Last week’s all-night Senate debate on Iraq was high on theater but didn’t appear to accomplish much: A Democratic proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days and pull out most troops by April 30, 2008, fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to end the Republican filibuster.
With a few exceptions, Republican senators closed ranks to show continued support for President Bush’s war strategy.
But that appears to be the point of the Democratic maneuver.
“The goal of Democrats was clear: to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration,” said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “On these two levels, they were successful, even if no new legislation will come out of it. Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush what Vietnam became for President Johnson: an all-consuming issue, where nothing else can be discussed.”
A recent Gallup Poll found that 71 percent of Americans favor removing almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 2008. The Democrats are trying to draw a bright line between the parties on the issue.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
91 Comments
Fine! They can blame the war on the GOP. But all the consequences resulted in a force pull-out of the troops by the Democrats will need to be squarely at the fault of the Democrat Party. I mean every single terrorist incident, every death caused by terrorist and all the suffering inflicted by terrorist on the Iraqis from the date onwards from when the Democrats forced our troops out.
And I mean everything!
Fortunately, our Generals in the field don’t rely on Polls to conduct their business.
LBJ did not run again.
The Democrats ran an anti-war candidate, McGovern.
He lost.
Nixon sought peace through victory. Watergate got in the way of his plans, but the public supported Nixon until Watergate.
The peace nut Democrats suffered badly for forcing a pull out from Vietnam.
Short term, Republicans will take more hits.
Long term, the Democrats will, once again, be viewed as soft on defense.
There is a reason why Democrats have trouble winning the White House.
If the Dems win in 08, it will be another, Jimmy Carter, one term, failed President.
So basically, you are saying what we have been saying all along:
The Democrats are more interested in playing politics with this war than in victory.
The Democrats are more interested in playing politics with this war while our troops are fighting.
The Democrats are more interested in playing politics with this war than in finding a solution other than defeat.
The Democrats are more interested in playing politics with this war than in trying to accomplish a host of other issues.
The Democrats are more interested in playing politics with this war than in trying to pass any legislation regarding Immigration.
etc…etc…etc…etc…
What are you guys going to do when the war is over?
So far you are merely the anti-war party.
That will only get you so far.
Nothing new there Joe. Republicans have always blamed the Democratic Party for everything. So much for taking “personal responsibility”.
Who are the Republicans going to blame if we have an attack here and our troops are still over there, the Democrats??????????
Econ101– If there were an election today, those 71% of Americans that want the troops redeployed would vote for an anti-occupation of Iraq candidate. Democrats would take over the WH. I’m sure 71% of Americans aren’t Democrats, must be some independents and Republicans in that number.
The GOP position is, “We started the war, we fought for five years without progress but vote for us because the Democrats can’t clean up our mess.”
Not a very good campaign strategy. It seems the GOP has a gambling problem and don’t know when to quit.
Nathan, you must be happy that Bush opposed a pay raise for the military. His reasoning was that you guys just don’t deserve it. When the Bush administration was informed of crappy conditions at Walter Reed the administration said you don’t deserve better treatment. When he sent you to war he said your only exit plan is a flag draped coffin.
Yeah, but it’s the Democrats who don’t support the troops. Keep on living in your dream world. Fascists fighting for the Homeland (a Nazi term employed by the Bush regime and Nathan couldn’t be happier to goose step along).
I think that there were 4 Republican senators who voted with the Democrat’s bill, and who had had enough of The President’s never ending claims of “we need more time”. All of the rest of them who sided with the President are responsible for their own decision-making, so this crap about the Democrats “manuevering” the Republicans is idiocy. If the Republicans really wanted to end the war, they would have allowed an up or down vote based on a bare majority, but NO they insisted on requiring 60 votes. We’ll see if this changes come September, after another 300 dead soldiers, 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and 60 billion poured down the drain. We need to be spending that money on border, port and internal homeland security. We need to stop the massive bloodletting.
The sign should not say “Let us Vote,” it should say: “Let us represent the People.”
The “Let us vote” is very telling.
The country has changed since the days of LBJ and McGovern and continues to change. Since the collapse of the USSR war and peace are not as high a priority as they were on the minds of Americans- most of us anyway. Polls show that as Americans age they are more concerned with domestic items such as health care and the Republicans are weak on domestic things. Not only that but it matters who the candidates are too. The Democrats have a history of running “sissy” candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis but I think (I hope) they have learned from that and will make better selections in the future. The field we have now is actually pretty good.
Of course the Democrats will “play politics” with the war. They SHOULD play politics. You don’t think the GOP “plays politics” with terrorism? Constantly trying to scare Americans with it by saying crap like “we will be attacked soon” but then, after being asked what evidence Chertoff had to say that, he replies no evidence- just a “gut feeling”. Yep- right out of Rove’s playbook. The Democrats should do what they have to do to win big next year.
And the fact is that, if the Democrats wanted to end the war, they could do so at anytime by just cutting off the money for it. When Bush comes back in September for another $100 billion, they might just choose that route. It is a far step but a possibility.
