Amen to that. I hope they have, but also remember they're congressmaggots, altho they show faint signs of at least aspiring to be (some of them) a little less corrupt than their GOP confreres, most likely because they've been denied the access to plunder the GOP has had for the past decade or so rather than due to any superior moral urges. It could be, with the recent wrath of the voters behind them, they'll be emboldened to do the Right Thing & emasculate/evicerate Bush to the point he's harmless for the rest of his term. I certainly am not fool enough to hope they'll go even farther in doing right, & impeach, convict, & execute both W & Cheney, as they should, and would in a better world.

I take issue that Hussein & Bush/Cheney are not evil. While your argument is, in one sense, perfectly true (you're arguing the old 'cats aren't evil because they play with their prey - it's NATURE' thing again) & in a purely analytical sense this is merely the conclusion of a sociological power play, such as Jane Goodall had chronicled among her chimps, in the human sense & realm of ethics et al, there is no mistake: all are evil, because their actions have been motivated by pure selfishness & greed for various sorts of personal aggrandizement and/or gain, carried out with utter disregard & callousness for the greater good of millions of others to the point of exceeding recklessness into depravity, & total indifference to suffering & loss of life. THIS is what renders a moral judgement both possible & necessary that all 3 are evil. Throw in gratuitous, cynical posturings by Bush & Cheney that they're doing this for national security reasons, and you can add hypocrisy to the point of nausea to the charges.

None of my assertions detract from the point of your article, however, which is will the Dems do what they SHOULD do. I desperately hope they will; but being realistic about the nature of the average political invertebrate, I'm very afraid they won't.

Democrats know that "defunding" [what a word] the war could blow up in their faces. Remember when the House Republicans let the government get "defunded" in 1995? Clinton won that battle by allowing them to look like reckless extremists.

The public voted their disapproval of the war, but they rapidly tire of the branches of government fighting with each other. So be careful what you wish for.

Whether we send more troops or not, there is more horror ahead in Iraq. It is possible that Bush is just buying time. The Dems may be better off doing what they're doing: keeping up the verbal pressure at hearings and in nonbinding resolutions. Let the increasing drumbeat of public opinion force Bush to do his own defunding, later in the year.

Speaking of public opinion, the public deserves some criticism and blame too. Until a little over a year ago, they were content to let Bush run his wasteful war. Support ran as high as 65%. Why did opinion lag reality so much? The war was as awful in 2004-5 as it is now. Too many of us are sheep, cattle, lemmings.

Nice article. I agree with you completely. I will lose faith and never forgive the Dems if they don't defund this stupidly run war by the dumbest president in the history of America. What I just don't get is why they wouldn't? A strong majarity want this war to end, so with public opinion on their side, they would actually be hurting themselves if they didn't act to end it by any means necessary. Most of the country want's Congress to decide the direction of the war in Iraq and not our stupid King Bush. Feingold and Biden I have faith in to do what needs to be done to reign in this president, but am unsure about the rest of the Dems. Grow a pair Dems. You will lose your base, and the reason you were put in power, if you do nothing.

Handyguy - Your argument is weak, no one will look like extremists when 2/3 of the public don't want us to be in Iraq. Are you saying 2/3 of the country are extremists? If so you might want to move. I don't grow tired of branches of government fighting each other, I do grow tired of children dying, Americans dying for reasons that were made up by Buchco, I grow tired of attacking countries that didn't attack us, I grow tired of imposing democracy on nations that didn't want it, I grow tired of neocons views put into action, I grow tired of a president who does not give a shit about what the people think. What has Bush done in the previous six years, and not to mention his speech two days ago, that would make you think he would ever give a shit about public opinion? He has consistently time after time done what he wants regardless of public opinion (stem cells) and cares about and caters to the neoclowns only. He is delusional. And your wrong, at least half the public has been against this war once we learned no WMDs, and evern before that. Don't blame it on the public, its been the rubber stamp Congress and the republicans who have allowed Bush to run his wasteful war.

