Thinking Right

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 08:31 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Cowards pass “nonbinding” resolutions. If there were any pacifist Democrats with principles, they would honestly propose defunding the war and accept responsibility for the inevitable bloodbath. Imagining that leftists would take responsibility is an amusing idea; even now the leftists – notably excluding Joan Baez, whom I sincerely admire – deny culpability for the SE Asia bloodbath that followed the democrat defunding of our allies in Vietnam. My guess is that the intellectual dishonesty – mouthing condemnation of the war without fulfilling constitutional duties – is born of the political cowardice suggested in Jim’s essay today. Not much to admire there.

Nevertheless, I am grateful that President Bush continues to do the heavy lifting, a major effort to re-order the thinking in the middle east, and to establish an outpost of freedom in an area long enslaved by tyrants. The Iraq venue is critical as a launching base against the next potential threat to the US, apocalyptical Iran. It is a shame so few people can connect the dots.

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 08:38 AM | Link to this

Maybe I ought to say what I really think instead of masking my thoughts behind diplomatic language.

By Southern Democrat

February 7, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I think you did an excellent job of pointing out both the futility of a non-binding resolution and the fact that the Southeast is generally more supportive of the president than the rest of the country/world.

I disagree, of course, with your opinion of what message such a resolution would send and I think it highlights the schizophrenic nature of ultra-conservatives. If we are constantly told about the importance of democracy and dissent replacing the theocracies and dictatorships in the Middle East, wouldn’t lively debate in our government show us at our best?

A related point is the fact that I think we vastly overestimate the capabilities of our enemy and our ability to confront them directly. Terrorists, of course, fight a perpetual guerilla war. As President Bush said three years ago, the war on terror is not something that we can “win” nor will there be some moment when we can all breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Whew. THAT’s over.”

The problem that many moderate Democrats like me have (and I would love for my conservative friends to really think about it) is that the Iraq war has not made us safer. We have given our country’s best and bravest a confusing mission of toppling a regime and then creating some sort of miraculous republican democracy in a matter of days. Meanwhile, countries we know to sponsor terrorism go along their merry ways.

Y’all claim that a non-binding resolution in our legislature shows weakness? I say our weakness is displayed when we make pre-emptive war with an ineffective strategy created by incompetent leadership.

By CJ

February 7, 2007 08:45 AM | Link to this

Jim,

I wish Bush had implemented the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but as usual, he ignored the advice of those who know a whole lot more than he, Cheney and Rice combined. So, I’ve come to agree with you, Dick Cheney and Russ Feingold. Congress needs to cut off funding.

I don’t, however, see how YOU can criticize nonbinding resolutions when you supported a one just a few months ago from the Republican-controlled Senate designed specifically to make Democrats look bad before the 2006 election (remember the “stay the course” vs. the “cut and run” resolution to get Senators “on the record” for the people back home). I know you far right wingers like to apply double standards and hope nobody will notice, but we do. That’s part of the reason Republicans lost in 2006.

Also, your comments about Iraq continue to imply that you think we can turn this thing around militarily. Again — the overwhelming majority of experts and reports (e.g. National Intelligence Estimate) tell us that you’re mistaken. The Bush administration failed the Iraqi people. The question now is — how do we mitigate the damage? The answer isn’t to send more troops.

Regarding your comments about how this nonbinding resolution would affect the careers of Georgia Democrats — lives are at stake, and these gentlemen need to vote their consciences on this issue. If they don’t get re-elected as a result, then so be it.

By Van

February 7, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this

Southern Democrat,

I have to disagree with you. The non-binding resolution is an attempt by the lefties to test the wind to see if they have enough support to do something “stronger”.

Instead of acting on their convictions, they stick their finger into the air.

This is, again, a waste of taxpayers money.

To paraphrase or clean up an old saying - “sh*t or get off the pot” Lefties, show America your true colors, vote to take funding from the War on Terror. Show us your support for our men and women in uniform by cutting the funds they need for the basics of life, beans and bullets (for those in mid-town, that is food and ammunition).

By Southern Democrat

February 7, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

Van,

I see your point, but I simply disagree and I would offer your same mandate to the president: Institute a draft and attack every nation with a dictatorship sponsoring terrorism and bring our troops (most of whom are on their third tour and frustrated to a degree we can’t even imagine) home while the rest of us invade Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, OR build up our national defenses, keep our troops depoloyed in Saudi Arabia and Greece to readily respond and get the heck out of Iraq.

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 09:11 AM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 8:42, my comments – which came out a little harsher than I truly intended – were not aimed at principled democrats like you. I understand your anguish – you dislike war generally, you are frustrated that the efforts to establish freedom are undermined in Iraq by both domestic and Iranian/Syrian troublemakers, you know the risks of losing, and you don’t see a way to win. Normally in such an impasse a businessman will see two courses – raise the ante to try to win, or cut the losses. My harsh language condemns the dithering in the democrat leadership, that is neither fish nor fowl. Griping is not a solution, and is not even helpful.

By Jessie

February 7, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw refers to the bloodbath in the immediate aftermath of our participation in the Vietnam war. He informs us that a similar bloodbath would take place in Iraq if we were to withdraw our troops. He doesn’t seem to have noticed that a bloodbath is already taking place in Iraq (likely hundreds of thousands killed), and somehow, Bush isn’t culpable for that. On the other hand, if we pull out and the bloodbath continues, then it’s the Democrats’ fault. jbmlaw’s logic is flawed.

Van seems to think that if Congress cuts funding for the troops, then Bush will leave them over there without “beans and bullets”. Of course, he’ll have no choice but to withdraw our troops, which is exactly what he would do. If funding were cut off, Bush can blame the Democrats for forcing him to bring the troops home, but he can’t blame the Democrats for starving them and leaving them defenseless if he were to make the decision to leave them there without funding (don’t worry Van — he wouldn’t).

By holdingAJCaccountable

February 7, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

Can you imagine if Al Gore had won and prosecuted this war with the same level of incompentence as George Bush? (Yeah I know, you can’t even imagine Al Bundy operating with this same level of incompetence, but work with me)

It’s not that conservatives are wrong; it’s that they are hypocrites. Do you really think would have muted their critisim of Al Gore for the “sake of the soldiers on the ground”?

You might expect a liberal to ignore military advice for the sake of a “feel good ideology” not a conservative.

“You think several hundred thousand troops on the ground? Thanks for the suggestion, but we’re going to send a couple of Humvees and a copy of “Democracy for Infidels”. That’ll get ‘er done.”

Resolution, smezolution. Our only chance is free cable and plasma TV and bribe an Imam to say that Paula Abdul is the goddess of Iraqi/American relations and they need to stay at home and worship.

Then…maybe the Iraqis will become as stoo-pid and complacent as us. Jihad? I don’t have time for some freakin’ Jihad. Rosie’s on The View talking about the Donald.

By Seriously

February 7, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

So Jim, you respect President Bush for not bending to popular opinion when it comes to the Iraq war, and applaud him for standing by his principles.

BUT, regardless of how Congressmen such as Marshall and Bishop feel about the resolution you think they should vote in the direction that gets them re-elected.

I guess it all depends on which way the Republican wind is blowing.

By Jeff

February 7, 2007 09:30 AM | Link to this

I agree. Take a crap or get off the pot. When it comes to political struggles, take a stand. If you lose, take it like a man and move on.

By getalife

February 7, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Since the gop Senators are cowards and will not debate Iraq, the House will and will pass the resolution.

Bad move by the gop Senators and many will lose in 08, hopefully have 60 Dem Senators to get things done right.

Joe Lieberman proposed a war tax yesterday.

The gop want more billions from the American people to embolden their rich corporate buddies bank accounts.

8 billion in cash shipped to a war zone and disappeared.

Meanwhile, the budget is cut for the American people to pay for this fraud and theft.

Just freaking pathetic.

By holdingAJCaccountable

February 7, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this

Sad to say this conservatives, you aren’t going to win without dimplomacy. You have to find common ground with the insurgents: “So you aren’t afraid to die? That’s great, because we aren’t afriad for you to die. What time would you like to schedule the crying and wailing for your sacrifice”?

