“It’s all baseless name-calling, and it’s all wrong. Unless, of course, being a ‘Defeatocrat’ means taking a good hard look at the administration’s Iraq policy and determining that it’s a failure,” Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., wrote in the Washington Post, responding to White House attempts to label Democrats as appeasers who want to cut and run.
Murtha’s position (which isn’t shared by many Democrats): “Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It’s time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
61 Comments
Can we work to insure Tanker Todd is not re-elected? Will we vote for Garth McGuinn? I hope so.
I think Garth, as unknown as he is, can be a new fresh voice for moderates and independents in district 4. In reviewing todd’s record I can’t see much of anything he has actually accomplished for the district / Kansas in 12 years. He voted 4 times against a Congressional Investigation into the Halliburton, Caci et al contracts in Iraq that have squandered billions and adversely affected our soldiers ability to fight the best fight. He purports to supporting our troops yet has voted for legislation / appropriations that have REMOVED 2 billion dollars from the Military Personnel budget. I cannot find any legislation, supporting the military that todd has sponsored or co-sponsored in the last 4 years. He recently voted for a meager 2.2% pay raise for the military, even though DOD and the Senate had approved a 2.7% pay raise. Todd has also been a close ally of Tom Delay, the Texas rep that resigned when he was indicted for campaign fund raising irregularities in Texas and money laundering. Todd gave and received money from delays various shadowy PACs.
Garth McGuinn, although new, can and will be part of the new Democratic Congress that will take aggressive steps in Ethics reform, Immigration reform. and tax reform. I believe he can be instrumental in bringing / advocating for the alternative fuels industry in Kansas, creating thousands of jobs, and providing new revenue sources for kansas farmers — he deserves our support.
Tell our friends — tell your neighbors — think of the positive headlines it will bring to the nation when the unknown Democrat, Garth McGuinn, from Kansas defeats an entrenched conservative republican lackey without the benefit of much if any help from the DNC.
Stealing from IAN :
Viva McGuinn
Vote McGuinn IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
We’re in such a quagmire concerning Iraq that we’re literally caught between a rock and a hard place.
I don’t know if we can get out; that is if you folks want to drive. Bush screwed the pooch. We’re the pooch. As I see it we can withdraw, and watch our economy tank as Iran takes control of the mid-east oil; or we can institute a draft, and put a million boots on the ground, and straigten the place out.
That’s the choices left when you elect an idiot for president, and that’s why the Democrats don’t have a plan.
I pay loose attention to politics and I hate to say it…this is the first I have heard of Garth Mc??Where does he live? What does he do? Why does he have absolutely no money to campaign with?I am voting for him!!!
jellybean must be a description of the material filling his/her skull.
Jim G. et al
My apologies — GARTH MCGINN (sorry my mistake on the name spelling) is the Democrat nominee against todd tiahrt — his web site iswww.gogarth.org he will appreciate any help you can provide.
Congressman Murtha is a decorated Marine who served in combat in Vietnam; while I have issues with a “timetable”, I agree with his basic premise that the U.S. (never mind the “Coalition of the Willing”, it’s the U.S.)is viewed as an occupier by the majority of the Iraqi people, and the longer we stay, the more combat troops and equipment will be lost. The situation on the ground there is a civil war, notwithstanding the careful parsing of the term by the current administration.
I note that he does not advocate unilateral, immediate withdrawal of troops. He understands this will result in immediate chaos and increase instability in the region, as Syria and Iran, potentially joined by Turkey, jockey for position and influence. He does make, to me, the ultimate point: our forces have done all that is militarily possible, so let’s get out in a reasonable fashion, and turn it over to the Iraqi government.
How do you spell cut and run?D-E-M-O-C-R-A-TEmbrace it. Stop being ashamed of the truth.Murtha’s view ARE shared by many Democrats, Mr. Brownlee has been in that news room so long the air got to him.
Baker’s panel gives a rather somber view:
Baker’s Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory
By ELI LAKE – Staff Reporter of the SunOctober 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/17/iraq-study-group-assesses-war-and-rules-out-victory/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nysun.com%2Farticle%2F41371%3Fpage_no%3D1&frame=true
How do you spell arrogant idiot?R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N
A bit more from Mr. Baker on the commission he chairs on Iraq; sounds to me like “stay the course” is about to be “snipped and abandoned”.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/18/iraq.baker.reut/index.html
I cant decide if hotlick sounds more like lauren bandler or nathan. With shades of jellybean
I guess they all sound alike.
why do they love terrorists?
why do they hate america?
hotlick…
On this point, his views are shared by some of us nimwit R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S too.
