Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 10 > Entry

On Iraq, polls be damned

By Jim Wooten | Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 07:43 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Look, here’s the story. President Bush will likely reveal in a speech tonight that 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq to quell violence in Baghdad. Twenty thousand troops may not be sufficent. A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.

As could have been anticipated, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the rabid anti-war Left which has opposed this President from Day One, especially on the war on terrorism, are beside themselves. Increasing the number of troops “would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy,” Kennedy said in a speech Tuesday at the National Press Club. “It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq.”

The sentiments of the Kennedy speech will undoubtedly appear today or Thrusday as editorials in liberal newspapers around the country. What it comes down to is this: On Iraq and the war on terrorism, this President should set his course for the next two years, in consultation with Congress of course, but doing what he thinks is in the nation’s best interest in the conducting the war. Let Kennedy and those who gleefully predict defeat in Iraq as the Bush legacy rant. Congress has the power to cut off funds for the war effort. We are there. If Democrats in Congress, and their editorial voices of doom, wish to retreat in defeat, the option exists: cut off funds.

It’s clear now there’ll be little or no middle ground. Too bad. The Left still believes, I am convinced, that their political fortunes will rise from defeat in Iraq and that any effort to achieve victory is futile because Iraq is already lost. Polls be damned — this President is, after all, not Bill Clinton — Bush should supply the troops necessary to stabilize Baghdad. The Left will hate him. Kennedy and his wing of the Democratic Party will spout and spew, comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and in one speech or piece of commentary after another insist that all is lost. But then, what’s new about that?

Permalink | Comments (252) | Post your comment |

Comments

By TW

January 10, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

When are the Freepers gonna give those fans who ran Mora out of town a bunch of crap for not supporting the Falcons?

On the surge? Much better to have six guys there when the IED goes off than just three???? Yeah, that’s great strategy. Par for the course…takes a real man to lead with someone else’s chin.

By sct

January 10, 2007 08:26 AM | Link to this

Jim why no mention of the 10 Republican Senators likely to oppose the troop increase?

26% of all Americans support Bush’s Iraq policies. Just when did 74% of all Americans become Leftists? You shpuld be writing about that. Thats big news.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

The Democrats are invested in our defeat and it is our job to make that blindingly obvious.

I am delighted that Bush ignored the Iraq Surrender Report, and its about time they changed the rules of engagement. No neighborhoods can be off limit, Mosques used as armories are fair game, and the Mahdi Army has to be defeated - among other changes that need to be made for the security of our soldiers and the Iraqi people. Politically correct wars cannot be won.

On another topic, anyone want to wager if any reporter from the MSM, say a David Gregory, asks Tony Snow WTF happened with Sandy Berger, if anyone at the National Archives was fired, and who in the Justice Department was responsible for this travesty of a $50,000 fine, and oh yeah, security clearance back in 2 years while Scooter Libby awaits trail for a big fat nothing, and Mel Reynolds gets treated as a hero by the C.B.C.

By Mitchell

January 10, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

A lot of those ten Republicans are Republicans in skin only. Their soul is liberal. 74% don’t support Bush’s current policies. That doesn’t mean that those same 74% want us to pull out of Iraq. Questions in polls can be misleading, and only a liberal would believe a poll to begin with, let alone base policy upon one like Clinton. And why would we listen to Senator Kennedy about anything anyway, let alone a war? That man has the moral convictions of a DUI highway slaughterer and the spine of an amoeba.

By sct

January 10, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

You see, it doesn’t work. Sorry. No matter how many times you mention those names. Same results.

Iraq is still Bush’s mistake. Its still Bush’s failure.

By jbmlaw

January 10, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Jim and Danish and Mitchell have said almost everything I think. Let me add one idea, so far missing: Democrats, led by the leftists, are the party of “cut and run.” That wisdom brought us a blood bath in Southeast Asia, when the leftists refused to fund the South Vietnamese at even de minimis levels, this after the Viet Cong had been wiped out. That wisdom was a direct factor in causation of the 9/11 attack, as President Clinton ordered the cut and run after “Black Hawk Down;” Islamist hero Osama has said as much. Until our left grows a spine, we will suffer from the American Democrat version of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” delusion.

By Peter

January 10, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

Hey Jim,

How many of your kin is over in Iraq?

I bet you would never tell us that!!!!!

By jbmlaw

January 10, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

Hey Peter, can you teach us the Islamist version of Kum-Bah-Yah? (something Boom to ya?)

By Grading Wooten

January 10, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

I’m no journalist, but I did construct a string of expletives and wind them around the horns of a dilemma once. For a while there I was friggin’ Roget himself.

Grading Wooten:

From an imaginary eighth grade english teacher, Mr Cheops, here is your review:

STYLE: One sentence that jumps out at me is this one: “Let Kennedy and those who gleefully predict defeat in Iraq as the Bush Legacy rant.” It’s always a bad idea to separate the subject and the predicate with too many modifying phrases. The word “predict” automatically implies the future tense. The sentence should have read like this: “Let Kennedy, and those who gleefully predict that Defeat in Iraq will be the Bush Legacy, rant”.

There is another poorly constructed sentence in your blog today, Mr Wooten: ” What it comes down to is this: on Iraq and the war on terrorism, This president should set his course for the next two years, in consultation with congress of course but doing what he thinks is in the nation’s best interest in conducting the war. ” Doing - conducting…is that a complete thought? “of course” is litter. Lose it. The gerunds are journalist-killers. Stay away from gerunds. You should only use them sparingly. They set up very complex ideas and nearly always lead to incomplete compound sentences. Stay away from compound sentences; you’re a folksy-toned writer, not a NYT editorialist. Read some Hemmingway, and absorb.

