Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2007, 06:34 AM   #1 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
A reasonable solution to the Iraq funding statement....or not?

The Dems are looking for a reasonable way to proceed on the Iraq funding issue. The question is whether Bush really is as well or whether he will continue to insist that a funding bill have "no strings" attached (ie a blank check) despite no public support (a new low of 28% job approval in the latest Newsweek poll) and dwindling Republican support (at least privately).

Are the Repubs in Congress willig to compromise or would they rather continue with their bombastic rhetoric about Dem "surrender" plans.

Congreeman Obey, the Chair of the House Approrpriations Committee ,has reportedly come up with a compromise (still in the planning stage) that would provide funding through July, then require Iraq to meet hard benchmarks on politcal and security goals in order for Congress to approve addtional funding beyond that. There would be no speficic timeline on US troop withdrawal.

The bill would also remove all the domestic spending in the bill (some of which is reasonable to consider in an "emergency bill and some just plain ole pork) and vote on those in a separate emergency funding bill.

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/b...ing_up_to_bush

There is not much more detail yet, but it sounds reasonable to me.

Your thoughts or other options on the best way forward?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 07:42 AM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
It seems "reasonable"....after a four year occupation, removing the timetable for withdrawal, because our CIC, with his 28 percent approval rating, demands it?

With 133 Iraqi lawmakers are calling for US troops to leave, and the rest are planning a two month vacation...
Quote:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Iraqi lawmakers' vacation plans draw fire - Politics - MSNBC.com
Lawmakers divided over whether to keep US troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18466362/ - 54k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Iraqi Lawmakers Take Heat For Summer Plans, U.S. Legislators Unite ...
While Congress continues to wrangle over the future of US troops in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats alike are furious that the Iraqi parliament might take a ...
wwwimage.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/03/iraq/main2756743.shtml - 104k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Iraqi lawmakers consider summer session - Yahoo! News
Iraqi lawmakers said Thursday they might consider shortening — or even canceling — their planned two-month summer break to continue working.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_summer_break - 34k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Iraqi lawmakers' plans anger Congress (2 month vacation for ...
Iraqi lawmakers' plans anger Congress By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer ... WASHINGTON - Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=102x2832573 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
United Press International - International Intelligence - Briefing
Some 133 Iraqi lawmakers from different political blocs, calling themselves the "free deputies," signed a document demanding a scheduled withdrawal of the ...
http://www.upi.com/International_Int...us_withdrawal/ - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
3363 US troops dead, and 11 more killed just yesterday....over a 100 killed in April...
Quote:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...l/17188499.htm
Posted on Sun, May. 06, 2007

IRAQ
U.S. casualties will rise in next 90 days, commander says
By Leila Fadel
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military announced the deaths of 11 U.S. soldiers killed in combat along with an embedded journalist Sunday, and Iraqi officials said 163 civilians were killed or injured across the country.

But still more carnage is likely over the next three months as additional U.S. forces arrive in Baghdad under President Bush's troop "surge" because "we're taking the fight to the enemy," a top U.S. military commander warned.....
Between us, my wife and I have three sons, and the oldest is back from Afghanistan, just 5 weeks, now. He'll be ordered to go back there, probably in October.

Maybe we have a different perspective, because this experience is in our family. Iraq occupation is not worth one more US casualty. It is not a time for anyone in the house or the senate, who voted for the bill that Bush vetoed, to vote for anything less, as far as a timetable for withdrawal.

I favor small supplemental appropriations....force Bush to budget for the sixth year of this occupation, and seventh full year of war in Afghanistan. The emergency here is 16 month deployments for already over extended troops.

The politics are that it is Bush who is destroying his party's chances for gains in the 2008 elections, not the democrats....and there is no public "sign" that his faithful, "get it", yet:

This, to me is sobering....lemmings in lockstep with their failed president:
http://www.wewintheylose.com/bloggers.php
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 08:17 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
What is the Democratic Party's case for continued funding of the war, even to July? I don't get the distinction between thinking the war was a mistake, poorly managed, lost - and, the desire to put more money into what they and many others think is a hopeless cause.

My thought is that you don't compromise on this issue. I think you have to support the Bush plan or fight it with 100% effort. Compromise leaves you with something half-assed, either way.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 08:21 AM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
The withdrawal timetable must remain in any new bill drafted that includes the entire supplemental appropriation. Legislators must protect us, and our troops from the decisions of the American and Iraqi administrations:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Maliki's Office Is Seen Behind Purge in Forces
Some Commanders Had Pursued Militias

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, April 30, 2007; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Since March 1, at least 16 army and national police commanders have been fired, detained or pressured to resign; at least nine of them are Sunnis, according to U.S. military documents shown to The Washington Post.

Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals.

"Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful" against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. "I'm tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they're trying to do the right thing."....
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...raq-Sunnis.php
Iraq's senior Sunni Arab politician blasts al-Maliki's government, security plan
The Associated Press
Published: May 6, 2007

BAGHDAD: The leader of parliament's largest Sunni Arab bloc complained Sunday that Sunni members of the Shiite-led government were marginalized and given no real authority, charging that an 11-week-old U.S.-backed security push in Baghdad was victimizing the city's Sunni residents.

A visibly angry Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, said he had nothing to fear from calls by Shiite lawmakers for lifting his parliamentary immunity to face questioning on alleged involvement in sectarian cleansing in Baghdad and inciting sectarian strife.

"I fear nothing and I will confront those who made these false charges," he told a news conference.

Al-Dulaimi, who is thought to be nearly 80, is one of the most outspoken critics of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government. He recently has returned from neighboring Jordan where he underwent surgery for an unspecified ailment, according to his ally and fellow Sunni lawmaker Salim Abdullah.

"Our participation in this so-called national unity government is weak and marginalized and our ministers have no authority to serve Iraq or its people," he said.

He also complained that Shiite militias and death squads, both blamed for targeting Sunni Arabs in kidnappings and execution-style killings, have resumed their activity after staying out of sight in the initial stages of the joint U.S.-Iraqi security plan.

