UPDATE: Perhaps I spoke too soon… Either way, they need a good continual reminder to stay strong. Rock the house Pelosi!
First of all, the Democrats need to grow some balls. I can’t fucking believe that they went through the whole process of proving a point by putting the time line requirement in that bill, only to drop it when Bush vetoed it. WTF?
Democrats! Listen up! You are our voice! So stop slinking back into the corner when big bad Bush says no! You should have sent the exact same bill back to his ass, and said, HERE is our compromise. In fact, they should have tacked on a few more million dollars for the troops, and then sent it back; that would prove the point that this isn’t about the money for the troops, it is about ending this war. Point is, it doesn’t even matter about this bill, as there is funding for the war through at least July; this is a supplemental bill. If the Bush administration wanted the troops to have the things this bill allocates, it would have been in the national budget that he sent to congress for this year. It wasn’t, hence the need for said bill.
Now, I want to say this to the congressional and senatorial democrats: You need to stand up for the politics you believe in, and stop letting Bush walk all over this country. I am appalled that they caved so quickly.
I am, however, trying to cling to the tiny bit of hope that by trying to sneak in different requirements, and actually require that a real plan for ending the war be developed, they are still focused and unwavering in the conviction necessary to end the war. Additionally, these requirements will hopefully stop people from reusing this “we can’t pull out, it would be disaster!” nonsense, as a slightly different plan will be in place. I am not happy that we are settling for “benchmarks” and requirements to report back to Congress as an alternative to getting the fuck out of there, because frankly, it doesn’t matter how long we stick around; the democracy we are shoving down their throats is not going to take unless THEY develop and accept it. We cannot continue killing their people and policing their civil war, and truly expect them to have an epiphany one afternoon and start being democratic. I am, however, truly excited to see that there are democrats and republicans starting to come together and work together on this. THAT is progress; even if it isn’t the level of progress I would like to see.
If the thing that needs to happen is that Iraq needs to be split into different factions, regions, states, or even countries, it is something that they have to work out. We can provide them the help, money, support, etc. that they need, but we cannot truly expect them to take it or for them to change if we occupy their country, and continue fueling a civil war.
I am so sick of this bullshit. I wish that all of this would have never happened. I wish Al Gore would have actually been able to take the presidency he won. Perhaps we would be in a totally different state of being right now; but unfortunately, that is moot. The fact is, that we need to accept that things have gone batshit crazy, come up with a plan to get the fuck out, and GET THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ. Pussyfooting around and playing politics (BOTH SIDES), is obviously doing more backpedaling than anything, and it needs to stop. Regardless of what is going on in DC, we are still at war with Iraq (and WHY?!). Every day that this war goes on is a day wasted. And it is getting really, really old.
Oh… so you criticize Bush for not compromising but your solution is that the Dems submit the exact same bill and say that’s their compromize? Totally logical.
Speaking of logical. You claim we’re incapable of setting up a “democracy” over there yet you think we would be successful in breaking the country up into smaller countries. Oh yeah. That would go over smashingly.
Al Gore as President… hehe… yeah, things would be different. Probably a few more terrorist attacks on US soild and a few thousand Americans more slaughtered, but at least he would be passing all sorts of global warming legislation that would have no negative impact on the economy at all!
Duane, Tom Englehardt and Jeremy Scahill dig into the Democrats plan and discuss some of the exceptions to it, here.
My reading of it is that the bill was mostly about political positioning for 2008 without actually changing the existing policy. (Then again, I am the most cynical and the most idealistic person I know.)
Dave,
How is that illogical? You are right. It is totally logical. I am advocating for the necessity of a time line, a real plan, an exit strategy, something that says that we are leaving Iraq and soon. You are showing me that you can’t see how what you said is that I am advocating the same thing in both instances, and calling it illogical that I do so.
I don’t get that at all.
I said that MIGHT be something that has to happen. Did I say that we should do it? Nope. You inferred that. What I said, is that we should get out of there, and provide them with the support they need to rebuild themselves as a country. They cannot and will not do that until we stop occupying them.
I also fail to see how your conclusion that more terrorist attacks would occur under Gore. Are you a fortune teller? There might have actually been less, because I am sure that he would have paid a little closer attention to a memo entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States”. Remember who ignored that? It wasn’t Gore.
