OT - Republican Congressmen Confront Bush Over Iraq, Honesty

[NoMyths]

NBC's Tim Russert reporting, as likewise reported by Drudge and others:

Link: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2wh.htm
Video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...-Bushtalk.wmv/

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN TAKE IT TO BUSH
Wed May 09 2007 20:42:16 ET

TIM RUSSERT, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: Brian, all eyes on the Republican party. How long will they support the president's position on the Iraq War? Yesterday may have been a defining, pivotal moment.

At two-thirty in the afternoon, in the private quarters of the White House, the Solarium Room, eleven Republican congressmen had a private meeting with the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the chief political advisor Karl Rove, and the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, and others.

This delegation was headed by Mark Kirk of Illinois and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. It was, in the words of one of the participants, the most unvarnished conversation they've ever had with the president.

Another member has said he has met with three presidents and never been so candid. They told the president, and one said, quote, "My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President."

The president responded, "I don't want to pass this off to another president. I don't want to pass this off, particularly, to a democratic president," underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

Brian, the Republican congressmen went on to say, "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There's no longer any credibility. It has to come from General Petraeus.

The meeting lasted an hour and fifteen minutes, and was, in the words of one, " remarkable for the bluntness, and no holds barred honesty and the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And Tim...how did the president react and how did this then affect the instructions for VP Cheney heading off to Iraq?

RUSSERT: One congressman said, "How can our daughters and sons spill their blood while the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation? The president responded, "The Vice President is over there to tell them, 'Do not go on vacation.'"

[JPhillips]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Democratic congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, they'll still kill unborn children, tax the hell outta ya, and give that money to unwed crack mothers with ten kids.

P.S. Stereotypes suck.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The president responded, "I don't want to pass this off to another president. I don't want to pass this off, particularly, to a democratic president," underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

It's reassuring to know that the president thinks the situation is serious because it might cost his party the White House in 2008 and not, you know, because it's cost over 3000 coalition lives and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Priorities.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Democratic congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, they'll still kill unborn children, tax the hell outta ya, and give that money to unwed crack mothers with ten kids.

P.S. Stereotypes suck.

It has nothing to do with policy, Chief. During this presidency there's been numerous times when moderates Republicans have threatened to stand up to the President, but time after time they have backed down. I don't doubt their beliefs, but until they start speaking publicly and actually voting against the White House, I'm unimpressed.

The whole lot of them are as gutless as can be. I'm no Lieberman fan, but at least he has the guts to speak publicly and his votes back up his words.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

At some point in all of this, I started trying to work backwards instead of forwards. I try to imagine what kind of change will inevitably come, and then envision how things will look -- what events will transpire -- when that change comes.

In some ways this is the opposite of a chronological list of our various shared catastrophes these several years. The worsening situation in Iraq has moved us closer to change, as has Hurrricane Katrina. If the war is going to end in the near future -- what will be the signs? This report would certainly be one such indicator.

My sense is that enormous change is coming within two to five years. Unfortunately, we'll be dealing with the effects of our country's terrible mistakes for the rest of our lifetimes.

[Ksyrup]

As someone who considers himself a moderate Republican, I think they're in a no-win situation, just like I am. It's obvious that we are the minority position within the party these days, so to take a public stand is pretty much useless. For these guys, it would be career suicide. And for most of us, there really is no other choice. I refuse to support a Democrat because I do not buy into their underlying beliefs for how the government should be run. And even if there was a candidate I liked, who took positions I supported, I would probably not vote for him/her because of the people who would make up the administration, not to mention the Congressmen and special interest groups that person would be beholden to for getting them elected in the first place.

I have no interest in politics anymore, which is unfortunate. But that's primarily because I don't see a place where I fit in, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

[bob]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

My sense is that enormous change is coming within two to five years.

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by bob

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

The D.C. madam is going to release all 10,000 names on her list and we're going to have to schedule an emergency election to refill Congress along with the judicial and executive branch after they all resign in shame.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's reassuring to know that the president thinks the situation is serious because it might cost his party the White House in 2008 and not, you know, because it's cost over 3000 coalition lives and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Priorities.