The number of bodies thought to belong to victims of sectarian killings has dramatically gone down in the early stages of the security push, which began Feb. 14. The numbers began rising again after hitting a low of seven, although they remain below the average of 50 per day being reported before the plan.

U.S. military officials have warned that a series of bombings that have killed hundreds of Shiites in recent weeks were an attempt by al-Qaida-linked Sunni insurgents to provoke renewed violence by the militias thus igniting a full-scale civil war.

Al-Dulaimi, whose bloc has 44 of parliament's 275 seats, identified two areas of western Baghdad — the Sunni dominated Amil and the mixed Baiyaa, which was hit by a suicide bombing that killed at least 30 on Sunday — to be witnessing a resumption of sectarian cleansing by Shiite militiamen.

Ali al-Dabbagh, al-Maliki's chief spokesman, said the government was aware of the allegations of sectarian cleansing in Baiyaa, blaming it on what he called criminal gangs that want to create the impression of a city torn by religious strife.

"These are among the challenges the Iraqi government faces," al-Dabbagh told reporters on Sunday.

Al-Dulaimi's charges are likely to add to the pressure already put to bear by the United States and its Western and Arab allies on al-Maliki to take concrete steps toward national reconciliation and to disband Shiite militias.....
Quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/wiraq202.xml

Anger in Baghdad as Americans finish wall

Last Updated: 2:04am BST 03/05/2007

American forces have completed construction of a concrete wall around the Baghdad district of Adhamiya despite protests from the Iraqi prime minister and local residents who claim that they are now at the mercy of militants.

The wall was intended to help control the activities of militants in the predominantly Sunni Muslim district. But it remains a bastion of extremist al-Qa'eda linked groups. Parts of the district are so thick with armed militants that they are no-go zones to coalition forces.

Capt Mohammad Jasim, an Iraqi soldier manning a checkpoint on the Adhamiya bridge, said: "The Americans did not listen to us. We think this wall has made the area inside the wall more dangerous for people.

Um Doraid, a middle-aged housewife, said: "We here inside the wall are still as vulnerable as ever."
Quote:
http://theiraqilord.blogspot.com/200...ght-every.html
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

I’ll See You in the Morning Light

Every single time I think to myself that they can’t do more damage, they can’t come up with more stupid ideas, but every single time they prove mo wrong.
America doesn't read history well. You see… America already tried the wall idea in Vietnam, they called it strategic hamlets. They forced the peasants to leave their original villages, confine them all in these strategic hamlets, which is protected by barb weirs, mine fields, bamboo fields, watchtowers, and walls. They wouldn't let the people out except during the day to work in the rice fields, thoroughly frisking them on entering and exiting the area in which they are confined, with 24 hours surveillance, even using helicopters to watch them while they work. They shot every person who tried to cross the barb weir fence. They rationed food and supplies to prevent the people from storing any; they gave everybody a name tag with his or her print on it. This started in July 1962, and phase 2 started in the beginning of 1963. the plan was to build more than 16 thousands hamlets, first in the quite zones, then further in the conflict zones, and last in the freed zones.
This plan backfired, because these peasants became more sympathetic with the Vietcong, because they felt no threat from them.
The pretence for building this wall around Adhmiyah, is to protect the Sunni inhabitants from the continuous attacks from neighboring Shiite neighborhoods, and to prevent retaliations from the Sunnis against these attacks.
Guerrilla warfare revolves around a basic idea that a guerrilla fighter is like a fish in the water, meaning that he swims in his community like a fish does in the water. The counter idea is to drain the water from the fish tank, i.e. to isolate the fighter from his community and surroundings buy using multiple combinations of the stick and carrot strategy, starting with trying to appeal to the locals and ends with mass punishment, mass arrests and mass executions.
This was in Vietnam, and the Americans tried it all in Iraq, but nothing worked. And now they are trying the last option which is to physically separate the fighters from the population by means on concrete walls.
The Americans tried this method in Flluga and Tal A’afar, with no successes also. There was no media focus on these previous attempts, but because Adhmiyah is the in the center of Baghdad as well as media focus, a great attention was to this plan.
This is nonsense; they reached a new record of stupidity. Nobody can be that stupid, nobody. Even George bush is not that stupid. I’m beginning to think that they want it that way, that they want civil war and turmoil in Iraq, that they never want to see Iraq stable. Because… come on, who the hell came up with that plan?
Algeria, Belfast, Vietnam, the west bank, and finally Adhmiyah, they haven’t learned anything from history. They haven’t learned that these walls don’t just separate people, they separate hearts, anger, grudges, suffering will grow behind these walls no matter how noble the purpose was, if noble at all.
And hey… while we are on this subject, our so called “elected prime minister” said that he didn't approve on the plane, but they went ahead with it anyway. It’s either that he has no say in these matters (which is, let’s face it, true) or he is lying (which is nothing new).
Either reason is…. Well… how can I put this? Either reason makes him look like a monkey. I’m thinking of sending him some peanuts.
They say they are going to build walls around other districts in Baghdad. I wonder when what they would look like when they finish them. I wonder how Baghdad is going to look like when they finish them. And I wonder how the walls within our hearts would look like when they finish them....
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 08:45 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Ok..so thats two votes (ace, host) for both sides digging in their respective heals, spewing bullshit at each other, until one is left standing.

Is that how you guys characterize strong "leadership"?

Rather than trying to reach a pragmatic, acceptable (to some degree by both sides) solution that has a greater likelihood of success and support across the country than either extreme?

Oh well, I hope wiser heads prevail on both ends of Pennsylania Ave.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 08:58 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I asked what is the Democratic Party case for continued funding? Given what they have said, I don't get it.

How do you compromise being at war? You are either at war or you are not. I understand compromising to achieve peace, but that is not what is on the table, the issue is do we stop spending money on a lost war and bring our troops home or do we continue to fight in Iraq.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:04 AM   #7 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Ace...I dont believe it is that black and white, but we obviously differ on the war/peace and the qualities of leadership to resolve it.

