Thinking Right

By artc

January 18, 2007 08:35 AM | Link to this

Hopefully Mr. Bush is not getting the info that Santorum spoke of from the same sources that got us into this mess in the first place.

By Southern Democrat

January 18, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

At risk of sounding like a broken record,

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200211/fallows

http://www.slate.com/id/2072609/

And the Democrats are the ones accused of having “plans without plans”?

Respectfully, Mr. Wooten, I know you feel strongly on this topic, but your first sentence applies directly to your personal thoughts on this issue. Am I overstating the truth when I say that I think you would support any of our president’s policies regarding Iraq?

I look forward to checking back in later and seeing how the discussion is going… until then, have a great day!

By Dana

January 18, 2007 08:43 AM | Link to this

The situation in Iraq is so bad that I am not sure anyone can figure out what to do with it - I haven’t heard a proposal that I can agree with wholeheartedly from either side.

By Van

January 18, 2007 08:48 AM | Link to this

A nonbinding resolution. Sounds more like posturing and a lot of hot air.

If this is all the Senate can do, then I think the war on terror is not in danger of losing funds.

It is interesting that the peaceniks just want some window dressing instead of doing something substantial. I guess this is all the 100 ladies in the senate have to do now that Pelosi is calling the shots in DC. Her and her house cabal seem determined to demean the office of the Presidency, at any cost.

Since this “resolution” is just a ploy to make them look like they are doing something and earning their high pay and extreme benefits packages, I say, why not. It keeps Teddy off the roads in the middle of winter(when he is surely stocked up on antifreeze) making DC safer for the working men and women.

I wonder if the S 1 bill, section 220, will be applied to large churches also?

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this

Democrats are willing to see this country defeated if it produces two results: One is to send the Bush legacy, and his doctrine of preemptive strikes, to the ash heap of history.

Where it deservedly belongs. Pre-emptive strike is just another word for “bully” and dictator. Fidel, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Slobodan Milosevic, all these men believed in the pre-emptive strike doctrine; look where it got them and look how it destroyed their countries.

The other is to put a Democrat in the White House without obligating the party to or its candidates to have a workable plan, or any plan, on either Iraq or the larger war

You mean like how the Republicans did with Dubya?

By Van

January 18, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

Can you explain where diplomacy and international cooperation has goten us with regard to Iran, the extremist muslim terrorists and hezbollah?

When the other side has only one demand, where is deplomacy going to help?

By deegee

January 18, 2007 08:59 AM | Link to this

Van, you just gave us tremendous insight into the depths of your intellect.

By Seriously

January 18, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Van the only reason the war on terror is in danger of losing funds is because of the cost of Iraq, 1.2 trillion dollars.

How do all of you “I-don’t-want-to-pay-taxes Republicans” want to pay for the Iraq war anyway? Flat tax?

By Scooter

January 18, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Jim what do you mean the Democrats don’t have a plan to fight terrorism? Just because they haven’t articulated one doesn’t mean we can’t presume it is the pre 9/11 status quoi. They would probably let the countries of the Middle-East still rule with the duplicitous iron fists that create the hopelessness and despair among many Middle-Eastern citizens. The dems would send the Secretary of State over to consult the leaders while the terrorists were exploiting the hopelessness those leaders created. The terrorists would be decentralized after the fall of the Taliban, so we really wouldn’t be able to fight them, but would have to individually prosecute them when they showed themselves by attacking American interests. They would have us believe that strategy was effective before 9/11 and should be continued. With the presumed dems strategy we would not have to offend the economic interest of our strongest allies, germany, france, russia and china.

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, interviewed on Fox Wednesday, compared Bush to President Lincoln. “Most people don’t realize that this war is not just in Iraq, but also in Iran

Hmmmm you quote Fox News as a source, then give voice to a “former” senator from Pennsylvania’s ridiculous, historical inaccurate vent. Perhaps this is why he’s the “former” Senator.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Interesting caption for the essay. I will open with mild disagreement with the thesis; I believe productive Iraq debate continues. I understand that we have intelligent disagreement from our friends on the left – Southern Democrat and JK honestly believe the costs of maintaining the effort in Iraq are not worth the combination of (1) the benefits of the effort and (2) the costs of a failure to draw a line in the sand. We discount the moonbats who open every post with a reference to the “failed” policy, as they make no effort to connect the dots.

Much of the moonbat opposition arises from its own misperceptions at the commencement of the Iraqi action. Those of us on the right recall a half dozen good reasons for action in the heart of the middle east, rather than nipping around the edges, and between Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq, Iraq was the most obviously evil government. The loyal opposition warned us repeatedly of 50,000 bodies coming home in body bags when Saddam used his weapons of mass destruction on our noble troops. The forecast proved wildly-misguided, but like a jilted lover, the moonbats attributed their own mis-analysis to administration “lies.” There were no lies, and anyone with any cognitive capacity knows that is so.

The thoughtful disagreement, which I believe remains productive, is whether the costs of abandoning the effort in Iraq will enhance the forces of evil (as I believe) or whether it will abate the incentive of the evil-doers (as our friends on the left believe.)

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

Jim,

GW, frat boy, got himself into this mess.

It’s his fault.