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

[Warhammer]

The problem I have is how political this battle has become. What this war should point out is the shortcomings of our military. Our military is great for a standard conflict. However, for operations of this type, we don't have the manpower to successfully occupy a country to ensure order. Additionally, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to ensure that things shape up.

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules. If you know the consequences, the attitude becomes "Well, they shouldn't have been out after 6," rather than, "Why did this happen to him?"

But we'll never do it because we cannot see the big long term picture, and instead of thinking things through, we fight based upon feelings.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

It would be much more politically expedient to set the deadline and start pulling troops out. The President is not taking this position against such a deadline for political gain.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

Statements like this drive me nuts. Seriously, no one is claiming that any politician is a saint or any politician's hands aren't clean. Just because Democrats say stupid/embarassing things behind closed doors and just because both sides are "playing" politics, doesn't mean you can't criticize one side (or the other) when they screw up.

What kind of defense is that? "You think this administration is bad? Oh, well, the Democrats do bad stuff too!" Sure. Agreed. Yes, they do a lot of bad/stupid stuff. Feel free to point it out, but that doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't be able to criticize anything any politician does.

I agree, though, pollitics in this country have become much more contentious over the last 6-7 years and many issues are much more complicated than a simple "our side" vs. "your side" type argument that news networks have been shoving down our throats.

That said, BYU 14's statement is fine. The current administration and 4 years of a Republican controlled senate/white house did very little to give anyone any hope that they knew what they were doing in Iraq, had any plan for Iraq, or could do anything to fix it. I don't think Democrats have any better of an idea, but we wont know until we give them a chance. I don't think BYU 14 was claiming that the Democrats are any "better" or "more pure", just that they may bring different ideas/possible solutions to a terrible situation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem I have is how political this battle has become. What this war should point out is the shortcomings of our military. Our military is great for a standard conflict. However, for operations of this type, we don't have the manpower to successfully occupy a country to ensure order. Additionally, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to ensure that things shape up.

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules. If you know the consequences, the attitude becomes "Well, they shouldn't have been out after 6," rather than, "Why did this happen to him?"

But we'll never do it because we cannot see the big long term picture, and instead of thinking things through, we fight based upon feelings.

100% correct. The US policies related to this war effort in Iraq are very similar to a parent who tries to be friends with their kids. The kids act up a lot and cause a lot of problems. The parent then raises their arms and wonders why the kids are acting up so much when the basis of the problem is that no discipline was used to keep the kids under control.

Another thing I don't get is when the military announces publicly that in the coming days, they will launch an operation to secure this city or that province. Who the hell decided that it would be best if you gave your enemy several days advance warning that you were going to launch an assault? It's just mind-numbing at times.

I agree with the 'shoot first' point as well. While we may be trying to avoid civilian casulties, the enemy is running around intentionally killing civilians. Wouldn't a better policy be to agressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casulties? It may cost lives in the short run, but the long term prognosis would be a whole lot better as we would likely save 10x the number of lives in that long run.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That said, BYU 14's statement is fine. The current administration and 4 years of a Republican controlled senate/white house did very little to give anyone any hope that they knew what they were doing in Iraq, had any plan for Iraq, or could do anything to fix it. I don't think Democrats have any better of an idea, but we wont know until we give them a chance. I don't think BYU 14 was claiming that the Democrats are any "better" or "more pure", just that they may bring different ideas/possible solutions to a terrible situation.

Note that I never disagreed with the content of BYU14's statements. I agree that it's a terrible way to make decisions. But his point was made with the intent to say that only the Republicans make decisions that way. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

I'm a libertarian/independent. The degree to which R's and D's do what you describe is what makes them different and NOT equal.

For example, Clinton was sleazy and a liar. So is Bush. That doesn't make them equally awful. I fail at understanding how people don't get this.

Ksyrup, see the link below for depressing pictures. R's are officially big guvment and I'm beyond disillusioned with them. It's yet another striking example that one party should never, ever, ever control all branches of government.

http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...k/contents.cfm

[flere-imsaho]

Wow, this one's especially damning for a party that considers itself pro-business.

[Ksyrup]

I know. The big government stuff is probably the biggest disappointment of all of it.