IMO....what is on the table is how best to transition from a US led occupation (war) to an Iraqi led peace as quickly as possible, with a minimal loss of addtional lives.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:04 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
the proposal is a bit....um...vague, isnt it?
any idea what these "benchmarks" will be?
and what would the implications be of a string of vetos?

if i restrict the frame of reference to the world of horsetrading and even that at the level of what might sound ok (without knowing any of the details that is), i would favor the simultaneous floating of the de-authorization proposal or an equivalent and this short-term funding thing. the only reason for this is that it would effectively set up a more far-reaching confrontation if the short-term thing were to be vetoed (but again, the devil is in the details and there aren't any yet)....

aside:why is there no public pressure being brought to bear on this issue?

moving outside the frame that would take such horsetrading as the extent of the political again, what i would really favor is a long hot summer for the bush people, even if the effect of that long hot summer is an acceleration of a slide toward a serious political crisis...so far as i am concerned, the states is already in one, but in slow-motion. the remarkable feature of this crisis is that everyone seems committed to pretending it isnt there.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:35 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
roach.... I assume the proposal is an intentionally vague trial balloon.

I think, at the very least, the benchmarks would include those that Bush/Rice suggested last year, but have never been firmly applied to the Iraqi govt:

* reversal of the de-Baathification laws that are widely blamed for alienating Sunnis by driving them out of jobs in government ministries;

* final approval of an oil law regulating distribution of oil revenues and foreign investment in the oil industry;

* the holding of local elections and reform of Iraq’s Constitution

* measurable progress on training and capacity of Iraq security forces

The LA Times has an interesting article: Secy of Defense Gates may not be following Bush's Playbook:
Quote:
President Bush has mobilized his administration, including his top general in Iraq, in a major push to win more time and money for his war strategy. But one crucial voice has been missing from the chorus: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates'.

In fact, Gates' recent comments seem to run counter to the message from the White House. During a recent trip to the Middle East, Gates told the Iraqi government that time was running out and praised Democratic efforts in the U.S. Congress to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying it would help prod the Iraqis. He reiterated that point during a meeting with reporters last week.
...
"I believe Gates is on a completely different page than President Bush and Gen. Petraeus," said a former senior Defense official who has supported the buildup. "He wants to see some results by summer, and if he doesn't see those results, he seems willing to throw the towel in."

full article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
Few beyond the Bush inner circle believe the surge will succeed in slowing down the sectarian violence. Few believe we should begin a phased withdrawl all US troops immediately.

And the debate rages on with no end in sight. What does that accomplish?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:42 AM   #10 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Benchmarks are better than timetables for all concerned, save the President.

Whether we leave this week or next year, the Iraqis would benefit from us achieving at least a couple of tangible goals.

Congress gets to look like they care about the issue rather than humiliating the president.

Most of all, benchmarks would mean that for continued funding, President Bush would have to make a case for progress going down a bulleted list. If there's progress, so much the better for the Iraqis, the troops, and for us. If there isn't, the media glare will be far uglier for Bush than anything a forced withdrawal would have accomplished.

Ace, the case I would make for continued funding with strings is the old standby:
"you break it, you buy it". To me, the idea of doing the damage we've done without setting viable structures in place is pretty repugnant. In that vein, I'm not all that interested in President Bush's proposal of more of the same, without strings, benchmarks, or expiration. There's a reason the corporate world doesn't function that way.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Last edited by ubertuber; 05-07-2007 at 09:56 AM..
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:51 AM   #11 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Uber...you stated the case for a pragmatic and principled political solution that, would potentially be bi-partisan and veto-proof, better than I.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 09:57 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Benchmarks are better than timetables for all concerned, save the President.

Whether we leave this week or next year, the Iraqis would benefit from us achieving at least a couple of tangible goals.

Congress gets to look like they care about the issue rather than humiliating the president.

Most of all, benchmarks would mean that for continued funding, President Bush would have to make a case for progress going down a bulleted list. If there's progress, so much the better for the Iraqis, the troops, and for us. If there isn't the media glare will be far uglier for Bush than anything a forced withdrawal would have accomplished.
Show me any recent news reports that support the idea of any Iraqi in or appointed by the Iraqi government supporting a pluralistic Iraq within it's present borders, (i.e. a Shi'a government official....) and who is describing goals/methods to achieve that.

The only "benchmark" I see the leaders of the Iraqi government supporting are Shi'a political dominance and a summer vacation.

IMO, it is long past the point of benchmarks...they are indistinguishable from four years of "they'll stand up, so we can stand down", rhetoric. The people in the Iraqi government are in it for the power and the money, and the Baker ISG report plainly told us that most Iraqi troops refuse to serve away from their home districts, and take a week off per month to bring their pay home to their families.....bullshit, considering that they refused to serve very far from home, in the first place. Further, the ISG found that being AWOL is common and does not result in consequences to the absent Iraqi soldier.
Quote:
http://bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/iraqs...p_findings.pdf
Page 12:

.....Significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi
units—specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a
sectarian agenda. Of Iraq’s 10 planned divisions, those that are even-numbered are made up of
Iraqis who signed up to serve in a specific area, and they have been reluctant to redeploy to other
areas of the country. As a result, elements of the Army have refused to carry out missions......

Page 13

......Units lack personnel. Soldiers are on leave one week a month so that they can visit their
families and take them their pay. Soldiers are paid in cash because there is no banking
system. Soldiers are given leave liberally and face no penalties for absence without leave. Unit
readiness rates are low, often at 50 percent or less........

.....Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence,
including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians. The
police are organized under the Ministry of the Interior, which is confronted by corruption and
militia infiltration and lacks control over police in the provinces.
The United States and the Iraqi government recognize the importance of reform. The
current Minister of the Interior has called for purging militia members and criminals from the
police. But he has little police experience or base of support. There is no clear Iraqi or U.S.
agreement on the character and mission of the police. U.S. authorities do not know with
precision the composition and membership of the various police forces, nor the disposition of
their funds and equipment. There are ample reports of Iraqi police officers participating in
training in order to obtain a weapon, uniform, and ammunition for use in sectarian violence.
Some are on the payroll but don’t show up for work. In the words of a senior American general,
“2006 was supposed to be ‘the year of the police’ but it hasn’t materialized that way......
There is no justification for "benchmarks", because there is no commitment evident, from Iraqis themselves, to preserve the existing government, borders, or ehtnic diversity in it's current distribution in a united Iraq.