It’s his disaster.

He’s responsible.

Not Hillary.

Not Bill.

Not Kerry.

Not Kennedy.

It’s Georgie’s fault, and his alone. He’s in waaay over his head with a group of people who have not only a completely different value structure from us, but a competely different sense of time. They’ve been fighting this war since gw was dodging guard duty in Alabama.

He has completely blown any sense of leadership that the US may have accumulated around the world over the years, and is now using his proxy agents in the media to attempt to supress negative attacks against him and his legacy (which is ironic given the GOP’s excessive attempts at destroying Clinton for little or no apparent reason).

Nobody wants the US to fail. And everyone supports the troops.

We just don’t want a daddy’s boy with no sense of perspective or record of accomplishment dragging us down into the gutter with a bunch of people who do not have anything to loose.

It’s like the valedictorian at your old high school getting into a fight with the biggest loser in the class…why go down to that level? There are better ways to handle that situation.

Heck, your idol Ronnie brought down the entire Soviet Union without firing a shot. Why couldn’t the same be done here?

Being hellbent on war is not an honorable position, avoiding unecessary killing is.

WWJD?

By Brian

January 18, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

degee,

If all you can do is insult Van for what he said and not address what he said, then perhaps it is your intellect that is lacking. Then again, it appears that that’s all you lefties do on this blog when you read something you don’t agree with..insult.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

I’ll agree with Wooten on one thing: the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes definitely DOES belong on the ash heap of history.

America’s supposed to be better than that, and if it takes a disaster like Iraq to finally discredit such a dangerous and evil policy, so be it. I just hope we wise up and accept reality soon, before too many more American soldiers’ lives are wasted in the process.

With unbridled arrogance like comparing Bush to Lincoln, though… I fear that stubborn pride is going to cost our country a lot more before the end.

As for wanting a better plan—why, wasn’t that the stated purpose of the Iraq Study Group’s report, Which the neocons immediately denounced? It’s hard to sustain the fantasy that “Bush’s opponents have no plan to offer” when all plans are openly and systematically dismissed like this.’

But then, it’s never been about a rational discussion for the Bush crowd. It’s always been about denial.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 18, 2007 09:18 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

As you are aware, I have a different take on Iraq and, indeed, on the war against Islamist fanaticism.

A strong supporter of President Bush in his actions in Afghanistan, I was initially supportive of the invasion of Iraq. Like a lot of others, I felt certain that the President must know more than the American people, and I swallowed his assertion that Saddam Hussein had and was on the verge of using weapons of mass destruction against us or the Israelis. With the Vice President of the United States assuring us that the weapons existed and with the Secretary of Defense asserting, on national television, that we knew where they were, I felt it ridiculous to oppose the military intervention.

As it turned out, for whatever reason, there were no massive stock piles of WMDs and neither Israel nor the U.S. were in immediate danger of a strike from Iraq.

By deegee

January 18, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Brian, see below. It was no insult, just an observation.

“It is interesting that the peaceniks just want some window dressing instead of doing something substantial. I guess this is all the 100 ladies in the senate have to do now that Pelosi is calling the shots in DC. Her and her house cabal seem determined to demean the office of the Presidency, at any cost.”

By getalife

January 18, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Leave it to Faux to interview a loser like Rick. w is no Lincoln and slavery compared to oil contracts is ridiculous.

“If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.” “If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.”

John McCain(w*******), New York Times, August 19, 1990.

BTW, w decided to get a FISA judge to spy on us. He flipped flopped on breaking the law.

You can’t be pro life and pro war.

This debate will be over when they are held accountable.

By Southern Democrat

January 18, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I do think that while the fringes of both parties are moving to even more extremist positions, the center is growing in number and strength. The announcement of using the FISA court for wiretap warrants (even ex post facto) is the sensible, reasonable thing to do.

I do not mean to insult anyone’s beliefs, but the extremist positions on Iraq are about to be left behind, too.

We cannot stay until victory is achieved because there is no concrete concept of what victory looks like and we cannot leave tomorrow.

On the real War on Terror front, I was glad to see Secretary Gates walking the border between Afghansitan and the Pakistan-controlled tribal autonomous areas… here is the dangerous terrorism breeding ground and we will hopefully be doing more to address it soon. Maybe we can send 25,000 more troops THERE?

By Brian

January 18, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

Flip flop, flip flop. Two years ago Democrats said we needed more troops in Iraq. Bush said we didn’t because the generals said we didn’t. Democrats chastised Bush. This year Democrats say we don’t need more troops. Bush says we do because the generals say we do. Democrats chastise Bush. Nobody should take the Democrats on the Hill seriously, because they can’t even take a stand on something and stick to it. They are basing their policies around what Bush does or does not do, similar to how the Clintonistas waited to see what the people felt before making a decision on something. Except this time, they are doing the opposite of what Bush supports, or doesn’t support. Without doubt that is certainly not leadership.

Throughout the history of warfare, there has never been a perfectly planned, implimented, and executed war. In addition, there has never been a war that went 100% according to plan. Even further, there has never been a war where both short term tactical directives and long term strategic initiatives have not needed modulation. Naturally the Democrats don’t think about things like that. Whatever Bush pushes forward, they push against it. Whatever Bush is against, they push it forward. It’s quite amusing watching the liberal children run Congress. Bi-partisanship my a$$.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

Dear Scooter @ 9:05, good wit, especially for early in the day. I wish I had written your essay. You sound like one of my heroes, PJ O’Rourke.

