cut into the military’s LONG TERM READINESS?

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:00 PM

SFDude,

As far as the war on Wahhabism is concerned, the mideast is a target-rich environment. Your side would desperately oppose any target at all; that much is clear.

Iraq made strategic sense because it is physically in the middle and because we were already at war with Saddam Hussein. How credible a threat would we have been to any dictator if we had let that monster alone?

You ignore the pyschological angle. (I suppose you think Qaddafi would have given up his weapons without the example of Saddam in his spidey hole.)

As for the goal of democracy, Al Qaeda understands it even if you refuse to. They know that it is essential to their goal to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.

This is apparently a goal you don't mind sharing with them. You offer no support to our allies in Iraq, you tell them they deserve no better than a dictator, and you'll pull the plug on them as soon as you can.

***
And SFDude, did you read the 9/11 commission report? They did find evidence of terrorist links. It was not their job to evaluate the case for war; nor did they attempt to.

The case for war is a matter of political opinion, and it always has been, even if your side wants to make a show trial out of it.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:04 PM

SF dude. In the future don't reply to anything I write. I think you are an absolute idiot. Unlike the rest of these guys, I'm not a masochist and I don't have time for idiots. You will be ignored.

SwabJockey05, whatever you think is your business just as what ever you choose to respond to or not is your business as well. That goes the same for me and everyone else who comments here. You'll just have to deal with that, like everyone else does.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:14 PM

Swabbie,
There is a Simpsons thread?

You just sounded very defeated, is all.

Part of our country is resolutely opposed to any use of force by our country, no matter what. It's a large, angry, noisy minority, but it is a minority and it will not prevail.

I am sure that Copperheads were a large minority as well, but the fact is they lost and history shows them to be shortsighted fools. Same will happen with today's Copperheads/America Firsters.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:27 PM

Boston,

You commented to me on the "Simpson" thread. You can "Search" the Capt's archive.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:30 PM

Bostonian, the war in Afghanistan made sense because that's where Osama bin Laden and most of al-Qaeda was, and the Taliban was giving them support there as well. Geographic rationales for occupying Iraq were no more reason to go to war than the infamous "domino theory" was for the Vietnam war.

Qaddafi by the way had been backing down for years since the early 1990s and the Gulf War, and his real incentive wasn't fear of the U.S. but a desire to end the economic isolation of Libya.

As for there being a stable democracy in Iraq someday, it is something to hope for. But unfortunately the new Iraq is turning out to be the sort of confessional state that Lebanon has been. The government in Iraq isn't very stable and could well fracture into three separate and warring states that al Qaeda and others would then exploit. Going to war with good intentions is one thing, being aware of the odds against keeping Iraq together as a nation are another. The U.S. was not prepared to cope with the post-Saddam era, and Bush's regime change was ill-thought out to say the least.

I'm well aware that the genie can't be put back in the bottle now, of course. That doesn't mean the reasons Bush gave for going to war in Iraq were valid.

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:35 PM

Swabbie,

You did sound defeated.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:46 PM

SFDude,

I like how you know what Qaddafi's "real incentive" was. Perhaps you forgot that Qaddafi coughed up his weapons days after we nabbed Saddam.

I don't know why you think Iraq will fracture into three, unless you believe MSNBC/CBS/etc. rather than the Iraqi people themselves. In the last poll, they were very opposed to the idea of splitting. But even if they did, if that is what they want, who are you to tell them they deserve Saddam instead?

And again you complain about the reasons for going to war... I would take you more seriously if you addressed Al Qaeda's reasons for being at war with us. But like the rest of your side, you will not listen to the jihadis.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:46 PM

Boston,
Tell me you read the archive and I’ll leave you be..

Maybe if you were in my flight boots you would sound a little frustrated too, shipmate.

When someone finally decides to stop hitting his head against a wall...would you call him a quitter? Or maybe he’s learning from a painful experience…maybe even learning enough to NOT try hitting his melon against that same wall if it gets in his way again...?

You have more faith in the "American People" than I do...I still don't see many Repubs making the case for our presence in Iraq...why not? M. Simon says he’s doing it…but I didn’t vote for him no offense to him, but his blog doesn’t me squat. Where are the “Repub Leaders”? As for bloggers, I think even the Capt is ready to toss in the towel. His last post on Gen Petraeus' new strategy gave me the impression that this was the "last chance" for our mission in Iraq. Even though I never saw a specific "measure of effectiveness" with which we could judge the success or failure of the surge. I have a personal interest in how the “bloggers” and other “War Cheerleaders” react to the unfolding events in Iraq. How many will wiggle and dance in an attempt to maintain their reputations…?