Could it be that the American people are just tired of a horribly mismanaged war? Like everything else this administration is involved in, the war in Iraq is a Chinese Abortion. We were the most powerful nation on the planet and we can’t beat a bunch of third world camel jockies. Instead of listening to the REAL soldiers in the beginning and going into Iraq with a REAL military force, this administration made the decision to try to fight a cut-rate war.
It’s just gone downhill ever since.
It’s a different war XXX. It’s a house to house war, an alley to alley war and a war where once again permission slips are needed before something is done.
If the U.S. wanted to make this a “real” war, they could do an air and helicoper, missile war devastating entire villages at a time.
I suppose there wouldn’t be much left of Baghdad though and I doubt if the Iraqi people would have voted for a Constitution and elected government.
The American people appear to be myopic with the Iraq situation.
This is a golden opportunity to build a strong Arab ally in the Middle East.
The reverse of that is to abandon Iraq and make us the most hated in the Middle East where no one would trust us any longer.
Yes, Liberty has a price and sometimes that price costs human lives.
When over 70% of the American people want the war stopped mand the troops brought home, it stops being a political thing. Less than 30% want this war to continue. Do the math.
The American people are anything but “myopic” concerning the war in Iraq. They seem to be more intelligent than this administration, which is running the country with blinders on.
The war should never have happened. It was a bust to start, and it’s a bust now. There never were WMD. Saddaam was a tinpot dictator, just like the many in power now, and it should have been up to his people to take him out, not us. Iraq was never a threat to us.
Osama and his group were and are, but Bush, after failing to find and kill him, decided he wasn’t important any more. Why do you think that was? Have anything to do with “quiting?” There’s that word you Republicans like to throw at Democrats?
And Democrats are going to be responsible for terrorist activity on our shores? Right, it’s not like we’re creating any new terrorists by our invasion of Iraq, is it. Yep, Al Quaida’s not growing, the Taliban is fully supressed in Afghanistan, and Iran’s not sending IED’s into Iraq. . . NOT.
Bush has so fully screwed up damn near everything he touches, congress should lock this idiot down, so he can’t further take this country back another fourty years. Hell, we are already hated in the middle east thanks to Bush. Pulling out would let us send troops where they are really needed, like Afghanistan, and right here at home.
Go figure, a “republican” vote to continue mismanagement of this war. This administration has almost single-handedly destroyed our military by letting this war drag on and on ad nausium. It’ll take decades to put our military back together. Iraq is a salvage yard for military equipment. And it’s taken us longer to secure the road to the airport in Baghdad than it took us to win WWII.
You can’t fight a war based on republican “borrow and spend” mentality. At some point, the bill will come due. Of course, we can always have some more tax cuts for the rich, or maybe destroy social security. That’ll sure help pay for an unjust and illegal war.
Very good Mr. Walker!
You’ve almost recited every one of the democrat talking points!
It must be comforting to wake up every morning and have the surrender-at-any-cost democrat party do your thinking for you.
Yep, all was goodness and light in the mid-east before Bush!
Hank
And you XXX,
Pretty much finished with the rest of them!
Hank
“INCOMPETENT. And, IMPOTENT.”
Yep. Pretty much describes the way this war has been run.
Great description of the Bush administration, too.
Pretty much sums up the GOP.
“Yep, all was goodness and light in the mid-east before Bush!”(by Hank, bless your heart!)
As opposed to what’s happening now, yes! Is it “goodness and light” now? Of course it is! That’s why mid-east countries are flocking to our side.
They like us, they really like us!
How hard do the Demos have to try to tie the war to the Repubs? Bush is a Repub. It’s his war.
Once again, I see all the Republicans on this blog are playing another round of “who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
George Bush owns this war. The blank check Democrats gave him to do things his way have brought us to a civil war in Iraq.
This civil war will end as all do–with a new alignment of power. And in particular, with a Shi’ite theocracy. All our presence does is delay the process, and keep Al Qaeda in Iraq.
That’s right–KEEP Al Qaeda in Iraq. Once we’re gone, they can expect to be murdered in their beds by the Shia AND the Sunni. Who wants foreign interlopers on their soil?
George Bush owns this war. Everybody knows it. Mitch McConnell knows it–that’s why he’s so gloomy about GOP prospects for next year. Every Republican running for re-election knows it. Everybody knows it except for the dead-enders on this board. “Cut and run?” The world has moved on, Repukes. It’s a new reality–not that you were any more in touch with the old one.
At this point, Bush is praying for another terrorist attack to bail his ass out. It’s all he’s got left. Well, that and stonewalling Congress to keep himself out of jail.
Hank,So what, as opposed to thousands of Iraqi innocent civilians, as well as American soldiers, dying, would you propose. The failure of this chief commander to fully field a force capable of doing what it has too in order to “win” this war?
The continued use of American force in a country we never should have invaded? Resulting in the deaths of MORE soldiers?