As far as Iraq, I don't have a problem with the fact that we went in, but it's fairly obvious to me that they underestimated what it would take to "win" (if something like this can even be described as simplistically as winning or losing), failed to have a plan to deal with what emerged, and now are trying to put bandaids on a gaping wound to at least control the bleeding so that we can leave with some semblance of order. That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it, so I am adamantly opposed to setting a date for pulling out because having a nice, easy target date to throw around is useful for campaigning, as if being out of there by X date allows us to wipe our conscience clean. Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know. The big government stuff is probably the biggest disappointment of all of it.

As far as Iraq, I don't have a problem with the fact that we went in, but it's fairly obvious to me that they underestimated what it would take to "win" (if something like this can even be described as simplistically as winning or losing), failed to have a plan to deal with what emerged, and now are trying to put bandaids on a gaping wound to at least control the bleeding so that we can leave with some semblance of order. That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it, so I am adamantly opposed to setting a date for pulling out because having a nice, easy target date to throw around is useful for campaigning, as if being out of there by X date allows us to wipe our conscience clean. Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

I agree with you, except for I did have a problem with the fact that we went in. I never thought it was a good idea for many of the reasons you state and some others.

But I do agree that setting a target date just doesn't seem like the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that's it. The Democrats are definitely trying to play politics here where politics shouldn't belong, however, many of them did vow to "bring back our troops" as part of their campaign promises and, I guess, that's what they are trying to do or at least it is what they want to make it look like they are trying to do.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it,

So I should take responsibility for the incredible error made by the Bush Administration? I don't think so, especially as I was one of the people against the war from the start, expecting this kind of stagnation & morass.

Responsibility? National Guard troops are still being sent to Iraq lacking equipment or equipment in good repair. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq with injuries that, in previous wars, would have excused them from service. Analysts and military commanders continue to say that in order to bring true security to Iraq, a U.S. force several times larger than what is currently in Iraq would be necessary.

Bush & Company haven't done anything to take responsibility for any of this or the myriad of other problems spawned by this war, and you want me and the American public to step up and take responsibility for what they started? Fuck that. My brother came back from Iraq with a degenerative spinal condition and will live in pain for the rest of his life. Most of the men he served with have now sunk deep into alcoholism and PTSD.

Meanwhile, what's our Commander in Chief doing?

Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

This would be a more effective argument except that, for years now, polls of Iraqis have shown that the majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq, for better or for worse.

[Ksyrup]

I don't have an issue with us having gone in, mainly from the standpoint that someone had to enforce the UN's threats. You can't keep drawing a line in the sand and then stepping back when that person crosses it, creating a new line, and saying, "OK, we mean it now. Don't cross THIS line," ad nauseum. Whether we had a realistic chance of coming out of this, even under ideal circumstances, any differently than we're going to at some point in the future...who knows. One thing I think we need to take from this is that freedom is more than just being free - it's a state of mind, almost, and you have to be prepared and want to accept the responsibility that comes with it. And I think we've learned that not everyone shares our views on freedom, and that you can't just give someone freedom and expect that they'll turn into the US circa 1776 and they'll live happily ever after.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So I should take responsibility for the incredible error made by the Bush Administration? I don't think so, especially as I was one of the people against the war from the start, expecting this kind of stagnation & morass.

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do. How about I give you props for knowing exactly what was going to happen? Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done? Geez, it's no wonder our country sucks right now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't have an issue with us having gone in, mainly from the standpoint that someone had to enforce the UN's threats.

The lack of WMD in Iraq shows that the IAEA was enforcing the UN's threats just fine.

You can't keep drawing a line in the sand and then stepping back when that person crosses it, creating a new line, and saying, "OK, we mean it now. Don't cross THIS line," ad nauseum.

You also can't invade the country of every crackpot dictator who says mean things about your country.

Whether we had a realistic chance of coming out of this, even under ideal circumstances, any differently than we're going to at some point in the future...who knows.

Well, there have been oceans of ink spilled describing the mistakes made by the Provisional Authority in the early days after the invasion. Completely disbanding the army & police force, for one. Putting our faith in an international almost-criminal of questionable ethics who hadn't lived in Iraq for decades, for another, and the list goes on.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Bush & Co showed hardly any level of professionalism (you know hard work, due diligence, objectivity) going into this catastrophe, and they continue to lack professionalism now (Walter Reed going unnoticed for ages, continuing supply problems for the Army, myriad scandals at the White House, one of the key architects of the Iraq War getting booted from the World Bank for getting his girlfriend a cushy job at State while keeping her on the payroll at the World Bank). And you want me to sign on and take responsibility for the mess these turkeys created and still continue to control? Tell you what, let's go tell JaMarcus Russell that making the Raiders a playoff team next year is largely his responsibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do. How about I give you props for knowing exactly what was going to happen? Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done? Geez, it's no wonder our country sucks right now.

