home

On Iraq: John Warner To the Rescue?

Two weeks ago, Frank Rich berated persons like me because:

On the Democratic side, the left is furious at the new Congress’s failure to instantly fulfill its November mandate to end the war in Iraq. . . . It’s not exactly clear how a legislative Groundhog Day could accomplish this feat when the president’s obstinacy knows no bounds and the Democrats’ lack of a veto-proof Congressional majority poses no threat to his truculence.

Rich professed faith in John Warner to come to the rescue. This week Rich writes:

Americans and Iraqis know the truth anyway. The question now is: What will be the new new way forward? . . . Come September 2007, Mr. Bush will offer his usual false choices. We must either stay his disastrous course in eternal pursuit of "victory" or retreat to the apocalypse of "precipitous withdrawal." . . . For the Bush White House, the real definition of victory has become "anything they can get away with without taking blame for defeat," said the retired Army Gen. William Odom, a national security official in the Reagan and Carter administrations, when I spoke with him recently. The plan is to run out the Washington clock between now and Jan. 20, 2009, no matter the cost.

Who can stop them? Rich says it is up to John Warner:

As General Odom says, the endgame will start "when a senior senator from the president's party says no," much as William Fulbright did to L.B.J. during Vietnam. That's why in Washington this fall, eyes will turn once again to John Warner, the senior Republican with the clout to give political cover to other members of his party who want to leave Iraq before they're forced to evacuate Congress. . . .

Not again. We wait for the Godot Republicans. John Warner will do NOTHING. John Warner will bring along few if ANY Republicans. As I wrote before, John Warner has undercut the drive to end the Debacle at every turn:

Mr. Rich believes Republicans will end the Debacle:

Contrary to Mr. Edwards, only Republicans in Congress can overcome presidential vetoes and in so doing force Mr. Bush’s hand on the war. As the bottom drops out of Iraq and the polls, those G.O.P. votes are starting to line up.

If only this were true. Mr. Rich must know that Republicans have been singing this song for a while. Mr. Rich's colleague, David Broder, has told us that John Warner is the key. And Senator Warner is illuminative on the subject. Senator Warner has made noises for some time about ending the Debacle, but always votes for the Bush plan, whatever it is at the time, including the Surge. A review of Senator Warner's statements and actions is instructive:

On October 5, 2006, Senator Warner returned from a trip to Iraq saying:

[Warner] said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction. . . . Warner said he sees the next 60 to 90 days as most critical juncture yet in the war because Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki is growing into the job and says he is committed to disarming militias. . . . Warner said he was told on his latest trip that, at the earliest, U.S. and Iraqi forces may have an agreement at the end of the year outlining when and how responsibility could begin to be transferred to the Iraqis.

240 days later, and Congress has made no bold decisions; no agreements on an Iraqi takeover of security have even been broached. Indeed, what we saw instead was a "surge" of American troops into Iraq. What did Senator Warner say about that? Why he torpedoed the NON-binding resolution condemning the Surge.

Recently, Senator Warner torpedoed the NON-binding timelines in the Iraq Supplemental; his NON-binding benchmarks proposal became the final version of the bill.

What Broder and Rich propose is what I have termed the Waiting for the Godot Republicans strategy. Mr. Rich knows the reference:

Democrats and anti-war groups that are waiting for Republicans to move to end the Debacle now sound like this:

Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.

They do not move.

People like Frank Rich and Carl Levin count on John Warner to save their bacon and save the country. The Democratic Congress shirks its responsibility hoping against hope that John Warner will get it done.

It is a disgrace. It is a forlorn hope. It will never happen. If this is the Democratic plan for Iraq, then we are without hope.

< R.I.P. Larry Manzanares | Is Michael Moore Anti-American Exceptionalism? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Here's a depressing article from (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:51:19 AM EST
    The Sounds Of Silence (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:46:42 AM EST
    People like Frank Rich and Carl Levin count on John Warner to save their bacon and save the country. The Democratic Congress shirks its responsibility hoping against hope that John Warner will get it done.

    It is a disgrace. It is a forlorn hope. It will never happen. If this is the Democratic plan for Iraq, then we are without hope.

    And the vision that was planted in my brain
    Still remains
    Within the sound of silence.
    ...
    And in the naked light I saw
    Ten thousand people, maybe more.
    People talking without speaking,
    People hearing without listening,
    People writing songs that voices never share
    And no one dare
    Disturb the sound of silence.

