JG-TC.com > News > Residents urge Rep. Johnson to oppose Iraq war

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:10 AM CDT
Residents urge Rep. Johnson to oppose Iraq war

By ROB STROUD, Staff Writer
rstroud@jg-tc.com

CHARLESTON — About a dozen Coles County residents crowded into U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson’s small Charleston office Friday to present a letter urging Congress to bring American troops home from Iraq.

Their visit to the office of Johnson, R-Champaign, was organized by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq as part of a nationwide campaign called “Iraq Summer.” The group has dispatched field organizers to the districts of 40 Republican U.S. legislators who have opposed setting a timeline to end the war in Iraq.

“Now that the president’s escalation is complete, it is time for you and other elected leaders in Congress to take a stand for or against the president’s Iraq policy,” the letter said of the increase in troops in Iraq. The letter also asks Johnson to discuss his position on this issue in August during a town hall meeting the group would organize.

Charleston resident Duke Bagger, who attended Friday’s gathering, said supporting the troops does not mean keeping then in an untenable position. He said the conflict in Iraq has been creating terrorists, not ending their threat to the United States. He said the recent attempted bombings in Great Britain show terrorists will attack where they want.

“We need to look at diplomatic solutions,” Bagger said in regard to Iraq’s neighbors. Iran in particular must be made to realize that supplying combatants in Iraq will never create the stable Iraq it needs for its own security, he said.

Bagger said they would like Johnson to take a hard look at these issues. Bagger noted he has always found Johnson to be willing to listen when contacted by his constituents.

Matthew Jones, the district aid at Johnson’s Charleston office, said he has fielded a lot of calls from constituents about Iraq in recent months. He said the callers, who are often very passionate about this issue, seem to be evenly split on keeping troops in Iraq or withdrawing them.

“We want nothing more than to have our troops come home too,” said Johnson’s spokesman Phil Bloomer later Thursday via telephone.

Bloomer said Johnson has disagreed with the president on sending more troops to Iraq, but fully supports those troops that are now there.

“As long as our troops are there they have a job to do. Congressman Johnson has supported them fully and plans to continue to do so,” Bloomer said.

Bloomer noted that Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has been making automated calls to constituents, with the prerecorded messages having a direct phone link to Johnson’s offices. He said these automatically routed calls kept the Champaign office’s phone lines tied up for an extended time recently.

Contact Rob Stroud at rstroud@jg-tc.com or 348-5734.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 14, 2007 7:02 PM:

" Remind Johnson that those members of Congress who do not vote to end the disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation can pack their bags right now. That will get his attention. Johnson has supported the vicious ape in the Oval Office far too long, and had better start distancing himself dramatically. "

Rotty wrote on Jul 15, 2007 11:00 AM:

" I was thinking more towards if Rep. Johnson stays in the "Right" frame of mind, he will stick to his guns. He should continue to support our troops, as we all should be doing. Supporting a mission can be a good thing, especially if you look at the bigger picture, which so many of you on the far left seem to have forgotten how to do. "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jul 15, 2007 8:04 PM:

" While I would love for our guys (and a friend of mine) to come home now, we must keep the big picture in mind. For all those that claim rightly what a travesty it is how many lives have been lost, it would be a greater travesty to have let them die in vain. Let us not forget the lessons of Afghanistan in the 80's. There is a way to get out of Iraq, but a sudden and complete withdrawl is certainly not it. "

The Question wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:23 AM:

" The clock is ticking loudly for the Republican Party, and for Mr. Johnson, on Bush's Iraq civil war disaster. The alarm will be ringing shortly, and that will be it. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:48 AM:

" Chad- thank you very much- for not only your service, but for your very logical and poignant statement. There is much more to this war than the domestic politics back home. With all the mistakes that have been made from the very beginning in this war- we need to finally let the troops (and NOT the politicians on either side) determine how this war should be fought. And hopefully we are doing just that. Chad is absolutely right about "the big picture". This conflict between Radical Islam and the Western world is not going to go away for years, if not decades. And we *don't* have the luxury of choosing whether or not to confront it with force. The Jihadists have chosen for us, and they are not just going to simply fade away. Like it or not- we MUST confront them. We do have the choice in how we would like to end this conflict. Leaving wars unfinished and enemies left to fight another day in the Middle East has led us to this point in history. It's time that we finally get it right. Now that our troops have invested in this war with their lives- let's allow them the right to finish what they have more than earned the right to finish. We owe them that much. Thanks again Chad. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:02 AM:

" It needs to be noted that "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" is a MoveOn.Org/George Soros funded organization. The Far-Left loves to present this group as a "grassroots" movement but don't you believe it. This "grassroots" effort has some very deep pockets with some very anti-American ideals backing it. From sourcewatch.org: - "MoveOn is a web-based liberal advocacy organization that raises tens of millions of dollars for political candidates from its large (3.2 million in Spring, 2007) e-mailing list. Almost all the candidates funded are Democrats. MoveOn works in various coalitions such as SavetheInternet.com Coalition, Win Without War and **Americans Against Escalation in Iraq**. These coalitons include many advocacy groups such as Free Press and labor unions such as SEIU and others. ***At the start of 2007, MoveOn organized the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq coalition as its lobbying vehicle on funding for the war in Iraq.*** ...."MoveOn has created pressure within the Democratic Party for what the Washington Post calls "a vigorously liberal agenda" that goes "beyond simple opposition to the Bush administration." Boyd rejects the advice of "centrists" such as the Democratic Leadership Council who argue that "Democrats must moderate their positions on war, taxes, universal health care and other key issues." Speaking in June 2003 at a "Take Back America" conference, MoveOn's Wes Boyd declared, "The primary way to build trust is to consistently fight for things that people care about." Grassroots America is ready to support a liberal agenda, he said, if only "someone will get out and lead. ... Every time we did something, every time we showed leadership, our membership went up."---- Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/yoeode "

D.Stevens wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:09 AM:

" I agree with with "Rotty and Chad",in that we need to support our troops, but I wish Johnson would also do something about the Illegal Immigrants or at least protect our borders better before we have another disaster here. I also feel our congress should do more to support our Border Patrol Agents. If people are coming over here illegally and throwing rocks, fire bombs, shooting, etc. at our border patrol agents, then they ( the border patrol agents)should be able to defend theirselves without fear of going to prison. Its completely ridiculous that are agents get arrested and go to trial only to see that the prosecutions witness is the illegal that he was trying to keep out of our country. Then this illegal (who our government knows nothing about and could be a sex offender, murderer or whatever) gets a free home, a job and maybe even citizenship while a law enforcement agent goes to prison. I don't know about you, but it would piss me off if I was a border patrol agent and got thrown in prison for trying to protect our country. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:27 AM:

" Clearly, the Republicans and their propagandists are now desperate. They are looking straight at their own political ruin as the direct result of Bush and Cheney's power-mad corruption, greed and arrogance. That diabolical duo created a historic foreign policy disaster through the immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that never attacked or threatened the U.S. They had better pray to their one true god, Diebold. I understand He works in mysterious ways. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:36 AM:

" That's right, Mr. Johnson. Support the Iraq invasion and occupation right up to the hilt. Take the John McCain Path to Success. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 16, 2007 12:03 PM:

" I would hope that Congressman Johnson would stick to his guns, as well. I can't say it any better than Chad, Doh, Rotty, ad D.Stevens have. And Chad - thank you. You don't know how much your service is appreciated. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 16, 2007 5:02 PM:

" "...very anti-American ideals..." It is really funny how some have claimed a monopoly of what it means to be an American. Notice how little Miss Anita doesn't have a problem with Doh defining who has, and who hasn't, "real" American ideals. She eats that stuff up because it's what she wants to believe; call her anti-American though, she'll just skip right past it! Preimpetive wars without factual basis, the limitation on the freedom of speech, the denial of judicial procedures to American citizens, spying on American citizens without warrants, a Department of Justice that is instructed which crimes to prosecute and which crimes to overlook... that's all American! Huzzah! And one last thing, the "troops" do not decide what direction our foriegn policy takes, that is, unless you don't mind living in a military dictatorship. News flash, in American the people, through their elected representatives, determine foriegn policy. "