This blog has been a bad influence on you, Mr Wooten. Dont try to be what you are not. Dont try to use the same style tactics that drip off me like irresistable manna, because I use them to convey allegorical tone and textural suppleness, which, if misapplied, would destroy another writer’s composition.

Mr. Wooten, you need to look at the overall impact each sentence has on the composition. First, you must understand what impact each word has on a sentence. “Rant” is a bad word. It suggests that you’re judging the opposing view, and that in itself is a poor intellectual foundation for syntactical choices.

CONTENT: you obviously need to watch the Sunday Morning news talk shows and CSPAN live. The surge has been defined by generals for months now: An extension of the tour of duty for those scheduled to depart Iraq, and an expedition of those already assigned to deploy in Iraq, and that will give a six month surge of about 20K troops. The surge is already in the pipeline. There are no new troops. We can only train 7K new troops per year. That’s a three year timeline, and that would make a true surge a ridiculous tactic. Bush’s speech would sound like this: “In about three years, we’ll have 21K new troops in Iraq and we’ll secure baghdad and bring peace to the middle east”.

It’s also appalling to me that you would write an entire blog about the war on terror and not demand the surrender of Osama Bin Laden. You have been poorly advised, my fine friend. Your mindless partisanship has been emboldened by Saddam’s execution. Your innappropriate temerity lacks compunction. (that means you’re very brave with other men’s blood, and you would rather define new terrorists, ie. the left, than deal with the ones we know about).

You are very passionate, but you do not persuade, sir. While there is no logic in war, there should be logic in foreign policy.

It’s the foreign policy, Watson, the foreign policy.

Grade: STYLE D+………….CONTENT D-

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

Peter,

Is this good enough for you, punk?

Freedom does not come without a price

By sct

January 10, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished, Mission Accomplished.

Gosh, that didn’t work either.

By Jim Wooten

January 10, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Peter @ 9:01: The answer to your question is zero. None. Is America’s future a ballot-box referendum only for those who serve and their kin? I’m certain America’s Left doesn’t want to live by the results of that referendum.

This is absolutely not a requirement for standing in this debate, but my only brother and I served in Vietnam and my ancestors have served, and in some cases died, in every war, excluding the Spanish-American and Iraq, since the Revolution. And that gives me no more, or less, right to speak in this debate than any other freedom-loving American.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this

Morning Jim,

So with the GOP it’s kinda like this:

“Just do what we say and nobody will get hurt. Anyone who disagrees with us is evil and will go to hell. There is no room for disagreement of debate. Our Word is final.”

That’s not much of a way to run a government.

Here’s the funny thing…if King George had been right during his “Mission Accomplished” speech a few years back, if major comat operations were actually over, we wouldn’t be going through this. But he screwed it up from the get-go, and now he’s emboldend his critics and given them an opportunity to chime in. That doesn’t make those critics wrong…it’s Georgie’s fault for not getting it done right in the first place.

The situation Georgie is in is the same one I face in my corporate gig. If what I tell my management I will do happens the way I say, no problems. If what I say turns out to be wrong, and I have to spend more money, take more time or reduce service, then people come out of the woodwork to nit-pick me.

Except as best as I can remember, nobody has died when I messed up, and I never really lied about the things that I wanted to do, just so I could do them.

So how about this: shut up and sit down. You had your chance. Republicans all over the place, running the government, the balance of power was fully in your vest pocket. And what happened…a big mess.

It’s a big mess Jim. A big mess. A really big mess that will have lasting repercussions, for generations. Lil’ George has really screwed up this time. It’s not Kennedy’s fault. It’s not Clinton’s fault. It’s not Pelosi’s fault.

It’s King George’s fault, and his alone. He wasn’t qualified for the job, he listened to the wrong people and now he doesn’t have a clue how to fix it.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

Jim,

You should stay the course with bashing State politicians.

The surge has been tried twice and failed.

The battle of Baghdad is going after Sunni insurgents.

Iran is loving it. Again.

w is betting all out on Marlarki to go after Al-Sadr.

He will not and the Shiite thugs will run Iraq.

By benita

January 10, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

It is amazing how it is someone elses fault why this or that isn’t working. The democrats and republics have there own agenda and it doesn’t include what the American people want or need.

Where are the additional 20,000 troops going to come from? The only way to do that is to bring back the draft. Those in support of Bush and being in Iraq aren’t running to join armed forces.

It is time to bring the troops home, they are NOT winning, let the Iraqi people finally do what they should have done years ago, fight for themselves.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this

Peter,

Here’s that link I screwed up which is to a Jim Wooten column

Like he said, freedom doesn’t come without a fight. And of course he is 100% right in his comments to you.

By Staceye

January 10, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

Bush is so quick to send our loved ones over to Hell to die…why won’t he send one or both of those drunk @ss twins of his…make them useful for something! This is his daddy’s unfinished business over some oil. How many more US Troops have to die before we as Americans get this fool we sadly have to call President (Commander in Chief), out of office and bring what’s left of our loved ones home where they belong. Where is it our job to police the whole world? We need to take care of home first befoe we go telling the rest of the world how things should be done! This guy has made a mockery of what it means to hold that Oval Office.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

How like you Bush cultists to think that anyone is happy about the results of the idiocy implemented by the current administration. No, people oppose this craziness because we realize it’s futile, underplanned, and strategically stupid. It’s sad to watch a train wreck, and no one takes pleasure in being right when it’s about something so horrible.

The only gleeful part is knowing that we’re moving away from the maniac philosophy of the White House. It’s the same sort of glee felt when the fire department arrives and starts hosing down a burning building.