Money given to the services has many “colors”. Depending on for what it was appropriated. Most RDT&E money is two year money. We have billions of it on hand right now. Will Bush use it even if it means negatively affecting our Long Term Military Readiness?

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:52 PM

"Bostonian, the war in Afghanistan made sense because that's where Osama bin Laden and most of al-Qaeda was, and the Taliban was giving them support there as well" star *dude

dude,
Where do you think al Qaeda is now? And where do you think they'll be in 5 years if we surrender to them now- because that's what we'll be doing if we leave before Iraq can defend itself. It's as simple as that.

The fact Chuck and Hillary voted for the war is irrelevant . That they were right then -and the fact that the action taken in consequence of their votes, among others, prevented Saddam from developing nuclear weapons doesn't make up for their stupidity now in surrendering to al Qaeda -particularly when it's obvious the Surge is working and, in the words of Petraeus, "al Qaeda is being attrited at a fearsome rate".

Posted by liontooth [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 4:54 PM

FWIW, the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan and did it's job by objectively going over the evidence for and against any links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. They found nothing which justified the U.S. going to war.

The Commission ONLY was looking at links to the WTC attacks.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 5:07 PM

Simon,

If you haven't figured it out yet...though you say I sound "defeated" I'm far from it.

It will take more than Gen Pelousy and the cowards you call Republicans to defeat me...court-martial me for calling them cowards...maybe. But not defeat me.

That will probably only occur if a Mullah sponsored IED finds its mark.

How could a military person not be demoralized by what's going on right now? Some of you boys need to remember your sitting in front of computer screens...eating fat pills...counting your stock dividends etc. Some of us have friends and colleagues who are missing limbs.

Fortunately for most of us...we have outstanding MILITARY leadership.

The professional corpse of leaders, and a motivated, professional group of squids, jarheads, grunts is what will enables us to train and prepare ourselves...so we can minimize the risks (and maximize the destrution of the enemy). All this will occur, In spite of the sickening traitors who IMO will complete the abandonment process against our "friends and allies" any day now.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 5:42 PM

Swabbie, that thread is long dead and I'm just not going back to that argument.
*****

Reagan said to trust the voters and I agree with him. There is really no choice; anything else is tyrannical anyway. But I will admit it is a scary ride, and if I were in the forces, I would be quite concerned about the possibility of a Democrat as C-in-C. As a plain old voter, I will do my legal best to spare you that fate.

It seems to me that pacifism versus the willingness to stand up and fight is a deeply engrained part of personality. Whatever else the polls have said, they do show a substantial majority of us opposed to cut-and-run. I cannot imagine this changing significantly.

Posted by liontooth [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 6:32 PM

The Commission ONLY was looking at links to the WTC attacks.

Correction: The Commission ONLY was looking at links to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 7:18 PM

"ck,

So, ummm, how many military personnel are stuck in South Korea? What time table do we have for withdrawing them? Germany? Japan? Kosovo?

I'm glad you're so damned concerned about the bombings and security situation there. So, here's the question for you to think about:
What happens with all of those bombs if the US withdraws?" -theconfusedone

Hey Confused person -
So, are you saying we can start withdrawing troops from Korea? I don't get what your point is - You certainly do seem confused -
Unless you're advocating taking all of our troops from the places you cited, then how are we going to sustain our troop level in Iraq when everyone is saying we can't sustain this? Military Times

So what? You just want to leave us vulnerable? Yeah, you guys are real good with national security - *sarcasm*

How bout them bombs? They are going off when we are there, and they'll probably go off when we aren't there - what's the difference? My point is, you guys have no real plan - NONE!! Just keep "surging." and hoping I suppose - I'm advocating looking in another direction and trying something different - Do i know exactly what? nope - But I believe there was a group who threw out a bunch of options (Iraq Study Group) but none of them were listened to - So, what's your plan guys? Keep surging over and over and over again?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 10:47 PM

All one needs to do is look at who owns Military Times to see right through your post ck.

About Us

Our Business
Army Times Publishing Company is the world’s largest publisher of professional military and defense periodicals, with a strong heritage and tradition of meeting the highest standards of independent journalism. Since its inception in 1940, the company has expanded with distinct publications serving all branches of the U.S. military, the global defense community, the U.S. federal government, and several special-interest defense-oriented industry sectors.

Army Times Publishing Company is organized into three market sector groups to effectively cover the needs of the consumer and business-to-business communities served by its publications: (1) The Military Times Media Group, which publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times newsweeklies; (2) the Defense News Media Group, which publishes Defense News, Armed Forces Journal, Training & Simulation Journal, and C4ISR Journal (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance); and (3) the Federal Times newsweekly.