Dee, I'm a Democrat and I oppose the war. No need to sling excess mud. I am not calling Democrats extremists who want to try to cut war funding. But if it causes us to lose face politically, and it could, and then we lose the presidential election and/or congress next year again, I will be pretty unhappy. Won't you?

The unfortunate fact is that the people of the US reelected George Bush 20 months after the invasion of Iraq. Polls at the time showed a 50/50 split on support of the war. It took the public too long to catch up to the reality of the war's horror.

But if we let our righteous anger trump our political good sense, we will live to regret it.

I'm a democratic leaning independent and I have opposed this war from the beginning, since Iraq never attacked us. You obviously missed my whole point here, this is why Dems don't win, because they have no guts, 2 to 1, the country opposes this war, so how in the hell could they lose face politically? You can't make decisions worrying about somethint that may or may not happen in the future. I just don't see how this is anything like a political gamble when so many are against this president and this war in the country and not to mention the world. Where have our allies gone? Yes I'm angry about the war, but it makes perfect sense to me, common and political, to defund the war, I mean look at this presidents approval rating on the war. He is a lame duck. Set a time table, maybe 6 months, and then if the president doesn't get them out by that time, it would be him who left the troops hanging and not the Congress. I'm not at all worried about the next president, it will be a Democrat, McCain can never win because he is a neoclown hawk.

Why wouldn't they? Well, firstly, we're talking politicians, Dee: the entire profession is populated mostly by those who are inherently sly, slick, & untruthful, dedicated to self-aggrandizement at anybody else's expense, and for the most part utterly lacking in conviction, honor, or ethics; amoral characters wholly available, like a hooker, to anybody who will donate to their private funds or enrich their lifestyles. Like hookers, they are for sale, therefore the ones at the top are simply the biggest, most egregious whores, most adept at accepting bribes from the worst of the corporations & lobbies.

Couple that with that we're talking BushCo, an administration that has proven to be the most corrupt & out-of-control since the days of Grant. They do not hesitate to smear, libel, slander, and lie about anyone, even their own. Remember the lies, dirty tricks, & smears about McCain & McClellan during the 2000 elections? Be very sure any possible little way in which even the best actions can be twisted into lies about those opposing Bush will indeed be put into play by Bush, who keeps around him such moral notables as Rove, Cheney, Rumsfield, and others, and who feels a "spiritual affinity" with a notorious moral monster & possible poisoner like Vlad Putin ...and you are known by the company you keep. Lie down with dogs & get up with fleas, et al.

Finally into the pot throw in an electorate that is downright stupid, vapid, & lazy. These are the same halfwits that BELIEVED all the BushCo bullshit about Dems surrendering DC to terrorists; idiotic soccer moms whose only capabilities are their ability to breed, gullible little old church ladies, & old geezers in American Legion hats who will knee-jerk applaud anyone with the title of president, even if that person is Hitler or Dracula, because they have no common sense & no brains: they obediently do as they're told by such as Cheney with his his spooky threats about Al Gore under their beds.

Given these three variables: the intrinsic nature of politicians of all stripes to begin with, the vicious & uncontrolled nature of the Bush Administration in particular, & the sheep mentality of the majority of Americans - those who bother to vote included - & it don't look good for the public welfare, do it now?

You must have mistyped the title. Mad is spelled with a 'd' at the end, not a 'n'.

Dave

From a Washington Post/ABC poll:

Do you support or oppose Bush's proposal to send approximately 22,000 additional U.S. military forces to Iraq?

Oppose: 61%
Support: 36%

Do you think the Democrats in Congress should or should not try to block Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq?

Should 53%
Should not 44%

This 8-point gap in opposition vs. action is what I'm talking about. You can call the Bushies lotsa names, but politically they are still shrewd enough to exploit Americans' hesitancy to buck the President.