By Bag-o-donuts

January 10, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

On 9/11/01 the USA was attacked by Osama bin Laden. He is alive and free today supposedly in the mountains of Pakistan where we have minimal military presence. Go figure.

Iraq was a war about WMD, then about Freedom is on the March, then about fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, then about a global war against the Islamo-facists, then democracy in the Middle East, then about stay the course, then we never said stay the course…what is the new slogan for this week…oh yeah, Surge!

It’s time to get real about the Iraq war, Iraq occupation or whatever you want to call it. The military and the soldiers have done an outstanding job with the chaotic situation they have faced. But because of lousy planning and poor execution by the architects of the war and their successors, nearly 4 years later Iraq has become a huge turd in the punchbowl. Its time to clean out the punchbowl.

Jim, blaming the left for current state of Iraq may make you feel better, but that blame is miss-placed and you are well aware of it. If you support this war/occupation then get your head out of the sand and make an argument for it. Call your elected representatives and explain why we should stay or increase the military numbers there. Write columns that explain why we should be there. Clearly explain the current strategy because there are very few that actually understand what our strategy is at the moment. Blaming the new majority party for the mess Iraq is easy, but factually hollow.

When you, other conservatives, liberals, moderates or libertarians are ready to take a ride in a convertible from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone then I will admit that we are making progress in Iraq. Until then, you may keep blaming the cut and run crowd. How about finding Osama, Cutting his head off and Running over his body with road grader. Yeah, that’s my cut and run philosophy.

How about you Mr. Cheney—-ready to take that ride in the convertible?

By Steve

January 10, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

You are exactly correct in your analysis that “Twenty thousand troops may not be sufficient. A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.” All of the generals now there in command say - and say so at significant risk to their careers - that more troops ARE NOT THE ANSWER - they do not want more troops!!!! So Bushs’ solution to this is to replace the generals in command until he can find someone who agrees with his preconcieved solution. Good solution.

Secondly, Ted Kennedy did happen to hit the nail (it does happen occasionally) on the head with this one “It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq.” Folks what do you think you are going to “win” by continuing to slug away? A stable democratic government? Here is a real newsflash - the people of Iraq DONT WANT A STABLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT!!! We can set up and install the absolute perfect stable system (given a massive amount of US resources) but if the spark, the original impetus , the desire doesnt come from within from the people as of a collective whole of Iraq - it wont work. Iraq is not a stable homogonus group of people who formed a government. The borders drawn by the British politicals who created Iraq included people who had NO historical ties to each other, but in fact hated each other - throwing the Sunni, the Shiite and the Kurds together and calling them a country will not work. The main goal of the Sunni is to kill Shiites (Kurds too)not form a democracy with them - just like the main goal of the Shiites is to kill Sunnis (Kurds too - all sides seem to enjoy killing the Kurds) not to form a democracy. The only thing they like better than killing each other is killing Americans. Throwing more Americans into the crosshairs is not the solution. You cannot force an idea into peoples minds - it has to be there in the first place - if it is there in the first place we can help nurture it and make it grow into a democracy but it has to start with them and it aint there. Our military cannot “win” an ideoligical battle of minds - we can kill everyone involve if that is our desire but you cant make em want to get along with each other. The sooner Americans face that reality the sooner solutions will appear.

And one last one - if you really want to fight terrorism then lets refocus on Afghanstan where there was and still is a very viable link to terrorism that needs to be killed - not bargained with, not negoiated with - KILL IT.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish @ 9:33…

That is so tired, that excuse.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded it for no legitimate reason. The people that you are referring to now as Terrorists are Iraquis that are waging a civil war…a civil war that we enabled by destablizing that country.

Again, repeate after me, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaeda & the Taliban. They were in a completely different country.

Good googly moogly, the evidence of this is overwhelming. What’s it take?

By whynot

January 10, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

The high comedy of Jim and all his acolytes never ceases to amaze. You should all get together and read a few books on colonial wars and learn how they ALWAYS end. But as absolutists, I doubt any of you are interested in knowing what anybody who understands history has known all along. The war was doomed from the start.

So keep pointing fingers and blame everybody but yourselves for the failure to see things clearly from the beginning. It’s everybody fault but your own. The party of personal responsibility? What a joke.

By Mrs. RepubLady

January 10, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

You lazy fornicating liberals waiting for a handout from hard working Americans have been whining about the economy for weeks and I am sick of it. War is good for the economy and here is your proof. You cant have it both ways so stop whining and get a job and put the pipe down and repent you stupid anti American liberal scum!

By getalife

January 10, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

Kennedy is right.

w spewed he listens to his generals.

Just another lie, he purged them and had to get a Admiral to stay the course.

Cut the funding.

Period.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jim’s comment that everyone has a right to an opinion.That’s independent of their (or their families) miliary service.

But some of the “Chickenhawk” mudslinging is a direct response to those who question the patriotism or decency of those of us who question the war.

Call it the Saxby Chambliss Syndrome.

By Peter

January 10, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Dear Jim,

We all have had family that served in “real wars” around the world, and you in Vietnam, were truely serving our country.

My dad served on Guam as an Army photographer, as a result I have origional pictures of the before and after of Hiroshima, plus the signing of the treaty on the aircraft carrier, as well as many day to day pics of life on the Army Airforce base at that time.

He was a great guy who like you served his country, for that I am proud of both you and him.

But I have to disagree with you and Bush on this matter, it seems like the decision to invade was made in haste, and the plan was and IS very flawed.

The result is today’s problem……there is no clear victory in sight, and the loses both to American soldiers and Iraqi Civilians are mounting at an alarming rate.