If I’m simply stating the “talking points” of Democrats in this country, I’m in full agreement with over 70% of the American people. But I guess in your mind, those same people, Americans, by the way, are, what, too stupid to understand what’s going on?
Just how the well do you fight a war on terrorism when the bulk of your armed forces are in a country that never attacked us; was not supporting Osama and his merry band of murderers; was run by some tinpot dictator with a Messiah complex; and was pretty much pounded back a few centuries by Bush’s dad, who, by the way, had the common sense to stop short of invading Baghdad because even he knew the response Middle East would have made if he continued.
Congress is there to do the will of the people, and the majority of the people want this war ended. Son of a gun, isn’t that the way this country is supposed to work? Or should we just throw the Constitution out the window because the Republicans want to kill people, just after they’re born, of course.
American troops will stand down when Iraqi troops can stand up.
That’s obviously never going to happen. The Iraqis have shown themselves to be untrainable. When I was in the Marine Corps, I spent 9 weeks in boot camp, 4 weeks in ITR, 4 weeks in Recon school, and 2 weeks in Staging. After that, I was fielded as a combat-ready Marine. How freaking long does it take to train an Iraqi?
I agree JM,
By your logic we should have never attacked Germany in WWII. They never attacked us. It merely got us involved in an unnecessary war in Europe when we should have been concentrating on Japan.
If for one minute I thought libs understood the importance of Iraq in the long term then we could talk. Of course mistakes were made. They should be used by all Americans as a lesson, not for talking points for political gain.
Hank
If bushco and his 28 percenters were capable of listening, capable of thinking in terms different than killing innocents, capable of defining what victory is, capable of seeing reality there might be something to talk about with them. They aren’t capable and there isn’t any reason to attempt talking with them.
Hank,There is NO comparison between Germany and Iraq. Even attempting to compare the two is disingenuous. Iraq tried taking over Kuwait and got its ass kicked, as it should have by a coalition of nations who knew the political affects of such an invasion.
Germany, on the other hand, had made a pact with Japan over ruling the world, and was in the midst of trying to do so.
Iraq, after being sent home, was nothing more than a loud mouthed bully, with NO wmd, a beaten armed forces and a country getting more ticked off at their tinpot dictator. They were NO threat to us, or their neighbors.
But lets take your position further: By your standards, we should be invading North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, much of South America and maybe Mexico and Canada. Am I leaving any country out?
I do understand what effects invading Iraq will, and has done, towards the war on Muslim extremists: We have created a training ground for future generations of terrorists, and tried in cram our form of democracy in a country where democracy is as foreign to them as space flight is to cavemen.
We will be paying for this stupid mistake for more than one generation, and all the dead American soldiers who could have been fighting terrorism on a stage where our presence is truly needed, will not be there.
You’re wrong on this one, Hank. Viet Nam was wrong; Iraq is wrong.
By the way, this isn’t about political gain to me; it is about American lives.
Hank,”By your logic we should have never attacked Germany in WWII. They never attacked us.”
Didn’t Germany declare war on us? Isn’t that pretty much the same as an attack?
After reading the preceding comments, I still can’t believe that you people can keep your head in the sand this long. The majority of you just can’t take the time to find out the truth before expressing your opinion or voting, that is the problem with this country. THIS IS BUSH’S WAR! The whole world said we would be facing WW III if another Bush was elected. There were no AL Quida in Iraq before us, and we had no reason to attack them to begin with. We have caused more damage there than they ever had before. This is Bush’s ‘Wag the Dog’ to get our minds off of the mess he’s made of the internal issues of America. He is just a puppet that his rich backers put up there to do there bidding to make them richer and the poor poorer. WAKE UP PEOPLE! That is Republican politics. As long as they can keep the majority of people down, then they succeed and get richer. The Republican party has always been and will always be rich, white men. Their whole platform is totally discriminating against any minority and especially women. I always laugh when I hear a woman being a Republican, as she clearly has never read the Republicn platform. As long as people don’t educate themselves and just go vote, then we will have these messes to deal with.
Yes, Liberty has a price and sometimes that price costs human lives.
Posted by: Republican
If you truly believe this, then why are you not in Iraq fighting? Do you have kids? Have you told them you want them to go to Iraq and fight?
Why are you in Wichita, Kansas hiding in some blog?
Michelle is right about the Republicans being only for the rich white guys. It reminds me of the old movies with the country club scenes filled with old white guys in extremely goofy golfing clothes and looking down their noses at the working class people.
The Iraq War is about the power and control of the oil. Isn’t it ironic that we are not fighting in any other country that we deem as non-democratic and the difference being – there is no oil in those other countries.
JM,
Yep, everything was goodness and light before Bush.
“Iraq, after being sent home, was nothing more than a loud mouthed bully, with NO wmd, a beaten armed forces and a country getting more ticked off at their tinpot dictator. They were NO threat to us, or their neighbors.”