I'm surprised to see that a majority back action; it may turn out to be a volatile number. It will be very interesting to watch things play out.

coupla points re IRAQ:

1) Bush knows his Iraq thingy is dead. His only hope now is to get the Dems to FORCE the issue of withdrawal so he can HOPE that history will at least give him the benefit of the doubt -- as opposed to the current status -- which is: history would deem the Iraq "war" to be the biggest mistake in American history.

2) Who cares what the American people and their cogress think:

Send in the cannon fodder.

3) Call me when the Plan B speech comes on.




=====

re: "**dog who peed on the carpet..."


Earlier/elsewhere, I wrote that Bush [in his TV speech] looked like "a pale **chihuahua in the middle of an anxiety attack."






**See Jung/archetypal presidential images

It's rather insane I think to believe the dems will defund this war. Although I believe BUSHCO. should be brought up on charges for invading in the first place, the point is they did, with the somewhat cowardly approval of the majority of the dems. The point is we are there and we have to try and get out with some form of success. I say that the dems only hope is to give the President "timelines" to have some form of tangible success metrics and then get out. In fact at this point I say we send in 50,000 more troops and let's get the job done as well as possible.

AND THEN GET THE FUCK OUT!

Its not insane at all to think about defunding the war, a handful of Dems have already professed this on video. Are they insane? I don't get why people always say how the Dems approved the war. Yes they approved it, with intelligence that we know was doctored and shaped by Bushco in order to make a case for it. How can you blame them? They were duped along with a lot of other people. You would think that your government would not lie about war but in this case its exactly what has happened. I don't blame Dems or Repubs. for approving the war given the lies we were told about the so called "threat" from Saddam. Success is not possible now, in fact what in your mind would be a realistic success? And 50k more troops wouldn't even be enough to quell a 1400 year tribal fight. We have got to be the dumbest motherf*ckers around to think that military force can somehow heal a rift between these tribes. Bush is the worst president ever.

We get the kind of government we deserve in this country, because we have a Constitution we can follow or ignore and we have the freedom to think for ourselves. We permitted the president & congress to ignore it when we invaded Iraq. The Constitution says nothing about "approving" a war, "agreeing among themselves", "passing a resolution", "supporting military action", etc., etc. It says that only congress may DECLARE war, and was written in that language to preclude such insanity by a president as we have now. It makes no difference if actions in regard to the Iraqi invasion and occupation are considered "legal" by this government, for they clearly do not meet this constitutional standard. If we had a declared war, we most likely would have a unified country committed to whatever it takes to achieve a successful outcome. Instead, we get a farce the 3 Stooges couldn't top (except it ain't funny). And we have allowed this shredding of the Constitution to take place, while we (except for military families) do nothing. At least during the Viet Nam era, people had guts-and patriotism-enough to speak out, rally, protest, demonstrate and challenge the lies, deceptions and failures of their so-called leaders. If the past 5 years is any example of responsible citizenship from any of us, we don't deserve any better. The Germans, too, all looked the other way in the 1930s when their country was stolen.

It's insane to suggest it because it aint gonna happen. The troops are there and the Republicans will kill the Dems if they stop funding them. Period.
I marched on Washington in protest of this war BEFORE it started and I didn't believe what our government said about shit and the DEMS that voted to approve the Presidents authority to use force were and are just politicking. While you may be right that 50k more troops won't do anything to help, I say we have to have one last real honest effort to establish security, stand up the Iraqi's, create TIMELINES and then GET THE FUCK OUT.
To me that's the only realistic course.

Then impeach BUSHCO.

Although I believe BUSHCO. should be brought up on charges for invading in the first place,

By all means, let's bring Bush up on charges. Let's charge him with doing the job of the rest of the world and the UN when they were too craven to behave responsibly.

Dave

How Wilsonian of you.

"By all means, let's bring Bush up on charges. Let's charge him with doing the job of the rest of the world and the UN when they were too craven to behave responsibly."

Why would we charge him with that Nalle?
He apparently placed himself in command of the World.