I also think the true numbers of loss have been squashed by the Bush war machine.

Bush didn’t think this through, and we see that by the results. His reasons for going are questionable at best, and this really stinks very much like the Iran Contra Affair, which his daddy and the playes such as Cheney were very much a part of.

Bush’s mistakes cost many lives, huge financial waste, and the big contracts given without bid as a result of “creating” this war IS an out rage.

Everyone has an opinion, but your’s seem to be very much in the minority of this country, the bind leading the bind still cannot see.

Big money has been made off this war, and frankly that is what it has been about…..raping the American tax payers money, and giving it out to buddies, and then acting like we are going to spread Democracy to that region. Also using religion as a tool…….”Bush prayed to his God before Invading Iraq”.

I seriously doubt any god would want anyone to kill, or start a war.

Remember Jim, “you can’t back WAR and be Pro life”……killing is killing no matter what the age.

All sides already hate each other there, and there are probably 10 more Saddam’s waiting to pounce and take over when they can!

Have you forgotten all side have been at this for 100s of years? These are tribal people, and that is how they wish to stay.

Are you telling me a country that allows the beating and raping of it’s women, and children a country that wants to be in a democracy?

It was a bad move, but greed leads many to poor decisions!

By benita

January 10, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

Bag-o-donuts and Jim’s distractor, you both are so right. I am a muslim and want to tell everyone, that after 9-11, if Osama was the culprit, that is where our focus needed to be. He is the one that we should have seen being hanged, not Hussein. But,no, he is sitting back laughing at us, planning another attack probably and wonder who will be blamed for it then because he knows we won’t come after him.

By Van

January 10, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

The left is again going back to its 1970’s play book. I am sure the left feels it had a victory in the 70’s when they forced us out of VietNam by cutting the funding for the war effort. I am sure they were proud of how America and her allies retreated from the roof tops. I am sure they swell with pride as their friends from Hanoi lived up to their end of the agreement.

And it appears to this old guy, that they are preparing to do the same again.

look at us, we pulled our troops out by crippling the President. Aren’t we glad only 3 million Iraqis will die because of our pull out. Look how the New Extremist Iraq is a model for other Al Qeada terrorists in Africa and other countries.

Sonabitches then, sonabitches now.

By ckt

January 10, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

“That, though, should be left to the generals.”

Whom, as you may know, said that a troop surge (which has, incidentally, occurred multiple times in the last four years - this is again nothing new) was unneeded and would not help. They were recently replaced.

Another incidence of a moron replacing those around him who disagree with those that will repeat the (ever diminishing and faint) party line.

Jim. You sound like an idiot. Please, just calm down and cut your loses while you can. Iraq is a mess, the region has been completely destabilized, and W is trying nothing new.

By Support the Troops!

January 10, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Support the troops, you traitors!

By Support the Troops!

January 10, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

No, support the troops for real!

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a distractor,

I guess it’s time to refresh your memory (if you even have one.):

Item One

Item Two

Item three

Item four

Item five

Item six

Anticipating your response, I’m not going to rely on the phony 9/11 Commission report’s findings, particularly since Sandy Berger destroyed ORIGINAL documents before he testified, and Jamie “The Wall” Gorelick was on the committee.

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Jim:

Buy Danish’s references at 9:01 clearly point out the SOP of the Democratic party during times of war.

Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Despicable SOP Sons of Polls.

Oh…and add those Republicans opposed to commitments in Iraq to the SOPs Stupid Opportunistic Politicians.

PWC&C Politicians with Commitment & Convictions…that’s what I am supporting.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hey Van,

Where’s Viet Nam today? How many more Americans died after we pulled out?

Just shut up. Go away. Go on over to Bagdhad.

We f’ed up Irag good this time. Our dumb-arse daddy’s boy of a President has really screwed it up. Just him.

It wasn’t Clinton. Kennedy didn’t do it. Pelosi didn’t do it.

Bush did it. He f’ed it up. Big time. The whole world knows it. Everyone.

He thought he could just waltz on over there and have everyone bow down to him, but it’s not working that way is it? He didn’t undertand the situation, didn’t have a plan, and doesn’t know when to cut his losses.

Jebus, he’s an idiot. We got a frigging dumb-arse frat boy f’ing up the whole world. Man we’re dumb.

By Support the Troops!

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Van, why do you hate the troops? Why do you hate democracy? Oh yeah, the knowledge that blood is pouring forth from live people, making them dead people keeps you going, doesn’t it. Life is good, eh Van?

By benita

January 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Everyone one of us support the troops!!!!

That’s why they need to be home. I hope when they finaly do come home that Bush has made it so they can get all the medical and psychological help they will need.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Van,

When Ted Kennedy compares Iraq to Vietnam, he’s right in the sense that he is aiding and abetting the enemy all over again.

Peter,

Changing tactics now I see. What a bunch of disgraceful phonies you all are.

benita,

Do you speak Arabic? If you do, then maybe you could get a job for our government translating intercepted communications, or tracking terrorist websites for us. That would be a big help. Thanks!

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Oops! Gotta change my last post.

PWI&F, that’s what I’m supporting.

The leftists will have a hayday with the commitment & convictions.

They’re so predictable. The strangest things make them salivate (drool).

By Peter

January 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

To BENITA……..such a true statement……I wonder how much is in the WAR Budget to help the soldiers that will be messed up in the head after this war……

How many movies have been made about that same situation after the Vietnam War?

HA HA HA to all the Chicken Hawks….

Let’s be told what we are going to do for the poor folks that come home after being in Iraq, what will we do for these Brave Americans then?