By Mike

January 18, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Maybe productive debate on Iraq is just beginning.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 9:24, well-argued, persuasive.

By deegee

January 18, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this

Part of the reason that Santorum is the ex-senator from Pennsylvania is because he was prone to make ridiculous statements such as what he made on Fox News. Lincoln’s war was unpopular for a number of reasons but Lincoln believed in freedom for American slaves. That position was unpopular with wealthy white landowners and politicians.

The freedom that we were told we were fighting for in Iraq has turned out to be freedom for the majority to carry out ethnic and religious suppression on the minority. The mistakes made by the civilian Bush administration could have been avoided if they had taken the advice of those that tried to warn them. This is inexcusable and unfortunately they are still not listening!

By Doug

January 18, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

Brian, 2 YEARS AGO we did need more troops in Iraq. To do it now is the equivalent of the little Dutch Boy holding his finger in the dike. The Bush administration was too dumb to listen to Colin Powell when he advocated overwhelming, crushing force in the initial stages of the war. Donald Rumsfeld was a total disaster and GW made the fatal mistake of hitching his wagon and the lives of our troops to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others of their ilk.

By Brian

January 18, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this

Cherry picker,

Heck, your idol Ronnie brought down the entire Soviet Union without firing a shot. Why couldn’t the same be done here?

What a rediculous comment to make. The USSR situation had been escalating since JFK’s day. The USSR had weapons planted all over the world not the least of which were submarines. It really didn’t get going until the 1980s. They tried copying our space shuttle [Buran] and it never flew. They tried copying our B-1 bomber that Carter cancelled and it was a failure [Blackjack]. They really went nuts when we started the Star Wars initiative. In short, we outspent them without firing a shot. To equate that with what we could do in Iraq is about the military cranial capacity I’d expect of a leftist.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 18, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

For some reason the second part of my original post was not recorded…here is the rest.

*When the President began to try to change the reason for the war, I said, “OK.” After all, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, murdering his own people. Perhaps his removal was a “humanitarian” act.

But as the war dragged on, my sources began to tell me that that we were sending too few troops into the occupation. Additionally, I had reports that we were not equipping a number of our units with the best and safest equipment. It became clear that Secretary Rumsfeld either didn’t understand the nature of an occupation or, from his arrogant attitude, didn’t care.

The lack of an organized Iraqi government in exile to take over after the ousting of Saddam and the Bathists party called for a viceroy of the caliber of General Douglas MacAuthur in defeat Japan, but what we sent was much and it didn’t remain there long enough.

Then the insurgency started and we had not enough troops to quell it.

Iraq has never been a united country. It consists of three tribes…Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a…the latter of which have spent the past 1000 slaughtering each other in the name of their religion of peace.

Now we are escalating our forces by 21000. Too little, too late!

As for “Georgie” Bush’s legacy in Iraq, I suspect it will be more nearly like that of another Republican…George B. McClellan…rather than Abraham Lincoln.*

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this

Flip flop, flip flop. Two years ago Democrats said we needed more troops in Iraq. Bush said we didn’t because the generals said we didn’t

The generals didn’t say that, the fired Rumsveld said it. Dubya and Company didn’t even listen to their own generals — even though the majority of his cabinet had no military experience, no military background, heck hadn’t even been to the military recruiter’s office; they thought they knew more than their own Generals and for that matter their own Sec. Of State, Powell, who had been a Commanding General in Bush Wars I!!

*Democrats chastised Bush. This year Democrats say we don’t need more troops. Bush says we do because the generals say we do

These “generals” were handpicked by Bush as his very own mouthpieces. One of them is a NAVAL ADMIRAL who has no idea about how to wage a ground battle in desert terrain. Still think we’re gonna “win” this one?

By Curious Observer

January 18, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

I don’t know how much debate is possible when we have a president with the power to issue “signing statements” that directly contradict the bills he signs into law.

In any case, nothing about the war in Iraq is going to change within the next two years. The Democrats know it will be political suicide to box themselves in by cutting off funding for troops—the president’s rapidly diminishing supporters would have a field day in yelling “They cut off funding for our troops!”

In any case, we are stuck with a series of delaying actions until the inevitable installation of an Iran-friendly Shia theocracy in Iraq. Nothing, short of US occupation for several decades, will prevent that. In another few years, al-Maliki himself will mount the scaffold. We are now riding the tiger, desperately hanging on for fear of getting off.

In short, we are left with no realistic alternative in Iraq. Removing US troops will hasten the installation of an Iran-style dictatorship. Leaving them will result in propping up an impossibly weak, sectarian government utterly dependent on the support of a power-mad Shiite iman wannabe, while we try to keep Iran at bay and prevent the Saudis from invading to defend their Sunni brothers.