It’s well past time to claim victory (again) and bring our troops home!
ka-sam – wouldn’t that be cut-and-run too?
Ben…
Call it what you will… labels abound, but the fact is we are unsuccessfully trying to save face.. and I don’t believe its worth the lives it’s costing!
But if George W. and Dick Cheney would let loose of that golden goose oil that has been paying off for them for years, the US could develop alternative fuel. But I doubt that will ever happen because, if you remember, the entire Bush family is in cahoots with the Saudis. The day the US is free of middle east oil is when these so-called patriotic oil men running the country are no longer in power.
You don’t like Murtha’s plan? What if Rush Limbaugh proposed THE VERY SAME PLAN? Would you support it then?
“…We’re trying to build a democracy; these people are going to have to learn to defend it; they can only do that by failing and dusting themselves off. The irony here that Lowry points out is that that is what the Democrats are saying, “Get out of there and let the Iraqis have this,” yet they hate him. Their hate is irrational. It’s not based on substance and strategy. Looking at the Woodward book, I have a strategery, folks. I think there’s two things we can do in Iraq. Let me run them by you and see what you think. The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders, and we say to the Iraqis:
“We’re going to stop anybody coming across these borders. No more help from Iran. No more from Syria. No more from Jordan. Nobody’s getting into this country. If we have to, we’ll go 20 miles inland in each of these countries to make sure nobody gets through, but this is on you. We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we’re out.” The second strategy is, “You don’t want to go for that?” We say to the Iraqis, “All right, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to take everybody we got and we’re going to bring ‘em into Baghdad and we’re going to do search-and-destroy and we’re going to take out anything that looks like an insurgent and we’re going to take out anything that looks like a sympathizer, a terrorist or whatever, we’re going to clean this place out — and then it’s up to you.”
Those are two things that are… Well, they’re think pieces. I’m just thinking about this. But they both center on the fact that the Iraqis are going to have to at some point take care of all this. We’ll either take care of it in Baghdad for them and we’ll clear the place out and leave it up to them, or we’ll go back to the borders and we’ll make sure nobody is getting in there, and: “You clear out who’s there. We’ll go to Turkey, wherever we have to go to keep people from getting in, but it’s up to you guys to wipe them out.” Give them those two options. In either example, it is Shock and Awe of one form or another.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100306/content/truth_detector.guest.html
Gee, wasn’t ol’ Rush one of the cheerleaders who told us all how easy this would be? How Ahmed Chalabi would be our new dictator there? How we would be greeted with flowers?
Is this how Republicans support our troops?
IRAQ VETERANS CALL FOR DEFEAT OF JIM TALENT IN NEW TV AD CAMPAIGNvv_tv_btn.jpgClick Here for TV Ad
Blunt Ad Features AK-47 Piercing Outdated Flak Jacket Many Troops Wore in Iraq, Holds Talent Accountable For Vote Against Better Body Armor
NEW YORK – Iraq veterans today are launching a television ad campaign in Missouri, saying in no uncertain terms that Jim Talent voted against them. Now they are calling on Missourians to vote against him. The ad, titled “Body Armor,” can be viewed by clicking here. http://www.votevets.org/
Hello ARDEE.Lotta old birds showing up today.
dave s, the way in which we leave Iraq (and we WILL leave Iraq, to some degree) does make a difference. Not only to us, but to the people of Iraq we leave behind.
What you posted is Limbaugh’s idea, right? Dated October 3, 2006? How strange that it sounds so similar to Murtha’s, how many months later? All except for the annihilation of Baghdad. Other than the use of a threat, I can’t see that doing that would do any good.
One of the problems with staying the course is that each day, more and more of the Iraqi army that we’re training are being killed. The longer we stay, the more will die, so our training will eventually be for nothing. Those not being killed are fleeing, some joining the insurgency. We’re losing ground, not gaining. And if that isn’t clear to the majority of people in OUR country, then we have a problem that may never be corrected and may only increase.