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

@@ 10:12…

Shut up. Just shut up.

Rockefeller, Kennedy and Kerry didin’t get us into this mess. Bush did. George Bush started the frigging thing.

It was his idea, he executed it and now it’s a big arse mess. Gerald Ford called it the biggest strategic blunder in America’s history.

George did this. It’s his friggin mess.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a distractor,

Why don’t YOU shut up and read the links I gave you instead of squawking like an ignorant parrot?

By Ashleigh

January 10, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

There’s a very good chance my fiancee will be going back because of this crap. I can’t imagine him leaving and not coming back. I hate thinking about it, but it’s always there. He’s the biggest right-winger I’ve ever met (and being a liberal, I’ve met a lot of them) and he doesn’t even agree with this war. This absolutely disgusts me because his unit may be getting deployed again in August.

I can’t wait for Bush to get out of office. I’m so sick of this. I freakin’ hate that guy. What a moron. He screwed it up royally the first time, why not go for a second time around?

By MELO

January 10, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

There will be no cut in funding because that hurts the troops and America and not Bush! A surge in trooops now is late. this should have happened 3/4 years ago when the good general who said so was let go.Bush as always is too slow and DUMB to learn anything. General Casey, who was in charge in Iraq as late as Nov06 is opposed to the idea of troop surge. Where is he now? Stay the course, thats the name of this “new” strategy. We wish you Jim,Bush and your other slow thinkers in the Republican camp success on the ‘new stay the course’ strategy.

By Curious Observer

January 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Take as a given that there will be a surge. Oh, there will be a lot of posturing in opposition, but Congress has no real power to prevent it. After all, any attempt to cut off funding would be political suicide for the Democrats. It would be trumpeted as proof that the Democrats don’t “support the troops.”

The real test of this revised strategy will be how Iraqi and US troops handle the army of Muqtada al-Sadr. Right now, it is all very easy and politically popular to launch an attack on the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad. But Maliki owes his position to the 43 or so Shiites loyal to al-Sadr.

If Maliki balks at an attack on the Mahdi army of al-Sadr, in much the same way he demanded removal of road blocks to al-Sadr’s enclave, then we will have proof of the utter hopelessness of this new strategy. And if al-Sadr’s supporters respond to any attack on that army by pulling support for Maliki and thus bringing down the government, we will have proof that the propped-up government is merely a Shiite tool and that our troops are being used as part of a civil war aimed at ensuring Shiite dominance.

I am not ready to join the chorus of those in utter opposition to the surge. Let’s see whether it works. We will assuredly know within the next six months. The lives of our troops are at risk anyway, surge or no surge. The surge can serve as a final test of whether this war is indeed winnable in the sense of its ensuring an Iraqi government that can stand on its own.

By Bunny

January 10, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Bush will send troops immediately. He won’t request the supplemental funds to pay for them until late February or March. Regardless of theirs feelings about the troop “surge”, Congressional Democrats and Americans can’t and won’t vote or support cutting off funds for troops that are already in Iraq. Contrary to Mr. Wooten’s statement, cutting off funds is not an option…not at this time anyway.

By Brian Curtis

January 10, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Blind hatred of those who are opposing Bush’s War won’t change reality. The reality is still the same: the war was wrong, is uwinnable, and has nothing to do with America’s security. It’s a lost cause.

Railing against those who point out these inarguable truths won’t change anything. And neither will calling them all “leftists” (interesting that 3/4 of the country is now considered “leftist in spirit” simply because they acknowledge reality).

The reality won’t change by stubbornly denying it or by wasting more American lives. Iraq is Bush’s crowning failure, and always will be. There’s no saving it… no, not even if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream “NO-NO-NO-NO” at the top of your lungs.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish…

You can dig up all the garbage conspiracy theories you want, all the latent Clinton-bashing too. The 9/11 Commission, nor any other credible report, has found a link between Iraq and Al Quaieda.

No WMD either.

George Bush did this. It’s his fault.

Not Bill Clinton. Not John Kerry. Not Ted Kennedy.

So yeah…send more troops. Send more money. I’m with it. 100 percent. Cause I’m an American and I “support our troops”.

Go for it. Keep digging.

By @@

January 10, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Jims a Distrator:

Calm down.

The “truthout” about noble (cough, cough) Democrats is a hard pill to choke down.

Cover your nose and mouth to avoid infection.

By jim d

January 10, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

The shrub war?

Well, guess if congress might cut his funding to that one we can always continue bombing in elsewhere.

Can we say Somalia

By Rod

January 10, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Bush has screwed up the Iraq war enough - starting with the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. It’s about time we got some people with common sense to take over.

Bush’s answer - send more US Soldiers to die. I bet if his daughters were in the Army, he’d have a different attitude.

Pathetic, egotistical President.

By CJ

January 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

President Bush is the Decider, and as usual, he’s decided wrong. In the early years of the war experts were telling Bush to send more troops. He stubbornly refused. Now that the Iraq is lost, and it is, most experts (yes, there are exceptions) are telling him to begin drawing them down – not overnight – but over time. He refused again. Bush seems determined to do the opposite of what most experts advise (by experts, I mean most former Secretaries of State, UN Ambassadors, Presidents, Defense Secretaries, Generals, …). Jim might call that resolve. I call it mad.

Jim is correct when he writes that Democrats believe that all is lost in Iraq. So do the American people — not because real solutions can’t be found, but because the President refuses to explore them. Despite urging from the large majority of foreign policy experts to the contrary, he refuses to talk with Syria and Iran. He also has effectively ignored the Israel/Palestinian dispute that can only be resolved with American leadership and which inflames hatred in the region. In addition, the American people won’t sacrifice by supporting a draft when the numbers tell us that we actually need hundreds of thousands more troops in Iraq and by agreeing to pay for such troops by reversing Bush’s tax cuts (i.e. “it’s my money”).