Army Times Publishing Company is a part of Gannett Company, Inc., a recognized leader in the communications industry, and the largest publisher of newspapers in the United States, including USA TODAY. Gannett also publishes 17 dailies in the United Kingdom, owns in excess of 700 non-daily publications around the world, and owns and operates 22 television stations in the U.S.

http://www.gannett.com/ (Pure Liberal Scum)

What upsets me the most, far greater than this pork bill narrowly getting passed 50-48; what really sickens me the most....

We have Americans (as witnessed on this thread) that believe America can be defeated; that America should, could, would & will be defeated. These people all belong to one Party & one ideology. These people have no problem with an American defeat, doesn't bother them in any way.

Democrats Own Defeat....
Bush will veto this bill....
A 50-48 decision is typical of what is the reality of the narrow majority held by the party of defeat. Face it Libs, you will not get your treasured American defeat by way of a piece of legislature; no Libs, the "slow bleed" method is your ticket. Problem is, the entire country is watching this slow bleed of Americans soldiers now that Murtha was caught on tape outlining this strategy. Roll those dice Libs; the country is watching.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 11:29 PM

Keemo - you do realize you never make any real points, right? You think USA Today is a liberal paper huh? lol -

Anyway, what the hell does that have to do with the opinion of retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey? That's the article - Not liberals from USA Today - It was a retired general!!!

But all you can ever do is to try and attack the messenger - And you can't even do that right! What's left keemo? Blame it on those liberal school children in Iraq?

As for your "slow bleed" BS - its not based in reality -
The bill is the only one that adequately funds the troops, provides for proper training and equipment - The only thing you don't like about the bill is that it sets a timetable - (one that has been offered to be kept secret) -

But Keemo - You never answer my questions! What's your plan for victory Keemo? More surges? What are we going to do when we send ALL of our military to Iraq? Are you denying that having such a large presence in Iraq is hindering our ability to have a military which can strike and protect anywhere necessary? Do you really think that we can keep 150,000 troops over there for another decade with no more consequences? What the hell is your plan keemo?

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 28, 2007 11:37 PM

See you can't argue with people like yourself keemo - why? Because all you have to do is say that a certain source is a liberal, and in your mind that validates everything you think - You have no proof whatsoever - You have no real insight into the argument whatsoever - But as long as you and your friends can pretend that everything that you don't like is "liberal" then you don't have to explain anything --- right? If something is said that doesn't match up with your viewpoint - its LIBERAL!!!
If you were ever held accountable for what you said, you and your ilk would be the most indebted people known to man -

Posted by TokyoTom [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 2:27 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

How do you guys respond to news like this? Just who are the terrorists we oppose, why do WE have to keep them from each other's throats, and how do you propose that we do so and for how long?

And it is worth every penny of it, so we can spit in the face of every quisling like me, all the generals canned over the past six years and the American people who voted Dems into office in November, who have concluded that we have been making a horrid mistake?

Do you feel no sense of responsibility that we have so bungled the occupation? When do boys become men?

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 5:31 AM

Keemo,

Remember one thing about ck:

A few weeks ago when we were arguing about Iraq, I asked him point-blank if he wanted the United States to win.

He couldn't bring himself to say, "Yes."

I think that tells you everything you need to know about what he is and why it's pointless to argue. I mean, would you try to convince Fritz Kuhn that naziism should be defeated, or Benedict Arnold that American independence is worth fighting for?

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 8:08 AM

ck,

I posted that comment last night following 20 hours of driving in some of the worst weather conditions I have ever seen. That damn "global warming" threw down some nasty snow, wind, & hail at me yesterday for about 15 of the 20 hours. I had my wallet stolen last Tuesday (pick pocketed) in Los Angeles while waiting in line at the DMV. I'm scheduled to get on an airplane tomorrow for a family vacation (spring break). I'm licensed to drive in Montana. The only way I could get a new I.D. that will allow me to get on that plane Friday, was to drive to Montana, go the the Motor Vehicle Department this morning, get a new Drivers License with photo, and fly back to Los Angeles tonight. Of coarse, I exhausted all other methods before jumping into my truck. My BC is also in my file cabinet at the Montana house. So forgive me if I didn't hang around long enough last night to respond to your comments.

Victory is easy to describe: Congress sent us to war; the President outlined a plan to change the "root cause" for the breeding of terrorism in the ME. The Presidents vision included giving the people of Afghanistan & Iraq an opportunity at freedom & civil rights. Victory is to stay in both of these countries for however long it takes to allow for the process of democracy & self government to take root, while giving these nations the time needed to build and train the homeland security apparatus to the point where these countries can defend themselves (their people) from the forces of evil that will surely come from all directions. The new democracies (Iraq & Afghanistan) will take years to develop; as was the case with Japan & Germany, as well as other nations.