Do we have the stomach to reinstitute the draft and back the type of strong armed dictator that the Iraqis seem to appreciate’ who would be an ally? Then slowly introduce democracy…

I doubt it…we had our SuperBowl on the “War on Terror” and unfortunately, we had Rex Grossman at quarterback.

By Curious Observer

February 7, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

The comedy being played in Congress rests on the largely validated assumption that American voters are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Republicans desperately want the Democrats to move to cut off funding for the war, thus providing the Republicans with the “they don’t support our troops” slogan that is their only hope for winning in 2008. The Democrats are too cagey to fall into that trap. Both parties know that the vast middle portion of the voting population consists of a bunch of Homer Simpsons, susceptible to slogans and the old political shell game.

Thus, even though two-thirds of Americans polled oppose the war in Iraq, nothing to change the status quo will be accomplished. The war will go on through 2008 and beyond. A helpless Congress will continue to provide de facto support for a president who has taken on the semblance of monarchy. The Republicans have the most to gain from this stalemate, for they can count on the anger of disappointed voters who voted for a change but got none.

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

Dear Jessie @ 9:15, while perhaps 50,000 – mostly insurgents – have died violently in Iraq since 2002, that is a small fraction of the numbers who will perish after the democrat cut and run.

Dear getalife @ 9:31, unfortunately you read the NYT headline and not the article. Republicans opposed the constricted debate proposed by the Democrats – the Republicans wanted to get all the cards on the table. If your Senate leadership was not so cowardly, we would have a useful discussion, but one that may reflect adversely on the principles of your overlords.

Dear holding @ 9:34, I think you err. Diplomacy never produces a lasting peace; only total victory produces lasting peace. The insurgents wish to control the citizens of Iraq; the Bush administration pushes for individual self-determination. There is little room for compromise from such differing intentions. But I am willing to consider your genius: what, in your estimation, would be a fair resolution of the differing interests for the people of Iraq and for those who would subjugate them

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Well-argued, Curious @ 9:42, I think you are mostly right. You must have the Dick Morris gene.

By abc

February 7, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

These clowns got us into this mess under false pretenses, thinking it’d be a cakewalk. Idiots. Now the destabization of the region will require that we have a military force there forever. Forever. What a shame. It’s MORE than a shame, it’s an obscenity. We don’t have a choice, either, we’re stuck with it.

Never elect another Texan to the presidency, damn cowboys.

By getalife

February 7, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

fakelaw,

No idiot, I watched C-Span and the gop Senators are cowards, pure and simple.

I was wrong about the 8 billion it was 12 billion wasted:

“Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that’s exactly what our government did,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.”

And the wingnuts cheer on this fraud and theft.

Failed Americans.

By JP

February 7, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Jon Stewart recently mocked the “emboldening the enemy” argument better than I can. NOT ONLY is that argument not valid, but it is intended to provide for no “legitimate” avenue for dissent—and self-serving because it allows the pro-war party to beat its chest like Tarzan while opponents are silenced. I, for one, refuse to be silenced by such childish arguments.

Righties talk about hearings like they’re the antithesis of democracy, only because they don’t want people to see what goes on in the dark of night. It’s time Georgians wake up to reality like the rest of America has—this has been such a horribly planned operation, our CEO President has earned NO trust that he can handle this properly.

Reality #1: Military leadership stated from day 1 that we should send 300k or 400k troops. Rumsfeld & Cheney Inc. decided we’d only need 150k plus “shock and awe.” Think about how well THAT has worked out.

Reality #2: Rumsfeld forbade planning for post-war Iraq. Were his bosses afraid Americans wouldn’t support anything more than a short conflict?

Wake up, Georgia. You too, Wooten.

By JP

February 7, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Democracy cannot be installed at the business end of a gun. We are a nation of fools (and particularly a State of fools) to believe we can “re-order the thinking in the middle east, and to establish an outpost of freedom in an area long enslaved by tyrants.”

Christianists in the US want war because they believe Israel is fulfilling Revelation prophecy. Islamists want war because of perceived injustices on the part of the US, starting with the creation and support of Israel.

Until we convert extremists of both sides to Buddhism—and they drop their our-way-or-the-highway approach to faith—there is no real solution. Dropping bombs for peace, as they say, is like f**ng for virginity.

By Van

February 7, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

holdingAJCaccountable,

After the fighting has started where has diplomacy really accomplished anything?

We are still in Korea and there is still a “state of war” between the North and South Korea. This one was called a Cease Fire, not a peace treaty.

Did diplomacy work after WWI? Did diplomacy work after Viet Nam? Did diplomacy work after the first gulf war?

Where is the victories for diplomacy?

By melo

February 7, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

This is a defeated party looking for any semblence of a door out of Iraq.

Which one is the defeated party and when were the elections held? U have ur head deep in the sand. The vote is meaningless, so why not vote, why are you refusing a vote, if its meaningless? The people spoke at the polls and the war is popular with those of your kind who have stuffed ears.And u are a minority. Either way, George Bush and his legacy is done. He stinks, so do yu!!

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Best Comments:

“Y’all claim that a non-binding resolution in our legislature shows weakness? I say our weakness is displayed when we make pre-emptive war with an ineffective strategy created by incompetent leadership.” \\\

“He doesn’t seem to have noticed that a bloodbath is already taking place in Iraq (likely hundreds of thousands killed), and somehow, Bush isn’t culpable for that. On the other hand, if we pull out and the bloodbath continues, then it’s the Democrats’ fault. jbmlaw’s logic is flawed.”

” I know you far right wingers like to apply double standards and hope nobody will notice, but we do. That’s part of the reason Republicans lost in 2006.”

“lives are at stake, and these gentlemen need to vote their consciences on this issue. If they don’t get re-elected as a result, then so be it.”

\\\

By Van

February 7, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

JP,

I am sure that Japan and Germany do not agree with you.

The US wrote the Constitution for Japan and Germany eagerly accepted democracy.

By jm

February 7, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Sure go ahead and vote to defund the war. President Bush will just issue a signing statement declaring it null and void because he is the decider.

By holdingAJCaccountable

February 7, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

jmblaw and Van: Look again. I was being facetious about “diplomacy”. “You want to die? Good, we are willing to ‘support and facilitate’ your desire to die. We want what you want.”

I wish I did have the “genius” to solve this. The best I’ve heard is the soap drop theory. Go in massively and take over one city. With that city under total control, invest in the infrastructure that will get the people on your side. Then, spread out (like a drop of soap in water) city, by city, by city. As each city “buys in” (because you have the resources to guarantee safety and rebuild infrastructure) they become “lower maintenance” and it becomes easier to attack each successive area.

Other than that, I don’t see what to do but put in a strong arm dictator who we can ally with…

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

You really got it right. I thought jbmlaw had too but he let Southern Democrat kick him into subservience.

Yes, that’s our “moderate” Democrat as he wants to be called. In the meantime it is “schizophrenic nature of ultra conservatives” and the value of a totally useless and killer of morale resolution to make our troops feel like no one supports them at home. Now that is just great!

This “great” moderate does not support the troops and claims those who do not agree with him are mentally ill ( a double whammy against the mentally ill and Republicans).

Back off, Southern Democrat. You may be Southern but you do not represent the South in any way. “Cut-n-run” is not a Southern trait but it is one of yours. You can put it in nice words but it is still running.

You can also waste words on President Bush who was elected twice by Americans. Go ahead. Don’t support the war and don’t support the President. But don’t act like that is “Southern”. It isn’t.

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Dear Getalife @ 10:00, you err. If I may steal Taranto’s pithy analysis, “Today’s Times repeats the error in reporting on the vote against cloture: “G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy,” reads the headline. The text of the actual article, though, makes clear that the Republicans were seeking a broader debate than the Democrats wanted: ‘The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president. ‘One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.’ So the Times headline portrays the Republicans as wanting to stifle debate, whereas in fact the Democrats are trying to weasel out of taking a stand that is both popular and right, simply because the president agrees with it.

Dear JP @10:08, you set up a false argument “Democracy cannot be installed at the business end of a gun.” Democracy is not our goal for Iraq, freedom is. While I assume you lack meaningful knowledge of pre-WW2 Japan and Germany, in fact freedom can be installed at the business end of a gun. Perhaps you believe there is some genetic inferiority in the middle eastern mind that precludes freedom as an option?

