really? there's a consensus of military "authorities?" which authorities might these be? pace, casey, and petraeus? may i assume then they're advocating some other than surge or stay-the-course, perhaps "go home" and W is stubbornly refusing to listen to his generals? well, it's early yet, but already today i've downloaded (and paid for) a fine recording of the mozart requiem in glorious lossless audio, w/o DRM, since we know the islamists are in league with the RIAA and responsible for lossy audio codecs.
ive asked the same of people like basso and tradertexx and furthermore asked if they actually have any family or close friends serving and have never gotten a response. ive also asked them several times to respond to a military times poll of those who have either served in iraq or afghanistan asking whether or not they support the ongoing war in iraq - 50% say NO. does basso think that 50% of the military hates america and wants the military to fail?
wait a minute. i thought you guys were not 'stay the course'? isnt that what "THE DECIDER" decided? FLIP BUSH: We’ve never been stay the course - [Oct, 2006] FLOP BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06] BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05] BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03] BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04] BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04] BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
No, it would be Abazaid, The JCS, etc, etc etc. And yes, Bush is stubbornly refusing to listen to them, which is why he's using Kagan's chewing gum wrapper plan instead of thiers. So then stop pretending that you are out on the front lines and fighting the battles or that people who don't adhere to your (minority) viewpoint are traitors.
last i heard, general pace was on the JCS. is he on record against the surge? if not, since he's a military "authority", may i assume then you support whatever policy he does. abazaid want to stay the course- is that the policy you support? by definition, people who side with our enemies are traitors.
Bush has found people who parrots what he wants. I think you are aware that most generals and military strateists are not in favor of the surge. This is what rimrocker spoke of in the outside the wire thread when he said the problem with some war supporters is rightwingers is that people think disagreement with the President is disagreement with the U.S. You asked him for an example of someone doing that at the time. You have just provided one. We disagree with the President's plan. That doesn't mean we are siding with the enemy. I don't believe you are that simple.
Hillary's right! This is Bush's war and his mistake. He needs to clean it up himself (a first in his life) or face trial for war crimes.
Yes. Unanimous disagreement w/surge plan from JCS Abazaid didn't say "stay the course". he didn't say withdraw, but he definitely didn't say "stay the course. Anyway he was against the sruge, which is what we're discussing. You have sided with our enemies more than anybody else here. Fortunatley you are a harmless twit who can't really affect anything, no matter how many times you post about saving democracy on a basketball BBS. But that doesn't make you a traitor, it just makes you an idiot...or at least appear to be one.
You do realize by advocating that we stay in Iraq that you are siding with Al-Qaeda right? This per their own internal documents.
what is abazaid's strategy? since he's an authority you recognize, may i assume you support whaever it is? may i also assume you no longer advocate any of the "redeployment" options so in vogue in congress, since those are not what "the authorities" advocate? as to the JCS- a month old article, highliighting anonymous sources discussing the internal debate, does not mean the JCS do not support the policy. [rquoter]The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."[/rquoter]
Glenn Greenwald writes well... _______________ Our little Churchills We've now arrived at the point where the White House and its followers reflexively characterize any criticism of the Leader's war of any kind as aid to the Enemy and an attack on our troops. They don't even bother any more to pretend that some types of criticism are "acceptable." It is now the duty of every patriotic American to cheer enthusiastically for the President's decisions. Anything else is tantamount to siding with the Enemy. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton, whose criticism of the war has been as muted and restrained as can be, "accused President Bush of trying to pass the problems in Iraq on to the next president and described his actions as 'the height of irresponsibility.'" The White House's immediate response: that is a "partisan attack that sends the wrong message to our troops, our enemies and the Iraqi people." That's the only response the Bush movement now even bothers to make: those who speak against the Leader hate the troops and help the Enemy. Here is Bill Kristol yesterday on Fox telling Sen. John Warner -- literally -- that his duty as an American and a Senator is to keep his mouth shut and cheer on the President's plan: John Warner -- there's a great puff piece about my senator from Virginia on the front page of the Washington Post saying what do they want us to do in the Senate, do nothing? That's absolutely right. Absolutely right. Support the troops. Appropriate the funds. Encourage them. Let Dave Petraeus have a chance to win this war. Don't pass a meaningless resolution that, as Joe Lieberman said -- on the one hand, it's non-binding so it's meaningless, but symbolically, it could only encourage our enemies. That was preceded by courageous tough-guy Brit Hume's mockery of Chuck Hagel: "I would say there's one exception to that, and that's poor Chuck Hagel, who seems to -- who's getting grandiloquent about voting for a legislatively meaningless Senate resolution and calling it courage. That makes you kind of sad." And earlier in the show, Sen. Lieberman said -- again -- that anti-surge resolutions will "discourage our troops" and "encourage the enemy." So Chuck Hagel needs courage lectures from Brit Hume, John Warner needs permission from Bill Kristol before he can express his views about the war, and we all need to listen to Joe Lieberman and the White House tell us that criticizing the Leader helps the Terrorists. These are the same people -- the President, Lieberman, Bill Kristol, the Fox warriors -- who never tire of dressing up in Winston Churchill costumes and spouting the only historical analogy they know in the most reductionist form possible ("Churchill = strong, war; Chamberlian = weak, anti-war; we must Be Churchill"). But Churchill would have recoiled -- he did recoil -- at their argument that criticism of the Leader and the war are improper and hurts the war effort. Churchill repeatedly made the opposite argument -- that one of