And too accuse the rest of the World of being cowardly while you presume to make BUSH courageous is flat out BULLSHIT. While even BUSH goes to some extent to admit mistakes, you MR. NALLE will continue to stay your course while the rest of the RESPONSIBLE WORLD AND UN sit on the sidelines waiting for you to prove yourself the fool. MR. BUSH already has. It's as obvious as the toy-store-bought cowboy hat on your head.

And by the way how brave is it for our commander in chief to send young men to their death while he never once was in any sort of danger during his young drinking career. That is the ultimate chickenhawk statement.

And too accuse the rest of the World of being cowardly while you presume to make BUSH courageous is flat out BULLSHIT.

When did I say he was courageous? I said he was doing a job that might need to be done and which no one else was willing to dirty their hands with. That's not really an act of courage except in the most general sense.

While even BUSH goes to some extent to admit mistakes, you MR. NALLE will continue to stay your course while the rest of the RESPONSIBLE WORLD AND UN sit on the sidelines waiting for you to prove yourself the fool. MR. BUSH already has. It's as obvious as the toy-store-bought cowboy hat on your head.

You repeatedly demonstrate that you lack the basic understanding of the realities of the international situation and the gross failure of the international community to deal with the threat of radical Islam. Bush may be incompetent, but at least he go that message.

And by the way how brave is it for our commander in chief to send young men to their death while he never once was in any sort of danger during his young drinking career. That is the ultimate chickenhawk statement.

Do you have children, Martin? Bush and I both have kids who are at or near the age where they might be called up to serve in a war and whose young lives might be snuffed out by terrorism. If you don't have kids you have no right to even discuss the war on terror.

Dave

"True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country."

Anonymous classmate of GWBush.

"Bush and I both have kids who are at or near the age where they might be called up to serve in a war and whose young lives might be snuffed out by terrorism."
- Dave Nalle

Bush's kids will NEVER have to serve. As for your children, well, maybe it's their turn to sacrifice for their country, since you managed to avoid service yourself.

After all, isn't ACTION the real way to "support" a war, rather than endless macho rhetoric on the blogoshere?

Dave says,"If you don't have kids you have no right to even discuss the war on terror".
Guess that leaves Condi Rice out of luck!
And Dave: What else in your mind does lack of reproduction exclude others from discussing? Please give us the most comprehensive list you can, and as soon as possible, before millions of childless people make the unforgiveable error of expressing opinions on forbidden topics. And please tell us too what section of the Constitution (or was it a revelation?) you're using to justify your prejudice.
Thanks, Dad.

"And by the way how brave is it for our commander in chief to send young men to their death while he never once was in any sort of danger during his young drinking career. That is the ultimate chickenhawk statement."

How brave was it for Bill Clinton to sned troops into combat while he was never once in any danger during his younger smoking career Martin?

Do you have an equal amount of scorn for him?


And you major cerebral hemmorhage......... did you have a problem with Chelsea Clinton not serving or just the Bush kids?

Dave says, sarcastically, "let's charge him (Bush) with doing the job of the rest of the world and the UN..."
The facts as we have them clearly show that Bush did the wrong thing, in the wrong way, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. But you and Snow are free to go on trying to spin dung into gold, as long as you don't mind the smell.

#18 says, "If you don't have kids you have no right to even discuss the war on terror."

Isn't that semantically the same as the "chickenhawk" argument?

Hypocrisy rampant.

best to write that one off as one of Dave's - occasional - 'brain farts'

I'd just like to remind everyone, especially Major Cerebral Hemmorhage and Dave Nalle that every American, from the right wing bible thumpers telling all non-believers that hell is a'waitin to the scumbag left wing heathens that hate this nation and want to turn it into some kind of idealized theoretical commie utopian paradise, have the right to formulate and express their own opinion on any issue that affects this nation.

We are all have this right regardless of whether or not we have served in the military, regardless of whether or not we have children, regardless of our age, sex, income, political affiliation, social views etc.....

It's par for the course for MCH to say someone can't have an opinion on the war because to see Nalle saying something like he did in this thread.