    Fools said i, you do not know
    Silence like a cancer grows.
    Hear my words that I might teach you,
    Take my arms that I might reach you.
    But my words like silent raindrops fell,
    And echoed
    In the wells of silence



    Warner is no Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    The other stories abounding today indicate Bush only takes advice from Cheney. Cheney undermines and overrules everyone. And Cheney won't end his support for perpetual war so long as it continues to persinally enrich him.

    Parent
    Someone, sometime, somewhere (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:20:30 AM EST
    will be Paying the Price.

    Probably people who somehow convince themselves to fund and continue the Iraq occupation.

    Silence like a cancer grows.

    Parent

    I am now convinced (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:20:14 AM EST
    that Frank Rich really doesn't have any idea what's actually going on. He smells a rat, but looks for relief in the wrong direction.

    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    What has John Warner ever done to inspire this confidence?

    Parent
    The Sky Is Falling (1.00 / 3) (#33)
    by talex on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    The Democratic Congress shirks its responsibility hoping against hope that John Warner will get it done.

    The Democratic Congress IS being responsible. What would be irresponsible is to back a plan that would face a veto if done upfront or would secretly leave the troops without money even for a withdrawal if done on the sly. That would be the plan (if you can call it that) that most here support.

    As for Warner he is not the end-all. But it wouldn't hurt to have him come our way. Of course instead of hoping for that and calling for calls to be made to his office or emails sent it is Deja Vu Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling.

    Parent

    Talex (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    a plan that would face a veto if done upfront or would secretly leave the troops without money even for a withdrawal if done on the sly

    Talex, explain how a bill that is never introduced or passed can be vetoed.

    After you've fallen flat on your face trying that, you can then move on to explaining away your outright lies.
    .........................

    The entire debate about NOT funding the occupation of Iraq revolves around one piece of propaganda that has been sold to the public in one of the most heinous aggregations of misperceptions, disinformation, and outright lies ever foisted on a public that cares for the lives of the American troops sent into Iraq, of which there are huge mis-perceptions and an incredible amount of disinformation, i.e. lies, spread by republicans and democrats and trolls.

    The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullsh*t.

    It's the biggest load of crap there is.

    The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

    The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is also part of the big lie.

    If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

    The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

    The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullsh*t and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

    As John Freelund wrote on May 27 at TPMCafe:

    Pin Bush and Gates Down

    At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggest question 1-5 be the following:

    "Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

    Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

    If the Democrats don't want to do the right thing... it becomes obvious that they want to continue the occupation.

    Parent

    You love to lie about Reid-Feingold (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:25:59 PM EST
    The circumstantial evidence is in. It evidences you're being a lying troll.

    Please take it back to Daily Kos.

    Your quota for the day is up.

    Parent

    Divorce Liz Taylor? ;-) (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    Seriously, I think Rich has never taken off his theater critic's hat. In a way he's a bit like Maureen Dowd: sometimes he's funny, and other times he infuriates with his fact-free "analysis." (Dowd is worse though.)

    Parent
    I'll tell you one GOOD story (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:51:30 PM EST
    Learned of this in the last week, as my family gathered for a funeral of all things.  My little brother was in Afghanistan last year, in the mountains of the south, in and out of Waziristan, where Bin Laden is believed to be hiding out.  He was instructed by a superior in the Army (my brother is a captain in the Marines) to burn down a certain village.  My brother flatly refused, having worked with the people of the village, and knowing that their refusal to help Americans was tied to their conviction that the Taliban will kill them immediately if they do help Americans.  My brother knew these villagers were good people, knew we just needed to be patient, work with them more, and he would not torch their village.  Enduring the threats from this Army superior, my brother fought for what he believed was right, risking his own position of security, and he ultimately won.  This village was not burned down, these people's lives were not destroyed.

    While I think we years ago abandoned and f*cked the people of Afghanistan with Bush's Iraq wet dream, I take comfort in knowing there are some soldiers who will stand up to power and do the right thing.  For all of our political differences on many issues, I am so proud of my kid brother.  But he's back to Iraq in the winter (his second tour there) unless something drastic ends this sh*t.  

    In other words: Help Wanted.  