It’s extremely sad and disheartening that we’ve made such a mess in Iraq. No matter what we do now–go, stay, increase, decrease–we have virtually destroyed it and made its people our enemies. Most of the world has lost respect for the U.S., and I don’t blame them. There are those here who say it doesn’t matter. They may learn otherwise, although I hope it never comes to that.
HIYA Tracy. Been busy. Reformatted my hard drive numerous times. Next time (heaven forbid), I’ll do it right the first time. *BIG embarrassed GRIN*
I’ve enjoyed your posts and those of the “others.” Yes, the Dominionists are trying their damnedest. ;)
RD – it is even worse. Far too many of those we have been training and arming are now participants in the on-going civil war there.
Yes, Ben, that, too.
The U.S. is considered to be occupiers. We (not you and me, Ben) can debate whether that is the case or not until hell freezes over. If the shoe were on the other foot, I’m pretty sure that’s the way we would feel.
It all comes down to the U.S. invading a sovereign nation on what very much appears to be trumped up “facts.” Whatever, we invaded. We did not have a plan to leave. If that isn’t occupation, I don’t know what is.
RD,
You are absolutely correct. Bush never had a plan to leave, neither did anyone in the pentagon either.
Nope, not one single plan to leave.
Even as I type this we are working on permanently staying in Iraq forever.
I am not sure why, perhaps something to do with stealing all the oil we can.
Uh huh, no plan to leave…
Now that I am done with my sarcasm…
JUST BECAUSE “THE PLAN” TO LEAVE IRAQ IS NOT “CUT AND RUN” DOESN’T MEAN THERE IS NOT A PLAN.
I guess it is easier to simply say there is not a plan than to actually engage in thoughtful discussion.
Bush has a “Secret Plan” to win the war …
Burns: Bush has plan to win war in IraqMATT GOURASAssociated PressHELENA, Mont. – Sen. Conrad Burns says he believes President Bush has a plan to win the war in Iraq but is keeping it quiet, a statement Democrats pounced on Wednesday as reminiscent of comments made during another divisive war.
Burns, at a debate Tuesday night with Democratic challenger Jon Tester, said he believes Bush has a plan to win – but added: “we’re not going to tell you what our plan is.”
Burns, who has said repeatedly the country must stay in Iraq as long as it takes to win the war, also seemed to suggest a new path may be needed in Iraq. He pointed to fellow Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who has recently called for a new strategy in Iraq.
“We have to change our tactics with the enemy and how it changes its tactics,” said Burns, a member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. “And in some cases, we have not been able to do that. I agree with Senator Warner and his assessment. If we don’t change, we will pay a heavier price. But we cannot lose it.”
Democrats likened Burns’ comments to statements by President Nixon that led to news reports that he had a “secret plan” to end or win the war in Vietnam. Like Nixon, Burns never used the word “secret” but made it clear it wasn’t in the president’s or the country’s interest to discuss any plans he has for winning the war.
Matt McKenna, a Tester campaign spokesman, said Burns’ comments were eerily similar to Nixon’s.
“I think the comparison is two politicians who put their own ambitions above the safety and success of the troops,” McKenna said Wednesday.
In a tense exchange with Tester, who is ahead in recent polls, Burns hammered the Democratic challenger for his call on the president to develop a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
“He wants everyone to know our plan. That’s not smart,” Burns said.
“He said our president (doesn’t) have a plan. I think he’s got one, but he’s not going to tell everybody in the world,” Burns added. “If you want to go out and spar for a fight, are you going to tell your enemy what your plan is? I don’t think so.”
Burns later said: “There is a plan. We’re not going to tell you, Jon.”
McKenna said the comments were those of a senator behind in recent polls who wants to keep his job.
“Nobody actually believes that he (Burns) has a plan, or even a seat at the table where plans are made,” McKenna said.
Burn’s spokesman, Jason Klindt, said the senator is adamant that details of a plan to win should not be released, including any deadline for troop withdrawal.
He said he doesn’t know if Burns knows any specifics of a Bush administration plan to win the war in Iraq.
“I think he knows the general strategy,” Klindt said.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/15789244.htm
And we would believe Bush has a plan because??? The man has manipulated intelligence to justify invading Iraq in the first place. Bush vowed to get Bin Laden dead or alive and now he doesn’t even think about him anymore (these were George’s words) and now you expect everyone to believe Bush has a plan to win the Iraq war but just won’t tell anyone about it.
Yeah, right. I also have some beachfront property in downtown Wichita to sell.