Yes, Bush should ignore the polls. On the other hand, he should listen to those who are hell of a lot more experienced and intelligent than he is. He doesn’t. Our President thinks that the prophesied “end times” are near, and he’s doing his part to inflame the situation in the Middle East to bring it about. As long as the Decider is deciding, we’re screwed in Iraq. I assure you, Liberals and Democrats aren’t “gleeful” about it.

By Cletus Snow

January 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

Ted kennedy the gutless wonder should simply sit down and shut up, his whole life has been spent hiding from responability. It started at Chappaquiddick Island with Mary Jo Kopechne death, Ted ran away and hid until there was no way he could deny driving the car. ted was a drunken coward then when he spent the night on the phone with his lawyers trying to squirm out of responsability. Most of Ted Kennedy’s life has been spent in very much the same manner.

By getoveryourself

January 10, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

The audacity of many of those on the right is stifling. This is a war that was led by a Republican administration and approved by a Republican Congress…and conservatives have the gall to point fingers at Democrats?? Where in the hell has this war gotten us? Seriously, someone speak up and refrain from using corny bumper sticker expressions! This war has gone longer than our involvement in WWII.

The most low-down thing was to send brave young men and women into a hostile place without a clear-cut plan. Think about next time you place that red-white-blue ribbon magnet on your car proclaiming your support for the troops!

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Jim,

You really stirred ‘em up this morning. Every cut’n’runner in these parts wants a piece of you for wanting to do the right thing.

They want to protect America by running.

They honor our troops by disgracing them.

They belittle Americans who use the word “Patriotism”.

They question everyone’s military record as to whether their opinions are valid.

They apply every slanderous rumor to the president but overlook the truths about their own representatives.

Their Pledge of Allegiance is written on a white flag which they wave bravely.

I will be kind to them and only call them cowards.

By Staceye

January 10, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Ms. Republady…..war is good for the economy???? Since when do we value the ecomony over the value of human lives? That is what is worng with the world. Now what is rreally good for the ecomony is smarter choices from our political leaders. They make the big bucks and get the priviledges of being in office..now make them work for it….use their brains to come up with better solutions other than the blood of Americans for monetary gain!

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

@@,

I give a crap about Democrats. They’re just as big a bunch of lying, cheating, stealing opportunitsts as the Republicans.

This back and forth on this blog between right and left is for chumps.

They’re all crooks.

But the fact of the matter at hand is that George Bush started a war for no reason. He created this problem. The right has no credibiltiy on this, and should expect to be attacked on their failures. And that’s what they are…failures.

We defeated Germany, Japan and Italy across three continents quicker than this boob has been able to stabalize one friggin city.

And me b*** about it has nothing to do with his failures. He has failed. George Bush. Failed.

Get used to it. All your sympathetic media trying to change the subject over to Kennedy drowning that girl 100 years ago and Bill Clinton’s zipper woes won’t change that fact.

George Bush failed.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Buy,

Never mind Benita, what’s stopping you from studying arabic and translating a few recordings or websites?

Seriously, we really need that nowadays.

By Richard

January 10, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We invaded it for no legitimate reason. The people that you are referring to now as Terrorists are Iraquis that are waging a civil war…a civil war that we enabled by destablizing that country.

Repeate after me, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Al Quaeda & the Taliban. They were in a completely different country. Bush is busy continuing his quest for Iraq and doesn’t give a damn about the true enemy - Osama.

Bush couldn’t find his head in the morning if it wasn’t stuck up his a$$.

By Jim Wooten

January 10, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

@@ at 10:12: Sons of Polls. I like that. Some decisions are, really, about the next generation and polls don’t matter.

Dusty, you’re right about those on the other side of this issue being stirred up today. I’ll leave it to you and other like-minded souls here to defend the fort. I’m off to hear the State of the State.

By Rod

January 10, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten is a Communist!!!

The title of this blog is: “On Iraq, polls be damned.” Yeah, according to Jim - to hell with what Americans want. He’s part of the 26% that agree with Bush and he thinks they should rule - because he says so.

Americans have learned Bush’s an idiot and don’t trust him or his staff any more. Jim doesn’t care about anything except “bashing the left.” Yeah Jim, you’re bright. Why don’t you sign up and join the 20,000 additional soldiers in Iraq if you believe in it so much?

By jim d

January 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Let me get this straight.

Questioning the commander in Chief’s motives is disrespectful to the troops under his command?

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

You know what I wish?

I wish that George had been right during his “mission accomplished” speech.

I wish he had done it then….how many years ago was that?

But he didn’t. It’s not over. He has no plan. People are dying because he can’t admit that he made, in Gerald Ford’s opinion, the biggest strategic blunder in American history.

So my wish isn’t coming true. I don’t care to have my head buried in the sand with you.

Reality sucks. George is a failure. This “war” is a mess.

And there are more than 3,000 American familes out there who will agree with me.

By IC

January 10, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

How to win a war.

1) remove all troops.

2) turn that piece of sand into a huge sheet of class.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Jim’s a distractor,

I’m going to do a little arm-chair psychology on you.

You still blame mommy and daddy for everything that’s wrong in your life, don’t you? Can’t accept responsibility for any role that you played, or just learn to move on and get over it.

Now you are projecting your miserable life on to Bush - who represents a Big Daddy, in that he is our President and liberals rely on government for their own happiness, but he’s a Daddy who won’t allow your Utopian pipe dreams to be implemented.