There is really nothing left to debate. The outcome of this war has been settled, albeit delayed. All that’s left is political posturing.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 18, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

My post are becoming garbbled in transmission for some reason. This sentence should have read:

The lack of an organized Iraqi government in exile to take over after the ousting of Saddam and the Bathists party called for a viceroy of the caliber of General Douglas MacAuthur in defeat Japan, but what we sent wasn’t much and it didn’t remain there long enough.

Also:

Iraq has never been a united country. It consists of three tribes…Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a…the latter two of which have spent the past 1000 years slaughtering each other in the name of their religion of peace.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

“Republican Hagel to Bush:

This is not a monarchy Republican Senator Chuck Hagel sought to remind the president that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government, “this is not a monarchy,” and that on “November 7th, the people changed the management” in Congress.”

Yet the wingnuts like Wooten still support the king and now there is honest debate, they whine for it to stop.

By Jim Wooten

January 18, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Philosopher @ 9:43: George B. McClellan? Ouch.

By Brian

January 18, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Doug,

The entire nation of Iraq is not in distress. Listening to you lefties and the media on Iraq, one would be lead to believe the entire nation is on fire. It isn’t so. The entire focus should be in the hot spots like the Sunni Triangle, and that is where we need a more concentrated effort of troops while still maintaining a presence in more remote regions and near borders, especially with Syria. Two years ago, as today, Bush was making his decisions based upon what the military leaders that were there on the ground were telling him..not from some San Francisco sushi eating, latte drinking limousine liberal politician who went to a cozy California mansion every weekend.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Not sure if you’re new here, but I’m not a “leftist”.

Sorry, but not everyone who disagrees with this president and his unfortunate policies can be so easily branded. I know how you guys like to label folks to suit your needs and all.

To follow up on DDR’s response to your comment, regardless of who requested those troops, it was two years ago.

Two years ago…. That’s like calling a “do-over” in a game of checkers.

And to follow up on your assessment of my reference to Ronnie & the USSR…so what if that was brewing since before JFK? Why does that matter? My comparison is very relavent… they are both very complicated matters of international relations and us foreign policy. One was handled diplomatically and economically. The other was handled adolescently.

Good luck trying to spin this unecessary disaster. GW has really messed up this time.

Everyone knows it.

By Randy

January 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight @ 9:49, Say WHAT?

These “generals” were handpicked by Bush as his very own mouthpieces. One of them is a NAVAL ADMIRAL who has no idea about how to wage a ground battle in desert terrain. Still think we’re gonna “win” this one?

It’s intended to subdue or provoke Iran.

What brought an end to WWII?

By JoeD

January 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Jim W, Why is Dubya correct now when last year he was saying that we didn’t need more troops, and the year before he was saying we didn’t need more troops, and the year before he was saying we didn’t need more troops? Did it take him three years to realize he had been wrong all along? What does that say about his judgment in all of this? The right is desperately trying to make the outcome of Dubya’s war the fault of the Democrats. Never mind that Georgie and Rummy and Dick and Condi have been running the show for the last four years. This is not the Democrats’ war, and the current situation is not the Democrats’ fault, and no amount of convoluted logic will change that. And please, let’s place Rick Santorum on the ash heap of history, right along side this administration. He has zero credibility on any issue, ever since he waved that piece of paper around claiming there were, there really WMD’s in Iraq. RIP, Rick. Enjoy obscurity.

By Mid-South Philosopher

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

I stand corrected.

George B. McClellan ran as Democrat in 1864. Not much difference then…not much difference now…but that is another blog topic.

By RW-(the original)

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

If we want anyone in Congress to deal with the Iraq issue, or any major issue for that matter, in a serious and thoughtful manner we need to make anyone running for President give up their seat.

By jm

January 18, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

The Soviet Union also got involved in an open-ended “war of choice” in a muslim country that slowly bled them of men and material.

Funny how the dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now referred to as “moderates”.

By Margaret Thomson

January 18, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

There IS no “workable plan” for Iraq because of President Bush’s stubborn refusal to change course when it would have done any good. There are now NO GOOD OPTIONS left. Why is it up to Democrats to produce a workable plan, when Repubicans have not done so in 4 years?

By Van

January 18, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

deegee,

If we send 2 people from every state to DC to accomplish important and needed work, and all they can do is have a hissy fit about what the President wants to do for the future of Iraq and our armed forces. The nonbinding resolution seems an extremely weak response.

While we still have US military permanent bases all over the world, including former enemy states, like Japan and Germany, I do not see the pressing need to remove ourselves from Iraq.

If our presence can help the confused mass of a new government get its feet on the ground and learn to walk, then is that not a noble task?

With the majority of killing being inflicted upon the Iraqi’s themselves, do we not try to assist them in quelling the violence?

Maybe the best plan is to try what India did in the late 1940’s. Or maybe we need another General Tito or MacAuthur.

In this situation, when pone idea does not work, you shift gears and try something different.

In WWII, Operation Market Garden, September of 1944, was a disaster. Did we withdraw our troops? Did we roast the President for a failed operation? Did Congress demand the impeachment of Rosevelt? No, we shifted gears and tried again. Maybe Bush’s Generals can get it right this time.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

On the real War on Terror front, I was glad to see Secretary Gates walking the border between Afghansitan and the Pakistan-controlled tribal autonomous areas… here is the dangerous terrorism breeding ground and we will hopefully be doing more to address it soon. Maybe we can send 25,000 more troops THERE?