Exactly. I voted for Dubya because I had more isses that I agreed with him on than I did the other candidate. I'm not personally responsible for the situation in Iraq solely because I did vote for Dubya. I elected the officials that I elected because I felt they would make the decisions that I agree with more often than the other candidate. Just because I voted for the candidate doesn't mean I blindly agree with everything that person does.

How do we know that the situation wouldn't have been worse (or better) with a Democrat as president? We don't. It's easy to second-guess things, but it doesn't result in much other than allowing for people to bitch about the present rather than using a more forward thinking approach to make sure the best decisions are made in future situations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, there have been oceans of ink spilled describing the mistakes made by the Provisional Authority in the early days after the invasion. Completely disbanding the army & police force, for one. Putting our faith in an international almost-criminal of questionable ethics who hadn't lived in Iraq for decades, for another, and the list goes on.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Bush & Co showed hardly any level of professionalism (you know hard work, due diligence, objectivity) going into this catastrophe, and they continue to lack professionalism now (Walter Reed going unnoticed for ages, continuing supply problems for the Army, myriad scandals at the White House, one of the key architects of the Iraq War getting booted from the World Bank for getting his girlfriend a cushy job at State while keeping her on the payroll at the World Bank). And you want me to sign on and take responsibility for the mess these turkeys created and still continue to control? Tell you what, let's go tell JaMarcus Russell that making the Raiders a playoff team next year is largely his responsibility.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but most of those problems related to the Army supply issues and Walter Reed were based in decisions that were made in previous administrations (both Republican and Democratic). These weren't new problems that were fine before Dubya took office. In regards to scandals and preferential treatment for jobs, you could go through each administration and I guarantee you would find plenty of that in each one. It's all a part of the business. This isn't something new.

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

"You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do.

This has nothing to do with the way I voted. This has everything to do with my right to dissent. It has everything to do with my right to stand up and say "Enough. This is not the right direction. Those in charge should admit their mistakes, listen to the people they represent and the experts giving them advice, solicited or not, and change the direction for this country."

Am I not to be afforded this right to dissent?

Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done?

Superficialities? A year spent with a huge knot of pain and anxiety in my stomach due to a course of events over which I had no control and with which I did not agree? If that's superficial, I'd like to see what's weighty.

"What needs to be done?" We toppled their dictator. We've spent half a trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid. What more do you want us to give them, blood? Oh wait, we've done that as well.

The Bush course for Iraq is to put more troops on the target range for the insurgents and ignore the calls of the Iraqi populace and Iraqi parliament for us to withdrawal and leave them to control their own fate. I disagree with this course of action, and I have a right to disagree.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The lack of WMD in Iraq shows that the IAEA was enforcing the UN's threats just fine.

You can't look back at a decision, and Saddam's flaunting of the UN's requirements, and judge it based on the inforamtion we now know. The world-wide intelligence suggested he still had WMD. The only evidence to the contrary was that none had been found...but the delay in even getting in there to look for them, not to mention the games he played with the investigators, suggested he had something to hide. Eventually, he became the "dictator who cried wolf" - at the point he was probably telling the truth, he had lied and manipulated the UN for so long, no one really felt inclined to believe him. NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

That's not the inference I'm making. The point I'm making is that people want us to continue to trust the Bush Administration to do the right thing in Iraq, when they've shown time and time again that they can't do anything but make mistakes and act unprofessionally.

No, it's not new to this administration. But it's a hell of a lot more serious when we're talking about the hundreds of lives, both coalition and Iraqi, that continue to be lost each week, in a large part due to a lack of good direction from those "in charge."

You all want me to join you in taking responsibility for the mess Bush has created, and I'm saying that I won't, because I have no faith that he and his cohorts can act professionally enough to actually do the right thing.