There is no "there", "there"....nothing that Iraqis are willing to fight and die for....so why should Americans be making a coninued, open ended, life and death sacrifice, to give "benchmarks more time".....more time for more Americans to be killed, with no evidence of increased Iraqi commitment to preserve and advance what Americans are ordered to fight and die to maintain, until "they stand up"!

C'mon, uber....."supporting the troops" should not mean leaving them in a place, with no timetable for withdrawal, after the president's hand picked Iraq assessment committee, led by one of his family's closest and most supportive friend and "fixer", described the local military and the police, after a 42 month effort, (as of last fall) to "stand them up", to provide security for the sustainability of their own country in it's present politcal form....

Waiting for "benchmarks" to "take hold", and nothing more.....is not to be taken seriously, IMO...in view of the amount of American time, money, and lives to achieve an Iraqi "stand up"....with so little commitment indicated coming from Iraqis.....in the course of such a long period of time, US encouragement, and the incentive of a peaceful, "dictator free" environment to live and build a future in.

This is over....the Baker ISG report says so.....and 5 months later, nothing has happened to contradict it's findings....

Last edited by host; 05-07-2007 at 10:15 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:09 AM   #13 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Benchmarks could come in many different forms. They could be set by increased support for international peace-keeping forces from the UN. They could be set around increased infrastructure improvements, around placing economic structures that reinforce stability. You're only considering the types of benchmarks that would reinforce the current situation.

If it is your belief that there is no internal support for a unified Iraq and that the tensions within that country are so high that there is no chance for peaceful, pluralistic resolution, then your desire for complete withdrawal implies that you wish to see a "lord of the flies" style pogrom as the region degenerates into warlords and factions fighting over the tempting natural resources. I do not share this desire. Before abandoning innocent people to that fate, I'd rather see more creativity applied to the idea of stabilizing the region. In the end, that may mean revisiting the political structures we've already created.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:29 AM   #14 (permalink)
Banned
 
I'd rather see a rapid elimination to the "hell" that so many American families go through....now in 16 months doses.....wondering whether they'll get the knock on the door, from two crisply uniformed representatives of the Secretary of Defense who "regret to inform them".....

....have you ever, uber.....have you ever rehearsed how you would react to such a knock on your door.....I have....starting for the first time, last October. We'll be doing it again...starting this fall. This is not worth the sacrifice demanded of our troops, or of their families. Iraqis have had their opportunity. They have chosen to fight each other, or the American occupier.....
Quote:
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/morgan_parde..._we_wait_again
So, Now We Wait. Again.

Six members of my son's company died yesterday in Diyala Province, Iraq, killed in a massive explosion that entirely destroyed a Stryker vehicle. Only one person survived. My daughter-in-law spent the whole day with her best friend and was with her when she received word that her fiancé had been killed......

.......Mothers Day is a very sad day for many, many military families, and six more mothers will be grieving this Sunday.

My daughter-in-law and her friend were shopping at the mall when the call came in. She collapsed on the floor, and it took 15 minutes to "peel her off the floor," I learned later.

The mothers, wives and girl friends of the soldiers in my son's company are shocked and horrified. They've been coping by going along in a state of denial, avoiding the news and finding ways to deal with their loved ones being "away." They're no stranger to news of casualties, but this time it's too close. We're all feeling each others grief. .......

......As I hung up, I felt like someone had hit me in the gut and I couldn't catch my breath. I stood there on the side of the bike lane, looking down at the cell phone in my hand, letting her words sink in, thoughts of my son swirling inside my head.

This is real. This is war. And all the killing and dying is real. It isn't just happening to someone else. It's happening to us. It's happening to young people we know, people who are just starting out in life. Young men and women planning weddings, having babies, thinking about their lives "after the Army." This particular young man was only 23 years old.......

.......How do you explain to a total stranger that someone's child, perhaps my child, could be dead because of one stupid man's callous indifference to human suffering?

I couldn't look in their faces ... I didn't even think to ask their names. I didn't want to see their pity. I was afraid my rage would spill over with my tears. They were trying to be kind. I just wanted to go home...........

..........I threw my bike in the back, jumped behind the steering wheel, pulled out my cell phone and called the company commander's wife, I asked, "How many?"

"Six." I nearly dropped the phone. In one horrific moment many lives had changed. Forever.

Later that evening, my daughter-in-law cried in my arms, "I can't do this anymore." But we must do this, because this president says we must.

This war has ended tragically for six more of our troops, bringing the total number of dead to 3,373 ... and counting. And we're being told there will be many more, because "we're taking the fight to the enemy."

My son's unit was supposed to return home in three weeks from a year-long deployment, but because of this president's stubborn refusal to see an end to this war, they will not be home until October.

So, now we wait. Again. Wait for our loved ones to call, pray they will call.

Yet, beneath all my sorrow, I guiltily have a small feeling of relief inside, because it wasn't MY son who died.

This time.
You can come out for "giving it more time for benchmarks to be achieved". You can ignore the passage of a bill with a withdrawal timetable by majorities iof both houses, simply because it was negated by "the decider" who had been correct about nothing, and reliable and honest....what percent of the time?

I'm not willing to.....and I've only lived a small "taste" of what it must be like to actually answer the door at the knock of two crisply uniformed....on behalf of the secretary....we regret to inform you that......
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:31 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace, the case I would make for continued funding with strings is the old standby:
"you break it, you buy it". To me, the idea of doing the damage we've done without setting viable structures in place is pretty repugnant. In that vein, I'm not all that interested in President Bush's proposal of more of the same, without strings, benchmarks, or expiration. There's a reason the corporate world doesn't function that way.
In that case the Democratic Party should offer an alternative plan, not benchmarks. Why not the Biden plan?

If the Democrats and the majority of US voters want a new direction, the Democrats need to force the issue.

I don't want to discuss it any further, but this is why I had a problem with the confirmation of General Patraus. The Democrats should have forced the adoption of a new plan at that moment in time, now we have wasted more lives, time and resources.