Southern Democrat,

The “real terror front” is here, there and everywhere.

Click on “Jihad Watch” video and read articles posted on the left.

Anyone who doesn’t believe that Iraq is a legitimate and vital front in the long war on terror while terror cells exist in the United States and all over the world, is either a Useful Idiot, or deliberately subverting our nation’s security.

By Brian

January 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Randy,

Debbie obviously doesn’t think the United States Navy uses and works with the United States Marine Corps. Leftists never were good at military knowledge except cut and run. I’m done here. Too much military ignorance.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

Van: Wasn’t someone here complaining, very recently, that comparisons to other wars (such as both WW2 and Vietnam) were invalid and meaningless?

But if you want to go with WW2 stories, go right ahead. Was the country largely in agreement that it was a just war? Why, yes it was.

This one isn’t. Apples and oranges.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

I think you need some new buddies. Mid South and Southern Dem have gone for the politics and not the country. “Meaning well” isn’t going to cut it at this stage. I have lost patience with these people who know SO MUCH MORE than the President and run from a fight.

You stated your opinion very well and I applaud your strong stand. That makes at least one and the only one brave voice at the AJC.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Dear Brian @ 9:39, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you nailed JaCP correctly. Pretty astute for someone so new to the blog, welcome.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Dear Brian C @ 10:28, suggest you google Charles Lindbergh or Joseph Kennedy and WW2 for what would surely be an eye-opener for you. You are correct that leftists deny the similarity to Vietnam when we talk about the effect of “cut and run” – the deaths of two million innocents (approx.) a mere 30 years ago is more than most readers on this blog can comprehend, and more than sensitive people would tolerate in the middle east.

By Randy

January 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis @ 10:28, Here’s an appeasing republican (liberal) from WWII 1939. Senator William Borah from Idaho Would you call him a dissenter? A realist?

“Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” —September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland.

Capitol BULL$SH1T!!!!!!!

You can have the appeasing (dissenting) republicans along with your appeasing (dissenting) democrats.

They’re useless in a war.

By Churchill's Folly

January 18, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

In 1924, during the fourth year of the British Occupation of Iraq, the following blog appeared in the London Times:

“Churchill must know something that we dont. Why Iraq? Our ships ran perfectly well on coal, and oil is an unproven commodity for fueling our ships. And why fight a war that is more expensive than just buying the bloody oil from the Iraqis? Do we have to steal everything? No, no, no. this wont do. Now we are trapped in a bloody stalemate, our airforce completely used up, and all we hear from downing street is “failure is not an option. What failure? What success?”

If you want a virus-infected link to read the 1924 London Times blog yourself, then I will provide it, but only after Wooten emails me an amnesty from criminal prosecution for wantonly destroying personal property of trolls and other fools.

Y Iraq in 2007? 2words: rocket tubes

Y Iraq in 2007? 2words: MIC’s trix

Y Iraq in 2007? 2words: Saddam’s Oswald

Y Iraq in 2007? Bush’s secret: “If I told you what I knew about Iraq, then I’d have to kill you”.

By regulator

January 18, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Jim there has never been any productive debate over Iraq.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

Boner whining on C-Span is hilarious.

Then this loser asks for the House to adjourn.

No stupid, the Dems are getting billions from big oil.

By regulator

January 18, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Comparing Bush to Lincoln is like comparing U.S. Grant to Beetle Bailey.

By Dennis

January 18, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Responding to Brian Curtis; “But if you want to go with WW2 stories, go right ahead. Was the country largely in agreement that it was a just war? Why, yes it was.”

Well, no, it wasn’t. WWII was just that, a World War. A war of necessity, and we all knew it.

That cannot be said of Iraq.

To have to fight a war is one thing, to go looking for a war is another.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush and those who support him seem not to know the difference.

And if he sincerely believes what he wrote in his first paragraph above, neither does Mr. Wooten.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

The Decider’s approval rating, in this democratic country, is down to around 35 percent.

A large majority of the people in this democracy feel that the war was unfounded, that the execution was misinformed, that there are no clear objectives for success, that the president is ill-equipped to manage it and that American and Iraqi lives are being unecessarily wasted.

Additionally, Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, Al Quaiedea is re-arming and the mission has not been accomplished.

Are those astute observations?

My astute prediction is you’ll call me a f* or a leftie or something, or perhaps refer to Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy somehow.

It’s a shame that Jimbo doesn’t have many folks on his side astute enough that can get beyond name calling.

By Southern Democrat

January 18, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Van,

Respectfully, the analogy to Market Garden is apt, but not for the reasons you attempt to put forth. Market Garden was a political ploy by Monty to attempt to wrest control of the Allied advance from Patton and Eisenhower. Patton’s foibles took him out of the picture while the disaster of Market Garden helped Eisenhower consolidate control and react decisively when the Battle of the Bulge took place. The analogy to today is that Sec’y Rumsfeld’s lack of combat experience caused him to try to fight a war of occupation with too few troops and then spend 3 years playing catch up while we let our hold on Afghanistan slip. For this error, he paid with his job.