The last paragraph was supposed to read "it's par for the course to see MCH tell someone they aren't allowed to have a view on the war because they didn't serve....let's face it....he's an idiot...but it's surprising to see Nalle tell someone they're not allowed to have an opinion

Arch, I completely agree.

troll, I'll be saving this one to throw out anytime Dave gives MCH shit for using the argument.

That being said, people who have vested interest (vets and parents) DO have a distinct viewpoint due to their involvement.

But that doesn't invalidate others from holding and expressing their views.

That being said, people who have vested interest (vets...) DO have a distinct viewpoint due to their involvement.

Distinctive, yes. More cogent or valid in any way: No.

And I are one...

I chose my words with care, Clavos.

29 wasn't addressed at you, D'oh.

My bad. Should have made that clear, but I like to have SOME subtlety.

Remember when I told you I read everything you post?

I still do, and with as much care as you write 'em.

Oh, and I still don't always agree with you...

Heh...fair enough. But that is what conversation and debate is about. Reasonable people should be able to discuss things rationally, think about them and agree/disagree or whatever.

Sometimes, on rare occasions, a revelation can be had, and a mind is changed or opened to another way of thinking about something.

Those rare moments make all the bullshit worthwhile.

At least that's what I tell myself in the dark times when the truth begins to bite.

Dead on, Sir.

"I'm no sir, I work for a living and my parents were married." - Nameless NCO.

They all know that line, don't they?

Let's all be logical here, like Dave. Parents ONLY have the right to express an opinion on education; only those who procreate can possibly have anything worthwhile to say about the environment; and a 14-year old with a baby can discuss Bush's 'war on terror', but the Secretary of State can't.
Understand?

Lee

Please get it right

Its called a Baby Mama.

To restate your comment:

A 14 year old Baby Mama can discuss Bush's 'war on terror', but the Secretary of State can't.

The sexual act that she had which resulted in an egg being fertilized, makes her capable of dialoguing and resolving important national and international security issues. Everyone knows that.

"They all know that line, don't they?"

And here I thought it just belonged to the Navy 1st class PO's and Chiefs...(?)

SHARK. Must admit your comments are always interesting. Please continue sir. sr

I thought I might get some comments calling me a scumbag for "defending" Saddam, but nothing happened. Odd, that.
Adam Ash

Scumbag.

Happy now?

Adam, interesting approach.

Such an approach towards managing a state was appropriate during ElizabethI's reign per say. I suppose since many Middle Eastern countries have not evolved in the same way as the societies that we are familiar with, your assertion would have some validity.

However to add to your practical picture, there were Iraqis who wished him gone. They manipulated the willing American government to accomplish that task, in the same way that shrewd action was employed in the days of QE-I such as when she went to the extent of imprisoning her cousin Mary Queen of Scotts, then had her killed, for the sake of the state (or retaining power).

Those that wanted the over throw could then say (if we follow your logic), we cleverly employed the aid of the most powerful force on our planet to remove our enemy. The cost is worth the end result. The death, destruction and mayhem are an investment into democracy. Its a means to an end. In the same way that Saddam's murders were a means to a stable society. If your reasoning is employed, killing and enslaving people would always be rationalized; seen as being for the greater good... Every dictator becomes righteous under that code.

At some point, there have to be a people who stand for fairness. Call it what you want (the word democracy has somehow lost its cache) but in the end, we have to stand up for what is JUST.

Now what Bush did in sending our troops to Iraq was not JUST. However, leaving the Iraqis with the mess that we've created is also not JUST. The question then become what is most RIGHTEOUS or VIRTUOUS? The answer: We must fix the mess that we created.

WE indeed made this war. The polls were in favor of this war, meaning that Americans wanted to go into Iraq. We cant just change our minds because "we" were too ignorant about geography or world dynamics at the time. WE caused the mess and WE must clean it up. It is the RIGHT thing to do. WE waited for Cindy Sheehan to stand up and by then, it was too late.