TommyTutone wrote on Jul 16, 2007 5:45 PM:

" What exactly does everyone mean by saying that we must "support our troops"? I've got a couple of buddies that are in Iraq and I talk to them via e-mail every once in a while but I'm not locating scrap iron to reinforce their hummers or anything. I'm not trying to be a jerk here but this buzz term gets thrown around a lot and I'm genuinely curious what it is people mean by it. From what I've seen, it seems to have something to do with car bumpers. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 6:03 PM:

" ("News flash, in American the people, through their elected representatives, determine foreign policy.") Well here's a News Flash for you Mr. Peebody. Those "elected representatives" voted for this war. Just like they voted for General Patreaus. Just like they voted for the troop surge. Just like they voted to wait to hear his September report. And tell me Vic Sage- just how many poster names have you registered under? "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 6:17 PM:

" Well Tommy- I would say that supporting our troops would start by supporting their mission. As oppossed to condemning their mission and accussing them of terrorizing innocent Iraqi citizens. *sniff* *sniff* I smell someone going for the "chickenhawk" angle. "

Yawn wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:43 PM:

" You mean you don't support trained killers? That what the military is you know - an organization that trains our young people to kill. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 8:15 PM:

" Didn't those "trained killers" defeated the Nazis and the Japanese? Are you free today? Are our police "trained killers"? Are you safe today? And most importantly- what chapter of Al Qaeda do you currently belong to TommyTutone/Yawn. And even more importantly- where is our favorite veteran Dohbaugh? Hey Dohbaugh- do you have anything to say to Yawn? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:04 PM:

" Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the troop surge was Bush's idea, and didn't think it was voted on by congress. Is that so? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:09 PM:

" Sorry little buddy, did you miss me? I had to work tonight, some of us have jobs. I know you don't, but others do. What happened to your other post name, 1 cav? Give that one up for a while? "

TommyTutone wrote on Jul 16, 2007 9:47 PM:

" Doh: If you're implying that I also post under the name yawn, you're wrong. I asked a simple question and you compared me to Al Qaeda, is this Ad hominem debate style your only fallback when you percieve a challenge to your pontifications or did I just have an unlucky first encounter? I didn't say that the military trains young people to kill, but I agree with the statement. As for your retorical question concerning American soldiers in WWII and the police; our soldiers did indeed defeat the Nazis, and the police are trained to kill when they must. Thank you for the one piece of relevant information that you've given in the last two posts; supporting our troops means supporting their mission. What does it mean to support their mission? Do I just have to believe that the mission is just, or do I actually have to DO something? Also, if the mission where to change and we pulled out tomorrow, would you no longer be supporting our troops? "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:02 PM:

" That's just the thing, peabody - I refuse to get into a spitting match with someone calling me names or throwing insults/slurs at me. I just laugh and go on... I can't control how you or anyone else behaves towards me or anyone else... but I CAN control how I respond. So yeah, 99% of the time, I WILL "skip right past it". I don't have to let it bother me or respond... I don't have to defend myself. I am secure enough in myself to know that it doesn't matter what kind of insults and slurs that others throw. Once in a great while, I will respond or react, but most of the time, I ignore it and go on my merry way. "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:07 PM:

" Actually the Democrats in the past had CRITICIZED Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq, and when the Commanders in the field asked Bush for the surge, the Dems then voted against it in a nonbinding measure. I actually gave them TOO much credit and almost miss a chance to point out their hypocrisy on this issue. Thanks little Dohbaugh! "

Doh wrote on Jul 16, 2007 10:46 PM:

" TommyTutone- if you are not Yawn- then I apologize. My Al Qaeda reference was towards any anti-military inference that was in Yawns post. So what does it mean to support the troop’s mission? Believing them when they tell us that they have made progress. Letting our representatives know that we think the troops should have more time when they are asking for it and letting the commanders decide when it's time to pull out. Or you can be even more proactive and donate to an organization like this-(www.vetsforfreedom.org)- And if the mission where to change and we pulled out tomorrow, I would definitely support the troops if it were their decision to pull out. I'm listening to the military- the people who are doing the fighting and dying. I'm listening to their commanders in the field. I'm especially listening to General Petraeus, and if President Bush starts to go against Petraeus’s wishes- then I will oppose Bush in a heartbeat. And if the next President is a Democrat who listens to the commanders in the field- then I will support that President. I realize that the military is not the only solution to this conflict, but right now it's the most important step. "

TommyTutone wrote on Jul 16, 2007 11:13 PM:

" doh: I accept the apology, thank you for the straightforward answer. "

miltmart wrote on Jul 17, 2007 2:43 AM:

" There seems to be a poster on here who thinks the Republican party is about to go kaput. My suggestion would be that this is only wishful thinking on that poster's part. Eliminate the competition? Yeah, that would be a smart way to run the country, wouldn't it? One party. Also, Tim Johnson is not going anywhere. His constituency (sp?) is too strong and he has helped many out and voters know that. That said, thank you Chad for your post and for your service. Much as some on these blogs don't like it but your voice is the one we should all be listening to. "

attainedage wrote on Jul 17, 2007 7:33 AM:

" To TommyTutone: You asked "What exactly does everyone mean by saying that we must 'support our troops'?" Good point. **** With 150,000 troops actively involved at any one time in Iraq, we are fighting this war with only one-twentieth of one percent of our nation's population 'engaged'. If I have my stats right, since March 2003, fewer than one million troops have been deployed to Iraq - that adds up to a whopping three-tenths of one percent of our total population. 'Support the troops' means keeping our yaps shut back home when we are tempted to whine about which party is in power. 'Support the troops' means that AP will agree to put an end to editorials that appear on Page One as “news” all around the world. 'Support the troops' means supporting the same mission (freedom for all) they are fighting and dying for. Hell, if we can’t even do these things to ‘Support the troops’, I’d hate to hear our reaction if we were handed ration books for gas and sugar and tires. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:27 AM:

" Thanks for giving me a second chance TommyTutone. I appreciate that. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 10:48 AM:

" miltmart- The anti-war Left in here are avoiding the comments by Chad(USAF) like the plauge. And if any party is about to go kaput- it's the Democrats "Most Ethical Congress Ever" party. There is a good reason why they are pushing for troop withdrawal this early- two months before General Petreaus's Sept report and only one month into the surge. They want to kill any chance of progress BEFORE that Sept report. The Democrats have already insinuated that they will not believe the report if it confirms any sort of progress. But here's the thing that they want to avoid at all costs- *A face to face showdown with General Petraeus.* Given the recent polls that show congress at an all-time low and the military at an amazing high- they DO NOT want the American people to see them second guessing (and worse) brow-beating the Supreme Commander in the Field. That showdown does NOT bode well for them- and they damn well know it! Can you imagine how that will come across to the average American? Make no mistake about it- the Dems are scared to death. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:11 AM:

" All you Republican candidates, please continue to support Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Show the voters that you are genuine Bush Republicans, and represent the true spirit of Bush and Cheney, and will serve as worthy heirs to all the great Bush-Cheney accomplishments. Oh, yes, please! We'd like that very, very much! "

Answer wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:05 PM:

" So, does supporting the troops include paying for them? Are all you flag waving, bible thumping, shoot first and let gawd sort 'em out, republicans ready to support a tax increase to help pay for the ever escalating cost of the Iraq war. According to Congressional analysis, we are now spending 12 billion dollars a month in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq civil war alone is approacing half a trillion dollars. So, does support the troops include pay the bills or are we to continue to shaft the children who have no say by pushing the costs onto a generation who can't even vote? "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:13 PM:

" Hey Vic- good luck with that confrontation between (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and "The Most Ethical Congress Ever") versus General David Petraeus and the United States Armed Forces. Let me know how that works out for your Democrat party. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:23 PM:

" I'll gladly support a tax increase to pay for this war- Answer. But why couldn't we cut some unnecessary spending while we are at it. Besides- I already donate to several Military organizations, and I've given more than I ever would have paid in taxes. And I have never been happier to spend it. Here's my latest favorite group: -(www.vetsforfreedom.org)- As a matter of fact they are on Capitol Hill TODAY Tuesday, July 17, to urge Senators to support the mission in Iraq and to wait until General Petraeus reports to Congress in September on the progress of the "surge" before taking a defeatist position. "

Collatine wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:53 PM:

" In truth, the Iraq invasion had much more at stake than the "WMD's" argument and next to nothing to do with 9/11. The US invasion was an attempt to rebalance power in the Middle East, which during the the 90s was tipping precipitously towards Iran. An ever-weakening Iraq (supported by the US in the 80s to offset Iran) allowed Iran to increase its geopolitical clout in the Middle East, threatening the world's oil supply. The other variable is Israel, for fifty years the lone liberal democratic state in the region. Fifty years of diplomacy and limited war has failed to bring peace throughout this region, so Bush tried a new paradigm... regime change. The war, while certainly eliminating any potential threat from Hussein in the future, ALSO positioned the world's greatest military next to the world's most dangerous nation - Iran, and the world's largest purveyor of terrorism - Syria (don't forget 9/11 is the dictator of Syria's birthday). Note the decline in suicide bombings in Israel since the Iraq invasion... Should our struggles to institute the first THREE Arab-Islamic democracies work (Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine), we can hope for freedom to spread to other Arab states and peace to expand. Should it fail - especially in Iraq, then the world's energy supply will fall to Iran (and Russia), Israel will be decimated by Syria (and Russia), and armies of Muslims would be unleashed on Europe and the West unlike anything seen since 1492 when they were finally expelled from Spain after a millenia of jihad. This is not a Republican thing. This is not a Bush thing. President Clinton or Obama will neither one pull us out of Iraq in a way to jeapardize our energy supply. Bush certainly hasn't led a very effective war effort, but the stakes of defeat are so high. And as someone suggested, yes, I'm in favor of higher taxes to help fund the war... a war to protect the West funded by debt may in the long run be as destructive as a military defeat. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 3:58 PM:

" Hey Dohnut, that's commendable of you, most people who don't work don't contribute to charitable causes. My hat's off to you for being the exception. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:13 PM:

" Hey Dohbaugh- can I count on you to make a donation to -(www.vetsforfreedom.org)- ? and thanks for your concern about my financial situation, but I'm quite comfortable running my own business. Now I'm surprised those amazing psychic powers of yours didn't pick up on that. Oh wait. Don't tell me. You have psychic proof that I'm lying about that. By the way- the vets for freedom don’t consider people like me a “chickenhawk”. But that’s ok, because I’m a proud “FDR Chickenhawk”! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:44 PM:

" Running your own business, huh? And would that business include picking up aluminum cans along the side roads. Does your brother, the war time vet, help in this endeavor? Your nose must have grown about an inch on that last post. Sorry, but with your style, I can't imagine you being able to run a business and keep any customers. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 17, 2007 5:03 PM:

" Collatine - excellent post. I hadn't thought about it from that angle, but it makes absolute sense. Iran and Syria are definitely dangerous. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 5:41 PM:

" You just can't help yourself can you Dohbaugh. ("Sorry, but with your style, I can't imagine you being able to run a business and keep any customers.") That's funny- I was thinking the same thing about you holding down a job. So how long do you want to keep this game going? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 17, 2007 6:25 PM:

" How about Saudi Arabia, Miss Anita, where most of the foreign fighters in Iraq come from? You know, where Osama bin Laden comes from? Aren't they "dangerous," too? Or are they not dangerous just because your poor, besieged Monkey King refuses to talk about them, and because he literally walks hand in hand with them, and because his family money comes from there? "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 8:25 PM:

" Would you feel better Vic if we launched a war with Saudi Arabia? And I didn't think Al Qaeda had any one specific country that they called home. Is there a country called AlQadeia that I missed? Or maybe an AlQaedastan? Or maybe you have some inside Intel that's telling you that Bin Laden is back home in Saudi Arabia. But wait! Didn't the Saudi's oust Bin Laden out of their country years ago? Just what is your point Vic? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 8:39 PM:

" Current job 17 years. Previous job 7 years. Job prior to that 11 years. Yeah, your right, I'm getting a little tired of this and I suppose you are too. So what are your suggestions for a resolution. I'm open for discussion. Actually the only thing we seem to have in common is that we both like Anita and Billie Brant. "

miltmart wrote on Jul 17, 2007 8:56 PM:

" The question you have to ask yourself Answer is.....what will be the cost if we don't stop the terrorist threat where it lives in the Middle East.? You seem very concerned about what the war is costing us now. You might want to think about the cost if the war comes here and the terrorists decide to make you and yours live according to their laws. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 17, 2007 8:59 PM:

" Thanks for clearing up the reason we went into Iraq: "The US invasion was an attempt to rebalance power in the Middle East (nation building?), which during the the 90s was tipping precipitously towards Iran." Silly me, I thought it was all about Saddam's WMD and freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator and stopping the terrorists who will then rush into Iraq to kill American soldiers (ie. the brilliantly immoral flypaper strategy.) September 11th is indeed Bashar al-Assad's birthday; however, 15 of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt, and 1 from Lebanon. That pretty much rules out the Syrian conspiracy with 9/11, right? By the way, Nikita Khrushchev died on September 11, 1971; maybe the Soviets were involved somehow too? On oil, using conservative estimates, Iran has 125 billion gallons of oil (the world's largest supply controlled by a single nation) while Russia has 60 billion gallons (a respectable amount as well). There is still another 815 billion gallons of oil elsewhere (including over 100 billion in a place called Iraq); that rules out the hypothesis that the "world's energy supply" will fall into the hands of two nations (one of which is our friend, or so Mr. Bush says.) Many researchers and surveyors believe the largest oil researches are to be found in Canada, Alaska, and Siberia; however, most oil exploration has taken place in Middle East, thus the figures for those nations are much more precise (between high and low oil reserve figures.) It's good, however, to see some acknowledge there are market dynamics at play with regards to foriegn policy -- I credit you on that. On the Reconquista, Muslims first entered Spain in the 8th century, but it was not until the 10th century that the radical (and they were) Almoravids held sway over the lower Iberian Peninsula and used what can loosely be described as "jihad" (the targetting of Christians and Jews.) Since when did a millenium become just 450-550 years? Time warp? Also, interesting you should speak of debt. In 1997 the external debt of the USA was $860 billion; in 2006 the external debt of the USA is over $10 trillion (CIA factbook.) In fact, about the only point I completely agree with is the statement about debt being as dangerous as a military defeat. In all, very far from an "excellent post" as described by some users. Remember, you all are entitled to your opinions -- you aren't entitled to your own set of facts. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:14 PM:

" Doh, I am not sure Vic ever really has a point. I can't remember when I've seen him make a point that makes sense to me... although I have to admit to not reading most of his posts because it's often just a buncy of copying and pasting or confrontational comments/questions. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 17, 2007 9:21 PM:

" Vic stated: How about Saudi Arabia, Miss Anita, where most of the foreign fighters in Iraq come from? You know, where Osama bin Laden comes from? Aren't they "dangerous," too?--------------------------------------- I'm sorry, Vic, but I don't get your point. The Saudis have kicked OBL out, and if I remember right, they tried to give him to us at one point several years ago. Is there proof that they are funding terrorism? Have the Saudis been caught delivering weapons across their borders and into the hands of the terrorists like Iran has? ----------------------------------------- As for the rest of your point, pose it respectfully if you want a response from me. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:24 PM:

" I call a truce Dohbaugh. And I suspect we have much more in common than either of us realize. "

Doh wrote on Jul 17, 2007 11:40 PM:

" There is one thing Dohbaugh that I have to get off my chest. It's the only thing that really ever got to me in the course of our dual, and it's this: If you are a veteran, then I sincerly apologize for ever questioning your service. I really don't care what anyone thinks of me or the veterans in my family, but I do care what I think of me. And I don't like the fact that I may have denigrated someones service to this country- and yes even you Dohbaugh- thanks for your service to this country. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 5:43 AM:

" "The Republican leadership has established hurdles and blockades, everything they can find to stop us from a vote that reflects the feelings of the American people. You know why? They're afraid of what the American people want. They're afraid the American people might prevail." - Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:56 AM:

" I accept your offer, Doh. It was getting a little old, and I'm sure you were getting as tired of the silliness as I was. As far as I'm concerned the past is history. Lastly, yes, I am a veteran (peace time) and I know your brother and dad were too. My posts to the contrary were merely to rile you up, and in reality, were not meant to dishonor them, even though I certainly inderstand you taking it that way. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:37 AM:

" Doh and Dohbaugh - Awesome, guys! "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:53 AM:

" You're all right Dohbaugh. "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:57 AM:

" Anita- If Dohbaugh and I can come to peaceful terms, then there is definitely hope for all posters. "

Collatine wrote on Jul 18, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Mr. Peabody – Yes, we’re nation building – rebuilding nations in our own image. We Americans like playing God. I didn’t say it was likely to work. And who said anything about a Syrian conspiracy? If anything, 9/11 was a birthday present to the Syrian dictator from OBL. What do the nations of origins have to do with individual criminals? Should we decimate Austria because it gave birth to Hitler? Bomb Lockport, NY because it birthed Timothy McVeigh? Nuke Chicago because it birthed the guy who killed the Tuscola cop? Saudi Arabia is our ally because we allow those misogynist dictators to remain in power. When the US pulls out of the Middle East, they will certainly collapse. Hey, I’m all in favor of drilling for more oil (let's start in Alaska), but the returns are long term… the truth of the matter is simple: if Iran is allowed to dominate Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, then yeah, in the short term, the world’s oil supply will be dominated by two nations: Iran and Russia (who also have sway over Venezuela, incidentally). And then we'll certainly see a global war. Recall when another empire (Japan) was cut off from oil by an upstart economic power (America). Except now, we'll be the energy-hungry empire. I ride my bike to work frequently, but I like having gas I can afford in case it rains and when it gets cold. Is it right? I'm being pragmatic, not moral about the situation. I'm not expressing my opinion or what I think we should do. I'm just laying the greater geopolitical scenario out. And ok, Islam was founded when…? The 7th Century? And continued to expand Westward until when… the 15th Century? Would you have been happy if I said, “Eight Centuries?” Ok. Eight centuries, not a millennia…LOL But I can take your numbers the my point is still valid. Anyway, the WMD’s etc may or may not have been a real threat, (decisions made on false intelligence does not a lie make) but Iran IS a real threat, recognized every President since Carter. Even Clinton was willing to intervene in Iraq (always with an eye on Iran) except the idiot Republicans had so distracted the nation with Lewinsky that he couldn’t muster the political and public will. (I bet if he'd been allowed to intervene, 9/11 wouldn't have happened!) Bush used 9/11 to garner the political and public will. I suspect that Clinton may have managed the war better, but we’ll never know. Nation building, after all, is a Democratic principle, not a Republican, who would rather use market forces to reshape our enemies instead of the military. Anyway it’s all about long-term reshaping of the Middle East, to divert power away from Russia and its vassal Iran. Not literal vassal, of course. "

AllYouNeedIsLove wrote on Jul 18, 2007 11:46 AM:

" I support the troops, and America, all the time. I support war only when its a good cause. WWII: no question. I would have absolutely fought in it. I don't believe it's right to kill people because of their race. It was horrible what Hitler was doing. Iraqi War: no question. I would absolutely not fight in it, unless I was drafted. I do not believe the Iraq war has ever been justified. Go after al Qaida and the terrorists? Yes, I fully support that. Go after Iraq for their oil? No, I do not support fighting a war for oil and greed. I refuse to fight for the current administration, who is making trillions off of this war. Do I think the soldiers fighting for our country are wrong or dislike them? No, I love the soldiers and have only the utmost respect for them. I repeat, I do not hate the soldiers. It is a very tricky subject, because many would call me anti-American, for saying I support the troops, but not the cause of the war. They would say the soldiers are fighting the war, so I should support the war. I can't support a war that was founded on lies. However, I do not blame or dislike the soldiers. The Bush Administration belongs in China, Russia or somewhere else, not here in the U.S. The U.S. is supposed to be good. The Bush Administration's values and morals are anti-American. "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 1:55 PM:

" AllYouNeedIsLove- ("I don't believe it's right to kill people because of their race.") Since Al Qaeda is predominantly Arab- it would be a little difficult to go after them without targeting a specific race, wouldn't it? ("I do not believe the Iraq war has ever been justified.") The members of Congress who voted to go to war thought it was justified. ("Go after al Qaida and the terrorists? Yes, I fully support that. Go after Iraq for their oil? No") Just where exactly would you go after Al Qaeda? What other country would you like us to invade? They don’t have a state of their own you know. Last time I checked they were in virtually every country on the globe. But they certainly are coming to us in Iraq now, where we can kill large groups of them at a time. And isn’t that more convenient than chasing around small groups of them in every country in the world? Al Qaeda's existence was based on the fact that we had boots on the ground in order to protect our oil interests. At least that was the main reason that Bin Laden stated in his Declaration of War against the United States in 1996. This has always been about oil. The entire reason we have EVER been in the Middle East is predominantly about oil. (Protection of Israel also factors into this). Now if you have another source for oil, then I'm all ears. And if oil sounds like an evil reason to go to war- just remember- WE didn't go to war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda went to war with US. "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 2:02 PM:

" AllYouNeedIsLove- I appreciate your outspoken support for our troops. I don't understand how you cannot support the fact that our military is identifying, capturing and killing Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. Isn't that exactly what you want? Isn't that what most of us want? "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 7:10 PM:

" The all-night stunt was a great move. Reid will continue to nail the GOP politicians to the wall on this loathsome, immoral, disastrous invasion and occupation, and make them all demonstrate that they are True Bush Republicans (and therefore history). The lovely smell of Republican flop sweat is in the air everywhere. "

ItsJustDave wrote on Jul 18, 2007 8:38 PM:

" Vic: Yeah. Reid & Co. sure showed 'em. 14% approval for this "new" congress, (even makes Bush's numbers look good) and now a childish refusal to fund the military (for the first time in 45 years) because his buddies' pork was gonna be excluded. Gotta have that $6 million for rural Nevada to fight the terrorists, even though even the terrorists have no idea where Nevada is. Seven months into the new regime and not ONE single thing has been accomplished. Try to dispute that. Not ONE meaningful bill. Agree with them or not, at least Newt's 1994 "Contract for America" congress did what they said they would. Pelosi, Reid and Co. lied their way into office and are now being exposed for the liars and frauds that they are. "

Doh wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:09 PM:

" Vic- I don't know what Democrat Party you're watching, but if anyone is sweating its Harry Reid and company. Not only did Reid pull his entire defense policy bill, but "The Most Ethical Congress Ever" is at an all time new low approval rating of 14%. The showdown with Gen. Petraeus' progress report in September is going to be very interesting. If anyone thinks that Harry Reid and Company (with their dismal approval ratings) having a televised argument with the Supreme Commander in the field, is going to be anything short of political suicide for the Dems- then they are just delusional. The really sad part to all of this, is that it sends a clear message to the enemy that this country is not only divided- but very weak in its will to fight. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:01 AM:

" Two U.S. Army soldiers have been charged with the premeditated murder of an Iraqi, and a lieutenant colonel has been relieved of command in connection with the case, the U.S. military yold the AP Thursday. Sgt. 1st Class Trey A. Corrales, of San Antonio and Spc. Christopher P. Shore of Winder, Ga., were charged with one count of murder in the death, which allegedly occurred June 23 near the northern city of Kirkuk, the U.S. said in a statement. Meanwhile, four U.S. soldiers and their Iraqi interpreter were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in east Baghdad. Think the Iraqis are ready with the candy and flowers they're supposed to shower on us yet? "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:06 AM:

" Wait a minute... This can't be right, can it? - From The Politico:----- http://tinyurl.com/2efbzu)-----"...Senate Republicans pushed through a nonbinding resolution stating that "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq would "create a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies." The vote was 94-3." ------ Last I checked, there are right around 100 Senators, total. If the Politico is accurate in their overwhelming vote count of 94-3, then this strongly suggests that a supermajority of Democrat Senators are admitting that the withdraw plan they clamor for will result in creating "a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies," and they still favor it! Please tell me why these Democrat Senators will admit that they support a plan that they believe will encourage terrorism? "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:13 AM:

" Hi ya, Dave. About Newt's contract for America, or as some called it contract on America: the most important item of all it's provisions failed, and that was term limits. Without term limits, it's business as usual. That provision was obviously put in there as a slap at the Democrats who had held power for decades, and it appears as though the Republicans, once they took the majority, seemed to forget all about term limits. With either party, it's all about doing whatever it takes to stay in power, and the business of the people takes a back seat. Both parties love it when we get partisan and only look at the issues through either Democrat or Republican glasses. As long as we keep bickering back and forth with a partisan view, like we do on here, it keeps the focus off them, and their shenanigans. People need to wake up and start evaluating things as to how good they are for the country, and not strictly from a partisan viewpoint. There are decent people in both of the major parties, and there certainly is an abundance of of partisan hacks, that put their parties policies and issues ahead of the people. I would agree that Reid an Pelosi seem rather inept, but would argue that this ineptitude is equally matched by the Bush and Cheney team, with their ill conceived and planned war, and it's disastrous aftermath. Just like Bush and Cheney, they seemed mired in rut, and everything they try to do fails. This country needs a real leader to step up. Someone who can inspire the rest of us, such as another JFK or Ronald Reagan. Whether or not you agreed with their politics, they both had the ability to make people take pride in being American. Looking at the list of candidates, on either side, can anyone really say they see that in any of the candidates who have stepped up so far? It seems, to me anyway, that most of the candidates have more negatives than positives. If this current bunch is the best we have, I guess a lot of us will be holding our noses when we go to the polls, and vote for the lesser of two evils. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:19 AM:

" As Editor & Publisher notes, the Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife has called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide." The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to question his mental stability." "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:57 AM:

" It's * "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:58 AM:

" It's *Democratic* Party, Doh, not 'Democrat' Party. *rolls eyes* "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 9:49 AM:

" Interested Observer- From MediaMatters: --- http://tinyurl.com/3alv3m -- "GOP strategists christen "Democrat [sic] Party" -- and the media comply Summary: Several media figures, including news reporters, echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to refer to things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party. In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans." --- There is nothing "Democratic" about this party- Interested Observer *rolls eyes twice* "

1 cav wrote on Jul 19, 2007 10:19 AM:

" Vic Sage wrote on Jul 18, 2007 5:43 AM: " "The Republican leadership has established hurdles and blockades, everything they can find to stop us from a vote that reflects the feelings of the American people. You know why? They're afraid of what the American people want. They're afraid the American people might prevail." - Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) " DICK DURBIN IS ON OF THOSE 'DRAFT DODGER' YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT. Like Clinton he despises the military. He VOTED for the Iraq war like all most all to Dem.party. The Dem's control all of congress,talk to your gutless 'cut and run' Representative ! I don not know 'Doh' or any of the other posters on here! The IQ on this blog is something else! Yawn wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:43 PM: " You mean you don't support trained killers? That what the military is you know - an organization that trains our young people to kill. " YES,little YAWN the military trains people to kill people and blow up things!! That has always been the purpose of MILITARY ! Sincerely, Trained to kill and survive! "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 10:40 AM:

" As KennyG put it, the best Dems can do is pressure weak Republicans to cross over. This sort of "stunt" is EXACTLY the way to go to pressure them. As their constituents back home continue to see the Republicans protecting a pathetically incompetent AND delusional president, at the expense of the military that are dying day in and day out in this fool's folly, they will feel more and more heat until they cave. THEY WILL CAVE, if not now, then certainly by September, because if they are NOTHING ELSE, they are jealous guardians of their own political power which will certainly be on the line in a couple more months. "

Becky wrote on Jul 19, 2007 10:52 AM:

" Chad, The Democratic Party is NOT advocating for an immediate withdrawl. That scenario is impossible. They want to redeploy troops to Iraqi boarders and US compounds while systematically withdrawing the troops. This will show the Iraqis that it's time for them to work together. They want to leave a small amount of American military there to train the Iraqi army and police but force them to do the patroling. It is time to get out! We've done all that we could. "

AnitaS wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:26 AM:

" Vic - you're too funny - you just insulted the Democratic party in your attempt to insult the Republican party. rofl "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:29 AM:

" Becky- Please read my: (Jul 19, 2007 2:06 AM) post. ("...a supermajority of Democrat Senators are admitting that the withdraw plan they clamor for will result in creating "a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and (U.S.) allies," and they still favor it!") "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 11:37 AM:

" Get your facts straight, cavman. Sen. Durbin was one of the 23 US senators to vote AGAINST the Iraq Resolution to employ military force in 2002. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:32 PM:

" Doh, you failed to mention the key element of the pointless political charade non-binding resolution, which was the word "precipitous" used before the word withdraw. As Becky points out, accurately (now why are you trying to obfuscate the truth doh?) most democrats and reaonable people don't want a precipitous withdrawl which would likely create even more chaos than we have already created with our poorly planned and manned occupation. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 1:36 PM:

" The Cav man is obviously an angry white male who feels that the world is out to get him. That sort of anger and indifference is sad and disturbing. Calm down Cav, say no to caffeine. Why all the shouting and histronics? After all, your trained to "kill and survive", so you don't have a thing to fret about. "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:00 PM:

" OK, Doh, have it your way. If it suits you to sound like a semi-literate redneck, have at it! *rolls eyes again* "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:36 PM:

" "Precipitous" Answer? Oh how silly of me! So if the present surge is already a failure in your eyes- then how will gradually withdrawing the troops (as opposed to precipitously withdrawing the troops) be anything less than disastrous? Oh wait! Maybe Al Qaeda will "gradually" fill the void as our troops leave! But my bet- is that Al Qaeda will "precipitously" fill that void! And you claim that *I'm* good at political spin? "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:44 PM:

" ("OK, Doh, have it your way. If it suits you to sound like a semi-literate redneck, have at it! *rolls eyes again*") Oh come on- Interested Observer. I've seen your posts and you're better than that. That comment was entirely below you- and you know it. But hey- if logic and common sense comes from the mouths of "semi-literate rednecks"- then I will side with them every time. I'll shrug your comment off as a lapse in judgment. After all- plenty of people on the Left have given me a second chance to be civil- so it's the least I can do for you. "

Answer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 2:57 PM:

" Hey doh, maybe the Iraqi army and police which we have spent 4 years and billions of US dollars to train and equip will do the job they are trained to do, or is that part of the war and occupation a failure too? "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 3:52 PM:

" Sorry, Doh, but I've read *your* posts, and you're far too intelligent to use a semi-literate term like 'Democrat Party'; you know better, and your continued use of the term just makes you look bad. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:31 PM:

" ("Hey doh, maybe the Iraqi army and police which we have spent 4 years and billions of US dollars to train and equip will do the job they are trained to do, or is that part of the war and occupation a failure too?")--- Yeah Answer, the military strategy for the first 4 years of this war HAS been a failure. Now that Gen Petreaus' new strategy and new tactics have just gotten under way (with good results)- why do the Democrats want to end it? But if you can show me the historically established timeline and progression chart for turning a former Arab dictatorship in to a brand new Democracy, and then point out how we are lagging in that expectable time frame- then I'm all ears. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:40 PM:

" So far, the Bush administration has confidently informed us that the civil war in Iraq is caused by: — No one. ("Mission accomplished.") — A small Sunni insurgency of two or three thousand ("dead enders" on a deck cards). — Not the dead enders, but the sneaky Syrians and their "foreign fighters." — Not the Syrians, but the Sunnis in Iraq. — Not the the Sunnis in Iraq, but "Al Qaeda." — Not "Al Qaeda," but the sneaky Iranians. Cheney and the neocons plan to attack Iran, and so the insurgency in Iraq is now being blamed on Iran, as Paul Craig Roberts noted. Stay tuned for the next announced "cause" of violence in Iraq. It will be a lie, of course, but it will always serve the administration's perceived interests of them moment. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:41 PM:

" Interested Observer- would it make you feel better if I framed the term "Democrat Party" in quotation marks to designate its use as a parody, so its use won't be misconstrued as a lack of intelligence on my part? "

The Question wrote on Jul 19, 2007 4:50 PM:

" Why did Oxford Prof. Timothy Garton Ash write this? Osama bin Laden's plan was to get the U.S. to overreact and overreach itself. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush fell slap-bang into that trap. The U.S. government's own latest National Intelligence Estimate, released this week, suggests that Al Qaeda in Iraq is now among the most significant threats to the security of the American homeland. The U.S. has probably not yet fully woken up to the appalling fact that, after a long period in which the first motto of its military was "no more Vietnams," it faces another Vietnam. There are many important differences, but the basic result is similar: The mightiest military in the world fails to achieve its strategic goals and is, in the end, politically defeated by an economically and technologically inferior adversary. Even if there are no scenes of helicopters evacuating Americans from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, there will surely be some totemic photographic image of national humiliation as the U.S. struggles to extract its troops. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have done terrible damage to the U.S. reputation for being humane; this defeat will convince more people around the world that it is not even that powerful. And Bin Laden, still alive, will claim another victory over the death-fearing weaklings of the West. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:15 PM:

" The Question- Why did Oxford Prof. Timothy Garton Ash write that? Uhhhhm... maybe because he is a hopelessly Left-Wing Oxford Professor? How's that for starters? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 5:32 PM:

" In the overall scheme of things, does it really matter if someone says Democrat party or Democratic party? If any one's skin is so thin that they are offended by that, then I would say they have a more serious problem. These days, those terms have become interchangeable. If you watch the news on TV, or read a newspaper you would see that on a daily basis. Should that little issue be part of the ongoing debate? "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 19, 2007 6:08 PM:

" No, Doh, it wouldn't make me feel better; it might, however, give you some more credibility if you quit using a semi-literate term like 'Democrat Party'. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 19, 2007 6:26 PM:

" Max Blumenthal records the piercing cry of the GOP chickenhawk, a strange little bird now as common as the pigeon: "In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time. "Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die." "

The Question wrote on Jul 19, 2007 6:52 PM:

" By the way, Doh, congratulations on piercing the secret of my other identity. I had wondered if you'd figure out the puzzle. "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 7:18 PM:

" ("By the way, Doh, congratulations on piercing the secret of my other identity. I had wondered if you'd figure out the puzzle.") Thank you - The Question. If there was ever proof that I have spent way too much time on this site: that was it! "

Doh wrote on Jul 19, 2007 7:19 PM:

" ("Should that little issue be part of the ongoing debate?")- You're right Dohbaugh. It's a silly debate. "

Chad(USAF) wrote on Jul 19, 2007 10:48 PM:

" Becky, Thank you for making your point logically and rationally. We could go back and forth on what the definition of what an "immediate" pullout is. Further, we could debate whether what the Democrat leadership says and what it is trying to do are the same thing or not. I think what we are both getting at is roughly the same idea though. We both believe that a phased withdrawl is probably the proper way to go about this. Where I diverge from most though is in giving it a public timetable. When we say to the enemy we are going to be out by a specific date, we only embolden them. I'm not claiming to have the answers. All I know is any fast pullout, whether "immediate" or not would simply be repeating the same mistakes of Afghanistan. "

Early Bird wrote on Jul 20, 2007 6:03 AM:

" Excellent post, Becky. Obviously, we can't just up and pull out of Iraq. But the stay the course mentality of the White House isn't working. There are those who say the surge is starting to show progress, and that is good news, however, I don't feel that we should allow this to drag on forever. I think the real question is, do the Iraq people have the will to govern them self, and can they operate as a government, with all of the factions in their society, they seem to only know one solution to disagreement, and that is killing each other. Chad's point about setting a pull out date, is a good one, however, let's hope that Bush has given the new guy in charge some sort of a timetable for turning things around. Given Bush's apparent tendency for stubbornness, I fear he hasn't considered that option, and it will be stay the course, and this ordeal will continue to drag on until we get new leadership in the White House that is at least willing to try another avenue. Democrat or Republican, I am sure who ever is elected will not just pull the plug on Iraq, although I'm sure the Republicans will play the cut and run card card, and the Democrats will play the stay the course failed policy card, during the upcoming Presidential elections. "

Doh wrote on Jul 20, 2007 5:43 PM:

" Actually Early Bird- I agree with most of your last post. I would only dispute some minor points; Bush isn't staying the course anymore. He has allowed General Petraeus to start a new course that has shown more positive results in 1 month, than we have seen in the last 4 years. I do however wish that he would have done this long before now. And I don't think that the current level of violence will drag on forever. Based on my research of Petraeus, I don't believe for one minute that he would have agreed to this operation without a definitive timetable and "endgame". The biggest hurdle in all of this will be the establishment of unity within the Iraqi government itself. But the problem is that too many of their members believe that we will pull out prematurely, so they are adopting a survival of the fittest stance based on what they think will be a return to all-out tribal war. This is hardly conducive to an atmosphere of compromise. Could you imagine how OUR congress would react in that situation? At least the Iraqi government has accomplished 8 of their benchmarks since the beginning of the year. Now that's more than OUR congress has accomplished since January. We need to listen to the military on this and it is going to take some time. We just have to be patient, because we really don't have any other viable options. Building a brand new Democracy has never been done over night. "

Answer wrote on Jul 20, 2007 8:06 PM:

" Doh, that's misinformation. The Iraqi's have "accomplished" 0 of the 18 benchmarks. They have made "suitable progress" on 8 of the 18 and little or no progress on the other 10. They haven't made good progress, or great progress, or accomplished anything. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 20, 2007 9:03 PM:

" Yes, Bush's disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation has only lasted longer than World War II already, but the violence can't drag on forever. It may not even last as long as the Hundred Years' War in the 14th and 15th centuries. "

Doh wrote on Jul 21, 2007 9:28 AM:

" I don't care how you spin it Answer. The Iraqi governments "suitable progress" is still more of an accomplishment than our own congress has achieved. And our congress is working in an established Democracy with only Republican and Democrat tribalism to deal with. "

Doh wrote on Jul 21, 2007 9:37 AM:

" Well Vic- would you rather we had the massive loss of life that we had in WWII, or will you settle for the trade off of a more "sensitive" war that requires a longer timetable? And show me the historically comparable precedent to this war that we can measure our progress and failure against. "

markray61920 wrote on Jul 21, 2007 3:33 PM:

" I agree with Rotty and Chad and also D. Stevens that troops need our support and all the complaining doesn't help our troops listen and watch the news how to you think they feel when they hear this crap. Also Something has to be done about illegals in this country. Send them home and let them come here legally. And speck english. We shouldn't have to learn 2nd language "

Cognitus wrote on Jul 21, 2007 4:10 PM:

" Nobody seems to have observed that the "September report" is going to be delayed. Lt. General Odierno says it will take at least 45 more days beyond September to "do a good assessment", and the news reports are saying, "well, looks like November. *** Wonder what will be the next Bush stall. *** Obviously his primary purpose is to push this war off onto the next president. Remember Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby story. Bush can't push this Tar Baby onto someone else now, but he can stall it unitl he is out of office and the Tar Baby automatically becomes stuck to the next president. *** Republicans who have been, reluctantly but bravely, supporting the war and Bush will then have a chance to reconsider. But make no mistake; if a Democrat is elected president, Republicans will then become bitterly opposed to the war and loudly denounce the president for not bringing 'our boys and girls' home at once. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 22, 2007 10:31 AM:

" For more than four years, we liberals have argued against Bush's disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. For more than four years, you right wingers have defended it with lies about the "good progress" being made there. It has long been just the quagmire we originally described, an assertion you greeted with howls of derision. It has become precisely the civil war we predicted before the invasion, and still you right wingers blather on and on with your diversionary lies about "Al Qaeda" and "foreign fighters" from Iran. For some reason, you don't want to mention all the foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, or the fact that the author of 9-11 is still at large — apparently unwanted, dead or alive, despite lying tough-guy rhetoric to the contrary. We liberals originally said Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. That has long since been proven, and now you right wingers can no longer even come up with a convincing lie about why Bush invaded Iraq. Your only answer is, "Well, we're there now." Yes, thanks to you, we are there now, bleeding billions of dolalrs and thousands of lives. You shameless right wingers have fallen silent on only one thing — you no longer talk about what a great leader Bush is. Why the strange silence? Why don't you defend this vicious, delusional, megalomaniac moron that you foisted on us? Tell us again about his greatness. You gave us plenty of lies about that in the past. Let's hear them again. "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 22, 2007 1:29 PM:

" (1) Constitutional Review Committee: PASS (partially.) Shiites walked out of government committee (only returning this very week.) (2) De-Ba’athification Process: FAIL. (3) Oil Resource Sharing: FAIL. Major issue. (4) Form Semi-Autonomous Regions; PASS. This is not very hard to achieve. (5) Establish an Independent High Electoral Commission: FAIL (partially.) (6) Implement Amnesty: FAIL. This one is a big issue when it comes down to racial clerics who control large parts of society and have advocated terrorism. Do we want look the other way, or do we want to punish those who are actively destabilizing the nation and run the risk of further destabilizing the nation? (7) Disarm the Militias: FAIL. Major issue. (8) Establish Baghdad Support-Infrastructure: PASS. (9) Three Iraqi Brigades in Baghdad: PASS (partially.) The brigades are formed. They are, however, under staffed and unable to operate independently. (10) Turn Over Internal Security to the Iraqis: FAIL. (11) Insure the Integrity of Iraqi Security Forces Operate Fairly: FAIL. Major issue. (12) Ensure Baghdad is not a Safe Haven for Outlaws/Terrorists: PASS. (13) Reduce the Level of Sectarian Violence and Militia Control: FAIL (partially.) Violence has been reduced (with “substantial coalition assistance”), but not militia control. (14) Establishing Joint Security Stations in Baghdad: PASS (partially.) Again, the report makes clear that it was done with “substantial coalition assistance.” (15) Increasing the Number of Iraqi Units Able to Operate Independently: FAIL. (16) Insure Minority Representation in the Government: PASS. (17) Allocating Government Revenue: PASS (partially). The money has been allocated but not spent; nor can it spend these funds this year. So, we’re footing the bill for this war, but the Iraqi government “can’t” spend their revenue on, oh, their own defense or rebuilding their infrastructure? (18) Insure Political Authorities Don’t Make False Accusations Against Iraqi Security Forces: FAIL. "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Vic- "strange silence"? There is no Al Qaeda in Iraq? Even though British Intel said there was? No Al Qaeda in Iraq- even though I have repeatedly posted the Intel where Bin Laden told Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to put an "Iraqi face" on the sectarian violence that they were instigating? No Al Qaeda in Iraq? Even though the U.S. Commanders have Identified AQIZ (Al Qaeda in Iraq) as the primary cause of most of the violence and bloodshed currently happening in Iraq? And I have asked you several times how you would suggest we handle the Saudis, and YOU had nothing to offer but "strange silence". And how many times have I asked the unsolved questions about Saddams "pesticides" and 500 tons of uranium, and his Iraqi envoy to Niger to purchase yellowcake uranium, and what the Duelfer Report referred to as Saddams "dual-usage" WMD programs? Or what about the NYT article that I have posted multiple times, from last November that proved Saddam was 1 year away from developing a nuclear bomb? And what about all those Democrats who voted to go along with President Bush to wage war on Saddam? What about the threat that Saddam posed, and the official policy of regime change that was stated by President Bill Clinton? And what about Bill Clintons claims that Saddam had a relationship with Al Qaeda in the development of WMD? And how do you Democrats explain not listening to General Petraeus after the Senate gave him a unanimous confidence vote and agreed to give him time with his new strategy and to listen to his recommendations? And how do you Democrats explain NOT believing or even listening to the troops when they tell us that they ARE making progress? And how do you Democrats explain the insanity of pulling out the troops when you know that it would result in the deaths of millions of Iraqi citizens? And how do you Vic, explain the fact that the real motivation to pull the troops out, is to seal the fate of the Iraq war as a “Bush/GOP failure” so that the Democrats can win the White House in 2008? If there is any, "strange silence" in here Vic- it's from you and your defeatist Democratic Party. "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 5:26 PM:

" Mr. Peabody- can you show me the historical model for building a Democracy out of a former Arab dictatorship that was ran by a murderous tyrant and composed of ancient tribes, and then let me know where we are supposed to be, based on that models timeline? Could you do that for me? Because I'm really not convinced that we are behind, or that we are failing. Let me know. Thanks! "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 22, 2007 5:58 PM:

" The clearest view of pure Bush propaganda you can get is on Fox News. Look at what they present as the issues of the day. They're desperate to change the question in the public's mind to "Is Hillary a traitor?" or "Is Obama a Muslim?" or "Does John Edwards' hair cost too much?" Anything to distract us from the only questions we should be asking — why is Bush's invasion of choice such a historic disaster and why was EVERYTHING he said to get us into it a LIE? "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 6:11 PM:

" Talk about distraction! Vic- I just asked you a litany of unanswered questions and you just continued on your merry little way as if you never saw a single one of them. "

Interested Observer wrote on Jul 22, 2007 6:41 PM:

" The First Rule of Holes states that when you find yourself in one, quit digging. Iraq is a hole, and we need to stop digging. "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 7:11 PM:

" If we leave the Iraqi people in a "hole", then won't that allow Al Qaeda to simply fill it in and thus turn it into a "grave"? "

Mr. Peabody wrote on Jul 22, 2007 8:31 PM:

" Speaking of Fox News, Fox is still running the story on Al Gore III being arrested for pot and prescription drugs possession on their "political" page. Al Gore III isn't even a politican (neither is his father, anymore) and it happened on July 4. Meanwhile the Vitter sex-scandal, a politican himself unlike Al Gore III, happened on July 10. This story, however, was quickly ran for two days then dropped. Arguably, possessing illegal drugs is a greater crime than supposedly calling an escort service multiple times but never actually using the services. Honestly, neither of these stories are really that important -- but obviously Fox News feels that one is important enough to keep in the headlines for three weeks while the other needs buried after two days. They report, you buy into it. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 8:59 PM:

" The only people that take Fox news serious are people who don't think for them self and like the sugar coated version of the news given to them by the fair and balanced folks at the hilariously funny Fox news farce. You're right on target, Mr Peabody, about the Gore story. Anyone else remember how long the ran with the Cynthia McKinney or Gary Condit stuff. Can you imagine if Dick Cheney was a Democrat, how much time they would devote to his war profiteering? Same old Fox news line, ignore or slightly mention in passing any Republican missteps, but hang onto anything that makes a Democrat look bad for weeks at a time. The sad part is that their lemmings really don't see this at all, and continue to say their favorite so called news tells both sides, and lets you decide. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 22, 2007 9:12 PM:

" How the "good progress" of this wonderful war is going for its second-biggest supporter, John McCain, from the LA Times: No one is ready to declare McCain vulnerable in Arizona -- he won 76.7% of the vote in 2004 and doesn't face reelection until 2010 -- but, for the first time in a long time, political analysts and watchers say they see signs of weakness. The cause is the same force weighing down McCain nationally: The war in Iraq is just as unpopular in Arizona as elsewhere, and it has cost McCain support among independents, the state's fastest-growing block of voters. "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 9:48 PM:

" Give me a break Vic. McCain was going down in flames long before he became more vocal on Iraq. Far and away, the final nail in his coffin was his stance on immigration. As part of the Republican base I can assure you, he's been on my hit list for several years now and immigration was a big reason. The LAT and the rest of the media spinning this all in to his support for the war is a load of revisionist crap. If anything his support for the troop’s mission and progress can actually bring his numbers back up with the base. Time will tell. "

Doh wrote on Jul 22, 2007 10:51 PM:

" Here's more of that "good progress" Vic- These stories are starting to come out more and more in the mainstream media. Please note in this story that Al Qadea IS in Iraq. From TimesOnline (Deborah Haynes in Doura July 23, 2007) AL-QAEDA FACES REBELLION FROM THE RANKS: (Sickened by the group’s barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces) "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement. "They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace,” said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area." Read the rest here: - http://tinyurl.com/29krhf - "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2007 8:41 AM:

" In one of the very few true statements he has ever made, why did Bill O'Reilly say, "Iraq is not going to become a functioning democracy anytime soon, and Bush will have that on his resume forever?" "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2007 9:16 AM:

" Why did the national conservative columnist Charley Reese, who used to be published in this newspaper, say this? "The evolution of excuses for blundering into and maintaining the Iraq War is becoming comical. The first excuse was weapons of mass destruction. Do you remember the constant talk about weapons of mass destruction, "the worst weapons in the hands of the worst dictator"? Do you remember how President Bush said the sole reason for the war was to disarm Saddam Hussein? Do you remember how we were warned about a smoking gun that could be a mushroom cloud? Do you remember how Iraq was an "imminent" threat to the world? Do you remember how a 65-year-old dictator, widely acknowledged as not the smartest guy in the world, was compared to Hitler, who had put together a regime and an army that conquered Europe? Well, oops. Not a single weapon of mass destruction was found in the country. Furthermore, the Iraqis had said there were no weapons of mass destruction. To cover their behinds, U.S. officials started peddling the story that Saddam wanted people to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. That U.S. lie didn't fly because Saddam and his government repeatedly denied that the weapons existed. Furthermore, Iraq had invited in U.N. inspectors who were verifying the absence of weapons, which was one reason Bush forced the inspectors out by going to war. He had to start his war before the inspectors proved his bogus intelligence amounted to a pack of lies." "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 23, 2007 10:17 AM:

" You know, the leading neocons are all Straussians. That means that their explicit philosophy is that democracy and the republic are just a bad joke, and that the American masses are useful fools who are ready to be manipulated into war by superior men who employ lies that ring the bells of jingoistic nationalism and simple-minded religion. And I must say, you right wingers continue to prove them right. "

The Question wrote on Jul 23, 2007 10:35 AM:

" Here's more of what conservative columnist Charley Reese had to say about what he calls the Republican War. Do you other conservatives here agree? "It is now clear that the proper name for the war going on in Mesopotamia is the "Republican War." Never before has a political party so decisively asserted ownership of a foreign war. The Republicans refuse to share it with the Democrats, who, despite their many resolutions, have yet to call for a complete withdrawal of American forces. Democrats have not come close to proposing to cut off the war funding, which is the only way the war can be ended. Yet Republicans act like jealous suitors and seem to want to keep the war as their very own. They have killed every single proposal to alter the strategy or the tactics. They even killed a bill that would have done nothing more than guarantee that American soldiers would get a rest period at home equal to the time spent in the war. Killing that bill, which had nothing to do with withdrawal or timetables for withdrawal, clearly proves that Republicans do not support the troops. They support the war. There is a huge difference. Little Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, has become so possessive of the war that he seems on the edge of hysteria. He seems frightened to death of what will happen when Americans leave. In fact, nothing much will happen except that Iraqis will concentrate on killing each other rather than killing Americans and each other." "

miltmart wrote on Jul 23, 2007 11:24 PM:

" Who on earth is Charley Reese and why is he saying those things? Do you have any original thoughts of your own? AS for the Albert Gore III 'thing' (a few felony charges is all), I suspect Fox News is the only place that has even reported on this. The Bush twins aren't political figures either but some on here seem to think there's nothing wrong with bringing up their past indiscretions time and time again. "

The Question wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:23 AM:

" Why are most Wall Street workers now donating to Democratic candidates? Could it be because they know that the ape in the White House has destroyed the Republican Party? Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News. At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30. More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash $184,750, according to the ABC analysis. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:29 AM:

" You suspect? Well duh...Has Fox news ever missed a chance to dig into a Democrat for indiscretions? If they were really fair and balanced, they would go after Republicans with equal vigor, now wouldn't they? And as far as those booze loving, Paris Hilton wannabe Bush girls go, betcha old Fox didn't spend weeks on end covering that. By the way milt, the apple didn't fall far from the tree with those two degenerates did it? "

The Question wrote on Jul 24, 2007 8:33 AM:

" And why did conservative columnist Charley Reese also write this? "The Republicans and their shrinking number of warmonger supporters have long since forgotten that the Republican War is an illegal war, a war of aggression launched against a country that had not attacked us or ever threatened to attack us. They have conveniently forgotten how the Republican War was sold to the American people with outright lies. They ignore the fact that the war was bungled from Day One and that ordinary Americans have paid a terrible price for those blunders. "If ever there were a valid reason to shed the label "Republican," the nutty administration and its war-loving allies in the House and Senate have provided it. They seem to have lost their collective minds. They know darn well what their general du jour, David Petraeus, is going to say in September: "Gosh, fellows, things are looking up, but give us another five years. Or maybe 10." That would be insanity to the third power. The Iraqis are killing us on the cheap with secondhand AK-47s, rifle grenades and homemade bombs created out of old artillery shells. We are using the most expensive weapons in the world, wielded by the most expensive army in the world, to kill them by the small handful. I don't know what the insurgency has cost, but the Republican War has cost us half a trillion dollars, and all we have to show for it are 3,600 graves, several thousand wounded, a civil war and a corrupt, ineffective civilian government." "

The Question wrote on Jul 24, 2007 9:49 AM:

" And why did conservative columnist Charley Reese also write this? "Even to put the best face on it, we replaced a dictatorship and allowed the Iraqis free elections and time to adopt a constitution. At that point, the president should have said: 'We've done our part. Now you're on your own. Goodbye.' But no, he didn't do that, because his intention is for the Republican War to never end and for our troops to become a permanent part of the Iraqi landscape. "George W. Bush is by no means the first Westerner to make a fool of himself by overestimating his powers and underestimating the determination of the people of the Middle East to rid themselves of foreign conquerors." "

The Question wrote on Jul 24, 2007 3:06 PM:

" Why did columnist H.D.S. Greenway write this in the Boston Globe? "The suggestion that if we leave Iraq Al Qaeda will take over the country is absurd. Excepting Kurdistan, if anyone is likely to take over Iraq at the end of this fiasco it will be the Shia, whom Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists view as apostates. The eventual withdrawal of American troops will lessen Al Qaeda's support in Iraq because its whole reason for being there is to resist the American occupation. And the intelligence report suggests that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. "Only by the most torturous magical thinking can the Iraq tragedy be interpreted as anything other than a colossal mistake that has distracted from the goal of defeating Islamic extremism and its attending terrorism. The longer the Iraq tragedy remains on stage the more there will be for Al Qaeda to exploit. The more Iraq remains a magnet for jihadi hornets, the more nests we will have to poke. "Given that Iraq has presented Osama bin Laden with undreamed of opportunities to raise resources and recruit operatives to attack America, it is no wonder he considers Iraq the central front. The wonder is that the Bush administration is still falling into its self-dug trap." "

jrfan wrote on Jul 26, 2007 3:16 AM:

" Lets wait for the September report card to come out. Also, lets not forget the democrats also voted for this war. Please check the actual bill for the war. you will find Hillary's name at the top. "

Vic Sage wrote on Jul 26, 2007 5:32 AM:

" This central fact remains: The U.S. invaded, occupied and destroyed a nation for reasons that the war's supporters can no longer identify or endorse. "