Buy Danish,

If you consider me a Useful Idiot, may I consider the writer of that unsubstantiated propaganda merely an Idiot?

Dusty,

I am continually awestruck by your breathtakingly simplistic view of the world. In another arena, your loyalty would be viewed as admirable. In this instance however, it is dangerous. If you want to discuss issues, fine, if you want to spit in the wind and get angry with everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what you do, I will refrain from conversing with you.

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

A prosecutor may not declare, in his closing statements, that he knows of more evidence that proves the defendent is guilty, but the judge had disallowed it. That would produce an automatic mistrial.

Wooten is using the same argument in another poorly worded blog about the war: There is evidence that cant be disclosed about Iraq. (If he told us, he’d have to kill us, I guess).

The most specious of Wooten’s arguments is the simple fact of his own total lack of any data about the reality on the ground in Iraq. We’ve been told the entire spectrum of possible motivations for war, by the entire spectrum of political agitators, for the entirety of this encroaching quagmire.

Not one person has any credibility, not even one soldier. A soldier may have his front secured, but what’s happening on his flank?

We can never leave Iraq now. Were we right to invade? No. Are we right to stay? That question implies we have a choice. We dont. We are there, and we will be there to fight the Iraqis in the streets and in the alleyways, in the sands and on the rooftops, until we save the Iraqis from themselves and turn the Iraqis into good Iraqis for the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi….(speech Rumsfeld stole from custer).

We simply dont have the data we need to argue intelligently about Iraq. Nobody does.

So stfu, morons.

By Dr.

January 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

It must be becoming very uncomfortable for the 10%ers out there that wake up every morning and find themselves ever more alienated and pigeonholed by others who are increasingly seeing the light. Iraq is the biggy for these wingnuts, yet on other fronts they have to endure Exxon Mobil changing its stand on global warming, finally admitting that “new science” is compelling in that area. Now powerful evangelicals are stating the same. And now it is coming to light that far fewer people actually give a damn about immigration, based on the antis that were run out of office in 06 nationally and the 12% in this state that see it as an issue and these lunatics are seeing every single one of their pet issues going down the tubes. Congratulations wingnuts! You are sinking like the Titanic. Or would a better example be that you are like the Polar Bear floating on a chunk of ice just waiting to drown or starve to death. But I will say this. You worked extremely hard to become the big losers in all this.

By deegee

January 18, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

Van, what the experts are saying is that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is counter-productive, not productive. We are not helping a fledgling government get on their feet. Al Maliki is not confused. We are drawing the Sunnis and Shia into a larger regional confrontation. Bush’s ideology for the Mideast hasn’t given the region stability. It has had a violently polarizing effect.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

JBM: As usual, you assume that only ignorance can be behind any disagreement with your position. As usual, you’re wrong. I’m well aware of Lindbergh and Kennedy’s positions on WW2 (and who knows? maybe they were right. There’s no way of knowing how things WOULD have turned out, only how they DID.).

But that war was forced on us; this one, we chose. And that makes a huge difference when it comes to building and sustaining popular support for a military adventure… and without that popular support, the effort is doomed. Frankly, I’m okay with that, since it was based on an invalid premise. Democracy triumphs once again.

By Van

January 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Failed plans aside, the comparision is between what we did after a military planning disaster.

Like after Carter’s or Clinton’s - and Reagan’s

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Karma & Dr.,

Those are astute observations.

By jm

January 18, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Lindberg and Kennedy’s opposition was pre Pearl Harbor, when the US was not directly involved in WWII. Though Fr. Coughlin was probably more anti war than Kennedy.

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 18, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Let’s get right to the point.

First, George Bush failed to have the courage to ask the Congress of the United States for a declaration of war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime prior to the invasion.

Second, even if he had asked the (at that time) Republican controlled Congress, those wimps would not have given it to him. The last session of Congress to have the courage to live up to their constitutional responsibility for sending young people into harm’s was the 77th which was seated in 1941. Instead, they prefer to leave the decision to go to war in the hands of the commander-in-chief and authorize it by resolution, an act which is questionable constitutionally at best.

Third, either, George Bush and his administration (i.e., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell) lied to us or they were deceived by the American intelligence community. Don’t tell me what the British, Germans, or Russians said…tell me what the AMERICAN intelligence community said. If the President was lied to, point out to me ONE (1) intelligence community member disciplined for the misfeasance or malfeasance or lying!

Fourth, there were an insufficient number of troops on the ground to OCCUPY the country of Iraq after the initial combat missions were completed. There was no Iraqi government in exile to fill the void left by the ouster of Saddam. The American administration of Iraq was too short.

Fifth, the effort to form a new Iraqi government from scratch was hurried. Elections are great, but as I recall, Herr Hitler first came to power via an election.

Sixth, as time passed and the insurgency began, the Bush administration failed to remember their 10th grade world history lessons on Islam. They did know a Sunni from a Shi’a from a Sufi.

Consequently, we have a civil war, and while I would hope that Bush’s plan will work, I do not believe it will.

At the same time, our behavior in Iraq is going to determine what we have to do with respect to Iran. If we cut and run, the Iranians will see us as “gutless cowards” and they will be embolden to take further steps to extend their dominance of the region.