When Bush took office we were at war with Iraq. Technically and in reality at war. There was a truce in that war that the Sadman was using to rebuild his military. He was violating every aspect of that truce.
When Bush took office Iraq was the only country that was firing on our planes. Our military presence in the area was costing us 50 Billion a year.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMD’s although that wasn’t the only reason we recommenced military action in Iraq, that was reason enough.
There is not a country in the world that can stand against us in an all out war longer than 20 minutes. The reason we are in so much trouble in Iraq is because we are trying to fight a ‘humane’ war. We are trying very hard to minimize civilian casualties and property damage.
On the other hand, we will never be able to win another war if the enemy can get the democrats and the press on their side. You can’t fight a war in Iraq like we are trying to do when the civilians that you need on your side can’t trust our congress to see the task to the end.
Hell, none of the democrat leadership even had the courtesy to go the teleconference with General Patraus. They were afraid of hearing anything contrary to the political lie they are telling the American people.
Hank
Not everyone agrees what the Senate Dem’s did was helpful in the debate on the war in Iraq. One of Florida’s leading Democratic fundraisers(a trial lawyer) is fed up with his party’s failure to stop the war in Iraq, that He canceled a $250,000.00 fundraiser in his home. And is considering taking out ads in the New York Times and other major newspapers. Because, He is “disgusted” with the Senate Democrats all-nighter of which he refered “nothing more than publicity and hype”.What didn’t sit well with the Florida fundraiser was Senate Dem’s ordering cots and Pizza to be delivered to the Chamber, along with sending their Interns to purchase toothbrushes and other toiletries for Republicans!
A recent survey showed public approval for Congress to be 24%. Even lower than Pres. Bush’s ratings.
A serious debate on Iraq is in order.So far the Democratic leadership in Congress is not providing the change in course mandated by their base. Responsible leadership is both required and expected! If the theatrical stunts pulled by the Senate leadership proved anything, it’s that NOTHING has changed in Washington. It’s still about power and control;and who gets the best office and parking space!!!
Pray for our troops!
Hank
“Hell, none of the democrat leadership even had the courtesy to go the teleconference with General Patraus. They were afraid of hearing anything contrary to the political lie they are telling the American people.”
You know better than that.
hank seems to believe that all the US has to do is go into Iraq and nuke everything and everyone they come into contact with to win this war. Is that right Hank?
And just what do you expect the response would be from the other Muslim countries? Do you think they will just sit by and let the US nuke Iraq out of existence?
Are you really that naive or is it pure arrogance on your part to think the US can do anything we want to do, at anytime we choose to do so.
Yes, the Republicans fight our enemies while the party of traitors and corrupt slime like Durbin and Pelosi sell our country out to its enemies. (Of course, with a little help from fifth columnists in the media).
Now I understand why they had death squads in South America. Hey, when your enemies are internal, you still have to wage tie war.
Perhaps Hank and the other Bush supporters are only supporting this war so their Halliburton stock will keep rising.
I wonder if these guys know where that unaccounted 2.9 billion dollars paid to Halliburton went?
The Republicans are too busy with their sex scandals and lobbyist scandals to be fighting our enemies.
They prefer to use other people’s loved ones to the do the actual fighting.
‘Analysis: GOP senators nervous about war’http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_an/us_iraq;_ylt=Apd_AbGUk_89wdVIa1WyQlKs0NUE” “The strategy we had before was not the right strategy,” [Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo] told reporters at midweek. “We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy.”
By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That’s a span of nearly four years.
Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, “Ultimately, obviously, the president.”
Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?
“Congress was not running the war,” Bond replied.”
Hank,”When Bush took office Iraq was the only country that was firing on our planes. Our military presence in the area was costing us 50 Billion a year.”
There are satellites in geosynchronous orbits that could read anything happening in Iraq in real time. Twenty-first century stuff. There was NO need to spend 50 billion (I have a problem believing that figure) spying on Iraq’s UN imposed no-fly zone. Nor was there any reason to put our troops in harms way flying over same. We did it for effect only.
Walker
The day we can openly talk about the “big player” in the Middle East is when everything can be reasoned through and understood.
As long as everyone feels that they need to “walk on eggs,” little can be reasoned through that makes sense.
And you know that.
I really think people have spent too much time watching “Enemy of the State” or other CIA typish movies to think that we know what is happening anywhere in Iraq real time.
We have over 100,000 troops stationed there right now and still don’t know everything that is happening there “real time”
This isn’t a video game people. It isn’t a movie.
If we could see everything there “real time” like some of you seem to think we would be able to stop any/all weapons smuggling and terrorist infiltration of the country.
What am I thinking though?
You guys still think the President is reading your emails and reviewing your book of the week at the Library too.
Sigh….
The little jerk is now a mind reader.
The part that made me laugh most was the question, “What am I thinking though?”
Now that’s a good question!
Especially for a mind reader.