Case in point - the point about the Army not being prepared for Iraq due to the actions of previous administrations. Well, clearly the Administration knew as much, hence Rumsfeld's comment "you go to war with the army you have." Even so, as with any project or initiative, if you identify weaknesses when planning your actions, wouldn't you proscribe corrective actions for those weaknesses? Yet here we are, in 2007, still talking about supply problems, health care issues in the VA, and other problems related directly to our troops. How many more years do they need to resolve these issues? When is the urgency of these issues going to become crystal clear to these guys.

Bottom-line: I have no faith in their ability to get things done in a correct and professional manner, and since I have no faith there, I'm not willing to accept responsibility for the mess they've created. I dissent. I've proposed an alternate plan, which is supported by a majority of Americans, Iraqis and, lately the Iraqi Parliament. But I guess my plan doesn't count.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

Not the same thing - your statement wasn't about "us" vs. "them," it was about "us" vs. "us."

This has nothing to do with the way I voted. This has everything to do with my right to dissent. It has everything to do with my right to stand up and say "Enough. This is not the right direction. Those in charge should admit their mistakes, listen to the people they represent and the experts giving them advice, solicited or not, and change the direction for this country."

Am I not to be afforded this right to dissent?

Of course you are. But your immediate response to my statement was to not want to take responsibility as a country for what happened, but rather look at it individually and say "hey, you can't tag me with that! I was against it!" That's the kind of attitude that will get us nowhere. It's being bogged down in politics and refusing to see the bigger picture.

Superficialities? A year spent with a huge knot of pain and anxiety in my stomach due to a course of events over which I had no control and with which I did not agree? If that's superficial, I'd like to see what's weighty.

"What needs to be done?" We toppled their dictator. We've spent half a trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid. What more do you want us to give them, blood? Oh wait, we've done that as well.

The Bush course for Iraq is to put more troops on the target range for the insurgents and ignore the calls of the Iraqi populace and Iraqi parliament for us to withdrawal and leave them to control their own fate. I disagree with this course of action, and I have a right to disagree.

My point is that your immediate reaction is telling. You had to point out how you knew all along what would happen. Bravo for you!

What needs to be done now - IMO, it is to withdraw based on goals being met that will put the Iraqi government in the best position possible to be able to govern on its own, and not just say, "Bush is an incompetent fuckwad who killed thousands of Americans and left Iraq with no better future than it had before we invaded. I knew it all along! Now we should get the hell out by January 1, 2008, because hey, January 1 is a nice, clean breaking point and we have to stop spending money on a war I was never in favor of in the first place!"

That is a selfish position for our country to take and ignores the responsibility we have to take - regardless of how we got to this point - for what we caused. We know what administration this took place under - no need to remind us. Or to gloat. Which is frankly how your comments come off, whether intended or not. And in the face of what's going on over there, it looks petty.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You can't look back at a decision, and Saddam's flaunting of the UN's requirements, and judge it based on the inforamtion we now know.

Sure you can. At the time, both the IAEA's Al-Baradei and the State Department's intelligence wing thought it unlikely that Saddam had WMD or, if he still had the components he had before the first gulf war, then they had likely degraded the point of unusability by now.

Also, since that time how many people from the intelligence community have come forward to say that intelligence on Iraq's WMD was influenced by political operatives from the White House?

Eventually, he became the "dictator who cried wolf" - at the point he was probably telling the truth, he had lied and manipulated the UN for so long, no one really felt inclined to believe him. NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.

This was never about believing Saddam. It was about looking at the available evidence and using common sense to come to a set of conclusions.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure you won't believe me, but most of those problems related to the Army supply issues and Walter Reed were based in decisions that were made in previous administrations (both Republican and Democratic). These weren't new problems that were fine before Dubya took office. In regards to scandals and preferential treatment for jobs, you could go through each administration and I guarantee you would find plenty of that in each one. It's all a part of the business. This isn't something new.

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The degree to which things are fccked up IS new to this adminstration.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The degree to which things are fccked up IS new to this adminstration.

I'm going to guess you have never lived inside or near the Beltway. You would hear stories from the past 50 years that would make you cringe. You've got to have blinders on to make the statement you just did.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Not the same thing - your statement wasn't about "us" vs. "them," it was about "us" vs. "us."