Just some food for thought, WWII been over for more than 60 years we still have large numbers of troops in those countries. Korea still have troops over there too. So why would anybody think that we would ever leave except that unlike Germany and Japan I don’t see the Iraqis ever warming up to us anytime soon.
Nathan,
Your sarcasm is clear. If there was a plan to leave Iraq, I’m very willing to hear about it. I’m talking prior to going in, not after the fact. And please don’t tell me that it was “classified.”
I’m also sure you’re not denying that we are building permanent bases in Iraq. I know you know this, as you’ve even mentioned it, I believe, along with the fact that we have bases all over the world. Is this not true? It’s pretty much a given that we will always have a presence in Iraq, is it not?
The question is, have you ever heard any mention of a plan by this administration to leave? Ever? I don’t recall hearing anything remotely resembling any kind of plan. In fact, I clearly remember Mr. Bush saying that it would be the job of whoever wins the next presidential election to deal with it. Or was I “hearing things?”
You know, you really ought to give me a little credit for using the word “appears.”
I don’t expect you to reply in any other way to this situation.
Haven’t we pretty much proven that we’re pretty much a poor occupier? (Oops, too many “pretty much’s”) Or are we doing a bang up job of that, and, if so, why do you think so?
Dingus,
Not that I disagree with your analogy, but from it, one could assume we went into Iraq knowing that we would remain with permanent bases.
Hmmmm, now where could that idea have come from? Is it right or is it wrong? And WHY is it?
Trolls must be pretty stupid to think we’re stupid enough not to noticed their trolling.
“I guess it is easier to simply say there is not a plan than to actually engage in thoughtful discussion.”
Damn. That is just what I think whenever I hear the repukes say Democrats have no plans.
Who knew nathan and I would agree on something?
NO WINGNUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben, I am so sorry about his particulary idiotic troll you picked up.
We have a “shoe shit scraper” on the front porch. Ya know, the kind you scrape your boot over to remove the shit you picked up in the barnyard? So you dont drag it and the smell into the house?
You are welcome to use it anytime. I hear it works on trolls too, and the smell of troll is really strong in here….
Hey RD, just so you know, I was being sarcastic with the rush comment. I know that what Murtha originally proposed is what rush is proposing now and nothing like what the republicans made it sound like.And now for a little early morning humor!http://www.bettybowers.com/newsclinton.html
A Republican Responds To Jenna Bush’s Arrest Without Mentioning Bill Clinton’s Penis!
Republican’s Failure to Resort to the Wholly Predictable is Witnessed by a Startled Nation
(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) Last night, ABC News actually found a Republican who could talk about President Bush’s problems without even once mentioning former-President Bill Clinton’s crotch. During a routine segment of the program 20/20, a Mrs. Jasper Williams, of Billings, Montana was questioned about her reaction to hearing that President Bush’s daughters had been cited for alcohol offenses in Austin, Texas. A shocked audience listened as Mrs. Williams completed all her comments without so much as using the crack of Mr. Clinton’s backside to deflect attention away from the issue in question.
Governor Jim Gilmore, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, said that he could not account for Mrs. Williams’ astonishing omission. “All our focus groups were telling us that we have successfully hammered into our followers’ heads just how to deal with any and all criticism of Republican policies — whether foreign or domestic. Before you even think about what the other person said, you mention Bill Clinton’s dick,” said Mr. Gilmore. “Frankly, I have to question whether this Williams chick is even a real Republican. I mean, I’m sure she’s a nice lady and all, but real Republicans know the game-plan and they don’t take unnecessary risks – like talking substantively or throwing in their own so-called ‘ideas.’ Once you let people do that, you are inviting all types of anarchistic bedlam and introspection. That’s not what we are about.”
When reached on Capitol Hill, Minority Leader Trent Lott (R – Miss.) responded to the broadcast with disbelief. “Well, isn’t this a crazy world full of dang surprises?” whistled Mr. Lott. “For example, I never thought I’d be a leader of any minority! Hee-hee. But any Republican who responds to any criticism without mentioning Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton’s pecker right off the bat just ain’t on the ball. If I hadn’t seen the tape I would, frankly, think you were making this up. This Williams woman owes our President an apology and I’m going to see that he gets it.”