In short, you suffer from Bush derangement syndrome.

By Rod

January 10, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Dusty - you’re pathetic.

We’re in this situation because a Republican President and a Republican Congress decided to attack Iraq for no good reason, instead of going after the Taliban and Osama (different country than Iraq). Now, the whole world knows what a screw-up it was and Bush doesn’t have the balls to admit it.

His Napoleonic ego has him sending more and more troops into this pathetic war.

You’re an idiot for saying that those of us who want to save US Soldiers lives are cowards. You - Dusty - and your Republicans blowholes are the real cowards for not admitting your mistake and taking action to not endanger any more lives.

We don’t disgrace our troops by wanting to bring them back. You disgrace them by leaving them there to die as insignificant specs.

You - Dusty - are a disgusting, pathetic coward.

By getoveryourself

January 10, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

What the hell? Are you serious? Taking responsibility? Tell that to W. Bush and his perpetual state of denial make Baghdad Bob look sane and rational.

By Renee

January 10, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Anyone who supports this war is dishonoring our brave soldiers by wanting them to be left to die for no reason.

Bring back our soldiers - and send Bush!

By Rightist

January 10, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Jim…thank you for the support of our troups. I just read that the Dems are planning a “symbolic” vote against the President’s war plan. Don’t they realize they are messing with our young men and women’s LIVES? We need more troups to finish the job, train the Iraqi forces and stabilize the region. Plain and simple. Why can’t the liberals see this?

Oh I forgot…they’re Sheeple. They’ll believe anything they’re told by politicians and ignore the words of the people who are ACTUALLY THERE!

Frustrating.

By time for the truth

January 10, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

What a bunch of pathetic crap is being stirred around in here today!

President George W. Bush is the premiere President of all time. Cut your b*** about him - finally! However, it may be time to start downsizing the military action and finding an end to all of this. Sending an additional 20,000 men (honorable right-thinking men) is a bit drastic.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Oh, Dusty and Buy are tanking up on the kool-aid since Jim’s going to be busy. But the same squawks of “Communists! Cut and Runners!” just won’t help the Bush groupies anymore. George doesn’t have the blank check any more to try and indulge his utopian pipe dreams.

IC @ 11:00,

Now that’s a war. Nice to see a realist here.

By Jim's a Distractor

January 10, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Danish,

I’m going to do a little arm-chair psychology on you:

You’re an idiot.

No WMD. No link to Osama (who’s still foot loose and fancy free, btw). We’re occupiers. There’s a religion based civil war on. Americans are dying. George has no plan. He’s spending my money. Halliburton is taking it.

Three and a half years and counting. How long will this take? How much of my money is he going to spend? When’s he going to wake up? When are you going to get your head out of the sand?

And get this…I voted for Bush. Twice.

FU.

By Steve

January 10, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

dusty - think very carefully about what you say.

Stopping doing the wrong thing is not running it is stopping to continue to do the wrong thing.

I’m not sure how you think that is disgracing the troops.

“Patriotism” two comments - “Of course the little people dont want war,but you tell them they are being attacked, who is to blame and you accuse those who disagree of being unpatriotic.” Herman Goerring Nuremberg 1945 and secondly the quote “Questioning your leaders is the highest form of patriotism” Thomas Jefferson Who do you think is a little more in line with the meaning of being patriotic?

Every American has a right and duty to question and to state their opinions regardless of any previous military service. But just so you know - here is mine - United States Military Academy - active duty 12 years - reserve after that - one son United States Air Force - other son United States Marine.

Who voted for who and who has skeltons in which closet has nothing to do (or at least it shouldnt) with doing what is right and in the best interests of this nation.

And finally - calling people names for stating their opinions is the most UNAMERICAN thing I can think of -trying to squash opinions that you dont like is called communism not democracy. Stating opinions is vitally important for a healthy democracy to survive - lets try to keep the name calling to the playgrounds.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

Now J’SAD thinks he and Cindy Sheehan speak for all of the families of fallen soldiers.

These are the real Gold Star Mothers.

This is the plagiarized version that Cindy Sheehan runs.

By Richard

January 10, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Rightist - you say you’re worried about our soldier’s lives - then in the next line you want to send more to die?

Damn, you’re one stupid righty.

By Sgt. (name withheld)

January 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

I recently got back from a tour in Iraq and have got to say that any of you who think the troops are supporting this war - ARE WRONG. For every soldier there who supports it, there are 10 of us who don’t. We don’t believe in the cause and pray every day that we’ll be able to come back home. There is no motivation there, everyone is tired and wanting to come back. I personally have killed 5 people.

I’ve been informed that I will be returning if the 20,000 troops are approved. I pray to God that the Democrats say hell no.

By Rightist

January 10, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

A question for the Libs: Do you realize that if we DON’T take the war on terror to the places that harbor and fund terrorists, the war will come HERE? Has that crossed your minds?

Nope, the Sheeple thing again. I guess they’re too busy watching Oprah and The View to exercise their teensy little brains.

I’m glad President Bush is staying the course. Think for one second about the world you will leave to your children if we don’t do something NOW.

Then again, go back to your bon-bons, girly TV shows, and welfare life. The troups don’t really care. They’ll take care of you no matter what.

At least someone cares.

By getalife

January 10, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Well Jim,

It will be up to the next President because w will pass his disaster to the next President. Its the will of the people be damned.

This will give the Dems total power in 08.

By William Fielder

January 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Yes, we are finally on the right track, but we must follow through, not interfere with the coming tough military decisions. Note that the new counterinsurgency guidelines are being implemented, and they should be given a chance to work. We have already won the war and achieved victory. Now we must win the peace. We can only lose by leaving too soon. whf.