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 10:27, you are quicker on the draw than I.

Dear Dusty @ 10:33, you have been taking jbmlaw-venom pills. Well argued.

By Mrs. RepubLady

February 7, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

The spineless lefty cowards that oppose this war just want to lay around the shanty, smoke crack, fornicate, and get a handout in the form of my tax money. This war has quadrupled my defence industry and energy company stocks, and thats what matters. Lefty cowards have no stomach for profit. Yes, soldiers die and civilians die, but its time for you cowards to grow a stomach and do what is good for America and my stocks.

By Dennis

February 7, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Wooten really believes what he writes. But I’m beginning to think that he does.

Which makes me wonder how a man who is smart enough to work for a major newspaper has somehow missed the political lessons of Vietnam.

Namely that presidents of both political partys were more concerned about their re-elections and their “peace with honor” than the loss of 58,000 American lives.

If the lessons were not learned, then it’s understandable. But if the lessons were learned, then how is it so easy to forget them that one would support another pack of lies just like it in Iraq?

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

By melo

February 7, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this

http://www.yahoo.com/s/501106

This is what yu want to continously hear,Jim Why dont u go write your blog from the banks of the Euphrates river, near the Green zone.

By Corky Cobb

February 7, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Jim, have you no respect. This is a holy day and you’re talking about war?????

Don’t you know its NATIONAL SIGNING DAY!!!

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

I honestly don’t think that Wooten even believes the load of crap he says anymore. Most of it contradicts the things that he’s said earlier, (blatantly contradicts), and he’s mostly just upholding the party dogma. From now on, he should save time and just write his columns using these main talking points:

Bush is always right because he’s a real American

I, (Wooten), am always right because I am a real American AND a Bush supporter

Cheney is always right because he’s had 4 or 5 heart attacks while in office — only a man who truly cares about his country would have 4 or 5 heart attacks and still serve, (it’s just like Reagan who had 4 or 5 Alzheimer episodes [Iran-Contra: “I Just Can’t Remember] while he was in office. Reagan was a REAL American)

Everything is Clinton’s fault because he liked having seX, (and was still young enough to know what it was)

Republicans NEVER like seX NOR it’s consequences, (pleasure), so it’s never their fault

Let’s stop making rich people pay taxes. We’ll use the Leona Helmsley approach and declare taxes as the right of the “poor”

If you can’t afford healthcare, you are a democrat. Only democrats can’t afford health care. Oh, and healthcare should be handled by HMOs to decrease efficiency and increase premiums.

Hillary is evil because she not only FORGAVE her husband for 2 timing her with a WOMAN, (republicans don’t like to forgive anyone who has heterosexual relations — yet, surprisingly they are more than happy enough to forgive seemingly hetreosexual people who have homosexual affairs [Ted Haggard]), she forgave her husband and ran for public office!

If you are a REAL American, you’d shut up & stop criticizing Bush (a great american), act indignant over inconsequential things (Republican controlled Senate & Congress/Terry Schiavo’s case), not care about the environment, (global warming) AND vote republican. That’s the only way to be a great American.

By Toni

February 7, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 10:27, you are quicker on the draw than I.

His wife thinks so too!

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I don’t have any venom pills but I will send you some iron tablets to make your spine a little less bendable.

By JK

February 7, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, next time you go on vacation, please have DebbieDoRight write your column for you. She does you better than you do yourself! Haha!

By Janine

February 7, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Hey…DebbieDo…Well said! As a Republican who voted for Bush, I was with Mr. W. for a while, but , well,sooner or later everybody has to reflect, read, research,sometimes retract, and open their eyes. Looking back over the columns and blogs, I don’t think there are any points on which I can disagree with you.

By Brian

February 7, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

It’s time Georgians wake up to reality like the rest of America has—this has been such a horribly planned operation, our CEO President has earned NO trust that he can handle this properly.

JP, why don’t you wake up to the reality that the majority of Georgians as well as Americans do not want us to pull out of Iraq immediately like the Democrats do in a fancy-named cowardly redeployment. Just because 76% of Americans disagree with the way things are being handled in Iraq right now does not mean that 76% want an immediate withdrawal, no matter how the NYT wants to spin it.

We are a nation of fools (and particularly a State of fools) to believe we can “re-order the thinking in the middle east, and to establish an outpost of freedom in an area long enslaved by tyrants.”

No, we can’t force something on someone else. However, look up the United Arab Emirates and see how things are going over there, including American tourism. Regarding Iraq and tyrants, the very first UN resolution violation which was set way back in 1991 by Saddam gave any UN nation authority to attack Iraq, let alone 17 of them over 12 years. That illegal war claptrap is a leftist liberal lie.

Christianists in the US want war because they believe Israel is fulfilling Revelation prophecy.

What Christians in America believe that? That’s the biggest poppycrock I’ve read here in some time. Show me a link from a Christian sect that really believes that. I’ll save you a little time - it sure isn’t the Catholics.

By Brian

February 7, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

If you are a REAL American, you’d shut up & stop criticizing Bush (a great american),

Debbie, all your sarcasm aside, you liberals on the left are ones to talk about telling others to shut up. When leftists are questioned about their stances on Iraq from Conservatives, they shout back that their patriotism is being attacked, not their viewpoints. When people like Hanoi Jane are criticized for speaking out against wars, they say their voices are being quelled and indimidated to being shut down, not that their stances are being questioned. I’m sorry, but you have every right to be spoken back to when you speak out, and liberals as well as the drive-by media just hate that.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,

Maybe you should become an editor and write your own purely Democratic column instead of telling Wooten what to write. His views are his and not yours. Amazing, isn’t it, that he should express his own thoughts?

Maybe AJC will replace Woman to Woman with Woman on the Left by “yours truly”. Then you will not have to tell Wooten what to write, just exhale your own special leftist literature.

By Jim's a Distractor

February 7, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Brian,

[Here’s your link. Watch the 700 club sometime] (http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/patprophecy.asp)

By jm

February 7, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

“Political Games on Iraq”. There have been nothing but “Political Games on Iraq”. President Bush and the republicans figured that if the democrats voted against the resolution to authorize force in Iraq, they would be portrayed as “soft on defense”. Rather than be portrayed as “soft on defense”, they decided to give President Bush a blank check (always a bad idea) to act as he sees fit in Iraq.

Well, after three plus years, folks are beginning to realize that giving President Bush unchecked power and a blank check might not have been the right thing to do. Of course, any attempt to restore some checks is viewed as unpatriotic (as Samuel Johnson said “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”).

Of course, to folks like jbmlaw, everyone who is against us is an insurgent, including those who are defending their country against people who attacked, invaded and are occupying their country (you know, kind of how I would respond if someone attacked here).

Reality check, the iraqis did not attack us and posed no threat to us. Unless of course, you count Saddam’s ill wishes. Last I knew, evil thoughts were not enough justification for war.

In the meantime, bin Laden, the taliban and their sponsor Pakistan are still around causing mischief. Of course, since Pakistan is our “ally” they get a pass, even if that includes sheltering bin laded and the taliban.

By abc

February 7, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Brian, “What Christians in America believe that?”

Southern Baptists believe that. They’d tell you that Israel can’t be defeated, because God won’t allow it.

By Van

February 7, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

holdingAJCaccountable,

Going in very heavy with better rules of engagement will take the will from the foreign fighters.

Showing a strong position both there in the theater of operation and here at home will restore some respect to what we do over there.

Trying to play Mr. Nice will only get more of our people killed.

We have so so long forgotten basic tactics, urban warfare tactics that we used during WWII in Europe and the Pacific. We have forgotten what we did to fight guerrilla’s during the Banana Wars in central America.

We have forgotten how to fight to win.

By Toni

February 7, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Van: Neither Japan nor Germany has a true democracy. Japan and Germany have a system similiar to England. And neither of those countries were run by religion/theocracy as the majority of the middle east is.

By JP

February 7, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Brian, here’s another analysis: http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell71.html

Israel is the “nation” in “national security.” If you sincerely believe the Iraq conflict is making the U.S. safer, so be it, but don’t be blinded into thinking that’s all this is about. The Christian Right (Ralph Reed, et. al) has a vested interest in our support for Israel.