    On topic, Warner's as likely to help the progressive anti-war cause as Bush is.  Rich seems to be suffering from delusions of pander.

    Pandering, that is, to his own inability to face harsh reality.

    I am so proud of your kid brother too (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    I have goose bumps because I know the risks a soldier takes to stand up to a lazy stupid superior officer.  I will share your story with the soldiers that we know and all will be fortified by it because there are more of these battles of wills that will have to take place before we can get a foreign policy that works.  If your brother had not been a Marine and been in Afghanistan that village would have been burned by people more afraid of authority than the conscience they will have to answer to later.  God bless Dadler Jr today that the the universe will reward him for his truth, courage, and real bravery.

    Parent
    Yes, that is a good story (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by robrecht on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:16:13 PM EST
    Wonder what will happen to that village and that commander in the future?  Hope your brother stays safe and comes home soon.

    Parent
    The Republicans in Congress will pull the plug (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    only if their very political survival depends on it.  If they think they can get away with staying in Iraq, they'll do it.  If they don't, they won't.

    Talez I deleted your comment as it exceeded (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:13:05 AM EST
    your limit.

    What are you complaining about (none / 0) (#1)
    by TexDem on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:25:14 AM EST
    your on a damned island?

    Seriously, I am close to giving up some times but I just refuse. I cross my fingers and tell myself, "It takes time, it takes time."

    Until we start some impeachment hearings and really get things in the open for the public to see everyday I don't think much is going to happen. And we go for the low hanging fruit first, Gonzales.

    Our island is bigger than his (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:22:48 AM EST
    Even Texas is bigger than his island.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by TexDem on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    Nice, the so called bad guys (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:26:08 AM EST
    left when the so called good guys show up and start massing outside of the town. Then the so called good guys kill mostly civilians, people too old and too poor to be able to get out of the way....and they've done this how many times now?

    The Fulbright example doesn't work (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rick B on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:43:02 AM EST
    The war in Vietnam did not end when Fulbright stood up and opposed LBJ. That may have gotten Congress to start making noises, but they really did nothing.

    The fact is that LBJ knew in 1965 when he supported Westmoreland's troop increase to over half a million along with Westy's war of attrition that America could not win the war in Vietnam and that the RVN couldn't get its act together. (See No Good Choices: LBJ and the Vietnam/Great Society Connection and my own discussion of how I think the right-wingers consistently use wars to win the Presidency Why did LBJ escalate Viet Nam in 1965?.)From 1966 on the war in Vietnam raged because if the LBJ pulled troops out, he would have faced The right-wing attack that he had given Vietnam to the Communists when running for reelection in 1968.

    Bush is under no such reality-based restrictions. He still thinks that his attack on Iraq will be successful in the end as long as he doesn't give up and pull out. The only way Bush will recognize  defeat in Iraq is if he, himself, decides to quit the war. He isn't going to do that. He will hand the war in Iraq off to the Democratic President in 2008 and blame the Democrats for losing when they pull the troops out.

    No Senator is going to change that, and the Republican Legislators are not going to support a pull-out because they are stuck with an extremist pro-war base. Sen. Warner won't oppose the war in Iraq because if he gets a strong Democratic opponent in 2008 that opponent will automatically get all the anti-war voters. Warner has to stick with the pro-war Republicans and try to get them to turn out.

    The Democratic control of Congress is too narrow for a fast, effective action to get us out of Iraq. That isn't going to change in September, either. Gen Petreaus is going to come back with a statement that there are indications we CAN win if we stay the course and perhaps get a few more troops there somehow. That's the modern translation of "There is light at the end of the tunnel." and for the exact same reason. If Gen. P. says we can't win, he will be fired. If he says we are winning/can win, the Press will tear him to pieces. Stay the course - Light at the end of the tunnel is the only possible message in September.

    That message is specifically designed to not force any action. Then Bush won't act, and Congress still can't - because if Congress pulls the troops out before the 2008 election, the Republicans will regain control of Congress in 2008.

    Same dynamic that kept the U.S. in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968.

    This really is a Republican war. They want it, and they can't give it up. Keeping it running is their least bad choice. Bad as things are right now, for htem to appear to be losing the war and admitting it is worse. Then their core base of dead-enders will desert them. But if they can just hold out and not admit defeat until the 2008 elections ... things change fast in politics. What they have left is hope and maybe a Hail Mary war with Iran.