Yet even more people with there heads in the sand. Poor Hank and Scholfield, You are so disillusioned. It must be nice to blame everything on the Democrats instead of realizing who started all of his with the Middle East. Could it have been Reagan and Bush? The Democrats try diplomacy like normal decent people, especially Christians, are suppose to. But as long as you stay uneducated, then nothing will change.
Dear “Scholfield Sucks,”
No surprise that two-bit would-be fascists like yourself are ready to organize death squads here against Bush’s political enemies. Putzes like you know how to follow orders and not a lot else.
Just do us all a favor, though, SS: don’t call yourself an American. You’re a Bush-worshipping, Right Wing fascist stooge. You’re as stupid as you are violent. And your lack of understanding is only exceeded by your lack of imagination.
“And I mean everything!”
Wrong Joe! Bush deliberately broke it; he deliberately created this mess. The fact is that there is no easy way out. Perhaps you fail to see it but massive death and destruction is the daily fact of reality in Bush’s Iraq. Bush did that and he did it deliberately and with malice aforethought.
There WILL be a mess there long after Bush is gone. However, 100% of the blame lies exclusively with Bush and his fellow travellers.
Dear Michelle,
Uneducated I can work with. But when your stupid, it can’t be fixed.
The richest politicians are democrats. Many of them inherited their money. The liberal democrat demographic is almost exactly like the perception of republicans they would like the dumbest amongst us to believe.
Having an education does not make you smart. In your case Michelle I believe it just allows you to have an inflated opinion of yourself.
Hopefully your pretty, because that is all you can have going for you.
Hank
Oh please…
This is the problem with you lefties. You don’t blame the terrorists or the insurgents.
Oh no. It is Bush’s fault!
It is almost sad how far gone you must be to put the blame 100% on anyone but the terrorists or insurgents.
You do realize that if the terrorists were not killing our soldiers and trying to create as much havoc as they could, Iraq would be a better more stable place?
I am sure that thought never crossed your one track Blame Bush for everything minds.
“Bush deliberately broke it”
“he deliberately created this mess”
“…Bush’s Iraq”
“Bush did that and he did it deliberately and with malice aforethought.”
“However, 100% of the blame lies exclusively with Bush and his fellow travellers.”
By the way, my Haliburton stock isn’t doing as well as my Mobil.
Hank
Michelle,
The Europeans and many others have been trying “diplomacy” with Iran for the past several years on getting them to stop their Nuclear Programs.
How is that Diplomacy working for you?
Diplomacy only goes so far until force is needed.
Oh, and by the way, of course this war belongs to the republicans and Bush!
That’s why the democrats and their fellow travelers can’t afford for us to win!
Hank
Yes Nathan, I do understand that if the Iraqis quit resisting our occupation it would be more peaceful. But I ask you; how would YOU react to a foreign army on OUR soil? Might you become an ‘insurgent’? Might the occupyer then call you a terrorist?
Iraqis did not fly the planes on 9/11; Saudis did.
I’d just as soon fight the bastards where they are. You libs can bow down to them if you want, maybe someone will catch your head before it hits the ground.
Hank
We needed to fight alQuada; not Iraqis. I’d rather fight them over there too; just not take a detour to bow down to them by fighting their enemies for them.
The Dems are afraid that Bush will simply continue the war with bailing wire and duct tape if the funds were cut off.
If the issue is blame, the blame would squarely be Bush’s. So, the question is, which worse for the troops: Continuing to fund this unending atrocity, or put Bush in a position where he has to withdraw abruptly, or start negotiating with Congress?
The answer, in my view, turns out to be neither.
For my part, I am quite certain Bush will continue the war using black budget funds–but it will be solely on his shoulders then.
The time for negotiating and caving in is over.
P.S. One example of Republican’s “house-to-house” war:
“Raids normally took place between midnight and 5 am, according to Sgt. John Bruhns, 29, of Philadelphia, who estimates that he took part in raids of nearly 1,000 Iraqi homes. He served in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib, a city infamous for its prison, located twenty miles west of the capital, with the Third Brigade, First Armor Division, First Battalion, for one year beginning in April 2003. His descriptions of raid procedures closely echoed those of eight other veterans who served in locations as diverse as Kirkuk, Samarra, Baghdad, Mosul and Tikrit.
“You want to catch them off guard,” Sergeant Bruhns explained. “You want to catch them in their sleep.” About ten troops were involved in each raid, he said, with five stationed outside and the rest searching the home.
Once they were in front of the home, troops, some wearing Kevlar helmets and flak vests with grenade launchers mounted on their weapons, kicked the door in, according to Sergeant Bruhns, who dispassionately described the procedure:
“You run in. And if there’s lights, you turn them on–if the lights are working. If not, you’ve got flashlights…. You leave one rifle team outside while one rifle team goes inside. Each rifle team leader has a headset on with an earpiece and a microphone where he can communicate with the other rifle team leader that’s outside.
“You go up the stairs. You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall. You have junior-level troops, PFCs [privates first class], specialists will run into the other rooms and grab the family, and you’ll group them all together. Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds and you make sure there’s no weapons or anything that they can use to attack us.