You don’t still think it’s a coincidence that once Bush came back into power, we began perceiving and portraying Iraq as a serious immenent threat once again? They were NEVER a direct threat to our homeland; they were a threat to the other Homeland.

By Toni

February 7, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

“Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that’s exactly what our government did,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.”

Dumbya and Chimpy.

By harold

February 7, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this

when you say dumb things like “a direct signal to the enemy that with patience victory is within their grasp” you reveal your lack of understand that every day US troops are there, they create more and more enemies.

if you are creating more than you are killing, you are in a losing proposition.

and when you kill more, and you see the accompanying creation of more enemies increase at the same pace you’ve increased your killing, you are still in a losing proposition

when the enemies grow in numbers because of you faster than you can kill (create) them, you cannot win

harold said this way back when dubya first started talking about iraq. it was glaringly obvious to harold.

dubya’s goal is to destabilize the region so they do not unify like the europeans and become a threat to our economic vitality. mission accomplished, but the more the area is destabilized the more Dubya will have succeeded. As long as the oil can still make it out, that’s all that matters.

By harold

February 7, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

so anyhow dubya’s mission of destabilization having been accomplished, he is now just waiting around doing nothing until the pressure of losing forces those who inherited the situation to withdraw. that brings dubya’s exit strategy to the forefront: tread water until the democrats can be blamed for the failure. the mission is going perfectly!

too bad the democraps wont play politics and call his bluff and send the hundreds of thousdands more troops he claims to want. ha. harold says approve and fund the additioanl toops and let them be killed too “protecting their country” just to see how long dubya will carry out his bluff and blame the democraps

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Brian wrote, “When leftists are questioned about their stances on Iraq from Conservatives, they shout back that their patriotism is being attacked, not their viewpoints. When people like Hanoi Jane are criticized for speaking out against wars…”

Brian,

Who do you think you’re kidding? Read Dusty at 10:33: “Back off, Southern Democrat. You may be Southern but you do not represent the South…” Is Dusty attacking SD’s viewpoint with this line?

By the way, what did you mean by “people like” Hanoi Jane. Anybody you disagree with on Iraq falls into the category of “people like Hanoi Jane”? In other words, anybody you disagree with on Iraq is consorting with the enemy? You contradict yourself, my friend.

By JK

February 7, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Going in very heavy with better rules of engagement will take the will from the foreign fighters.

So how come Rumsfeld and Bush ignored, demoted, or fired the generals who said as much back in 2003? How come they chose a completely different tactic? Maybe, Van, the plan never WAS to “fight and win” afterall, but rather, to place our soldiers and highly-paid friends-of-Dick contractors there indefinitely whilst oil comes gushing, unmetered yet heavily protected, out of the ground and into piplelines leading…. well I believe that’s classified, now isn’t it? Seems to me if the Republicans who have been in charge ALL THESE YEARS really wanted to “fight and win,” it would have happened by now. Just a thought.

By Redneck Convert

February 7, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

I see the traders are still spouting about getting out of Iraq and stopping the war.

I’m with Sister Dusty, only more. Let’s put about a million troops in there, kick some butt, use the A-bomb as much as we can, spread salt over the whole country so nobody can live there no more, then start a big push to allow the President to get elected again. While we’re at it, we need to bomb Iran back to the stone age.

Like Sister Dusty said, it ain’t Southren not to want to fight. We even fight in the family when we are growing up. We fight in the schools and bars and during wrecks and just about everywhere. These pansys that want us to take our troops out of Iraq are nothing but wimps and traders.

Anyway, if these Sh*ts and Sunnys would act like proper Christians, they could have the high taxes and vote cheating and other parts of being free and worry about things like porn stores and buying booze on Sunday instead of about getting thru the day alive. If anybody’s left alive in Iraq after we finish with them, we can send in the Revs Falwell, Haggard, Robertson and others to show them how to live right. They can be good Southrons and learn to whop each other up side the head instead of using bombs and bullets. I would be willing to show them how to drive a beer truck if they need a job.

By Toni

February 7, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,Maybe you should become an editor and write your own purely Democratic column instead of telling Wooten what to write

I wasn’t tellilng him how to do anything, I made a SUGGESTION that could probably save him some golfing time.

His views are his and not yours. Amazing, isn’t it, that he should express his own thoughts?

He surely does express the Dogma of the Bush Administration so gloriously it’s amazing!!! And he changes his little ole republican mind more than the wind blows! One minute he’s AGAINST something that democrats are for (Somalia,etc — while conveinently forgetting that it was BUSH ONE who originally sent troops to Somalia; he just remembers to blame Clinton), then the next minute he’s FOR the same thing he was against originally,(American invovlement in other countries’ politics — Wooten in ‘95 “America should not become the policeman of the world”).

Hey, you gotta LIKE a guy like that who can say crap in the newspaper, have it immortalized for all time, (print, archives, internet), then pretend he NEVER said it in the first place by totally reversing his stance!! If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Wooten was running for public office!!

That’s called a great con job — OR someone has a great big old bout of Alzheimers.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Ooops was on another blog and forgot to change my name back to DDR. Sorry.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

DarlaK,

Why don’t YOU tell us the difference between opinion, viewpoint, freedom of speech and lies? Obviously, that is of interest to you.

I am not a lawyer but you seem to be a prosecuting attorney for liberals. Oops! There’s another one. A wild guess!! Just my opinion??? Viewpoint??

By Kelly

February 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Brian is about as informed as most other Dittoheads — almost nil.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Debbie, all your sarcasm aside, you liberals on the left are ones to talk about telling others to shut up

Did you MISS Wooten’s column on Jane Fonda? Look to your left in his “archives” section hit the “more” button and you’ll see this heading, “Oh Jane, Hush”

By getalife

February 7, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

The number one, most important issue in America today is the Iraq disaster.

The Dems are trying to save lives and not send any more troops to this disaster.

The gop Senators do not have the guts to debate this issue.

These gop cowards need to be fired.

Period.

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Most people know the difference between attacking somebody’s point of view and attacking somebody’s patriotism. Apparenty, you and Brian lack such aptitude.

And you are correct — I am a liberal — but contrary to your twisted perceptions, I’m also an American, a Southerner and a patriot.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight,

If you can’t remember your own ID, better not accuse Wooten of having Alzheimers.

But I see you are very busy preaching the “Dogma of Democrats”, and you cannot believe that Wooten is expressing his own thoughts. Are you also running for political office with your dogma?

So… you are DarlaK at times? Any other IDs you would like to tell us about? I would think you would be ProudPatty since your husband is in the military.

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight apologized for accidentally posting under more than one name on the same blog. In response, desperate Dusty accuses her of posting under my moniker.

For the record Dusty, DebbieDoRight is not me, and you’re pathetic.

By Van

February 7, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

JK,

With 20/20 hindsight all things are crystal clear.

I do not envy any administration trying to fight a politically correct war. We saw this during Viet Nam with bombing targets coming from DC.

We see it now with “criminal”, instead of military charges being levied against military personnel in combat for alleged wrong doing. Instead of letting this be handled by the services involved, quietly, it gets splattered all over a congressional hearing.

Awarding Geneva Convention status to a guerrilla fighter is wrong on many levels. Allowing captured combatants, regardless of status, access to the US courts and not the military courts is close to criminal.

The lefties being overly sensitive to the enemy and callous toward our own troops sends a wrong message.

Otherwise, stop your whining.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

DarlaK or whomever,

You have inserted your own thoughts and claimed them as mine. Did you read “patriotism”? I did not see it. I may have thought it (and how!!) but since “patriotism” is no longer politically correct, I didn’t mention it. See?? I am conforming. Terrible!! (How long have you been a Southerner?)

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Are you claiming that telling Southern Democrat that he doesn’t represent the South isn’t just another form of questioning his loyalties? Are you claiming that you don’t have a body of work on this blog questioning the patriotism of the those who disagree with you on Iraq? The only person you’re fooling is yourself.

With regard to your question, how long have I been a Southerner? Long enough. It’s not a competition.

By getalife

February 7, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty did not support the troops in Clinton’s war, right Dusty?

By Brian Curtis

February 7, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

I agree with Wooten. Politicizing the Iraq situation is just terrible, except when Republicans do it.