When will the Democrats take a stand, if they won't do it now with Bush's popularity below 30%, and when most people in Iraq want us out, when will they ever do it? Bush will push his Iraq agenda until the day he leaves office, we all know that. And, Bush is almost certain not to compromise anything material unless forced, we all know that too. So we sit, wait while they play games in Washington.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:34 AM   #16 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Yes. I was a military brat and spent many years living on bases.

You don't have a monopoly on this.

These memories don't change my opinion of the disaster that would ensue if your view were the adopted by our leadership.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:44 AM   #17 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In that case the Democratic Party should offer an alternative plan, not benchmarks. Why not the Biden plan?

The compromise was Vetoed by Bush...in case you hadn't heard.

If the Democrats and the majority of US voters want a new direction, the Democrats need to force the issue.

They just tried, and failed because of a lack of votes to override a veto.


I don't want to discuss it any further, but this is why I had a problem with the confirmation of General Patraus. The Democrats should have forced the adoption of a new plan at that moment in time, now we have wasted more lives, time and resources.

We?.....you mean the collective American WE?
Or the republican power structure responsible for the War?


When will the Democrats take a stand, if they won't do it now with Bush's popularity below 30%, and when most people in Iraq want us out, when will they ever do it? Bush will push his Iraq agenda until the day he leaves office, we all know that. And, Bush is almost certain not to compromise anything material unless forced, we all know that too. So we sit, wait while they play games in Washington.
Unfortunately....you are correct, but until more republicans defect from the coattails....these "Games" will continue.
tecoyah is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:48 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Yes. I was a military brat and spent many years living on bases.

You don't have a monopoly on this.

These memories don't change my opinion of the disaster that would ensue if your view were the adopted by our leadership.
Fourth most circulated newspaper in US, editorializes for withdrawal.....
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ent-editorials

EDITORIAL
Bring them home
Iraqis need political reconciliation, not occupation; and U.S. troops shouldn't referee a civil war.
May 6, 2007

WHATEVER THE future holds, the United States has not "lost" and cannot "lose" Iraq. It was never ours in the first place. And however history will judge the war, some key U.S. goals have been accomplished: Saddam Hussein has been ousted, tried and executed; Iraqis have held three elections, adopted a constitution and established a rudimentary democracy.

But what now? After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened.

The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic U.S. politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout.

With four out of five additional battalions now in place, there is no reason to believe that the surge will help bring about an end to what is, in fact, a multifaceted civil war. The only bright spot is in Al Anbar province, where Sunni tribal leaders have joined U.S. forces in the fight against foreign Al Qaeda fighters. They deserve our continuing support. But as long as civil war rages in Iraq, even the post-surge force of 160,000 troops cannot achieve more than marginal progress.

As Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. war commander, has acknowledged, the solution to Iraq's problems cannot be military. Yet political progress has been backsliding. It was only frantic White House intervention last week that prevented the resignation of the last Sunni leaders in the Shiite-dominated Cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. The Sunnis say the Maliki government is sectarian, corrupt and incompetent; and they're right. The Bush administration should convene national peace and reconciliation talks as early as possible — say June 1. All of Iraq's parties, tribes, ethnic and sectarian factions, except for Al Qaeda, should be invited to the table.

But an important element needs to be taken off the table: American blood. The U.S. should immediately declare its intention to begin a gradual troop drawdown, starting no later than the fall. The pace of the withdrawal must be flexible, to reflect progress or requests by the Iraqis and the military's commanders. The precise date for completing the withdrawal need not be announced, but the assumption should be that combat troops would depart by the end of 2009. Iraqi political compromise is more likely to come when Washington is no longer backing the stronger (Shiite) party. U.S. troops could then be repositioned to better wage the long-term struggle against Islamic extremism.

We are not naive. U.S. withdrawal, whether concluded next year or five years from now, entails grave risks. But so does U.S. occupation. The question is how best to manage the risks.

First, there is the grim prospect of a bloodbath in Iraq. But the best way to forestall slaughter is political reconciliation, not military occupation. Second is the worry that Al Qaeda will establish a beachhead in Al Anbar. Yet Iraqis have already turned against the foreign fighters. Third, the neighbors may meddle. Alarmists fear an Iranian proxy state in Baghdad; southern Iraq is already allied with Tehran. But Iraq's neighbors are more likely to be helpful once withdrawal is assured, and instability is not in their interests, especially without a U.S. occupier to bleed.

Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. <b>But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.</b>
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:52 AM   #19 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In that case the Democratic Party should offer an alternative plan, not benchmarks. Why not the Biden plan?

If the Democrats and the majority of US voters want a new direction, the Democrats need to force the issue.

I don't want to discuss it any further, but this is why I had a problem with the confirmation of General Patraus. The Democrats should have forced the adoption of a new plan at that moment in time, now we have wasted more lives, time and resources.

When will the Democrats take a stand, if they won't do it now with Bush's popularity below 30%, and when most people in Iraq want us out, when will they ever do it? Bush will push his Iraq agenda until the day he leaves office, we all know that. And, Bush is almost certain not to compromise anything material unless forced, we all know that too. So we sit, wait while they play games in Washington.
The way I see it (which is not necessarily the way the world is working at the moment), our government isn't supposed to be run by the Democratic and Republican parties. It's supposed to be run by the Legislative and Executive branches, with occasional mediation by the Judiciary. It would be entirely appropriate for Congress, when giving money, to indicate what the money should be buying. Further, it would be appropriate for the Executive to figure out how to do those things with the money. I suppose that is the basis for the unfortunately inarticulate "commander guy" comment.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:52 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Unfortunately....you are correct, but until more republicans defect from the coattails....these "Games" will continue.
I think there are Republicans waiting for leadership from the Democratic Party before they "jump" from the Bush camp. They are not going to take that "jump" until Democrats demostrate that they are a party of convictions rather than a party simply taking politically motivated shots at Bush. If the Democrats comit to a viable plan, I bet they would easily get the votes they need to over-ride any veto attempts by Bush.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:55 AM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What is the Democratic Party's case for continued funding of the war, even to July? I don't get the distinction between thinking the war was a mistake, poorly managed, lost - and, the desire to put more money into what they and many others think is a hopeless cause.
As a liberal with friends in Iraq, I don't want them to be underfunded while they're at war. The idea is to cut funding to get them home, but what if the bluff is called? What if they insist on keeping them in Iraq despite a cut in funding? That's a massive risk with our troops safety. That is where the divide in the liberal strategy lies. We want to end the war, but we also recognize the amazing sacrifice of our troops and we want them to be safe.