“You get the interpreter and you get the man of the home, and you have him at gunpoint, and you’ll ask the interpreter to ask him: ‘Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda, anything at all–anything–anything in here that would lead us to believe that you are somehow involved in insurgent activity or anti-coalition forces activity?’
“Normally they’ll say no, because that’s normally the truth,” Sergeant Bruhns said. “So what you’ll do is you’ll take his sofa cushions and you’ll dump them. If he has a couch, you’ll turn the couch upside down. You’ll go into the fridge, if he has a fridge, and you’ll throw everything on the floor, and you’ll take his drawers and you’ll dump them…. You’ll open up his closet and you’ll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it.
“And if you find something, then you’ll detain him. If not, you’ll say, ‘Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening.’ So you’ve just humiliated this man in front of his entire family and terrorized his entire family and you’ve destroyed his home. And then you go right next door and you do the same thing in a hundred homes.” ”
http://thismodernworld.com/3861
Now Now Ben,
Those Democratic talking points on twisting the truth through words might have worked on you, but not me.
Allow me to highlight the word twisting you used:
“I do understand that if the Iraqis quit resisting our occupation”
Here you used “Iraqis” instead of terrorists and insurgents.
And also called our fighting the terrorists an occupation.
Both lies. You are better than this Ben. Either you are simply repeating the Democrat mantra or you are making this up yourself. Which is it?
What we are doing is not an occupation. It was the removal of Saddam and the helping in a transition of a government.
We are fighting the terrorists and doing everything we can to quell the insurgent violence.
“Might you become an ‘insurgent’? Might the occupyer then call you a terrorist?”
Words spoken by a man who has no idea of the complexity of what has taken place in Iraq.
The terrorists were purposfully targeting civilians to cause and stir up as much civil strife as they could to fuel an insurgency to make things more difficult.
Throw in Iran’s manipulation and then you have the kind of fighting we see now.
Most people in Iraq just want to go about their lives like anyone else.
This lie you democrats keep repeating about how we are the one causing this insurgency and the Iraqis are just fighting an “occupying army” are getting old.
“It is almost sad how far gone you must be to put the blame 100% on anyone but the terrorists or insurgents.
You do realize that if the terrorists were not killing our soldiers and trying to create as much havoc as they could, Iraq would be a better more stable place?
I am sure that thought never crossed your one track Blame Bush for everything minds.”Posted by: Nathan | July 22, 2007 at 02:34 PM
The “havoc” was predicted a few YEARS before Bush ordered a preemptive attack, with much less than 400,000 troops.
‘Post-Saddam Iraq: The War Game”Desert Crossing” 1999 Assumed 400,000 Troops and Still a Mess’http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
It’s also just plain common sense that insurgents would resist U.S. occupation, the three different sects would not be able to form a stable government, etc..
Is Nathan insisting that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al did NOT know about the “Desert Crossing” study, and also lacked common sense?
They did not send enough troops to provide security.They did not form a large international coalition.They did not plan properly for the insurgents.They spent reconstruction funds too slowly, and did not provide enough security to protect the projects.They angered the Iraqis (and world) with abuses at the prison, and Gitmo.They built a huge embassy, and military bases, which suggested a permanent occupation.They pushed an oil contract that turns control of 75% of Iraq’s oil over to foreigners.
They don’t seem to have done even one thing right.
But Nathan says we should blame the terrorists.
Remember when BushCo. kept saying that “when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down?” Which is virtually identical to what Nixon said in the last days of Vietnam, btw.
Turns out that Iraqis have fewer troops now than they had last year at this time.
Why?
Because the plan was NEVER to give Iraqis control. It was to create a puppet state with the US pulling the strings.
You can have democracy or you can have control, but you can’t have both.
BushCo. has never wanted anything but full control.
Why would someone who told democracy to DROP DEAD in Florida fight a war for “democracy?”
Here, he fights for control by any means necessary.
Over there, ditto.
The GOP and bush own this misadventure.
I am truly and honestly surprised to see Hank and Nathan still in support of this disaster. I would have thought the tipping point for any REASONABLE person would have been when the Iraqi government went on vacation for a month. They are not serious about the opportunity they have been given. They are not worthy of the sacrifice it cost.
But hey, some people are only worried about their fat tax cuts and their blind faith. Not worth MY kid fighting for. I GUaRANTEE.
By the way, my Haliburton stock isn’t doing as well as my Mobil.
Hank
Posted by: Hank
and both are doing great because your emperor Bush is in control – right Hank?
Can you sleep at night knowing that you’re making profits off our dead soldiers? It’s people like you that are going to make the Republicans the losers in many more elections to come.
Oh and Hank?
Enought already with the “fight ‘em over there” schtick.
I do not take that arguement seriously from an administration that cannot, WILL not secure our southern border, inspect our cargo or update our air traffic control infrastructure. Among many other things.