    To Hell with America - the Republicans uber alles. That's what this entire recent six years and the Impeachment of Clinton have been all about. Bold decisions by Congress now while Democrats are in charge will give the Congress back to the Republicans in 2008, and that is worse than doing nothing effective right now.

    We all await the speaking of the voters in 2008. Until then it is frozen in place.

    re (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    The Democratic control of Congress is too narrow for a fast, effective action to get us out of Iraq.

    That, in the sense that matters most, utter bullsh*t.

    The only sense in which it is true is that too many Democrats in Congress are placing their own interests ahead of the the lives of the soldiers and the Iraqis that are dying everyday, while those Democrats cynically try to use supporting/funding/continuing the debacle to win elections next year.

    If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?
    Link

    Parent
    Stop funding the Iraq occupation. Period. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    So what if they chance losing their seats. How horrible is that?

    Personally, I think it is the best way for them to retain their seats.


    Parent

    Think about it - don't just emote (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Rick B on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:24:25 PM EST
    If Congress literally shut down the war today, then there would be a sharply increased disaster. No doubt. That will happen whenever we leave.

    In the U.S., who gets the blame for shutting down the war? The Democrats. So they lose control of Congress in 2008 and the Republicans are back in control.

    Republicans in control of Congress is a lot worse for America than the current level of the war in Iraq. As much as I detest war (and I am retired military - I have a halfway decent idea just how bad it is) Republicans in control of the federal government is worse than the slower abandonment of the war in Iraq!

    As bad as the war in Iraq is, that war is a tool the Republicans are using to gain long-term dominance over America. They are destroying Iraq so that they can destroy Constitutional America.

    America is teetering on the edge of becoming an authoritarian nation for at least two generations. The war in Iraq is a major tool to be used to destroy America. One or two Senate seats and 12 seats in the House throw America into the abyss.

    If the Democrats don't handle the Iraq War carefully, and the hearings on Republican misdeeds in government stop being presented, then the so-called Independents (like David Broder) will be happy to throw the Democrats into the ditch - they don't think that the solid rock of American democracy will ever really change.

    Cheney and the Bushies have been proving that the two century experiment in democracy may well be over. Already. Right now the current Iraq war situation is a net positive for the Democratic Party (sick as that sounds) and for a Constitutional American democracy.

    Handled wrong, the situation in Iraq can easily hand a dozen House seats and 1 or 2 Senate seats (net) back to the Republicans. In your blind hatred of war, you don't give a damned what else happens, what the cost is - just end it. Now. At any cost and don't ask the cost in advance.

    In fact you are assuming the cost away.

    I think it is the best way for them to retain their seats.
    Have any evidence to support that? Strong enough evidence so that there is no risk of losing a Senate seat and 12 House seats in 2008?

    Because I damned sure haven't seen it, any more than I have seen strong evidence that we are winning (or even could win) in Iraq. In both cases there are only suggestions and indicators that can support guesses either way. The likelihood of our winning in Iraq, however is so low that it can be safely assumed to be impossible. I see nothing of that kind of certainty that the Republicans won't get the net win in 2008.

    I guess I only hate war - not blindly. This one was wrong, and is both wrong and stupid, and must be ended. But the cost of ending it must also be minimized. Would you give Fred Thompson or Guliani the job of President for Life and turn the Congress over to the Republicans and theocrats as a price for getting us out of Iraq immediately? I wouldn't and I won't.

    I'm sorry if you guys don't see that. If you don't, then you are wrong.

    Parent

    Think about it. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:32:27 PM EST
    Don't just not read.

    Know what you are talking about first.

    You'll sound less silly.

    Parent

    A poll is a snapshot in time (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Rick B on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:01:00 AM EST
    It's not a prediction.

    You have no arguments to present, but I notice that in place of logic and discussion you feel perfectly free to rate down my discussion and insult me.

    Are you by any chance someone the Republicans rejected as not being up their standards? Rather looks like it to me. I see no other reason for your failure to be rational

    Parent

    :UP: to republican standards? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    You do have a sense of humor, I'll give you that much. You'd need one on that side of the mirror.

    An election is a snapshot in time also?

    Read the thread, Rick. You'll look less silly.

    Parent

    The only things frozen in place are minds. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is also part of the big lie.