The best way to end the war is to push decent legislation about ending the war through the Senate and to get BIG support. The idea is to bypass the veto-machine in the oval office.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 10:57 AM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
The way I see it (which is not necessarily the way the world is working at the moment), our government isn't supposed to be run by the Democratic and Republican parties. It's supposed to be run by the Legislative and Executive branches, with occasional mediation by the Judiciary. It would be entirely appropriate for Congress, when giving money, to indicate what the money should be buying. Further, it would be appropriate for the Executive to figure out how to do those things with the money. I suppose that is the basis for the unfortunately inarticulate "commander guy" comment.
In theory you are correct. However, there are certain moments when people have to step outside of the comforts of the way thing are supposed to work, what they are supposed to do and do what needs to be done. Bush believes that he is 100% correct, he is a man of conviction, he is a guy surrounded by men who are willing to do what needs to be done. do you think Democrats have under-estimated Bush and his team?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 11:04 AM   #23 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
In theory you are correct. However, there are certain moments when people have to step outside of the comforts of the way thing are supposed to work, what they are supposed to do and do what needs to be done. Bush believes that he is 100% correct, he is a man of conviction, he is a guy surrounded by men who are willing to do what needs to be done. do you think Democrats have under-estimated Bush and his team?
Sorry Ace, I'm not sure how you got from the first two sentences to the rest. Could you clarify or say it a different way?
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 11:04 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
As a liberal with friends in Iraq, I don't want them to be underfunded while they're at war. The idea is to cut funding to get them home, but what if the bluff is called? What if they insist on keeping them in Iraq despite a cut in funding? That's a massive risk with our troops safety. That is where the divide in the liberal strategy lies. We want to end the war, but we also recognize the amazing sacrifice of our troops and we want them to be safe.

The best way to end the war is to push decent legislation about ending the war through the Senate and to get BIG support. The idea is to bypass the veto-machine in the oval office.
Clinton suggested a vote for re-authorization of the war. Perhaps something can be put on the table to fund the troops fully until they are removed from Iraq based on funding and a vote to change the mission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Sorry Ace, I'm not sure how you got from the first two sentences to the rest. Could you clarify or say it a different way?
O.k.

Quote:
The way I see it (which is not necessarily the way the world is working at the moment), our government isn't supposed to be run by the Democratic and Republican parties. It's supposed to be run by the Legislative and Executive branches, with occasional mediation by the Judiciary.
In theory this assumes that the Legislative branch works cooperatively. However, they do not. The Executive branch currently controls the Republicans in the Legislature. Holding party lines is too easy. We need people to vote convictions and not party loyalty.

Quote:
It would be entirely appropriate for Congress, when giving money, to indicate what the money should be buying. Further, it would be appropriate for the Executive to figure out how to do those things with the money.
Again, in theory this seems correct. However, if the nation has lost confidence in its Executive Branch, then the Legislative Branch has to assume (or take) greater responsibility. I see no real alternative to supporting Bush's plan or supporting another plan. I don't understand how compromise works, and if there is no compromise, what is the Legislative Branch willing to do?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 05-07-2007 at 11:16 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 11:32 AM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
......Again, in theory this seems correct. However, if the nation has lost confidence in its Executive Branch, then the Legislative Branch has to assume (or take) greater responsibility. I see no real alternative to supporting Bush's plan or supporting another plan. I don't understand how compromise works, and if there is no compromise, what is the Legislative Branch willing to do?
Tick...tick....tick.... June, july, august, september....december....2008 !! A presidential election year.....
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ush-poll_N.htm

.....His lowest ratings — 30% approval, 67% disapproval — were for his handling of the situation in Iraq.

The telephone survey of 1,010 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, shows Bush's overall standing continuing in the doldrums, at 34% approval, 63% disapproval. The poll's margin of error is +/—3 percentage points.

However, Bush hasn't dropped to his lowest ratings ever, as he did in a Newsweek Poll released over the weekend. That survey, taken Wednesday and Thursday, put his approval rating at 28%.......
.....polling of even the most favorably received in the primaries of the front running republican presidential candidates, will be marked with Bush's stench....the party and the leading candidates will put Bush and his policies more "in synch" with the reality of the situation on the ground, and hence....with the sentiment of the congress, as demonstrated, this past week. This will be a waiting game, if democrats simply follow the will of the majority of the electorate.....hold fast....no compromise is possible with a man who is almost always wrong, seldom honest, and who calls himself, "the decider" !
host is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 01:31 PM   #26 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Clinton suggested a vote for re-authorization of the war. Perhaps something can be put on the table to fund the troops fully until they are removed from Iraq based on funding and a vote to change the mission.

Thats precisely what was just placed on the table....the funding was there, and the mission was intact. The stipulation was a measuring stick put into the mix for success, rather than simply taking the executive/pentagon word that all is going as planned. To be honest I didn't even see an actual timetable or requirement for withdrawal anywhere in the documents (granted I just browsed it mostly)


In theory this assumes that the Legislative branch works cooperatively. However, they do not. The Executive branch currently controls the Republicans in the Legislature. Holding party lines is too easy. We need people to vote convictions and not party loyalty.

Yes....we do.

Again, in theory this seems correct. However, if the nation has lost confidence in its Executive Branch, then the Legislative Branch has to assume (or take) greater responsibility. I see no real alternative to supporting Bush's plan or supporting another plan. I don't understand how compromise works, and if there is no compromise, what is the Legislative Branch willing to do?
They placed a way to measure progress before the President, which in truth he should have jumped at if he was confident of the existing plan. In no real way did the spending bill attempt to compromise the command, or implimentation of the war.....it simply asked for accountability that has been sorely lacking for years. This is the second Veto from the President ( the first was on stem cells)
and was ill directed in my opinion, as it was the compromise he asked for in the first place.
tecoyah is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 02:15 PM   #27 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
ace....the political realities as I see it is that there is no way the Dems can get a veto=proof majority for a new plan. There are not enough Repubs who will abandon Bush completely....there may be enough who will support benchmarks in order to allow the Bush surge to continue for a few more months. If the surge continues to fail by later summer, it gives the Dems time to coalesce around one plan and the Repubs the political cover they will need to support an alternative to more of the same.