A pissed off guy 7,000 miles away who wants to kill me I regard as just about 0 threat. It is FAR more economical to keep a threat at a distance then to engage it. We are propogating the terrorists by our mere presence.
What are you guys going to do when the war is over?
So far you are merely the anti-war party.
That will only get you so far.
Posted by: Nathan
If Bush continues with his war mongering, there will never be a time when we are without war. Thanks to the little emperor, we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and now Bush is trying to start a war with Iran. That is when the shit will really hit the fan.
Why is it that Republicans always start wars but yet they do not actually want to go fight them? Rather, they want to send other people’s kids into the bloody war.
Iraq War is all Bush and his Gang’s doing. History will not be kind to them and hopefully we will survive as a country until the little emperor is long gone.
“The GOP and bush own this misadventure.”
No doubt, JR, no doubt.
2 million people marched in the streets to stop this war before it even started, but BushCo. damned the torpedos and bulled his way in.
Everybody knows it. Now the question is how the RepubliCONs think “staying the course” is going to keep them in office.
Looks to me like 2006 was just the “warm up.”
If Bush continues with his war mongering, there will never be a time when we are without war.Posted by: rebel | July 22, 2007 at 04:21 PM
http://www.global-issues.net/In_Depth/conflict2.htm
You realize that roughly 5% of world history over the last 3,500 years have been without war of some kind.Yea, it’s all Bush’s fault.
I remnember many years the US was not in a war – where were you?
Of course, the wars I do remember were started by Republicans! And let’s not try to say JFK started Vietnam, because it was Eisenhower that sent in his advisers long before JFK was president.
With all those wars, how many were started over lust for power, greed or religion? Bush is in Iraq for power and control of the oil and greed. He used religion to get the so-called Religious Right Republicans to ‘bless’ his war. And each time Bush uses the phrase ‘God is on our side’ just adds fuel to the fire.
If Bush wants to fight terrorism, then I’m all for it. But let’s start by securing our own borders, getting off the Middle East oil teat and start rebuilding our own infrastructure. I’m tired of Bushs bombing Iraq and then paying billions to rebuild it just to bomb it again. That is not fighting terrorism. That’s just pissing in the Iraqis’ Cheerios.
I’d venture to guess 99% were started either in the name of religion or a lackthereof.
Just pointing out world history in this case.The more things change, the more they stay the same.
JR,
You have shown so much hatred and disdain towards the military that I believe there would be no war you would let your son or want him fighting in.
Regardless, my father didn’t want me fighting in this war either.
No parent does.
This idea that Republicans don’t go to war is a lie. If you look at the numbers, most of those serving in the military would identify themselves as Republicans.
It is not a partisan issue. It is an economics issue. Typically those who are more well off do not serve or their children do not serve.
It doesn’t matter if you are a rich Democrat or rich Republican, most likely your family will not be in the military.
It is no different than being a janitor. The military is not a high paying job or a route to be well off and rich.
But please, continue to think it is a Republican vs Democrat issue and you will never know the truth of the matter.
Finally Nathan owns up to what John Kerry said about the ones winding up in Iraq fighting Bush’s war. The military is for the peons of our society as far as the Republicans’ view. Did I get it right Nathan?
But yet when John Kerry only stated the obvious, the Republicans went livid.
Nathan
I have NEVER expressed hatred or disdain for the military. I challenge you to prove otherwise or withdraw the charge. Even if I won’t be about to see it. I have advocated that our military be used JUDICIOUSLY and our veterans be well taken care of. That I would discourage my son from joining it reflects that I do not think our military is well used or properly compensated. Too, it reflects that we have not given him a nation worthy of laying his life on the line for.
Oh and while we are on matters of record…
I have also not advocated (til now) for a wholesale withdrawl from Iraq. I have felt bad that that nation has been so destroyed by the policies of george bush. I felt that we had some responsibility to restore some sort of order.
Well no more. Not when their government goes on vacation with the nation they are trusted with governing in such a state.
It is said it will take about a month per division to evac Iraq. That means almost 2 years. We should start that process now.
Oh and as to the GOP being tied to this disaster…
You have Lindsey Graham saying “let them win” in reference to the troops in Iraq.
That is insulting to the troops. They DID win. The war is over. There were no wmds. Saddam is dead. It is not the fault of the troops that bush wants a long term presence in Iraq. He IS admitting that now. That at least is a refreshing bit of honesty, if quite a bit tardy.
“The richest politicians are democrats. Many of them inherited their money. The liberal democrat demographic is almost exactly like the perception of republicans”
I’d like to see the research on that
Mike McConnell even says that the “War” in Iraq, is a sectarian mess… Sunni/AlQueada VS. Shia.. Shia sometimes vs. Shia… Who the heck are we supposed to fight?? All we are is targets in the cross fire… THAT is no war… it’s US sticking our noses into a Civil War of Islamic proportions… in other words, what they have done there for thousands of years
The Repubs argument for not ending the war, is like an argument that if you stop a gambler that is on an enending losing streak, then you alone are responsible for that gambler not winning his money back.Bush continues to bet our treasury (IOU’s) and the lives of Americans, and can’t see that he’s playing against long odds.
“WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) – A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: “When Bush exercises this authority , there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.”
“The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face,” Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party. ”
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html
The cost of maintaining the no fly zone in Iraq, 1 bil. per yr.
“
“A Heritage report on the 2001 defense budget places the cost of maintaining the no-fly zones at approximately $1 billion per year. Fewer flights will reduce operational maintenance costs. Pilots in the Middle East may not fly as often, but pilots in other regions may be allowed more flight training. The requirement for a large supply of spare parts and material, while not being eliminated, could be reduced. The generals’ recommendations do not indicate a reduction in capabilities, meaning the United States could rapidly reply to any Iraqi threat, keep its pilots safe and reallocate funding. “
You don’t have to research it, it’s a matter of record.The six richest senators are democrats. Ten of the top twelve are democrats,
Senate millionaires:
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Married it
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
Honest capitalist, founder of Kohl’s department stores
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Inherited it
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Stole it from investors
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Married it, uses her position in the senate to help her husband win gov. contracts
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
CEO and founder of ADP
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
Heart surgeon, family owns HMO
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Ambulance chaser.Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Inherited it
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico:$7,981,015
Married it
Bob Graham, D-Florida:$7,691,052
Inherited/married it
But keep believing that the rich, old, white, republicans run the world.
Nathan – do you have wealth envy or is it your hobby to research who has how much money?
Let’s take a look at the top Republicans and their wealth and make the list really accurate – okay?
Why is with Republicans the only thing that matters is money. Nothing else ever factors into anything you say. It is always about money.
“The richest politicians are democrats. Many of them inherited their money.”Posted by: Hank | July 22, 2007 at 02:33 PM
“The six richest senators are democrats.”Posted by: Nathan | July 22, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Does Nathan Price really believe that the ONLY “politicians” in the U.S. are Senators?
http://bushwatch.org/bushmillions.html
Not to mention the VP…
Cosmos,
Of course not. Nor have I ever said anything like it.
Having fun with your strawman?
You people are too much. Do you even read the postings?
Kev said he would like to see the numbers.
We give him the numbers.
Then you attack me for giving him the numbers.
Besides, they were not my posts, probably my father using the computer after me.
JR,
I don’t recall the exact place or time.
But I distinctly remember you posting something about you and your son viewing a Boy Scout or ROTC color guard.
I don’t recal the particulars, but I do remember something along the lines of your disdain and lack of respect for the color guard and what you told your son about it.
The problems with the Libs on this Blog is they never discuss the issue at hand.
It’s either (in this case) Nathan this or Nathan that.
(Which btw, cosmos using Nathan’s full name on the Blog without “Nathan’s permission should be banned.)
Or they are off on some tangent about Bush.
The topic was:”Senate Dems trying to tie war to GOP”
Okay, “Kansas” –
Back to the topic.
George WMD Bush is a Republic.
The Republic Party representatives in Congress are doing everything in their power (including denying an Up-or-Down Vote, something they whined about back when they held a slight majority in the Senate) to prevent majority rule.
Shrub, by hook or by crook, got America into Iraq and has failed miserably.
So miserably that 70% of Americans want George WMD Bush’s little Iraqi Adventure overwith.
There were no WMDs. Okay, maybe some reasonable people thought there were. A lot of people expressed their doubts at the time and ever since, and there have been no Saddam Hussein WMD’s discovered in four years of American occupation of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was a bad dude. Okay. He’s dead. “Mission Accomplished.” So why are we still there?
The enemy is in “its last throes.” Remember when Cheney said that? Think, perhaps, he was mistaken?
Your only hope now is to embrace Colin Powell’s prophetic words: “You break it, you own it.”
Repubs are back to their last ditch argument, “If we leave there will be a bloodbath in Iraq!”
Yup. And we told ya so four years ago. Iraq *will* turn into a bloodbath tomorrow, next week, next year…whenever American troops leave the country George WMD Bush invaded needlessly. As if it isn’t already a bloodbath, largely due to American occupation forces.
Iraq is an artificial country, carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by the Brits at the end of World War I. The “Iraqi” people (who didn’t exist prior to the end of the Ottoman Empire) will have to work it out for themselves. Islamic democracy, theocratic dictatorship, Kurdish republic, Irani puppet state? Yup, something like that’s gonna happen. And there’s nothing George WMD Bush or anyone elsein America can do to prevent it.
What people in America can prevent is more American sons and daughters dying for Shrub’s lost cause.
And the only-est people in America who are standing in the way of the inevitable resolution of Bushie’s Little Iraqi Adventure are Republic Party apparitchiks who are preventing a democratic process for righting a wrong, correcting a grave mistake, and countering the incompetence of George WMD Bush.
The Repubs are whinning about a bloodbath if we pull out of Iraq?As if they really cared!
When there’s a blood bath, rememeber it’s the Repubs. that prepared the bath.