Then it’s okay.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

Oh dear, DarlaK,

I am so sorry I have subjected you to the artless accusation of being DebbieDoRight. But, the fact that you are liberal lookalikes makes it more justifiable.

So, have a mint julep and relax. Or maybe hot chocolate in this warm earth, melting down thirty degree weather. (How long have you been a Southerner?)

DebbieDoRight aka Tony or somebody,

Please forgive my confusion between you and DarlaK. Do you have a twin sister? Well, just getting this all straight. Mixed IDs are pointless perks, making yourself two liberals instead of one. Right, Patty?

By Ol' Pa

February 7, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Glenn “Scarlet Letter” Richardson needs to keep his money/lobbyist grubbing hands off Jekyll. It’s the people’s island and needs to stay that way. There’s lots of “four-star” places where lobbyists can put him up.

By TFTT's Mother

February 7, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Please excuse Tommy’s absence. He has been in the bathroom since this morning trying to extract one of his laptops.

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

Now now DarlaK,

I claim that Southern Democrat does not represent the South BECAUSE I do not think Sothern Democrat represents the South. Does that confuse you? Don’t know how else to put it.

Sure, sometimes I have mentioned “patriotism” because it is so obviously missing in some cases. But we have free speech and I only mention it when I feel like it. Please tell me, dear Darla, when is the correct time and the terms for mentioning that popular word of long ago?

Oh by the way,honey, Southerners are USUALLY people born in the South. They don’t mind saying that either. You seem a bit reticent about your heritage. hmmmm

By JK

February 7, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Van the Man,

With 20/20 hindsight all things are crystal clear. Good one! May I write that down?

I do not envy any administration trying to fight a politically correct war. Which war would that be? I don’t remember The Decider touting political correctness in any of his “you’re with us or against us” speeches.

We saw this during Viet Nam with bombing targets coming from DC. I didn’t see VietNam, and have no idea what you’re talking about. Please share so I can ask my Dad.

We see it now with “criminal”, instead of military charges being levied against military personnel in combat for alleged wrong doing. If you have ideas of better dealing with soldiers who rape a kid and burn the whole family to cover it up, please share.

Instead of letting this be handled by the services involved, quietly, it gets splattered all over a congressional hearing. Isn’t Congress supposed to exercise oversight? Am I wrong in my understanding of their actual job?

Awarding Geneva Convention status to a guerrilla fighter is wrong on many levels. Allowing captured combatants, regardless of status, access to the US courts and not the military courts is close to criminal. What do you have against due process? Didn’t you take an oath to defend the Constitution?

The lefties being overly sensitive to the enemy and callous toward our own troops sends a wrong message. Just so I don’t misunderstand, are you saying (a) you care about the feelings of “lefties,” or (b) “lefties” have no right to express their feelings in 21st Century America? And what qualifies as “callous” toward our troops? Wanting them to die, or wanting them to live and defend us another day?

Otherwise, stop your whining. HAHA! Sounds like you’re the one who’s whining about how the people who are NOT responsible for this mess have let you down. Wah wah.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight, If you can’t remember your own ID, better not accuse Wooten of having Alzheimers

LMAO!! OK — you got me! But he DOES forget what he says — whereas I’ve never forgotten to blog under the name known here more than this once.

But I see you are very busy preaching the “Dogma of Democrats”

Truth hurts.

So… you are DarlaK at times?

Nope. Love her stuff though!

Any other IDs you would like to tell us about? I would think you would be ProudPatty since your husband is in the military

For the Miami Herald I’m Toni; For the NYTimes I’m MaryJB; San Francisco Chronicler I’m MissThang; for the AJC blog on the Hawks I’m #1HawkGirlFan! In real life I’m always Proud Patty who’s proud her husband is in the military even though I DONT share his beliefs; I’m proud he has the conviction to stand up and place OUR lives on hold because of them. That’s about it….

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this

DebbieDoRight aka Tony or somebody, Please forgive my confusion between you and DarlaK. Do you have a twin sister? Well, just getting this all straight. Mixed IDs are pointless perks, making yourself two liberals instead of one. Right, Patty

So I forgot and typed Toni in when I came back here! What’s the big deal? Have I EVER traded names before? And when I did it I confessed to it, unlike some — I wasn’t trying to deceive. What’s the big deal?

By tired

February 7, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

jk,

When does Congressional oversight begin and end? The convenience here is only too obvious.

Due process is exactly what is being trampled on. A military tribunal is what should be utilized here, not the American Court System.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

Wait one more!!! For the Ocala Star Banner, I’m ForestHighWdCat; for the Seattle Times I’m Toni again; I also love to jump on to this uber conservative website and poke fun at it’s host LaShawn Berber, there I’m called ShawnBHater!! On the London Times I’m just Debbie. Isn’t technology grand?! You can go all over the world from your desktop!! God Bless Microsoft!!! (oh and Al Gore [who invented the internet])

By Dusty

February 7, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

Relax, Debbie,

You can preach all you want and so can I and so can Wooten. But I must say that you are more fun than DarlaK who is (shh) kinda stuffy.

I am proud of your husband and all our troops. It is a most honorable duty and you are making a sacrifice too. We may disagree on some things but not on that one. Now I have to leave. Cheers!!

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

Another Republican Beat Down Of Someone’s Character. Politics At Its Best!!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003540189_watch25.html?syndication=rss

By Van

February 7, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

JK,

We saw this during Viet Nam with bombing targets coming from DC. I didn’t see VietNam, and have no idea what you’re talking about. Please share so I can ask my Dad.

“Until late in the war, targets around Hanoi were not to be hit for fear of civilian casualties. The dikes and downtown Hanoi were off limits.”

We see it now with “criminal”, instead of military charges being levied against military personnel in combat for alleged wrong doing. If you have ideas of better dealing with soldiers who rape a kid and burn the whole family to cover it up, please share.

“The UCMJ is appropriate to handle this type of atrocity and the military can be a bit more sever than the criminal courts.”

Instead of letting this be handled by the services involved, quietly, it gets splattered all over a congressional hearing. Isn’t Congress supposed to exercise oversight? Am I wrong in my understanding of their actual job?

According to the Constitution, there roles do not include oversight of the military justice system. That is left to the Commander in Chief. Congress does not show up in the Chain of Command.

Awarding Geneva Convention status to a guerrilla fighter is wrong on many levels. Allowing captured combatants, regardless of status, access to the US courts and not the military courts is close to criminal. What do you have against due process? Didn’t you take an oath to defend the Constitution?

If you apply the Geneva Convention, combatants captured are tried under the military justice system, not the civilian system.

The Convention details those combatants covered and those not covered.

The lefties being overly sensitive to the enemy and callous toward our own troops sends a wrong message. Just so I don’t misunderstand, are you saying (a) you care about the feelings of “lefties,” or (b) “lefties” have no right to express their feelings in 21st Century America? And what qualifies as “callous” toward our troops? Wanting them to die, or wanting them to live and defend us another day?

The lefties are more concerned about how a prisoner is treated than how our troops are treated by the enemy.

Humiliation of a prisoner does not compare to having your head removed, but which grabbed the headlines. Abu Ghraib did not rise to the level of boot camp in terms of “meaness” But, what do your hear about the treatment of our troops by the enemy - nothing, they could care less if our troops are tortured and killed. Where is the outrage from the leftie, socialistic media about how the enemy treats prisoners.

By getalife

February 7, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

My name is “joewilson” on other wingnuts blogs.

They loved me before they banned me.

By Brian

February 7, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this

Brian, [Here’s your link. Watch the 700 club sometime] (http://www.patrobertson.com/Teaching/patprophecy.asp)

Distractor, I hardly consider Pat Robertson as a “sect” of Christianity, let alone someone that “sects” of Christians follow [like Catholics].

Brian, “What Christians in America believe that?” Southern Baptists believe that. They’d tell you that Israel can’t be defeated, because God won’t allow it.

That’s interesting, abc. You liberals claim that Christians are pro-war because of Israel. That’s an interesting observation to make considering that a lot of those very vocal war protesters are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

Even if Israel is attacked, you would be hard pressed to find any of the above churches of Christianity officially support a war in the region of Israel just for the sake of Israel, let alone any other reason. Watch protests much?