There are no good alternatives. We should be looking for the least damaging to the US, our troops, the goverment of Iraq and the Iraqi people.

Poliitics is, and has always been, the art of compromise and consensus buidling. But it requires real leaders who wont act as petulant children stubbornly crying my way or no way, something lacking particularly in the WH, but in Congress as well.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 02:22 PM   #28 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....the political realities as I see it is that there is no way the Dems can get a veto=proof majority for a new plan.
There is one way: clones. We take DNA from each stubborn idiot Republican and create perfect phenotypic replicas and have them cloned at Berkeley so that they actually have some sense of civic responsibility.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-07-2007, 02:25 PM   #29 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Bush has promised to veto any cloning bills.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 08:10 AM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
There are not enough Repubs who will abandon Bush completely....there may be enough who will support benchmarks in order to allow the Bush surge to continue for a few more months.
I am not sure how you know this, but as a Republican I think our continued efforts in Iraq are a waste of American lives and resources given that we are not unified in our belief that our reasons for being in Iraq are proper and just. Over the years all I have heard from Democrats is how we either had no plan or that the plan in Iraq has failed. What I have heard from Bush is either the plan is working or will work after some adjustment. Today, the American people are clearly against our military presence in Iraq, fighting in an un-winable civil war. The rest of the world is against our military action in Iraq and it seems that the Iraqi people are against our presence. We need to get out, we need a plan to get out. I think if the Democratic Party truely accepts the message sent by the American people during the congressional elections, take a stand against Bush - they will have the support of the American people and get Republican support. If Democrats waffle on this issue, they will not have anyone's confidence. The window of opportunity is closing.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 10:10 AM   #31 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i have some trouble posting to threads about this any more because the topic just makes me angry.
there is no debate about this. the war in iraq was is and will remain wholly unacceptable to me. that it could have happened is an index of dysfunction at the system level. that it continues is an index of dysfunction at the system level. that the administration responsible for it remains in power is beyond comprehension to me--i understand the procedural and political (in the trivial sense) situations--but that changes nothing. benchmarking and low approval ratings and so forth mean very little: the fact of the matter is that this administration remains in power and that fact is somehow ok.
well, it isnt ok.
it is an index of fundamental problems within the american political structure itself. in the end, there is no accountability: not if the crime is huge enough, not if addressing it would require thinking seriously about systemic change. i dont understand this: it seems that the historical situation in which we find ourselves is characterized by a deep, deep ideological paralysis that is repeated and repeated in a total lack of imagination, a complete lack of any sense of coherent alternatives to a socio-economic and political order that is self-evidently incoherent, self-evidently adrift, lost..and in its anxiety about being adrift (those traces that cannot be wished away), the existing order is eating itself---incoherent at the level of rationality, incoherent at the level of ideology, self-blinding at the level of consequences, assessment of consequences, incapable of adjustment, a particular type of incoherence the primary characteristic of which is a simple refusal to see--a refusal to see the consequences of capitalism in its present form, a refusal to see the problems in the nature and characteristics of state power, a refusal to address the evacuation of any meaningful democratic elements in the american political process.

there are so many problems that it is hard to know where to start listing them.
when i manage a list, it is always the same list.
in the context of a micro-space like this, repetition becomes itself a grind. there is no sublimation to be had from it. there is nothing to be had from it. and so i get tired.
i have to say that i admire the fact that host is able to continue, that he is able to direct his anger in ways that enable him to continue---his is a deeply personal anger--the vectors that shape it are such that he can express it and still remain to some extent within the parameters of debate here, such that they constitute meaningful actions.

mine is more abstract.
i dont know what else to say at this point.
it is not this space, but the fact that the situation addressed across it does not move.
the larger stasis is simply repeated in the smaller space.
this is not a "normal" situation we are living through.
this is a kind of crisis, it seems to me, the kind of thing that is not reducable to television imagery and as a consequence is not named for us. but there is always the stream of other "crises" that we can watch unfold and deplore or feel bad about, all of which are in a certain sense distractions in themselves and at another level are fundamentally problematic in that they feed into the circuit of avoidance that seems to be the basic characteristic of the times we are living in.

i doubt this makes sense. i am not going to edit it. i am going to go do something else.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 01:16 PM   #32 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am not sure how you know this, but as a Republican I think our continued efforts in Iraq are a waste of American lives and resources given that we are not unified in our belief that our reasons for being in Iraq are proper and just. Over the years all I have heard from Democrats is how we either had no plan or that the plan in Iraq has failed. What I have heard from Bush is either the plan is working or will work after some adjustment. Today, the American people are clearly against our military presence in Iraq, fighting in an un-winable civil war. The rest of the world is against our military action in Iraq and it seems that the Iraqi people are against our presence. We need to get out, we need a plan to get out. I think if the Democratic Party truely accepts the message sent by the American people during the congressional elections, take a stand against Bush - they will have the support of the American people and get Republican support. If Democrats waffle on this issue, they will not have anyone's confidence. The window of opportunity is closing.
ace....I just dont understand what you're saying and I cant imagine what you have been reading or watching.

The Dems had numerous plans that may or may not have had the support of the American people. All the plans took a stand against Bush....and they coalesced around the one they thought was best for the US and Iraw and had the best chance of passage...the emergency supplemental bill that included this languague:
Directs the President to commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number essential for: (1) protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; (2) training and equipping Iraqi forces; and (3) conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Requires redeployment implementation as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community to collectively bring stability to Iraq.

Requires reports from the President to Congress every 90 days on progress made in implementing such redeployment.

Requires a joint report to Congress every 60 days by the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq describing progress made in achieving specified benchmarks toward the stability of government in Iraq.
How is that NOT a plan to get out (at least relative to the "surge" plan)?