Zedd:
Problem is, we can't fix the mess we made. We can help Iraq businesses rebuild with our money, but we can't stop the Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other.

The best thing we can do is leave. Then maybe the insurgency will insurge less, although the killing of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa will continue.

The poor Iraqis will just have to live through the mess we made. Already more than a million of them have left -- the professionals who can afford it -- and the rest will go through their killing phase until they run out of gas (who knows when).

Let's hope we'll never have the hubris to think we can install a puppet government in a country we know nothing about again, or worse, think we can force a US-type democracy via the barrels of our guns on a non-US type culture.

Adam

I agree that the manner in which we are there is incorrect. Our strategy is basically to send more and more kids to their death.

However, this is our fight. America will NEVER recover any amount of dignity if we leave right now. That entire region would erupt. The fighting would bleed into neighboring countries; terrorism would spread like wild fire. All this during a time when Chavez is doing his thing in South America and developing relations with Iraq. Global stability would crumble. We would be the laughing stock of the world but I don't think that anyone would be laughing. If we don't develop a strategy to contain this conflict within Iraq, we will experience the beginning of our downfall.

Our chance passed Adam. When you and I were shaking our heads when CNN had banners which said things like "countdown to freedom" or "operation liberty" in reference to the war, that is when Americans had a say. Everyone was busy waving flags when it was clear to everyone around the world that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Hans Blix and ElBaradei as Madiba :o) so eloquently stated prior to the war, did not find weapons. We were just caught up in a stupid fervor, as we often are.

Perhaps this event will mature America. The malaise of living in a perpetual movie will fall and reality will set in. No amount of money, charm or patriotism can fix this mess. But we can't walk away either. Perhaps we the people will develop a better relationship with "cause and affect".

We have got to stay to contain the mess that we made into Iraq, besides it is the JUST thing to do.

What we can do, is stop fighting and withdraw our troops to our fouir biggest bases in Iraq and stay out of the sectarian violence.

We just stay holed up, drinking Coke and playing pool. We do nothing,

But our presence therre will stop Iran, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia or Egypt from turning the Iraq Civil War into a regional conflict.

That's the obvious solution to all our ills in Iraq.

Adam Ash

Adam #46:

Yup. It's STILL a good idea.

From your keyboard to the WH and Pentagon...

Sooner or later, like it or not, the action & decisions have got to lie with the Iraqis whether they continue killing each other, allowing foreign insurgents in, giving them aid & cover, etc. Not us the US voters, not the US military, and not George W. Fucking Bush, whose arrogance, greed, lies, & criminal ignorance are what got us there to begin with.

We have already poured how many trillions into Iraq trying to "rebuild" a good deal of what never existed in the first place, except in the immediate vicinity of Saddam's palaces. We owe NOTHING more in either money or blood to these people. What we DO owe them is to hand over W. Bush & Cheney for the Iraqis to deal with as they see fit. I think that would encompass justice pretty well. Even more so if it should involve popped-off heads during hangings.

Nancy

I hear you and I agree that we shouldn't be there.

However, the problem is that a year before the war, a variety of generals said that it would cost trillions of dollars and take about 20yrs to accomplish anything if at all.

We the American public were busy watching American Idol and waving flags. We didn't listen. We are now paying for OUR mistake, WE THE PEOPLE. We went ahead and re-elected The Decider.

We cant act like spoiled kids. We have ruined a nation. Hundreds of thousands of their people are dead, not because of Saddam, but because of us, WE THE PEOPLE. We screwed up royally and we have got to pay the price. Its only fair.

If we don't stick with this, we will pay a heavy price. A greater price than if we leave. What we need to do is wait for another administration; One that is going to apologies internationally for the fiasco and begin to get real help from the international community to support this country to stabilize.

If we go commando again and then withdraw, we will face irreparable consequences. We are at a pivotal time in history. The world is changing quickly. Major alliances are being formed as we speak. The information gap is closing. We can not blow it.