Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog Follow-up: Readers' Advice for the Dems

On Monday, The Fix asked readers to weigh in on what the Democrats' best next move is -- politically -- when it comes to the debate over the war.

Here are excerpts from some of the best comments submitted by readers. Thanks to everyone who chimed in!

Reassess in Three Months: "I agree with the multiple posters that the Democrat's (and Republican's for that matter) best option is to fund for 3 months. That way everyone can say that they funded the troops with no strings attached and gave Petreaus the opportunity that he wanted. ... Also look for the Biden proposal to slowly move as the solution for Iraq this summer. I saw Sam Brownback on This Week and he was saying that he supports the idea of three part federated state. If Brownback is getting on board this might be the strategy that finally wins out as we move out, which by the way would be huge for Biden, politically." -- Posted by: Andy R |

Call in the Generals: "Wishy-washy, effete stabs at sort-of ending the war don't work. DEMS: Get several generals & budget pros to tell the American people exactly what will happen to the troops in Iraq if funding is ended. We still don't know. If they can be brought out safely, then go full bore on stopping this madness by pulling the money plug. Almost half of the money going to Iraq goes to corporate contractors, at inflated prices with little oversight." -- Posted by: Marilyn Delson

Pass a New Bill: "Touchy situation ... It was said about Viet Nam, that it tarred every president who touched it. What Democrats must avoid at all cost is the loss of a war on their (Presidential) watch. They've got to make sure that history knows this is Bush's baby. One strategy might be to pass a 3 month bill and tie it to, say, closing down Guantanamo. We could pay allies to take the prisoners. Say, about 50 million apiece. They're obviously radioactive - you can't try them and you can't give them asylum. But for 50 million, a poor country like Albania could put them up in hotels, and give them 'body guards' to guarantee their safety." -- Posted by: Roger

Call for Impeachment: "It's clear that the war will not end as long as Bush and Cheney are in charge. So perhaps the best thing to do is move up the date when they leave office. An impeachment investigation with sworn testimony from Tenet, Powell and other insiders will change the political dynamic and force Republican members to cut their losses or face a blowout in 08." -- Posted by: Russ

Reduce Troop Levels: "Debating funding for the war is not the important issue: Democrats in Congress should focus directly on War Powers, and reverse the authority that was mistakenly given this President in 2002, by forcing a straight up-or-down vote on whether to remove the President's authority to continue a war in Iraq. Without war powers authority, our troops would not be allowed to go on their daily 'sweeps,' which is where most of them are killed. Instead, our troop levels should be reduced, removed to more remote, more secure bases, and focus only on training and support for the Iraqi and Kurdish armies." -- Posted by: D

Stop Funding Private Contractors: "First of all, there is no compromise. The President has stated that. I believe the best political solution is to defund the private contractors. The Democrats need to show that private enterprise is lining its pockets with billions of dollars, and they have a vested interest in keeping this war going. The question then becomes: Do we believe that the bloodshed of our soldiers to help enrich the private sector is a fair bargain? " -- Posted by: Brent

New Bill Without Timetables: "The Democrats should send Bush a bill giving him the funds he wants for the war, with no timetables. The bill should also include an effort to raise those funds, by repealing all of Bush's tax cuts, retroactive to April 2003. Bush then can try to explain why tax cuts are more important than supporting our troops and defeating terrorists in Iraq. -- Posted by: Jim Stahl

The Situation's Hopeless: "The President already made it clear. It will be up to the next President to get our troops out of Iraq. The White House strategy is to kick the can into the next administration. The President is seeking to salvage his legacy and the Democrats have to expose this cynical policy for what it is. The GOP's only chance to undo the political losses of the last four years is to force the next administration to 'lose' the war which is already lost." -- Posted by: Mary's Sarah Lovenheim helped The Fix compile the best reader responses.