Because it doesnt call for immediate and complete withdrawal? I think it is far more responsble by giving the Iraqis time to get their shit together, politically and in terms of their security forces.

Yet, it had virtually no Repub support, many of whom characterized it as the "surrender bill"....and you think Repubs will support something stronger in the current environment?

We have far different views of the political realties.

I am looking a solution that can get bipartisan support...I have no idea what you are looking for or believe the highly partisan Congress can unite around. to end this failed endeavor.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 05-08-2007 at 01:53 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 01:34 PM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Perhaps it is the way they communicate their message.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 01:38 PM   #34 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Perhaps more Bush supporters need to listen with an open mind.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 03:04 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Democrats are near perfect. I get your point. However, perhaps there are Republicans at the grass root level looking for answers, and it is the rhetoric that is preventing an open assesment of alternatives to the Bush plan.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 03:38 PM   #36 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
ace....I am looking for any post of mine where I said or implied the Democrats are near perfect. Can you point me to one, please. The closest I could find was the most recent one where I said that Congress needs to demonstrate better leadership skills.

I agree that it is the rhetoric that is preventing an open assessment of the alternative plans. Calling such plans surrender plans, abandoning the troops, caving into terrorists, etc....is not helpful.

Republicans at the grassroots had the same access to the details of the plan in the emergency supplemental as I had. I took the time to read it before making a judgement. Did you?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 05-08-2007 at 03:44 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-08-2007, 04:22 PM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I simply suggested that the Democrats are not effectively communicating the plan you outlined, your response was:
Quote:
Perhaps more Bush supporters need to listen with an open mind.
I understand your point.

In your last post you say:
Quote:
I agree that it is the rhetoric that is preventing an open assessment of the alternative plans. Calling such plans surrender plans, abandoning the troops, caving into terrorists, etc....is not helpful.
These are coments from Republicans and more specifically the White House. I get that point as well.

What I don't see is where there is room for Democrats to do a better job, of perhaps communicating their plan to grass root Republicans. As a Republican, I don't understand what the Democrats want. It is confusing to me. Perhaps, I am not at the grass roots level, perhaps Democrats don't care about getting me on board with their plan. I get that also.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-09-2007, 04:50 AM   #38 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Americans, in general do not know what they want in this.....it's extremely complicated. On the one hand I think we all want Iraq to be a safe, healthy, and functional State capable of sustaining itself and creating stability in the region. On the other hand we really can't accept that People are Dying in huge numbers for a plan that seems incapable of bringing this about. I doubt very much ANY policy change at this point can correct the situation, and create a dynamic in the area that will lead to peaceful resolution.
Expecting the Democrats in congress to fix this mess is rather disingenuous on the part of anyone attempting to understand just how screwed up Iraq now is. We have managed to remove the infrastructure (what there was of it) of prosperity, thereby creating instability in the population and making any hopefor peace in the region unobtainable. At the same time we have placed our troops into the middle of the inevitable civil strife, poverty, and religious powerplay likely to come about in the aftermath of an invasion within the area.

The history of the middle east should have been payed attention to before we took on something NO ONE in history has managed to succeed at, Peace in the middle east. Case in Point:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

The Democrats it seems, have come to the realization that this was a terrible mistake, and as the current leadership on high is blind to the obvious they are in the inenviable position of trying to get us out of an unwinnable situation. Sucks to be them.
tecoyah is offline  
Old 05-09-2007, 06:28 AM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
Americans, in general do not know what they want in this.....it's extremely complicated. On the one hand I think we all want Iraq to be a safe, healthy, and functional State capable of sustaining itself and creating stability in the region.
I think this is the basis of Bush's strategy and his plans come from that. I think my confusion with the Democrats is that I don't know what their stated goal is. Do they simply want to reomve the troops? Do they want to move the fight to Afghanistan? Do they want what Bush wants as stated above? Do they think we are even at war?

I think if the Democrats could clearly communicate what the underlying basis for their plan is, I could understand where they want to take us.


Quote:
On the other hand we really can't accept that People are Dying in huge numbers for a plan that seems incapable of bringing this about. I doubt very much ANY policy change at this point can correct the situation, and create a dynamic in the area that will lead to peaceful resolution.
That is the conclusion I have reached. However, I think if we were unified and agreed on the reasons why we are fighting in Iraq we could bring this to a relatively peaceful end.
Quote:
Expecting the Democrats in congress to fix this mess is rather disingenuous on the part of anyone attempting to understand just how screwed up Iraq now is. We have managed to remove the infrastructure (what there was of it) of prosperity, thereby creating instability in the population and making any hopefor peace in the region unobtainable. At the same time we have placed our troops into the middle of the inevitable civil strife, poverty, and religious powerplay likely to come about in the aftermath of an invasion within the area.
If our elected leaders can not step up and fix this, who will? At some point we have to make a national comitment to one plan to fix this or another one. I think the idea of a date certain or providing funding every couple of months based on subjective goals is unrealistic. If it were me, I would comitt to win or withdraw, no time-tables, no bench-marks, either all in to win or all out.

Quote:
The history of the middle east should have been payed attention to before we took on something NO ONE in history has managed to succeed at, Peace in the middle east. Case in Point:

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

The Democrats it seems, have come to the realization that this was a terrible mistake, and as the current leadership on high is blind to the obvious they are in the inenviable position of trying to get us out of an unwinnable situation. Sucks to be them.
All they (or anyone) have to do is act on what they think is right. I don't think that is difficult.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-09-2007, 06:32 AM   #40 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Ace, this isn't a difference between Democrats and Republicans - it's a difference between the Congress and the White House. The White House speaks with one unified voice, and that gives Congressional Republicans something to fall in line with, even though in reality, they probably have as many plans among them as the Dems do. The Democrats don't have a similar leader - so they make a plan by compromising and combining the many different goals of many different people.

I think you may be ignoring this fact in order to set the Dems up to fail an impossible standard that you invented, which is speaking with one voice as persuasively as the White House.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
 

Tags
funding, iraq, reasonable, solution, statementor


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360