“Fwankly, I was fwabbergasted,” responded Barbara Walters. “This admitted, practicing Republican spoke for almost a full minute without even obliquely alluding to what lies within our former Pwesident’s underpants. This is unheard of! I mean, this is a remarkable woman. Here, I was asking what could be construed as a negative question about a Republican pwesident and this Republican woman didn’t so much as mention one of Mr. Clinton’s testicles. I just don’t know what to make of this! This is a first and I am privileged to have been there when it happened. Truly, it is these once-in-a-lifetime opportunities that make reporting so gratifying. Well, and the money.”
RD,
First of all, for you to think we have no plan before we invaded Iraq, you are saying that no one in the pentagon or administration had any plan to leave.
That is absurd.
Since day one the President has stated what the mission here was and is.
Once we have completed our mission here we will begin to leave.
Right now the plan is to continue to provide security while we train Iraqi Police and military, continue to build infrastructure, and continue to hunt down and kill the insurgents/terrorists/mercenaries.
As these things progress and get to a point of stability on their own we can and will start to withdrawl our forces.
I have not ever testified to the account of our building any permenant bases here nor have I suggested that we have plans to do so.
I have said that historically speaking we have kept permanent bases in situations like this.
Why this is a problem I don’t know. You are arguing from the presumption that a base here is bad when you have not even shown why.
Every base I have been to here or heard of here is not being built to be permanent.
Do you have any proof otherwise or just the same old democrat tactic of accuse accuse accuse and hope that enough false accusations pile up and make someone look bad?
I recently heard the Commandant of the Marine Corps speak when he came to Camp Falujah. He knew what the plan to leave was. So, I am not sure what reality you democrats have your heads buried in, but there is a plan.
He’s back I see. Our cowardly troll who hijacks someone else’s name. Come on coward, tell us who you are. Or are you so ashamed of your idiocy that you are afraid to?
The only plan I’ve heard from Bush is stay the course. By staying the course, does he mean losing soldiers daily, killing Iraqis daily and having to rebuild a country that we took such delight in bombing?
Only a fool repeats his actions and expects a different outcome.
Nathan, I have 2 choices.
The first is to let your remarks stand and remind others to consider your current position. And I’m not talking political position.
The second is to reply to each of your remarks, but I just don’t know that doing so is worth it, because you wouldn’t acknowledge any facts that you didn’t want to.
For now, I’ll choose the first. Real life calls and must be attended to. Maybe later I’ll give a shot at option #2.
RD,
Is that your reply? As usual…
Were going to stay until the mission is accomplished? I thought Bush already declared it accomplished three years ago, his big speech on the carrier. What were our prewar goals, Overthrow Sadam, find WMDS secure oilfield’s. Last I checked Sadam was on trial, and the WMDs nonexistent or derelict. So what are our goals in Iraq now? I sure don’t know
Nathan you yourself HAVE posted with an opinion at odds with what this administration is telling us. You have confirmed in earlier posts that you believe at least some US presence in Iraq will be necessary for the forseable future. The administration is NOT saying that.
Were going to stay until the mission is accomplished? I thought Bush already declared it accomplished three years ago, his big speech on the carrier. What were our prewar goals, Overthrow Sadam, find WMDS secure oilfield’s. Last I checked Sadam was on trial, and the WMDs nonexistent or derelict. So what are our goals in Iraq now? I sure don’t know
Dingus,
You bring up a perfect example of how to accuse accuse accuse regardless of truth.
That statement was made for the mission of that carrier, which was accomplished.
There were and still are many missions which are in the works. Just because someone says mission accomplished doesn’t mean that everything is done.
That was nothing but the same old democrat tactics of making something out of nothing.
Re “That was nothing but the same old democrat tactics of making something out of nothing.”
That’s what Bush did to get us into this morass!!
Gster,
I would hardly call Sadam nothing…
Saddam was a thug. Chalabi was a wanna-be thug. al-Maliki is looking more and more like a thug every day.
I remember saying that as horrible as things were they might even get worse.
Nathan,
So when the president declares that “Major Combat operations are over” Mission Accomplished ect. He was lying? or just stupid? And if the President didn’t want the public to infer that Mission Accomplished meant that major combat operation were indeed over maybe should have passed up the photo op on the boat
That sign had BIG words on it, maybe he couldn’t sound them out.Hm..
Dingus,
Major Combat operations were over. We were no longer conducting manuever warfare with divisions or Regimental size forces.