When the White House lumps dissenters in with terrorists, then "us" vs. "us" definitely becomes "us" vs. "them".

Of course you are. But your immediate response to my statement was to not want to take responsibility as a country for what happened, but rather look at it individually and say "hey, you can't tag me with that! I was against it!" That's the kind of attitude that will get us nowhere. It's being bogged down in politics and refusing to see the bigger picture.

I'm happy to agree with you here. The country, as a whole, needs to take responsibility for allowing Bush and his gang of unprofessionals to run this into the ground. And it's my opinion that part of that responsibility is for Americans, at any level, to try and get the message through to Bush that we no longer have faith in his decision-making process, that we no longer agree with the direction he's set, and that we want something else to happen.

My point is that your immediate reaction is telling. You had to point out how you knew all along what would happen. Bravo for you!

That's absolutely not my point, and you know it. Person A tells Person B not to do something because it will make a mess. Person B goes ahead and does it anyway. Person C then comes along and tells Person A to help Person B clean up the mess, with the caveat that they can only do it the way Person B says it should be done. I'd say Person A has the right to be aggrieved. Further, I'd say Person A has a right to be listened to.

What needs to be done now - IMO, it is to withdraw based on goals being met that will put the Iraqi government in the best position possible to be able to govern on its own, and not just say, "Bush is an incompetent fuckwad who killed thousands of Americans and left Iraq with no better future than it had before we invaded. I knew it all along! Now we should get the hell out by January 1, 2008, because hey, January 1 is a nice, clean breaking point and we have to stop spending money on a war I was never in favor of in the first place!"

Jeez, who's demonizing whom now?

I support the actions of the Democratic leadership in Congress to ask the White House to set up a plan to withdraw based on goals, but unfortunately the White House has come back and said "No goals, no timetables, don't tell us how to do our job." So, sadly, I'd say the potential for collaboration there isn't very high. So you'll have to excuse me if, as a result, I must make clear my lack of faith in the White House's ability to do anything in a responsible manner.

That is a selfish position for our country to take and ignores the responsibility we have to take - regardless of how we got to this point - for what we caused.

It's selfish for the country to demand accountability and responsibility from the White House? I hope not.

We know what administration this took place under - no need to remind us. Or to gloat. Which is frankly how your comments come off, whether intended or not. And in the face of what's going on over there, it looks petty.

I think you need to look at my comments through another lens. I'm not here to gloat, and I'm not here to say "I told you so." I'm emotional and highly charged about this issue because I've lived with the personal cost of this fiasco. And yeah, I'll admit that it colors my views on the issue, and I'm happy to have people take what I say with a grain of salt because of it.

Fixing this problem requires collaboration between the White House and the majority of Americans who want the war to end and the troops to come home. Collaboration is a two-way street and to date the White House hasn't shown any willingness to listen to the people with whom they're supposed to be collaborating. Until that happens yes, it's "us" vs. "them", and that's a shame.

And so, in that light, don't ask me, at this point, to take responsibility for this fiasco and sign on to fixing it, when the means to fix it are still invested in a White House who won't listen to me or the majority of Americans who share my viewpoint on this. And don't ask me to give this non-listening White House my support when it was their lack of professionalism and their bad decisions that put my little brother in pain for the rest of his life.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to guess you have never lived inside or near the Beltway. You would hear stories from the past 50 years that would make you cringe. You've got to have blinders on to make the statement you just did.

I once knew a former aide to Kissinger who told me that during the later part of Nixon's administration, he was drunk so much that Strategic Command put in a place a protocol that required additional checks and balances should he ever give the nuclear launch command.

Assuming it's true, that's probably more screwed up than anything the Bush Administration has done. Having said that, the systemic level of corruption & incompetence in the Bush Administration is pretty impressive.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I once knew a former aide to Kissinger who told me that during the later part of Nixon's administration, he was drunk so much that Strategic Command put in a place a protocol that required additional checks and balances should he ever give the nuclear launch command.

Assuming it's true, that's probably more screwed up than anything the Bush Administration has done. Having said that, the systemic level of corruption & incompetence in the Bush Administration is pretty impressive.