And I am all for someone taking climate change and global warming seriously. I wish he were president, and not this one, who is hell bent on making as much money as he can and making as much as he can for his buddies through the oil that lays in the middle east.
Justin, thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out. And don’t talk about yourself as being cynical and idealist as a bad thing; I those are great traits to have!
duane, I don’t understand the last sentence in the first paragraph in your response to me.
You claim we’re the one killing the Iraqis over there and that will stop with our pull-out. Uhm… read the news much? It’s Iraqi on Iraqi crime. Do you think that will stop with us gone or do you think it would escalate?
Yes, I do have a crystal ball. Not only would Gore’s Presidency encourage terrorist attacks against this country, Brokeback Mountain would have won an Academy Award and your foreskin would magically reappear. So now which is more important to you?
After 9/11 I heard so many Democrats saying, “I’m glad a Republican is in office instead of Gore.” They knew then he would be weak on terrorism. Gore is a dillhole, accept it (or don’t).
I keep forgetting we waged an entire war, killing hundreds of thousands so Bushie and Co. could pad their pockets. Even if that were the case, Congress (Repubs and Dems) voted to go to war… I guess the Dems bank acounts were running low, too.
Dave, I read the news everyday. Apparently, you like to infer more than you read my blog, however. I didn’t say that the Iraqis would stop killing each other the moment we left. But, at least they wouldn’t be killing soldiers. You are so all or nothing, it is scary.
I think the reason that you are threatened by Gore is because not only is he smart an articulate, he actually cares about the country and more than just the top 2% of the population. He cares about the world, and what will happen to our children’s children; something that you have expressed over and over as not being our fault, nor our problem.
And I love how you keep saying that the Democrats voted for the war, when we all know that and even point it out for you repeatedly, only for you to try and use that as an argument somehow. I really hope that eventually, you will get your head out of the sand, and actually look up the stuff that Bortz is telling you; base your thoughts and opinions on facts, because it is much easier to argue them.
Ummm Bush is THE biggest “dillhole” in American history. Actually “dangerously idiotic dueche” would be better. Accept it (or don’t). I never heard any democrats say that they were glad we had a republican in office after 9/11. You must hang out with a bunch of scared idiotic ones. Any President would have gone to Afghanistan and went after terrorists after 9/11. The only difference would have been a non-republican one wouldn’t make up false excuses (or continue to use those excuses even when proven wrong again and again) and waste resources that could be used to go after terrorisits on attacking a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Not attacking Iraq would not have increased chances of terrorist attacks in this country one iota.
And Brokeback Mountain did win an academy award (it won three actually) but more importantly WTF does that have to do with anything?? What is does mean is that your crystal ball sucks ass and not in a good way.
Duane…the Democrats lied to you, again, and you believed them, again. Quit doing that. They have no honor and will say anything to push your buttons.
Since you are so concerned about the bloodshed of the war, how would you feel if your policy of pullout resulted in what I predict? Would you feel responsible?
“wish Al Gore would have actually been able to take the presidency he won.”
I’ve read 3 books on this subject. He didn’t win. Oh sure he got the popular vote (which is why he’s a puss for not making a comeback) but he did not win.
But Duane, your overall statement is correct: they caved in. If they really believe what they purport to believe, they shouldn’t have caved.
Bugboy, if we voted for him, and the popular vote was for him, then HE WON. That is what happens in an election. Thanks to voter fraud, the electoral college votes were manipulated, and they took the presidency from him. This is pretty common knowledge.
I like Gore more as an activist than a politician.
One thing that anyone should be able to agree on is that Bush has acted in ways to increase the threat of terrorism. This has been confirmed in a number of studies, both within and outside of the establishment.
(State Department. 2005) U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
(State Department. 2007) Iraq blamed for 2006 terrorism increase
(Bergen and Cruickshank 2007) The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide
An interesting anecdote: The State Department used to publish an annual terrorism report titled “Patterns of Terrorism.†The first version of the 2004 edition found that incidents of terrorism had sharply declined in 2003. Bush et al lauded this as proof that his war on terrorism was working A few weeks later the State Department published a retraction; in fact, incidents of terrorism had doubled.
The Bush Administration terminated the report after that. (I found a copy to the Knight Ridder article reporting this, here
OK, one more: Several analysts in the CIA concluded that Bin Laden wanted Bush to win reelection because Bush’s policies in the Middle East were a boon to groups like Al Qaeda. Other analysts have warned this as well and its a well known obvious lesson of guerrilla warfare. Militants want you to attack a population because every brother and sister that is killed leaves behind enraged friends and family. You either have to kill everyone (which we won’t) or find more intelligent ways to get the people you are after (which we are too dumb to do.)