If you sincerely believe the Iraq conflict is making the U.S. safer, so be it, but don’t be blinded into thinking that’s all this is about.

JP, if you can find a blog claim of mine where I ever mentioned that, please show it to me. The last time I checked, the original mission in Iraq was not to make the US safer, but to remove a dangerous tyrant who violated 17 UN resolutions who most of the world at the time including Russia and France perceived as a real danger to the stability of the Middle East if he obtained WMDs. You don’t have to look far back in history to see why most of the world thought that, starting in about 1980 with Iran through 1990 and Kuwait and up to 2003.

By the way, what did you mean by “people like” Hanoi Jane. Anybody you disagree with on Iraq falls into the category of “people like Hanoi Jane”? In other words, anybody you disagree with on Iraq is consorting with the enemy? You contradict yourself, my friend.

Darla K, what do you mean by my phrasing people like Hanoi Jane? I said war protester, did I not? Show me in my previous post where I said people like Hanoi Jane were collaborating with the enemy. You liberals may be slick at putting words in other people’s mouths and making up lies about someone’s intentions of a statement, but you won’t get away with it with me. Having said that, I sure don’t believe that protesting wars causes the enemy to want to give up. Read into that as you will.

Brian-Debbie, all your sarcasm aside, you liberals on the left are ones to talk about telling others to shut up

Did you MISS Wooten’s column on Jane Fonda? Look to your left in his “archives” section hit the “more” button and you’ll see this heading, “Oh Jane, Hush”

Debbie, as ususal you liberals misconstrue my point. Do you honestly believe Wooten’s words will actually shut Hanoi Jane up or were even remotely serious about shutting HJ up? When the Right fires back at the Left for their viewpoints, the Left whines and pitches a fit about the Right trying to shut them up. Case in point, the Dixie Chicks. When people threw away their CDs and stopped going to their concerts, they whined that it was an attempt of censorship. Wrong! We have every right to do or say what we want to [within the law] in rebuttal to any comment made from the Left. This nation is not a one-way street, as much as you liberals would like it to be. You libs tell the Right here to shut up all the time, but I still see the same posters here not intimidated by you folks on the Left. Why can’t you liberals act with the same backbone?

Did I miss anyone else’s aliases here?

By time for the truth

February 7, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this

Its easy to see why liberals are despised by true, clear thinking Americans. Liberal cowardice and general hate for the US runs as deep as their (collective) mendacious narcissistic hateful self absorption. Liberalism should be immediately extirpated from the face of the earth -as should any demented perfidious liberal not willing to grovel and repeatedly apologise to Bush for their sick, filthy lies and treasonous distortions.

DEATH TO LIBERALISM!! Part of the true Axis of Evil that President Bush has thankfully repeatedly warned real Americans about.

By Brian

February 7, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

*Dusty,

Most people know the difference between attacking somebody’s point of view and attacking somebody’s patriotism. Apparenty, you and Brian lack such aptitude.*

Darla K, is that so? Perhaps you can explain to the rest of us then why every single time when a Democrat is challenged on a comment or stance about Iraq or even the wider War On Islamic Fascism, then said Democrat always whines that their patriotism is being questioned. Why is that, Darla K? Why would a liberal’s only retort to the rebuttal of a Right-winger be that his or her patriotism is being questioned? This goes for every Lefty from a Congressperson like Murtha to a Hollywood celebrity like Alec Baldwin. No Darla K, we have crystal clear aptitude on the subject of views vs. patriotism, you just can’t admit being called on it. We see and hear it just about every single day.

Good day all.

By time for the truth

February 7, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

Brian

the aliases you missed include:

Crackpipe Debbie

rednekkks NAMBLA

Inbred Rednekkk

maggot brain

snivelling moron rod

feminazi JK

aborted foreskin

curious peeping tom

and the ultimate in sad dogturds … the anal obsessive stalker of yours truly who is unsurprisingly too effetely gutless to use its “real” leftist turdburglar id to post its unhinged homobollocks!

By tired

February 7, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

While I won’t say Death to Liberals, I do agree with a quote by Winston Churchill.

“A person under 30 who is not a Liberal has no heart, A person over 30 who is not a Conservative has no brains”

Seems pretty clear

By holdingAJCaccountable

February 7, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

Van: I agree. “Should” we have gone is a moot point. We’re there. Let’s work with the suicide bombers: “You want to die? Good. We want to kill.” I would have loved for the Iraqi people to “embrace democracy” even if it meant giving credit to a President who I think has been totally without integrity on NCLB.

But if it had worked, you have to give credit. Bush made the mistake of expecting a reality when he should have been accepting a reality.

While many idividual Iraqis may want it, “they the people” don’t seem to be willing to do what it takes to make democracy a reality.

We can’t “prop up a dictator” without losing the high moral ground of “building a democracy”. But now, I’d settle for the “low moral ground” of honesty: We monumentally screwed up, so we’re putting our own strong man in place to make the best of a bad situation. They may not like us for it, but at least they’ll respect and/or fear us enough to give us an “exit” strategy.

By troof

February 7, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

And on those notes from TFTT, the civility level of this blog has dropped to next to nothing.

By JK

February 7, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Van, thanks for the information, since I don’t remember VietNam. Thank you for your service to your country, and for doing and believing what you were told by your commanders, which is of course a soldier’s duty.

Nonetheless, your constant blaming of the “lefties” is silly. First, “lefties” is an ill-defined collective noun. If you can be specific, then you need to provide specific examples of warranted blame. If you can’t be specific, then you’re generalizing and making no sense. Either way, the “lefties” you revile and batter every day had nothing whatsoever to do with creating, facilitating, or prolonging this klusterfloogen known as “the war in Iraq.” If you must place blame every day, start with the people who actually made the mess and refuse to clean it up while shouting, “Hogwash! There is no mess!” Unless you believe that there is no mess, then I must ask, then what the heck is your PROBLEM?

By time for the truth

February 7, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

feminazi JK

just slither back up the blog loveykins and see the hateful bollocks posted by the resident liberal vermin earlier today. your lying hypocrisy as ever is bleedin’ funny though!!

By Brian Curtis

February 7, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

The lefties are more concerned about how a prisoner is treated than how our troops are treated by the enemy.

Or, rather, the “lefties “are more concerned with whether WE in the U.S. live up to our own ideals than whether our enemies do.

It’s all in how you phrase it, isn’t it?

By abc

February 7, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Brian, I’m not a ‘liberal’. Such labels, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, they don’t seem to have much meaning anymore… Republicans are hardly conservative, either. Less partisanship would seem to be in order these days.

There’s a difference between the notion that God won’t let Israel be defeated, and the notion that the U.S. has to defend it in order for that to be true.

By Joe L

February 7, 2007 02:46 PM | Link to this

Van:”The lefties are more concerned about how a prisoner is treated than how our troops are treated by the enemy.”

Hey big newsflash moron, we can only control ONE of these things, guess which one? We are concerned about controlling the thing we can and doing the right thing. If you do what the enemy does to our soldiers you are saying it’s okay. So according to Van and all the other dummies like him it’s okay for our enemies to torture our troops. We that’s some great support you are giving them!

And I notice you dodge the point that “criminal” has nothing to do with military or civilian court. Soldiers who commit crimes are CRIMINALS!

By JP

February 7, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Brian, I am not interested in reviewing your catalog of writing. I flat don’t care.

If the objective was truly “to remove a dangerous tyrant who violated 17 UN resolutions who most of the world at the time including Russia and France perceived as a real danger to the stability of the Middle East if he obtained WMDs,” why were Americans sold on the plan with made-up/discredited evidence that he already HAD WMDs? Every time the rationale for Iraq is questioned, the supporters move to a different reason. First, possession of WMD; second, threat of possession of WMD; third, removing a dictator; fourth, spreading Democracy. Flip-flop-flip-flop. Who’s ‘politicizing’ the war?

Tired, if you want to go with that quote, fine—I proudly “have no brains. ” I cannot close my mind enough to be what we currently call “conservative,” and I wouldn’t want to if I could. I suppose some would say that makes me non-Southern; so be it.

By Joe L

February 7, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

The last time I checked, the original mission in Iraq was not to make the US safer, but to remove a dangerous tyrant who violated 17 UN resolutions who most of the world at the time including Russia and France perceived as a real danger to the stability of the Middle East if he obtained WMDs.