We had defeated all the Iraqi military threats. Thus, major combat operations were over.
So the President was not lying and is not stupid. Now, speaking for why it is so hard for you and the rest of the democrats to grasp that concept…
As far as the “photo op” I call it a moral boost.
If the President were to come to Falujah while I was here I can bet you money that people here would be excited and happy.
All those Navy officers and crew who were lining up to take pictures, shake his hand, and see him with thier smiling faces.
I bet they had a good meal that night too.
Every aspect of it you and the democrats try to twist into bad.
Why?
I’ve never been willing to say this before. But with more than 600,000 Iraqis dead and with the mission FAR from accomplished, I will not only say that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake I would say that Iraq is now worse off than before Saddam was removed.
Nathan (if that’s your name), you might find this story about the “mission accomplished” banner.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2382829,00.html
“Rumsfeld told Woodward he had prevented Bush from stating “mission accomplished” shortly after the 2003 invasion, although it was too late to remove a banner bearing those words from the aircraft carrier where the president delivered his speech.”
If I knew where you lived, I would send you a copy of Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial”. You really should read it, along with Richard Clarke’s book “Against all Enemies: inside America’s War on Terror”.
p.s. stop drinking the GOP koolaid, ok?
Dave,
My name is Nathan, as even those I disagree with here will back me up on.
I am not drinking any kool aid, I am trying to point out the obvious attempts of those on the left to twist everything into something bad to bash Bush with.
Uh Dave?
Nathan IS his name. I’ve met him three times.
Uh…..Nathan is in Iraq.We thus give him at least the credit of certainly standing up for what it is he believes as to that.
Just FYI.
As to the koolaid part. That you got right. The rest of your post is also spot on.
Nathan – yes, I will back you (and Hank) up on that. Dave – we all met at the meet-up Hank put together some time back. Nathan is a Marine and is over there.
Sorry nathan, I took a prior post to mean that you had posted under several different handles. I apologise for that and thank you for your service. While I disagree with most of what you say, I do hope that you come home safe so we can discuss this over a beer or three.
Don’t sweat it too much Dave. It takes a while to get to know the players here. Some of us go back more than a year. You’ll do fine. And welcome to the forum.
I am not sure why KFG keeps accusing me of posting under different names.
I have never done that, I have always frowned on it, and I have never liked the trolls who do name crap either.
Oh well…
Yep, nathan is nathan is nathan. Don’t always agree with him but he is definitely real.
Nathan is Nathan, and his disdain for me is clear. Not a problem on this end.
And, Nathan, I will do my best to be back later. If not before CSI and maybe Shark, then after. I try to watch a little TV each night for entertainment. Everybody needs a little downtime.
Okay, Nathan, here’s my reply. I hope all of it will fit in one post. I’m not in the mood to divide it up. These are my opinions, and mine alone. I believe I have the right to them, as you do yours.
>First of all, for you to think we have no plan before we invaded Iraq, you are saying that no one in the pentagon or administration had any plan to leave.
Appearances and the few facts that have been unearthed don’t show that there was much of a plan, beyond going into a Iraq with shock and awe. That’s what I have to go on. That’s what the majority of people in this country have to go on. From the comments made by Rumsfeld and Cheney, it doesn’t appear that they took the advice of those “in the know” and applied it to our invasion of Iraq. If the plan that was used from the beginning is the plan you’re speaking of, it seems to be a poor one. Considering the “stay the course” comments, it could be. But if this is all the same plan, it isn’t working. So, in a sense, I’ll give you that there may have been some kind of flimsy, ignore-the-advisors plan. What’s that? Half a point?
>That is absurd.
On that we agree, although I doubt our “that’s” are even remotely the same. No points for either.
>Since day one the President has stated what the mission here was and is.
The President said a lot of things concerning this “war,” some of which have proven to not be all that truthful. Now you expect me to accept what the mission was in March of 2003, along with all the statements of flowers and petals and cheering, and apply them to the here and now? Very difficult to do, Nathan. As I recall, the mission changed, the longer we were there. First, we had to take care of those nasty WMDs. Then it was capture Saddam. Next on the list was the broad term of democracy, which was later broken down into “the Iraqi election,” followed by another “election,” followed by putting together a so-called Constitution, followed by [fill in the blank]. Now you’ve give us a new one (below). Yes, of course, paths must change, but to many of us, the changing of those paths appears to be excuses. And we just keep accepting them.