By Richard

January 10, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Hey Rightist - do you realize there are terrorists in every country in the world?!?!?!

Guess you support the US attacking every country on the planet!

By Rod

January 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

What a stupid comment by Rightist! There are terrorists everywhere. You can’t just attack a country because you want to (which is exactly what Bush did). Here’s an idea for you: attack the terrorists (not just a country). If we were to do that, we’d have gone after Osama. But Bush has let him skip away.

By Lily Toad

January 10, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Too bad Wooten’s gone for the day. I wish he would write a column explaining what victory in Iraq would look like. Since the majority of Iraquis are Shi’ites, if there were a true democracy the fundamentalists would be voted in and there’ll be another Fundamentalist Muslim government in the Mid-East. So to all of you Bush supporters, what does victory in Iraq look like to you?

By JK

January 10, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Same argument, different day. You chickenhawk people care more about sticking your noses in the air and claiming to be right than you do about the lives that are sacrificed for your lies, or the country you claim to love. You defend lies with more lies, with rationalization, with irrelevant history references, and with the claim that you love America, when you reject everything we truly stand for in favor of your guy. Your loyalty is to him, and to defending your sorry, regrettable votes for the decider in chief — not to America. You can screech from now ‘till the next millenium but you’ll NEVER be loyal to the America I believe in. YOU are the traitors. I no longer acknowledge you as my fellow Americans. You are just noise with no truth and no meaning.

By Camus

January 10, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Wooten writes: “Is America’s future a ballot-box referendum only for those who serve and their kin?”

Since you’ve already declared that the opinion of the masses is irrelevant, what difference does it make who votes?

Wooten, again: “A higher number deployed throughout Baghdad may be the needed force. That, though, should be left to the generals.”

At the outset of this war, any general brave enough to disagree with the Rummy and Bush approach — which was to go to war with insufficient troops — quickly found their military career in the ditch. Let the generals decide? Fine. The Joint Chiefs have opposed this escalation idea since it first appeared, as does Gen. Casey (oops, another career in the ditch!).

Bush could care a damn about what the generals want unless it is what he wants them to want. In fact, he is actively denigrating the generals and the troops as he tries to sell his escalation, blaming them for his own failures. But I suppose pointing out that the “Commander in Chief” actively disrespects the military makes me one of those America-haters who wishes for our defeat. Just like those dirty hippies Murtha, Webb, about a dozen Republican Senators, hell even Oliver North — all of whom have explicitly denounced this escalation as a crucial mistake and contrary to US interests.

The Dems gained their current position in Congress primarily based on public disgust with Bush’s incompentence and deceit over Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Americans wish us to leave Iraq and distrust/disapprove of Bush’s handling of the affair. There are just a handful of dead-enders left, the approximately 23% of you who still cling to your Bush hero-cult and refuse to see the damage this incompetent has done to US prestige, military strength and economic health.

The idea that Bush/Rove are not plugged into and utterly reactive to polling data is laughable even by Wooten’s typical standard of sycophantism. Perhaps he has escalated the art to ‘psycho-fantacism’.

By Nikki

January 10, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

“Our President thinks that the prophesied “end times” are near, and he’s doing his part to inflame the situation in the Middle East to bring it about.”

I don’t know whether CJ was being facetious when he wrote that sentence, but I’m actually starting to believe it’s true. Many from the evangelical right think that the stories in “Left Behind” series of books are accurate and imminent. They also believe that Bush’s actions are consistent with God’s plan. So does Bush. President Bush told the truth when he said in an interview that he doesn’t ask for advice from his Dad, but instead, listens to a “Higher Father”. I fear that he actually listens exclusively by reading the Book of Revelations.

By Ashleigh

January 10, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Hey, Sgt. I totally agree with you. I never once heard my SO or any of the guys in his unit support what was going on over there. They’re borderline hitting post traumatic stress and it’s hard for them to adjust to American living now. If you ask him and the guys in his unit, all they cared about was going back home and they weren’t proud of what they did. He is a sniper and killed a lot of people while he was in Iraq and will tell you that what Bush is doing is wrong.

By Buy Danish

January 10, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Let’s see who suffers from BDS right here on this blog:

Ashleigh (I’m so sick of this. I freakin’ hate that guy ),Rod, getoveryourself, JAD, too many to name.

The only one who’s making sense on the Left side of the aisle today is Curious Observer.

Aquagirl,

What a stupid, snotty comment. I had enough trouble learning French. Arabic is a very difficult language to learn, and believe me if I thought I could, I would.

I thought that maybe Benita the Muslim Senorita, who pretends to care so much, might be able to help bring the troops home quicker by offering her services to our Country (for a fee of course).

I have an ex-friend who speaks Arabic fluently and has spent much of her life in the Middle East. Unfortunately she’s a lefty. You know what she does for a living? Does she work for us? Nope. She works for Al Jazeera. And they wonder why we don’t think they’re patriotic.

By Aquagirl

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

By all means, let’s take the war on terror to the places that fund and harbor the terrorists! Like, maybe, Afghanistan?

Oh, sorry, we’re too busy in Iraq to get the job there done. And N. Korea is rapidly gaining the ability to launch a conventional strike. So is Iran.

And you Bush cultists…check in with Pat Tillman’s brother for an opinion of someone who was “over there”. I guess he’s just a sheeple too.

By Dusty

January 10, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Well, Buy Danish,

I get it now. According to liberals here, surrender is now called correcting a mistake. If you believe in your country and the troops, you are drinking “Kool-Aid”. There are no terrorists in Iraq or Somalia so our troops should be home play