I have never seen a single statement that sums of the idiocy of the Shrub supporters more than this one. No the “original” mission was to stop “mushroom clouds” from appearing above American cities. But I see that we were always at war with Eurasia right? I never thought reading that book that there were enough stupid people to make this possible, but the neocons have proved me wrong.

Tyrant? Sure. Dangerous? Ha! I see you have again fallen for the con jobs of the right wing propagandists. I also love how you throw that big “if” in the WMD phrase when we heard “we know where they are.” So where does that IF come from? It wasn’t an ‘if’ when the war started but now you act like it was always there. There was no risk of Saddam obtaining and even less of him using WMDs - it would’ve have been a suicide note and he knew it. His life was sweet he had no reason to risk throwing it away.

If Russia and France thought Saddam was so dangerous why were they rabibly opposed to military action against Iraq? Not only are you trying more revisionist history, it’s a poor attempt at that.

By Van

February 7, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Hate to disagree, It is a fact that the lefties, even in our criminal system, are more concerned that the prisoners “rights” than the treatment of the victims. Your priorities are backward.

You are more concerned that we do not humiliate the prisoners instead of why there are so few live US servicemen being held prisoner by the enemy. Hint - They, the bad guys, do not take prisoners.

By Van

February 7, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

Sorry, but you have not read or can’t read - what I said was

“We see it now with “criminal”, instead of military charges being levied against military personnel in combat for alleged wrong doing. If you have ideas of better dealing with soldiers who rape a kid and burn the whole family to cover it up, please share.

“The UCMJ is appropriate to handle this type of atrocity and the military can be a bit more sever than the criminal courts.”

Atrocities done under cover of combat are harshly treated by the military. The UCMJ is the appropriate set of laws and rules for this. Military Justice and Civilian Justice are not always the same. Civilians can get away with much more.

By Joe L

February 7, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

Van - Again you dodge the essential point, we can actually control what we do and be the shining example we are supposed to be OR we can validate what the enemies do by doing the same. So apparently you are for the torture of American soldiers. Way to support our troops!

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

Brian at 1:49 wrote “I said war protester, did I not?”

No Brian — you did not. Go back and read your own post, which says “When people like Hanoi Jane are criticized for speaking out against wars, they say their voices are being quelled and intimidated to being shut down, not that their stances are being questioned…”

Backpedal all you want, but you committed questioned the patriotism of those who speak out against the war in Iraq (by comparing them to “Hanoi Jane”) at the same time you were denying that such intimidation tactics take place.

By Joe L

February 7, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Van - What straw man do you keep erecting here? What are you trying to say is an issue?

You use criminal and military as if they are two different things - they are not. By trying to phrase them as such you seek to mitigate and justify the acts of the perpetrators. These men are criminals - plain and simple.

By tired

February 7, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

JP, thank you for at least stating an opinion. Too often people just rant in this blog.

As for the justification of going to war: It wasn’t that we alone sat there and made this stuff up. It came from all over, Britian, Russia,…

I do believe we now see it was faulty. And, I’m not blind to think there was some politicizing going on there as well. I can complain about the partisan politics that go on on both sides of the street. But, the point still resides that this information came from all over and everyone believed it. Hillary made some statements that she scrutinzed and performed serious analysis before getting on board the decision for war.

Now, we are where we are. People need to own up to decisions they all made. Not just the President.

By Van

February 7, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Joe L,

The L must stand for freaking liberal.

My point is you guys are more worried that we will mistreat a prisoner and you will show no regard for how our troops are treated. I can not think of the last protest march outside a Syrian or Iranian embassy. When was the last protest march demanding the terrorists respect the Geneva Convention. I must have missed the protestation when the International Red Cross was not allowed to deliver care packages to the US troops being held in the enemies prisons.

I do hear you and your kind bleat about how mean we are at Camp Gitmo. How rough they have it there. I can’t not imagine the hell they must be going through, being feed three times a day, indoor and outside activities, have 5 prayer services a day, a new copy of the Koran and having the toilets realigned so they do not face Mecca when they sit on the pot.

I wonder how many copies of the Bible were delivered to all the prisoners being held by the bad guys?

By jbmlaw

February 7, 2007 03:35 PM | Link to this

Dear Dusty @ 10:47, ha, thanks, but I fear they would just make me rusty; too much water on the brain here. Maybe I need some industrial strength hemp?

Dear Janine @ 11:02, strange how our paths differ. I am a Republican who voted against the current president in three of my four opportunities, and for his father in only two of my four opportunities, but I find I agree with almost everything Jim Wooten writes.

Dear jm @ 11:28, just to get your feet into concrete before I blow you apart, are your arguing that “al-Qaida has nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaida?” That we have not found and killed thousands of that formerly-dangerous organization within the borders of Iraq? That President Bush did not chase down the terrorists into Iraq, and thence start to destroy them? Is that what you are peddling?

In all fairness part of what you wrote is true – everyone in Iraq who opposes us is an insurgent and should be killed if possible. I would have said the same thing in Germany or Japan in 1946. Until we have total victory, there will be no peace here or in Iraq. It could be helpful if your side of the debate would assist in achieving victory, but it would be sufficient if you would simply cease giving hope and comfort to the other side.

Dear harold @ 11:42, I think you have forgotten one of the jbmlaw rules of physics – dead people don’t shoot down helicopters. Every time we kill one bad guy, that is one less, and if we kill two bad guys, that is two less, and so on. If you kill enough – and make no mistake, the lack of will is dangerous in a theater of war – a few intelligent people in opposition will begin to realize that their prospects may be grim. We have to kill enough of the bad guys to make more want to be on our side. It has surely not escaped your notice that the bad guys are killing far more of their own countrymen than are killing our noble soldiers. They are beginning to realize that if they kill Americans, they will not survive long themselves. But, to the extent that American leftists give them hope for victory, there is reason to believe the insurgents will fight on.

More to your point however, the culture of admiration for suicide killers in the middle east is in swift decline. “’Something basic has changed,’ [Mithal al-Alusi] says, noting that the terrorism that once was directed against Israel and the West has lost its cachet on the Arab street now that Muslims have become its principal victims. Another is the fact that Iraqi soldiers—many of them Shiite—were willing to fight and die alongside American soldiers in recent fighting against Shiite militants. ‘So, the loyalty to Iraqi institutions did count and the partnership between the Iraqi and American armies did hold.’” http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110009628

Dear getalife @ 12:22, why do you suppose the democrat leadership refused to debate Judd Gregg’s “sense of Congress” resolution (I mentioned it in my 10:38 post.) Is it not true that the democrats’ opposition would have sent a stronger message to President Bush?

Well-written Van @ 12:37.

Dear JP @ 2:51 and JoeL @ 2:53, as to “…Americans sold on the plan with made-up/discredited evidence that he already HAD WMDs,” I think you guys are confused on who did the selling. It is undoubtedly true that the Clintonistas lofted missile after missile into Iraq because of perceived threats to Americans, and warned us dozens of times about the unquestionable nature of the existence of WMDs. I do recall the leftists warning us that 50,000 men will come out of Iraq in bodybags due to WMDs, but the Bush Administration never said anything so patently ridiculous. (Only leftists make such ridiculous claims, like Amchitka, the coming Ice Age, the evil of Freon, the danger of the ozone hole, the risk of global warming…)

I am pretty sure the Bush Administration only warned of the imminence of WMDs, which (as the NYT verified last month) actually were within one year of going online in Iraq – fits my definition of “imminent.” Further, for those of us who actually listened, potential WMDs were only one of a half dozen good reasons to take out Saddam. Russia and France were on Saddam’s payroll, with the aid and comfort of the UN (must make you really proud.) I don’t know why you leftists continue to affirm that the WMD programs were made up or discredited, when they weren’t, and when all of the other reasons were of unimpeachable integrity. Actually, I lie, I know exactly why you guys say such things, but if I said why, you would accuse me of questioning your patriotism.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Debbie, as ususal you liberals misconstrue my point. Do you honestly believe Wooten’s words will actually shut Hanoi Jane up or were even remotely serious about shutting HJ up?

YES. If not, then why did he set aside a whole column to the subject?