>Once we have completed our mission here we will begin to leave.
>Right now the plan is to continue to provide security while we train Iraqi Police and military, continue to build infrastructure, and continue to hunt down and kill the insurgents/terrorists/mercenaries.
Who is secure? What type of security? Are our troops secure? Are the people of Iraq secure? Just who are we providing security for and is it succeeding? We’ve been training the Iraq police and military (those that haven’t been killed or deserted) for over two years. Just how long does it take to train? Why does it take so much longer to train the Iraqis than it does to train our own men and women? Is there a language problem? Is there a problem with understanding? Cultural differences? What? And how many of those trained are ready, after two years, to take over? Obviously not enough. Why? Security problems?
We’re failing miserably on the rebuilding of the infrastructure, or at least not moving forward except in baby steps. The insurgency is the problem? Terrorists? Mercenaries? (Ours or theirs?) I can buy that. But we haven’t been able to do much about that, either. We appear to be in stagnation. Check out the electricity and water problems throughout Iraq, while you’re at it. You don’t have AC in your building? A large majority of people don’t have much of anything.
The fault seems to lie in poor planning, meaning not expecting that any kind of problems would arise. Where are the heads of those in the Pentagon? Is this their fault? Did we go into this war with no idea of what could happen? If so, wouldn’t that be poor or no planning?
>As these things progress and get to a point of stability on their own we can and will start to withdrawl our forces.
But we don’t appear to be progressing. Even Republicans in Congress are seeing that progress is pitifully slow, at best. After more than three years in a country with virtually no leadership, the only thing stable in Iraq the promise of destruction and death. And as far as President Bush is concerned, by his own words he has told us more than once that there will be no withdrawal during his time in office. Do you need the quotes on that?
>I have not ever testified to the account of our building any permenant bases here nor have I suggested that we have plans to do so.
My comment was, “…I know you know this, as you’ve even mentioned it, I believe,” Please note the “I believe.” It gives you the out you just took. Perhaps it was someone else here who mentioned that permanent bases are being built. I’m sure they are. It has been verified by someone I know in the military. I’m not surprised, nor am I necessarily saying it’s a bad thing. It really depends on the amount of permanent basis being built, and if the building of permanent bases is one of the major reasons for this war. I believe we (those in power in the U.S.) wanted a permanent presence in the Middle East. Iraq was the best place. I see that as not so good. Time could prove me wrong. If so, I will admit it.
I recently heard the Commandant of the Marine Corps speak when he came to Camp Falujah. He knew what the plan to leave was. So, I am not sure what reality you democrats have your heads buried in, but there is a plan.
I would expect nothing less. There wouldn’t be a whole lot of support if the troops were told that there was no plan (I’m not saying there isn’t any at all), and you’d be there until someone had the urge to decide to do something to bring this to a peaceful end. Something DIFFERENT than what is currently being done. How do you know that the plan isn’t staying the course, which appears to be getting us nowhere and has been for some time? Maybe you trust the government explicitly. Maybe I’m just an old curmudgeon, but I don’t. I’ve seen and heard too much over the course of my life, and it’s all made me very suspicious. I freely admit that.
This is only my opinion, but the problem here seems to be that you don’t want anyone asking questions or not accepting things at face value. I understand that, in your position, you don’t have a real choice in many things, and you certainly wouldn’t be posting any doubts in the forum. Not that I think you have any doubts. You’re firmly rooted in your beliefs, as I am in mine.
You’ll tell me that nothing I can say will change your mind. Believe me, that works both ways. And, believe me, I am not trying to undermine what you’re doing in Iraq, nor would I want to cause you any emotional trouble. Honestly, I doubt that I could.
So there’s your reply. You won’t like it, you’ll want to argue, or you’ll want to blow me off with your usual twisting and turning. Whatever, Nathan. Whatever.
RD,
It is 2:30 am here, so let me type you a response up in the morning.
Nathan,
I prefer that you get some rest. It’s much more important that responding to me. Many, many things are. I didn’t necessarily expect a response, but I didn’t want you to think I hadn’t offered one.
Stay safe. Stay well.
(I’m very happy to say that if all goes well–prayers and lots of finger-crossing going on here–our friend serving in Baghdad will be coming home next month. I hope your time in Falujah will be uneventful and pass quickly, Nathan.)