    If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

    The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

    The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullsh*t and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

    Link

    Parent
    Real leadership by Democrats??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by robrecht on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    An insightful post, but I don't understand why you think it's a given that real action by the Democrats will allow the Republicans to win Congress back.  The Republican base is pro war but the rest of the country is not.  Real action to end the war would be messy and the Democrats are afraid (as usual) but it would only require clear leadership and the Democrats have thus far proven themselves incapable of real leadership in my opinion.

    Parent
    NOT a given - a RISK (none / 0) (#40)
    by Rick B on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    Frankly, I have very little expectation that voters will react in any reasonable when bombarded by TV attack ads, and I have even less expectation that somehow the Democrats will figure out how to avoid losing seats to such attacks.

    The issue really isn't the position of the two different bases. It is the people in the middle who for a variety of reasons do not consider elections important until the advertisements start flying, and then they vote the way the last two or three powerful ads (meaning highly emotional) they heard tell them to.

    If our troops aren't in Iraq in August 2008, then the Iraq war will not motivate anyone to vote against Republicans. Attack ads, however, will greatly motivate a lot of voters to vote against Democrats. Right now the Democrats can lose 12 seats in the House and it goes Republican again - ending Hearings. Two Senators do the same thing in the Senate.

    Twelve lost Congressional seats and two lost Senate seats if Democrats force a pull-out immediately are not certain. But November 2008 is far enough away so that the risk is well above negligible, and the Democratic leadership MUST NOT ignore that risk.

    The downside of that risk is really, really bad. A major pressure that has fueled the rise of conservatism has been that America has lost its economic primacy in the world markets. It will get worse, not better, as we fail to adapt to a less energy intensive way of life and as the rest of the world figures out that their future depends on educating the population at state cost, not individual cost, so that they get the best from their total populations and not just from the wealthiest parts.

    OK.

    Economic primacy gone, dollar to shortly drop as a result.

    College level education disappearing in a cloud of frightened anti-terrorist rheotic and anti-immigration efforts. American primacy there is gone, not to be recovered.

    Moral primacy gone, handed off by the conservatives with no realization of what we had, let alone what we have lost. Abu Ghraib? Torture? Preemptive Wars? Our own shoddy elections? We used to be a model to the world. We handed that off.

    What's left? Our military power. That's all. If the Republicans regain control of the federal government, it will be one military adventure after another as our economy revamps to provide more war-making material.

    We are now spending $6 or $7 billion on research on how to stop IEDs from being effective. In the early 90's we had the Super Conducting Super Collider ALREADY HALF BUILT in Texas at about $5 billion total and Congress shut it down as too expensive! CERN in Switzerland is now being finished to replace it, and to look into what the nature of Dark Matter is (What - 75 percent of the Universe? We barely know now that it exists and don't have a clue what it is.)

    Under Republican and conservative rule, America is slated to be a rogue mercenary force that is populated by a population with poor health care, poor education, and no real democracy.

    That's a view of the possible downside risk of ignoring how we get out if Iraq and what it will do to the future elections of Democrats.

    In the 1920's Argentina was one of the top 10 industrial nations in the world. They went off the track, and now find themselves well behind Mexico and Brazil. The U.S. is looking at a similar failure to follow a productive track if the Republican stay in control.

    As I said, I am retired military. The nearly 3600 dead are part of my tribe, as are the over 25,000 severe casualties. Iraq was and is the wrong war, badly handles. It should end. As soon as possible.

    But the way it is ended is still important. The Republicans could pull out today, but they won't. The risks the Democrats run in forcing the end immediately must be considered. We can see what the cost of being in Iraq is. The cost of giving the Republicans a domestic victory is not as clear, but the risks are. Ignoring those risks would be as stupid as invading Iraq was.

    Parent

    Unbelieveable. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:59:18 AM EST
    If our troops aren't in Iraq in August 2008, then the Iraq war will not motivate anyone to vote against Republicans.
    How many (besides your own) more Americans and Iraqis are you willing to have die for the opportunity to run attack ads in 2008?
    As I said, I am retired military. The nearly 3600 dead are part of my tribe
    How many, Rick?


    Parent
    The Waiting For The Godot Democrats (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stewieeeee on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:54:37 AM EST
    strategy seems equally poised for success.