the strengths of democracies is that leaders are held to account for their decisions and that those decisions are subject to intense and vigorous debate, especially in war. In January, 1942, Britian had suffered a series of defeats and failures (which Churchill candidly acknowledged and for which he took responsibility), and he therefore addressed the House of Commons and insisted that a public debate be held in order to determine whether he still had the confidence of the House of Commons in his conduct of the war (h/t MD): From time to time in the life of any Government there come occasions which must be clarified. No one who has read the newspapers of the last few weeks about our affairs at home and abroad can doubt that such an occasion is at hand. Since my return to this country, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained by a Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A Debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any Member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the Administration or against the composition or personalities of the Government, to his heart's content, subject only to the reservation, which the House is always so careful to observe about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives. . . . We have had a great deal of bad news lately from the Far East, and I think it highly probable, for reasons which I shall presently explain, that we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings. I see all this rolling towards us like the waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons, which hitherto in this struggle has never flinched. The House would fail in its duty if it did not insist upon two things, first, freedom of debate, and, secondly, a clear, honest, blunt Vote thereafter. Then we shall all know where we are, and all those with whom we have to deal, at home and abroad, friend or foe, will know where we are and where they are. It is because we are to have a free Debate, in which perhaps 20 to 30 Members can take part, that I demand an expression of opinion from the 300 or 400 Members who will have sat silent. I am not asking for any special, personal favours in these circumstances, but I am sure the House would wish to make its position clear; therefore I stand by the ancient, constitutional, Parliamentary doctrine of free debate and faithful voting. Churchill then proceeded to give an account of the war and a defense of his strategic decisions (along with numerous admissions of grave error) far more detailed, substantive, lengthy and candid than any given by George Bush on any topic, at any time, during the last six years. He knew that he could and should continue in the war only if he had the support of the Parliament and his country for his decisions, and that support had to be earned through persuasion and disclosure. It was not an entitlement that he could simply demand. Unlike our little Churchillian warriors today, the actual Churchill did not seek to stifle criticism or bully anyone into cheering for him by insisting that they would be helping the Enemy if they criticized him. To the contrary, he ended his 1942 address this way: Therefore, I feel entitled to come to the House of Commons, whose servant I am . . . I have never ventured to predict the future. I stand by my original programme, blood, toil, tears and sweat, which is all I have ever offered, to which I added, five months later, "many shortcomings, mistakes and disappointments." But it is because I see the light gleaming behind the clouds and broadening on our path, that I make so bold now as to demand a declaration of confidence of the House of Commons as an additional weapon in the armoury of the united nations. And several months earlier, in 1941, Churchill made the point -- in an address to the House of Commons -- that it would be absurd to turn Parliament into a mindless, rubber-stamping body given that parliamentary democracy was what England was fighting for in the war (h/t Sysprog): The worst that could happen might be that they might have to offer some rather laborious explanations to their constituents. Let it not be said that parliamentary institutions are being maintained in this country in a farcical or unreal manner. We are fighting for parliamentary institutions. We are endeavouring to keep their full practice and freedom, even in the stress of war. And, quite similarly, there is this letter from Abraham Lincoln, written while a member of Congress in 1848, to William Herndon (h/t FMD). Herndon had argued (echoing the claims from the White House and the likes of Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol today) that the President had the unrestrained power to wage war against Mexico in order to defend U.S. interests regardless of the views of Congress or anyone else -- a view which Lincoln (accurately) found repulsive to the core principles of our political system: But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. The view of America as advocated by George Bush and his followers is as antithetical as can be even to the views of the individuals to whom they claim allegiance. They exploit historical events and iconic individuals as tawdry props, and they neither understand them nor actually care about their meaning. They turn them into cheap cartoons -- Churchill! Lincoln! America! -- drained of their actual substance and converted into impoverished, degraded symbols used to promote ideas that are the exact opposite of what they actually embody. Churchill accomplished exactly that which Bush cannot manage -- namely, he convinced his country that the war he was leading was legitimate and necessary and that confidence in his war leadership was warranted. It's precisely because Bush is incapable of achieving that that he and his followers are now insisting that democratic debate itself over the Leader and the war is illegitimate and unpatriotic. One can call that many things. "Churchillian" isn't one of them. Nor, for that matter, is "American." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
Glenm may write well, but his argument is facile. Churchill faced a far different type of enemy, and a far different type of war. moreover, George Bush has indeed put his case to the people, and faced his own "no confidence vote" as prescribed by the constitution. it was called the election of 2004. and bush won- overwhelmingly. unlike in 1942, we're fighting an enemy who cannot hope to defeat us on the battlefield. their only hope for victory is to make the war sufficiently painful such that the american public will tire of the war, and force their politicians to withdraw. that's precisely what's happening. "meaningless" resolutions like that sponsored by Warner are meaningless only in that they do not take any political courage. to the enemy, they have great meaning- it means their strategy is working. and warner, hagel, greenwald, and rimmy are playing into their hands.