What we should do is deploy an additional 100,000 troops, oust the Iraq government, divide Iraq into three separate countries, let the Shi’a merge with Iran, if they like, destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, if necessary, and demonstrate that we are going to be a force in that part of the world and that we are not going to tolerate anything threatening our national interests..

The problem is that we are not going to do that. Abroad, we are going to continue down the road to military impotence. Here at home, we are going to sink into the stew of social diversity and economic mediocrity. And I don’t see a potential leader on the scene who can change our course.

By Mark

January 18, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

w has proven himself a criminal, a liar and an idiot. He broke many laws with his warrantless spying on Americans… that itself should be grounds enough for impeachment so we can be done with him. Get rid of Chaney, too. I think the presidency would then fall to the Speaker of the House — Pelosi. Not so keen on that. She’s awefully far left… but better than the group of liars and criminals currently in the White House. w… thanks for lying us into a mess we’ll be cleaning up for decades.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

As usual, Jim is lying about the Dems not having a plan.

The first 100 hours has put the gop to shame and there are several Dem plans.

None of them are insane like w’s escalation.

Stop lying Jim.

You are embarrassing yourself and your credibility.

By getalife

January 18, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hahahaha, now Blunt is whining.

This is too funny watching the gop whoring for big oil.

The Dems should never stop the 100 hours.

It is very effective like when the gop had power.

Great stuff.

By Van

January 18, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

deegee,

And our presence in Germany and Japan is counter-productive?

It is not our presence that is counter-productive, it is the interference of outside forces, Iran and Syria, that is the counter-productive forces in play.

By jm

January 18, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

before assuming that Iran will take over southern Iraq if the us leaves or if the country is partitioned keep this in mind. While both are shia, the Iraqis are arab and the Iranians are Persian. If you study your history, you will find that they don’t exactly get along. I seriously doubt that the Iraqis will become a puppet of Iran if the US leaves. I also doubt that they will become pals with Israel any time soon, no matter what the US does.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Van: the comparision is between what we did after a military planning disaster.

And, as several people have been pointing out, that follow-up action depends a great deal on the circumstances, such as whether the overall effort is viewed as legitimate.

By Brian Curtis

January 18, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

Van: To the Iraqis, WE are an outside force.

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

What brought an end to WWII?

The bombing of Japan.

By TW

January 18, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Why don’t we just ask Dick Cheney what to do? Wasn’t he supposed to be the foreign policy genius who was going to hold Bush’s hand should something like this go down?

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Van,

Agreed…Iran and Syria aren’t helping the situation.

But that’s the game they’re playing. We can’t blame our failures on their actions. That’s the reality of the situation, and a symptom of the larger problem … GW rushed to war, did not think things through, and expected everyone to fall in line the way he wanted.

Kinda like when Rummy was complaining about the Iraqi soldiers pretending to surrender and then killing our guys….it doesn’t matter if they were “cheating” or not… they still killed our guys.

The GOP’s problem in general is that everything has to go according to plan and everyone has to do everything they say, or else it’s everyone else’s fault that it didn’t work.

And that’s what’s happening here… The GOP blaming everyone for lil’ Georgie’s big-arse, short-sighted blunder.

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Powell Says Army is ‘About Broken’

Read the whole article here:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,120754,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Friday that the active duty Army of 507,000 “will break” unless the force is expanded by 7,000 or more Soldiers a year. He also called for increased deployment of the Army National Guard and Reserves, which have already seen record call-ups since the 9/11 attacks.

As a military leader, Powell articulated a philosophy that came to be known as the Powell doctrine. It rejected the use of U.S. military force without a clear mission and overwhelming numbers deployed against an enemy. SIDEBAR: This is probably why Powell, a man of conscience, could no longer be a part of an Administration who wouldn’t even listen to their own commanders in the field.

The conflict in Iraq, Powell said, has become a civil war that requires an Iraqi political solution. “It’s very difficult to see how the American Army can impose its will in this sort of conflict,” he said.

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

Soldiers Question Iraq Increase

Read the entire article here:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121342,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

By Dr.Doom

January 18, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Colin Powell should re-enter politics and run for President against Obama. I can see the headlines: “NegroFest 2008”

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Secret intel about Iraq that led to war: The Professor in the Library with the Candlestick.

or was it the Dictator in his Palace with the Rocket Tubes?

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

Looks like the military is pushing for a draft.

By Onslaught

January 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

All of the idiot conservatives on this blog apparently have taken refuge in their caves. The reason why is because Jim Wooten has asked a question that they refuse to pull their heads out of their a*******es to answer.

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

Troop Morale Is Down….

Sgt. Justin Thompson said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn’t agree with.

A troop surge is “not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni,” said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. “This is a civil war, and we’re just making things worse. We’re losing. I’m not afraid to say it.”

By DebbieDoRight

January 18, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

What’s gonna happen when our soldiers are broken and tired, don’t believe in the mission anymore, understaffed, over deployed and war weary? How are we,the American people, going to justifiably “push” our pre-emptive doctrine then?

What if, with our weary, frazzled, and tired troops, North Korea, Syria or Iraq chooses to invade us using the same “pre-emptive strike doctrine”, classifying the US as a threat for their national security, on us?