By Editors  |  May 3, 2007; 11:59 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate Recruiting Under the Microscope
Next: Setting the Stage: The Republicans' First Debate


ijm439yxp2 fd9s3z27e8x1

Posted by: axti4jupuv | May 20, 2007 1:59 AM | Report abuse

ijm439yxp2 [URL=] a6nkzgpjen9qyzy [/URL] fd9s3z27e8x1

Posted by: axti4jupuv | May 20, 2007 1:59 AM | Report abuse

ijm439yxp2 q7ekzh67s15p [URL=] a6nkzgpjen9qyzy [/URL] fd9s3z27e8x1

Posted by: axti4jupuv | May 20, 2007 1:59 AM | Report abuse

ofzq48firtbouui nzh1wob7u [URL=] gv52vu4uuqn3dn [/URL] c1mp9srh39kjp

Posted by: xd2vuhsf7g | May 11, 2007 6:42 AM | Report abuse

While the Red Bushies and their comrades in Russia and China whine about it, it is time to pull the plug. Fund it for two months, with an up-down reauthorization vote based on benchmarks, and an increase in VA funding.

But time to pull the plug! - Will in Seattle

Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 3, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"Did you know Iran has a thriving Christian and Jewish population, both of which are allow to practice their religion quite freely?"

Nonsense. They have small token Christian and Jewish populations who are tolerated as long as don't rock the boat.

Students and political dissidents fill the Iranian jails. If you think Iran is such a great place you should move there. You wouldn't last a year, but might start appreciating America again.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | May 3, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks terrorists can be stopped by military force is just a gullible as someone who thinks it can be stopped by diplomacy. Terrorism is a state of mind, it transcends governments, regions, race, and religion. There is no way to stop terrorism, stop fooling yourself. Just because you take out a terrorist organization does not mean that you are having any effect on terrorism as a whole. A war against the Al Queda does not constitute a war on terror, it is a war on a single terrorist organization. It does nothing to change the way people feel or address the root causes of terrorism. Even with Alqueda completely destroyed (pipe dream) you will still have your Timmothy McVeighs, your Seung-Hui Chos, your Eric Harris your Dylan Klebolds, your John Allen Muhammads and John Lee Malvos ready to inflict terror domesticly.

Posted by: Oh.. really? | May 3, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"If bush missed the target, why no further atttacks on USA?"

Bush and the waring right wing only needed one attack on the USA to get everyone on their side, like Pearl Harbor. Now that they have the war then wanted all efforts are in preventing future attacks.

BTW, world wide terrorist attacks are way up and we have lost as many american solders as we lost people on 911, so i would not call this a victory. Trading the lives of armed americas for unarmed americans is a bit better...but no real strategy.

I am so sick of the immoral, weak, lieing, defeatist, budget busting RIGHT WING.

Posted by: steve | May 3, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

So it's all about body count then is it? I thought is was about American interests. You go invade Monaco - body count:zero. We win!

what has the 7 foot dude done for me lately, compared to say the bomb building guy. Is that a body count thing too or is it interests? sounds like a feeble talking point.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

lars asks "is the usa out of afghanistan?"

No. We dropped the ball there into NATO's lap. If you'll review my post above, we need to go back there & finish the job left undone. Maybe find that 7 foot dude while we're at it. What was his name again & what's he famous for? There was some number... 411? No, not that one. Someone remind me.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

" when you said "we'd be out in "months, not years" were you referring to Clinton's promise in bosnia."

No, I was talking about Bush admin promises about Iraq. Though I think I got it wrong, I think they said "weeks, not months." I think the body count was somewhere in the double digits then. When the bodies start piling up in Kosovo, your "But, but, but... Clinton" rebuttal will have some relevance.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I will respond to you when you get a name.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"were you referring to Clinton's promise in bosnia." - Zouk

Please provide a credible source or is this just another Zouk-created factoid with no actual basis.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"Northern ireland voted to remain british. the terrorists tried to overcome that with violence." - Zouk

Zouk, You do know that those so called terrorists were Republicans, don't you?

If the State Department didn't have so many Anglophiles in it, those terrorists would have been know as Nationalists or Freedom Fighters.