Docjim,

Have you noticed the large traffic of new trolls here at CQ? Of coarse you are right about ck; he might just as well be monkei or SF Dude; take your pick, they are all created from the same mental mold. Have a great day comrades; I'm off to get a new Drivers License...

BTW: the guy that purposely brushed me from behind at the DMV the other day; a small man about 5'6", brown skin, brown eyes, black hair, very fast runner. Los Angeles has a few million that meet this description perfectly well.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 4:49 PM

Keemo,

I noted the increased Troll traffic...my right index finger is a little more worn from hitting the "scroll through" feature more often...

Sorry to hear about your wallet. Fast as he may have been, doubt he could have outrun a 45 ACP round.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 5:42 PM

docjim - you are an idiot - I explained my position perfectly and reasonably - I should have known that you would come back and lie about it - idiot -

Keemo - Sry about your bad luck lately - But you guys still aren't reasoning -
When do we take our troops away? I know you guys say when they have a stable gov't - But when will that be? Can we wait that long? What are we going to do about our vulnerabilities right now?

Answer these questions reasonably, and the respect for you guys will jump (you know, from just trolls who insult, to people who actually think) -

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 5:48 PM

And Keemo - You are so two-faced!

Referencing the comment docjim made - You actually complimented me on my stance with victory in Iraq - You said something along the lines of it was well thought out - That's when we actually started talking like rational people - Now, of course, you turn two faced and try and insult me - you guys are pathetic -

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 10:59 PM

ck,

Geez my man, we pushed the right button or the wrong button... Come on now ck, you know it gets tough around here at times. At times, your arguments are very worthy of debate. One of the problems currently is the behavior of your guys & gals in the Congress & Senate. These folks have taken the desire to debate right out of my spirit.

Don't go crazy on us now ck; hell, you are one of the best "trolls" we have here...

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 29, 2007 11:21 PM

ok - I did get carried away - Sometimes I get infuriated by the remarks on here - As I'm sure you guys do too -

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 30, 2007 8:56 AM

ck,

I was raised in a Democrat household; parents both were huge JFK people. I have (3) older brothers, (2) of which changed parties somewhere around the 1970's, (1) of which remains a Democrat to this day. He just can't help himself, as he is in an industry that breeds very Liberal views; surrounded by foreigners (mainly Europeans). This brother and I argue about politics at every family gathering; we entertain the masses. Nobody else in my family will stand up to this guy because he is a lawyer and is good at the cross examination techniques, & when confronted with some facts that he wasn't prepared for, he does a good job of going crazy in order to change the subject.

Anyway, he and I go at it and have some good fun in doing so. Despite our political differences, this is my favorite brother. This man has been a role model to his own family in the area of "family" and the commitment required to be a leader while setting the example. This man fly's home from Europe so that he can attend his grand childs special events; helps with homework; coached his grand daughters basketball team because nobody else stepped up to the plate; spends days cooking and preparing for family gatherings... This is a good and decent man; his Liberal views are completely wrong, and his political I.Q. is below 100; however, in all other areas his I.Q. is off the charts. This man was raised a Christian, but gave up on his faith during his college years, and is an athiest to this day. When I get him real good, he gets mad and calls me a neo-con... That's when I know I got him good.

My point is; I'm pretty sure you are a good and decent man ck; much like my brother... You and I will never agree on much politically, and this is a Conservative political site, therefore we will get at each other from time to time; goes with the territory. Despite that, I would love to meet with some time over a good lunch when I'm up in your area. You are obviously articulate and bright; you have displayed a very likable side to you, your just politically confused, but if you hang around here long enough, there is hope we can save you. You know the old saying "hang around a barber shop long enough, and you will get a hair cut"...

I made it back to Ca. last night with a new I.D.; I'm off to Hawaii this morning with my family. This will be our last vacation with my oldest son before he goes off to college. I'll most likely be unplugged for a while. Take care my man and don't forget to keep the first mate in your thoughts as she heads into surgery...

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 30, 2007 8:52 PM

Hey - if that's an offer for lunch when you are around Seattle, I'm all for it - I've been dying to talk face to face with some of you guys -

Anyway - I understand completely - My dad is very conservative himself - And we go back and forth, but he is a stand up guy - That goes for the whole of my dad's side of the family - And the opposite political view runs the whole of my mom's family - So I understand -

I do recall though, that you once characterized all liberals in a very pathetic way - e.g. smelly, lazy, hunched over, and dirty people - Now that I know you have a dem brother, I wonder what he would have said to that - lol -

Anyway - let's get back to politics so we can spew some more venom please =/