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Operation Market Garden failed because of a bridge too far, Iraq failed because of the testimony of Rice, who has a bridge too few.

We were so easily goaded by the gummed and garrulous into this guerilla war.

By Buy Danish

January 18, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

The War on terror is not limited to the Afghan border, and only Useful Idiots or subversives make such claims. There really is no middle ground on this issue. It’s either a fact, or it isn’t, and you are either aware of the facts, or you aren’t.

Do you believe that this war is not being fought here at home? We may not be engaged, but others are and we fail to recognize this at our peril.

Would you care to dispute this, which describes pending Democrat-sponsored legislation that I believe would put our nation at serious risk?

Or this?

Or this?

By Apocalypse

January 18, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish,

The war on terror is being fought in our minds. What you are witnessing on television is a war for world domination.

By Van

January 18, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

Karma Chameleon,

Talk about your apples and oranges - You take the cake.

It was not about the two operations so much and the aftermath. According to the left, Iraq was ill planned, and to many Market Basket was ill planned so Monty could have a win and move up the food chain of command.

By jbmlaw

January 18, 2007 01:28 PM | Link to this

The blog today demonstrates the productivity of debate on Iraq – even excluding the moonbat whiners, we have a broad spectrum of intelligent discussion from many perspectives. Even though I am pretty gung-ho on the necessity of war in Iraq, I think my friend Southern Democrat accurately frames the reality we face over the next two decades (my time frame, not his) all over the Muslim world (my geography, not his.)

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

If you use the term “moonbat” one more time……..

By Darth Vader

January 18, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

You are gung-ho on the useless deaths of our soldiers whether you like it or not.

By Midori

January 18, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

Yeah, right. ok. Bush is EXACTLY like Lincoln

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Van, show me where it says, “blogger ruins funny parallel created by uber-troll, (me)”

Someone else brought up Market Garden, Spanky, I just riffed on it.

I’m glad you liked the material. Feel free.

Dont you all just love the way jbm tries to be the board ombudsman? Like he has any credibility beyond his own grasp of himself, of which he takes full gratuitous enclosure.

The way the debate on Iraq is turning, in both the public arena and the congress, proves that I am correct: america is waking up to the reality on the ground in Iraq. It is dawning on us, coming in like little cat feet, gently trampling into the collective conscience the fearful certainty of an impending travesty of our national purpose, informing us all at once that we must automate our free will and perpetuate the calamity of ruinous duty from what we have undone and done, dun dadun dun.

By Joe L

January 18, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

Van - You continue to further the highly invalid point of comparing ONE operation in an otherwise successful and highly necessary and backed war (which we entered in self-defense) to an ENTIRE ENDEAVOR!

People are not against Iraq because it’s going poorly, they are against Iraq because it’s fruitless and counter productive to making our country more secure.

Not to mention Market Garden was only possible because of the most complicated and successful military operation of all time - Operation Overlord.

By Jim's a Cherry Picker

January 18, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Karma,

Name calling is a soft blankey for Jim’s sympathizers on this blog. They revert to it when confused or scared.

And like Rove and Limbaugh have proven, time and time again, everything you need to know to run this country you learned on the playground in the 8th grade.

Degrade. Belittle. Marginalize. And when all else fails, change the subject.

By Dusty

January 18, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

I didn’t ask you whether you liked my opinions or not. Somewhere in your pompous predictions you assume everyone is cringing at your words. Sorry, not so.

If you assume my opinions are simplistic, I assume yours are bombastic.

Yes, I am loyal, if that bothers you. Loyal to the president AND the country. I did not know that loyalty had gone out of style.

I do not think we can win this war without support from home. You are not giving it. Finding fault with nebulous back up is the easiest way to retreat in this world. It is much easier than standing firm.

Give the enemy all the support you wish. Tell them how misdirected and uninspired we are. But your name will be on that message, not mine.

By MELO

January 18, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Rick Santorum is former Senator. U wonder why he has been reduced to howling on the sidelines?

Get smarter Jim!!

By Southern Democrat

January 18, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Karma Chameleon,

I appreciate your spunk and your refreshing ideas, but I think your anger towards Jbmlaw is misplaced. Though Jbmlaw can be biting with his assessments, his opinions are almost universally grounded in his personal experience or research. Further, I find him to at least be open-minded to debate on many, many topics which is more than I can say for several who comment regularly.

In sum, I would humbly suggest giving him his due, respecting his opinions, and attacking their substance rather than their delivery. I assure you that he will respond in kind (perhaps with a gentle barb or two).

By @@

January 18, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Hilarious Midori..thanks for that link.

By MELO

January 18, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

The entire nation of Iraq is not in distress. Listening to you lefties and the media on Iraq, one would be lead to believe the entire nation is on fire. It isn’t so-Brian

So why do u think Bush is sending in more troops? Do yu have your head in the sand? Why dont u take leave of absence from your meth/marijuana operations and volunteer to go to Iraq and drive the Bagdhad roads. WE will miss your idiocy on the blog!!

By Karma Chameleon

January 18, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Headline Golden Oldies:

Major combat operations in Iraq are completed. There’s still hard work ahead……..

The secretary of state at the UN with the rocket tubes&#