“Bugboy, if we voted for him, and the popular vote was for him, then HE WON. That is what happens in an election. Thanks to voter fraud, the electoral college votes were manipulated, and they took the presidency from him. This is pretty common knowledge.”
No, that’s lunacy. There was no voter fraud that turned any election around. I think there were suspicions of dead people voting for Gore in Illinois, but not enough to matter.
The recounts, during and long after the election, affirmed Bush the winner, despite Gore’s attempt to force a win by spoiling the process.
We are closing in on 6 years since 9/11 with no attacks here. They clearly have the ability, which raises the question why. If they really like Bush’s policies, they would have attacked before the last election. I think they would rather the Dems win, force retreat, and have the appearance of driving us off. That is the only thing that will help them, and their accomplices are more than willing.
My suspicion is AQ is not better off now than 6 years ago and they do not want us returning to our “9/11″ mentality. They owned a nation and had free range. Now, they are pinned down in Iraq and parts of Pakistan and they are hunted. Many of their financial sources have been shut down. Their leadership decimated. American troops all over the place. They haven’t given up, they will attack us again, and they see opportunity, but they can’t think they are better off. A better POTUS in ’08 with better policies can do more damage to them.
“Militants want you to attack a population”
Of course, the violence in Iraq against civilians is overwhelmingly done by the insurgents, likely most sectarian in nature, leading me to believe those wounds will never heal.
Have you ever read Giap’s “How We Won the War”? It’s an amazing look at how the NV/VC operated. Ironically, the American liberals are the second front in both wars, so be careful when you start your howling and chest thumping about whose policies the enemy likes.
There is no proof to show that you are right; there wasn’t investigation into the matter. Initial investigation did indicate tampering, as well as votes being lost. Not to mention changing polling places, rezoning voting districts, and providing less the necessary number of machines so that wait times would be increased. There is a lot more to it.
And Gore didn’t try to force a win, in fact, as member after member of the Congress came up to request investigation, without the support of any senator, Gore shot down each of their requests. He did not pursue the investigation, and he confirmed what the supreme court requested. Perhaps you should look at the real history of what Gore did before you say that he did anything other than comply with what the courts said.
Bugboy,
There were no attacks BEFORE Bush either. Keep in mind, this attack happened during his watch. He had warnings. He ignored them. Whatever he is doing after is gravy; he allowed it to happen. He is, though, making way more terrorism globally, which you neglect to mention.
“There were no attacks BEFORE Bush either.”
None here, but there were attempts. In addition, pre-W there were many attacks overseas under Clinton’s watch. Regardless, Al Qaeda became a force under Clinton’s watch. Imagine if he had taken it seriously, then perhaps neither 9/11 or Iraq would have happened.
“There is no proof to show that you are right; ”
A negative cannot be proven. The entire election was put under a microscope. If there was fraud, it would have been revealed.
“there wasn’t investigation into the matter. Initial investigation did indicate tampering, as well as votes being lost.”
The initial investigation wasn’t an investigation? There were hearings on the matter that turned up nothing.
” Not to mention changing polling places, rezoning voting districts, and providing less the necessary number of machines so that wait times would be increased. There is a lot more to it.”
That isn’t voter fraud. That’s just whining. Those things happen all the time. They are called mistakes. If there was a pattern of doing it deliberately it would be detectable.
I have looked at the real history. Gore asked for recounts in Democratically-controlled counties (very suspicious) and sent down a legal team of 500 lawyers to dispute as many ballots as possible, especially military ballots (very traitorous), in an attempt to create enough chaos that somehow he could squeak out a win after he clearly lost Fla.
Gore had no respect for our system much less our courts. In fact, he had so much contempt for the law that he wanted the rules of vote counting changed AFTER the election. That doesn’t seem suspicious to you?
I couldn’t help but notice your complaints omit the single most important fraud during the election when the networks called Fla for Gore before polls closed in conservative, western Fla. Why don’t your little conspiracy antenna pick up that one? That one is very blatant.
His plan did not work, thankfully.
Fortunately, even the countless recounts since then confirm Bush really won, so history won’t be confused by the lies of the sore loser Al despite what he did.