Yes, I noticed how you continue to point out the problems that Republican presidents had.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by bob

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

As I said, I tend to work backwards now, so I'm more interested in the signs that things are changing, rather than focusing on any one of several possible outcomes for the region. It appears that our military involvement in Iraq, however, is going to be substantially reduced during that period as we withdraw from the sectarian conflict. The American version of the war may be ended within half a decade. The region will be in chaos with no end in sight, and anti-Americanism will flourish near and abroad in exactly the manner Bin Ladin would have hoped. The only mission that will apparently be accomplished is his.

I do believe that pro-war and pro-administration (former or no) supporters should have a hard time sleeping, because as much as one may wish to make the issue of responsibility an abstract concept by blaming the politicians they elected, the fact remains that those politicians would not have been able to bring things to this point without the votes, support, and parroted talking points of their constituents. It's not as if there weren't reasonable people making the best case they could for why invading Iraq would be a historically bad decision. As an anti-war voice in this community, I certainly was subject to heated criticism and insults, most of which boiled down to "you just hate Bush".

My personal experience has been instructive, especially in this community. I argued against invading Iraq since long before the actual event, as we all know. It's not a situation where one can feel good about being 'right', though -- instead, we're faced with exactly the chaos and terrible results that many of us argued were a more real danger than WMD we were supposed to fear. I also argued that if we did invade, we had a responsibility to stabilize the region, as the potential outcomes of failure were terrible to consider. At this point, I see little sign that such stability is possible any longer, considering how badly mismanaged this war has been.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, I noticed how you continue to point out the problems that Republican presidents had.

Kennedy was a wanton womanizer and it's ironic that he's idolized by the same generation that he led straight into the Vietnam War. Johnson should be faulted for continuing that gruesome war without any clear plan or direction. Carter never understood how to delegate, a key failing in any executive, and was at a loss as to how to handle any of the macro problems that faced his presidency. Clinton's personal behavior in office compromised the dignity of the White House in a way that even SNL's mocking of Gerald Ford couldn't do. His personal infidelity made it possible for the country to focus on insignificant issues in politics while allowing structural problems with the economy to go unnoticed during the boom years of the late 90s. Plus, from an ideological standpoint, it's clear that after 1994 he pretty much punted on any of the "big" ideas he had for the presidency and coasted. Lastly, and this is a partisan point, although Breyer and Ginsburg were good appointees to the Supreme Court (that's a liberal view, of course), he should have taken the opportunity to appoint justices who were considerably younger, as George W. Bush has done.

Happy now?

[flere-imsaho]

In Post #37, NoMyths explains my viewpoint much better than I could.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Happy now?

That's the spirit! Trash one, trash all!

[JediKooter]

Honesty + Politician = Oxymoron

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

100% correct. The US policies related to this war effort in Iraq are very similar to a parent who tries to be friends with their kids. The kids act up a lot and cause a lot of problems. The parent then raises their arms and wonders why the kids are acting up so much when the basis of the problem is that no discipline was used to keep the kids under control...

I agree with the 'shoot first' point as well. While we may be trying to avoid civilian casulties, the enemy is running around intentionally killing civilians. Wouldn't a better policy be to agressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casulties? It may cost lives in the short run, but the long term prognosis would be a whole lot better as we would likely save 10x the number of lives in that long run.

It boggles my mind how anyone can look at the situation in Iraq and say, 'You
know why they don't like us? We just aren't killing enough of them.'

Step 1: Kill more Iraqis.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Victory!



Iraqis aren't children, and we aren't parents. Iraqis are people.

[bob]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

As I said, I tend to work backwards now, so I'm more interested in the signs that things are changing, rather than focusing on any one of several possible outcomes for the region. It appears that our military involvement in Iraq, however, is going to be substantially reduced during that period as we withdraw from the sectarian conflict. The American version of the war may be ended within half a decade. The region will be in chaos with no end in sight, and anti-Americanism will flourish near and abroad in exactly the manner Bin Ladin would have hoped. The only mission that will apparently be accomplished is his.

I do believe that pro-war and pro-administration (former or no) supporters should have a hard time sleeping, because as much as one may wish to make the issue of responsibility an abstract concept by blaming the politicians they elected, the fact remains that those politicians would not have been able to bring things to this point without the votes, support, and parroted talking points of their constituents. It's not as if there weren't reasonable people making the best case they could for why invading Iraq would be a historically bad decision. As an anti-war voice in this community, I certainly was subject to heated criticism and insults, most of which boiled down to "you just hate Bush".