I'd bet that many at Foggy Bottom are elbowing each other over trying to be part of something to do with the most irrelevant public figure on the planet - The Queen.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I think maybe we should go into Darfur, but only for a few months.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - when you said "we'd be out in "months, not years" were you referring to Clinton's promise in bosnia. you remember that little conflict that didn't involve congressional or UN approval. Or US interests much for that matter. Still there.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

is the usa out of afghanistan? yugoslavia? korea? germany? japan? etc etc etc

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Churchill says, for Lars
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter."

Boy, I bet Bush, Cheney & Rummy would've appreciated you sharing that quote with them 5 years ago. Remember when we'd be out in "months, not years" - oh the heady days of naivety!

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Koz writes
"wars don't always go as planned. surprise - the enemy fights back. I know your party has a history... [meaningless drivel cut]"

Huh? Thanks for the insight - wars don't go as planned. Are you running for the job of War Czar or something? On the rest, what party am I a member of? You mistake my distaste for the current GOP as making me a Dem.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Winston Churchill

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." (1894) Theodore Roosevelt

To sit home, read one's favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men's doing. - The Outlook December 21, 1895 Theodore Roosevelt

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. Theodore Roosevelt

"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891) Theodore Roosevelt.....

It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things. Theodore Roosevelt

Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must not merely talk; we must act big. Theodore Roosevelt

Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind. Theodore Roosevelt

The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything. Theodore Roosevelt

The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal warmonger. Theodore Roosevelt

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

So Sen Reid, if more attacks on the US homeland would win you senate seats would you advocate them, or do you only sacrifice soldiers for your cause?

bsimon - wars don't always go as planned. surprise - the enemy fights back. I know your party has a history recently of only fighting terrible swimming rabbits and thinking 4 helocoptors is sufficient to invade a country and that flying below 10,000 feet in a Air firce fighter is too dangerous, but the military actually considers the enemies response when planning their activities.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"If bush missed the target, why no further atttacks on USA?"

Law enforcement efforts in the US are far more relevant to the lack of attacks in the US than the war in Iraq. Come to think of it, hasn't law enforcement disrupted plots to attack the US - which directly refutes the argument that 'fighting them there' keeps them from coming here?

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

anon notes
"By the way, Iran is Shia. al queda is Sunni. Maybe you didn't know that."

Another important tidbit: Iran is Persian, al Qaida (and most of the Middle East) is Arab.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

It is convenient for fascist nazi Islamic muslims and liberals to forget that the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" went to Germany as a guest of Hitler during WWII...and begged Hitler to find the "final solution" to the jewish problem. This same Grand mufti used his influence to raise Two Muslim SS Divisions in Yugoslavia (Kosovo) and Albaina. These divisions were responsible for the murder of almost 1 Million jews, Serbs and Gypsies.

This same Grand Mufti was the maternal uncle of Yassir Arafat! The Mufti's war continues today worldwide.

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Actually Northern ireland voted to remain british. the terrorists tried to overcome that with violence.

If bush missed the target, why no further atttacks on USA? why all the violence there? do you believe that a normally peaceful population is so enraged by the sight of a US marine they go blow themselves up in a market.

there are other more plausible explanations.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

name one islamic republic that grants equal rights to non muslims??? being a slave is not peace and not thriving...

none of us is free unless all are free


Fascist nazi islam is intent on killing or enslaving all non muslims......

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.
Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.
couplescompany . com / Features / Politics / Structure3 . htm

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

KoZ asks
"I am more than willing to entertain alternative strategies. got any?"

Yes, I've posted them here before. For instance, at 01:27 PM today, above.

"What exactly was your metric for success?"

For a metric, I like the NIE's efforts to answer the Rumsfeld question of "are we creating new terrorists faster than we're capturing or killing existing ones?" Unfortunately, the answer is 'no.' The problem with invading Iraq is the one Sec Cheney outlined in 1991 - we didn't know what to do if we invaded Baghdad then & sure enough, still don't know what to do now. Short term, in terms of solving the Iraq problem, get neighborhood players involved to boost some kind of Iraqi gov't to take over so we can get out. Then refocus on Afghanistan, repeating the same process there - get a stable gov't in place that doesn't require foreign troops to pacify the annual spring Taliban offensive. Following that, or more likely concurrently, work to resolve the Israel/Palestine/Syria/Lebanon problem. This will require changing policy from "whatever Israel wants."