When the Right fires back at the Left for their viewpoints, the Left whines and pitches a fit about the Right trying to shut them up

PLEASE!! Morton Downey Jr. can’t shut you people up!!! And when you can’t out talk someone you out LIE them or spread rumors or “out” them as a CIA agents just to get back at their husband’s for telling the truth!

By Mark Johnston

February 7, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

tftt has relations with the corpse of J. Edgar Hoover.

By Southern Democrat

February 7, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

Goodness! I put my head down and get some work done for a few hours and when I come back Dusty is positively apoplectic about my post this morning. Normally I would stay true to my vow to not read any more of her myopic, jingoist rants, but since so many others alluded to them, I went back and read her post.

As my parents and grandparents are all native Atlantans, I was born in Tennessee, and grew up in Georgia and Texas, I do have the gall to consider myself Southern (by the grace of God). I guess the fact that I have also lived in D.C., New York, Miami, Madrid, and London and can think for myself lessens my “Southern-ness” in your eyes. I would appreciate your telling Sam Nunn, Jim Webb, and the families of persons like Sam Ervin and Lloyd Bentsen, and others whose views are closest to mine that they are equally not Southern.

Dusty, I try to avoid getting personal with you because I do not think it’s useful and I genuinely enjoy reading the viewpoints of most of the incredibly eloquent conservative commenters on here: Jbmlaw, Van, Buy Danish, even Brian and others. You, however, are cut from a different cloth. As I have said before, your thinking (a generous concession on my part) in strictly absolutes and your obstinate, arrogant loyalty to the president is not only unhealthy, but dangerous. You have never posted anything of substance on here, but reduce yourself to attacking anyone who disagrees with you in the most personal of terms as you can think of, shout that you can’t be a patriot or support the troops without loving George W. Bush and everything he stands for, and then retreating when you get pinned down while saying “I didn’t say that… what… who… me?”

I don’t know how old you are, but I am guessing fairly young as usually those with a few trips around the block understand a little better how to interact with people and that obstinant arrogance and insults are unattractive qualities.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Hate to disagree, It is a fact that the lefties, even in our criminal system, are more concerned that the prisoners “rights” than the treatment of the victims. Your priorities are backward

They’re more concerned about the US living up to its moral creed and defining its character by our ACTIONS not our words. It’s real easy to stoop to someone else’s level when times are hard but it’s incredibly hard to STAY at our own level defend, with HONOR, the words that are written on our constitution. Sort of like Christianity. It’s real easy to SAY you’re a Christian; but when faced with a chance to honor your vows do you deny your faith like Peter did w/Jesus? Or do you stand up for it?

You are more concerned that we do not humiliate the prisoners instead of why there are so few live US servicemen being held prisoner by the enemy. Hint - They, the bad guys, do not take prisoners

Humiliating prisoners just made the whole situaution WORSE — can’t you see that? It EMPOWERS them when they see humiliating pictures of their comrades on websites, it doesn’t frighten them. The jihadists terrorists enrollment tripled during the Abu Gharib event. TRIPLED. Muslims who were once sympathetic to the US because of 9/11 and supported our fight in Afghanistan, now HATE us for the things that happened at that prison.

Marketing 101: The label you put on your project is what people will remember and see.

By DebbieDoRight

February 7, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

I also love how you throw that big “if” in the WMD phrase when we heard “we know where they are.”

I always wondered why, if they knew where they were, didn’t they just send a few drones with some guided missles and blew the up?

By Brian Curtis

February 7, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

Van: Hate to disagree, but our justice system is founded on protection of the accused—the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing. Prisoners DO have rights precisely because it’s an American tradition to be deeply suspicious of potential abuses of government power, and if that means sometimes the guilty go free, we accept it.

As for what our enemies do… why on earth should that have any bearing on the standards to which we hold ourselves? If they torture, does that make it okay for us to almost-kinda-sorta-torture? Of course not. Your priorities are backward.

By Darla K.

February 7, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten,

It’s now 4:10 PM on my clock. Do you know that your page isn’t displaying any posts entered after 3:00 PM? Or is just me? (I cleared my cache hoping that would solve the problem. It didn’t.)

By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I

February 7, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

Greetings imbecilic rednekkk Georgia trash, from The Pope, now residing in the Green Mountain State.

We return to the Woo-ten KKKlan blog to check on the inbred KKKlan trash that frequent this blog, and We are not surprised that the same vile assortment of cowards and chickenhawks still post their jingoistic drivel here.

Lord, in Your Son’s Name We, Pope rednekkks Amerikkka’s Al Qaeda I beseech You to stop the blight and contagion of the American redneck that the Devil has set loose upon Your creation. Teach them that incest is not social climbing, it is a serious mental disease and against Your law and the laws of nature, abort their fetuses in their wombs to save us still another generation of imbecility and dullardness, turn their whiskies into water, their methamphetamine into Sweet-tarts, their crack into candy to save us, your decent people, from their depravity and violent stupid evil natures. Amen.

By AstroPain

February 7, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

You all blog like you have intel or data about the reality in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, as diverse as they are. You all have nothing but blog-fog.

The blogging nonsense on this blog is a symptom of the heavy metal that leeches into drinking water and interrupts the electrical network in the brains of feti. And I am so sick of it, that I’ve already donned diapers, got my rubber tubing in the car, and loaded up on pepper spray. I’m driving the 900 miles tonite, so dont think any of you trogs can get away.

Troll + Blog = Trog

By RE

February 7, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Sir Winston Churchill

By shawn hanley

February 11, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

Give the Plan a Chance

After spending nearly a year in Iraq with the International Republican Institute in 2005 and 2006, I can attest that the press still does not have their story right. Somehow, the press believes that most of the Iraqi people would rather have Saddam Hussein in power than be in the middle of this war. I spent time in Erbil with the Kurds and in Basra with the Shia, and you will not find anyone in those regions who would rather still be facing Hussein’s terror. 70 % of Iraq is Shia and Kurdish. The Iraqi people are frustrated but we need to stay in Iraq to help them, now is no time to abandon them

Most of my time in Iraq was spent in Baghdad’s Red-Zone. There, I conducted classes on Democracy 101: party development, grassroots campaigning, and getting out the vote. In response, I heard the Iraqi’s hopes, dreams, fears, and concerns first hand from those wishing most for a new way of life… dozens every day from more than 100 political parties. They know best what is at stake, as do the millions of Iraqi’s who risked their lives to vote, and they want us there and appreciate the opportunity the United States has created for them. It is a very different story compared to what you read and see in our media.

Yes, Iraq is a very dangerous place, but the press has decided that one fifteen-year-old boy from Sadr City, who has been promised virgins and a meeting with Mohammed when he dies, now dictates American foreign policy when he enters a market with a bomb strapped to his chest. I’m sure Hillary and John Kerry, who voted for the war, didn’t believe this war would be the first ever with no casualties. We lost over 2000 Marines at Iwo Jima in World War 2 and 4000 men in 48 hours on D-Day. America needs to have some perspective, our media some truthful reporting and Democrats…..just a little integrity when they vote.

Why is the press giving these terrorists all their TV time and not properly investigating the bombings? Is it not obvious that by misrepresenting every terrorist act in Iraq the mass media has only made the terrorists bolder? At least the media should report the acts truthfully. Truly, the story is about a poor boy whom does not even know who Mohammed is, a boy taken advantage of by terrorists watching from a safe distance. What is sectarian about that?

The roots of sectarian conflict began with the press misreporting the bombing of the Samara mosque. The mastermind of that bombing was a Tunisian Al-Qaeda member, it was not an act of sectarian violence as the press still reports. Again, the media eats right out of the hand of Osama Bin Laden.

There is a chance at redemption, though: give the President’s new plan a chance and start supporting our Commander in Chief. Granted, this President has made mistakes, but at least he is willing to change his tactics, and is not swayed by polls that offer him an easy way out.

One of the best lines I heard in Iraq was from an Australian soldier in Baghdad. He said…“Thank God for you Yanks, because if you didn’t step up to the world’s problems, who would?” We have a president who governs accordingly, not based on polls. As a former marine, I am proud he is our unwavering Commander in Chief. Our troops are serving us proudly, and with some national resolve, this is a war we can win.