Straight from the mouth of "My Heroes are George Bush and Joe McCarthy" basso. You're losing it, basso. It's like watching a train wreck. D&D. Civil? Oh, Sure!
I think you insult the wisdom of every American when you question their will to fight for a just cause. You should be ashamed. If the cause is right, the sleeping giant would awake and rain havoc on any foe. Wisely America has determined that this war is not that war.
Agree somewhat...mission accomplished on part 1,...part 2 has two key problems which I have discussed. better planning on these two key problems will lend our ease of pullback in combination with success...More days like this past Sunday is encouraging. Tactics and logistics needed closer examination and I'm happy we have Robert Gates as a better leader. This was needed.
I note that in the 2004 election, Bush and his party did not exactly encourage a debate "in the fullest and freest manner," going so far as to deliberately impede even weak Congressional investigations led by their toadies and to delay findings until after the election. Now admittedly, a good portion of the fault for why we did not have an honest discussion is the wimpiness of the Dems and their candidate, but to compare the 2004 election to what Churchill encouraged is absurd. As is the notion that Bush won "overwhelmingly." Wow. That's august company and I'm proud to be in that group. Man basso, it must be getting lonely in that bunker if you're grouping Warner and Hagel with me and Greenwald... and by implication, Churchill and Lincoln. I hope you are not saying that we are in more danger than in WWII. And I hope you remember things like V-2s, which were a wee bit more destructive than the words I type here on this BBS. The resolution is not "meaningless." It is a last plea to the administration to right the course and not further compound the strategic mistakes already so tragically evident. Like Webb said, if the administration does not change, Congress will show him the way. Or perhaps the people will show both the way. (I should also note that it is a last chance to preserve Repulican viability in the near future.) Do you really think that these guys have so much power that they can make traitors out of 70% of the country? Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound? Not only that drivel, but comparing the WOT to WWII? Really now. On top of that, you take no issue with Greenwald's thesis except to say that WWII was a different war against a different enemy. Your response sounds as if you are arguing that dissent and questioning of the administration's policies and actions really do equal treason. And it just shows how intellectually bankrupt you really are when you say "we're fighting an enemy who cannot hope to defeat us on the battlefield" as if that justifies your position and is a self-evident truth that only Bush supporters have the wisdom to see. But that's the whole point of terrorism isn't it? Yet the policies you support assume that you can defeat people who don't want to engage in a traditional battle with traditional military tactics, all the while ignoring the economic and diplomatic venues that, in concert, could possibly make a difference.
You know being in Asia for a month I almost forgot about Iraq.. almost. I agree with the article in one respect. Us withdrawing from Iraq in the near future will lead to chaos. That said us staying in Iraq is causing chaos. I have nothing ideologically against the surge but the biggest problem I see with it is that it is 3 years too late. Our forces are stretched and frayed from continuous deployment while the insurgents have gotten smarter and numbers or will to fight don't seem to be abating. The surge can only be maintained indefinately and the insurgents will take their lumps but many will likely ride it out hiding. As prior offensives have shown they are adaptable and mobile. A surge near the beginning of the war would've been different as it would've provided order and nipped the insurgency in the bud but its likely too late now and IMO Iraq's still going to be a problem next year and the year after. The question is are we going to be primarily the ones taking care of it. The article and this thread asks how willing are those who oppose the surge and favor withdrawl willing to send troops back to Iraq if problems break out again. That's a fair question and I think one that hasn't been fully answered by those who oppose the surge and favor withdrawl. At the sametime an equally important question that has never been fully answered by war supporters is how long are you willing to have American troops stay in Iraq? If this surge doesn't work and Iraq continues to be chaotic how long would you be willing to leave American troops in Iraq to fight insurgents? 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, indefinately..?
it's a fair question, but unfortunately one that can't, or rather shouldn't be answered with any degree of specificity. I want the troops home as much as anyone, but i also want to give them every opportunity to succeed in the mission we have charged them with. Let's give the surge, and petraeus, a chance. if it doesn't work, we'll know, and can make decisions on next steps armed with that knowledge.