    If this is the Democratic plan for Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:55:06 AM EST
    then the Democratic Party is without hope.

    Hope does not spring from silence. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 06:09:14 AM EST
    What the Peace Movement Should Do Now
    Foreign Policy In Focus, June 06, 2007
    Robin Hahnel:
    While it is important for supporters, activists, and leaders of the peace movement to engage in some thoughtful soul searching over program and strategy, I am concerned that the most urgent activity the peace movement should be organizing is going neglected. We need a massive showing of anti-war sentiment in the fall of 2007, and this can only happen if the major peace organizations launch the initiative now.

    An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now. If anyone believed the Democrats in Congress were going to end the fiasco without massive pressure from the peace movement, that illusion just flew out the window with the Democrats acquiescing in funding the war without even any deadlines for withdrawal. Whether one thinks of it as making more Democratic lawmakers afraid to anger the peace movement, or showing sympathetic Democrats that the peace movement can cover their backs when Republicans try to pin the disaster on any who vote to cut off funding, is of little practical importance. The overwhelming antiwar sentiment that already exists must be mobilized.

    It has to be in the fall of 2007 because spring 2008 is too late. First, most Americans understand that every month that passes is more American and Iraqi lives lost for absolutely nothing. Second, the Democrats in Congress will face important choices in September, so that is when the pressure needs to be applied. And third, by spring 2008 too many supporters and activists in the peace movement will be drawn into primary campaigns. Unless we have made ourselves vocal and visible as an oppositional movement, the pressure to subordinate peace politics to the strategies of the candidates will be overwhelming.

    "I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore"

    The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

    Please verify (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lacy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:55:53 AM EST
    Quote: "An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now."

    I was just searching recent polls to see precisely how the public was voicing its feelings on the issue of troops being "brought home now". I haven't found that sentiment above expressed.

    Could you or anyone cite current polls verifying that quoted sentiment is valid? I have seen only polls suggesting that the majorities are actually concerned that a withdrawal be aligned with an Iraq stability or "readiness". And please note that the public's hating the war, wishing it never had occurred, and even "wanting it to be over" all are far short of "bring them home now".

    And sure, the people did vote against the foolishness of GWB and the GOP Congress in 2006, but let's hear some good current polling on public views of resolving the Iraq mess, without inserting  personal spin into the matter. I believe the actual public view is quite nuanced on the matter, in contrast with the simplistic thinking of some of my fellow lefties. It's not too late for Democrats to buy and own the consequences of GWB's Iraq fiaqsco before the 2008 elections.

    Parent

    I'm not keen on googling to (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:29:36 AM EST
    simply make people who can use it themselves happy. I prefer to converse with people who are able to bring their own data to the table re: obvious questions.

    Polling Report:

    6/8-11/07: NBC News/Wall Street Journal

    "Do you think that the United States should maintain its current troop level in Iraq to help secure peace and stability, or should the United States reduce its number of troops?"

    Maintain: 31% Reduce:59%

    6/7-10/07: Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg

    "Do you support or oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?"

    Support: 57% Oppose: 39%

    "In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"

    Right Away:  25% Within Year: 46%

    The sentiments expressed by Robin Hahnel above are rhetorical, clearly.

    There has been to my knowledge, no polling conducted asking the more specific question:

    • Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War?
    so I asked it as a straight yes or no in a dKos poll.

    177 voted.
    171 (96%) voted YES.
    6 (3%) voted NO.

    Parent

    And, btw (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    there was also a national poll conducted, with a reasonably good statistical sampling.... on November 07, 2006.

    Parent
    It is also my opinion that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:42:06 AM EST
    the actual public view is quite nuanced on the matter

    is a meaningless statement, except insofar as it reflects that the actual public view is quite confused from both GOP and Democratic/Blue Dog political spin, and from misleading poll questions.

    Parent

    Fiaqsco? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lacy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:59:54 AM EST
    I meant fiasco, but firaqsco would have worked also.

    Saying there is no hope ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    ... implies the end of imagination. Figure out something different, a Plan B. When will you present your Plan B? We already know Plan A, and we also know that the Democrats are not following it. They aren't showing even hints that this will change. So what's Plan B? Use some imagination. Write something different; we can't control what other people do, and so it is our responsibility to adapt.

    Plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    "B"... with enhancements "1" and "2".

    Parent