My personal experience has been instructive, especially in this community. I argued against invading Iraq since long before the actual event, as we all know. It's not a situation where one can feel good about being 'right', though -- instead, we're faced with exactly the chaos and terrible results that many of us argued were a more real danger than WMD we were supposed to fear. I also argued that if we did invade, we had a responsibility to stabilize the region, as the potential outcomes of failure were terrible to consider. At this point, I see little sign that such stability is possible any longer, considering how badly mismanaged this war has been.

thank you for telling me what you meant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It boggles my mind how anyone can look at the situation in Iraq and say, 'You know why they don't like us? We just aren't killing enough of them.'

Obviously, that's not even close to what was suggested by either of those posts. No one wants any civilians to get hurt. With that said, our enemies are now using our good nature against us to gain further advantage and prolong this engagement. At some point, you have to just realize that war is war and that people will needlessly die. U.S. soldiers have to fight with caution, worried that one mistake or dead civilian may end up being trumpeted on (insert one Muslim news channel) as a war atrocity. Meanwhile, they're killing 40 civilians a day in the streets and those same channel don't even raise a finger to chastise that action.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The only evidence to the contrary was that none had been found...

Quite a substantial data point though, no?

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The world-wide intelligence suggested he still had WMD.

It suggested it, but wars of choice should not be fought based on a suggestion. France, Germany, and Russia were among the world powers that decided that more time was necessary in order to determine if he had WMDs. History has vindicated their position.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.

In the Iraq Resolution vote 133 congressmen voted against the resolution, 126 of the votes cast were from Democrats, 6 from Republicans, and 1 from an independent. 81 Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, 23 Dems voted against it and 29 voted for it. A majority of Democrats in congress voted against the resolution.

That's not to say that no Dems believed we should go to war. But it wasn't a cut and dry issue like you are making it out to be. 3 G8 members outright opposed the war, only 1 gave anything more than token support. And a majority of Dems were against it, compared to an overwhelming majority of R's.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obviously, that's not even close to what was suggested by either of those posts. No one wants any civilians to get hurt.

You want a shoot first policy in Iraq. The reason we don't have that right now is because it would be more dangerous to the people in Iraq. So presumably, if we change it we will get more civilians hurt. You are advocating for a policy that will get more innocent civilians killed by US forces. Presumably it's because you feel it will be better in the long run. I don't see how doing more of what got us into this will now get us out. You are missing step 2.

You want to "aggressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casualties", but "don't want any civilians hurt"? These are mutually exclusive. You can't not be concerned about civilian casualties and also be concerned about them. Again, to square the circle of killing them so that they live, you need step 2.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You want to "aggressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casualties", but "don't want any civilians hurt"? These are mutually exclusive. You can't not be concerned about civilian casualties and also be concerned about them. Again, to square the circle of killing them so that they live, you need step 2.

I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.

Still though, where is step 2? Effective counter-insurgency requires winning the 'hearts and minds' of the civilians to get them on your side and to have them stop joining the insurgency. It's hard enough to do that with soldiers with guns in the street. It's even harder to do that with soldiers shooting guns at people in the street. Nobody wants US troops to be in danger, and we all want a stable Iraq. But those goals are more and more in opposition to each other, and are looking more and more unattainable. The only solution I can come to is that we have to withdraw. Not because I think things will be all flowers and puppies if we do, but because it's the best of multiple evils. Basically, we can have chaos in Iraq right now, or chaos in Iraq 10 years and thousands of American lives and billions (trillions?) of dollars from now.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

" trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid.

This argument aside that is an incredible number. WTF I can't get the twon I live in to come fill in a pot hole in front of my home for the last 3 years. That's it me and the kid sfirst light tomorrow commence oil drilling ops in the backyard maybe if I can strike some black gold I can get the hole filled in

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.

There is an easier way to avoid casulties . I'm sure Mrs. Pelosi can tell you .

And as stated by Bigglesworth, an effective counter-insurgency requires that we don't make greater enemies of the population while trying to put down the insurgency. Because that'll just swell the numbers of said insurgency. And that's just counter productive.