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Yawn. The non-muslim insignia story was a fake. Did you know Iran has a thriving Christian and Jewish population, both of which are allow to practice their religion quite freely?

1981? Is that the best you can do? Very thin, lars, very thin. Iran does not execute its citizens in gas chamber, okay? Comparing Iranians to Nazis is ludicrous and insulting to victims fo the Holocaust.

By the way, Iran is Shia. al queda is Sunni. Maybe you didn't know that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

it's interesting how one perceives a terrorist... ireland and the irish people gained indepedence, respect and control of their destiny by a terrorist organization petitioning for an Ireland

a terrorist is a nation sans an army.... so when the middle east is liberated and american imperialism is uprooted due to the war of Bush the world will be a more cordial place

another thought is Iraq didn't have a single citizen on the 9/11 attacks but Saudi Arabia had over 10? why not tie a binding clause to troop funding to open an inquirt into this? seems when Bush tossed the dart on the dartboard in the middle east he missed the target

the "commander guy" legacy is a foregone conclusion either way cheers (_)C

Posted by: perspective | May 3, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Iran: Law would require non-muslim insignia
warrenreports . tpmcafe . com / node / 29995


Universal Declaration of Human Rights
un . org / Overview / rights . html
For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.
un . org / terrorism /
un . org / terrorism / strategy-counter-terrorism . html
un . org /

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The first issue that requires analysis of this debate (any debate for that matter) is the alignment of facts with what is being ballied about in the media, coffee shops & at your office break room. The issue of funding the war has nothing, read that again, nothing to do with the troops running out of money in the near term (heck, the far term for that matter). The current request for Emergency Spending (has anyone thought to ask why we continue to have Emergency Spending bills rather than standard budget items?) only partitions about 60% of the funds to operations in Iraq & Afghanistan with the remaining funds allotted to issues such as repairing domestic military bases, providing for new vehicles at those same military bases that have nothing to do with the war, building permanent military bases in Iraq & continuing to repair projects in Iraq that have been overspent & under accounted for (anyone ever put any thought into where this money is coming from?). These items should not be included in an Emergency Spending bill. So, that being said the troops are not going to wake up one day and not be paid, run out of ammo or not have body armor for a lack of funding (more like a lack of planning or as former Secratary Rumsfield told us " go to war with the Army you have not the Army you wish you had..."). The Federal Government knows this, our members of Congress know this & I would hope the President knows this but you never can tell. Additionally, what continues to be disturbing is President Bush's assertion that the civilians - read Congress - are trying to tell the Generals on the ground how to run a war. Funny, I thought Mr. Bush was a civilian and that he has been contradicting his Generals all along but perhaps since he's a "War President" it's okay for him to ignore the pre-invasion assessments that double the allottment of troops would be needed and many years would have to be budgeted to have any chance at "success". But I suppose no one wants to broach that subject.

All in all, hundreds of American soldiers continue to die, thousands of Iraqi civilians continue to die & millions of Iraqi citizens are now refugees (last count is between 2 & 4 million but who wants to quibble over 2 million). Meanwhile, the Administration is trying to force the sovereign nation of Iraq to accept their proposal for the development and ownership of oil and gas resources (which many learned individuals assess has the potential to outstrip Saudi Arabia's reserves) which, as one might guess, would continue to enrich foreign companies and their shareholder's pockets (okay not really that many foreigners mainly US companies)to the detrement of the Iraqi citizens.

So, we must all ask ourselves if we can continue to allow a maverick President to wage an unjust war that was entered into on false pretenses (really lies but that's such an ugly word) that continues to sacrifice American citizen's lives and bodies not to mention the US Treasury (note the estimated actual long term cost of this war & occupation is currently around $2 trillion - now say that slowly once again but don't forget to keep adding $40 billion per additional month that we are still over there). Our leaders have failed us. They have allowed our focus to change from eradicating Al-Qaeda and the terroism that breeched our soil. We are no more safe now than we were 6 years ago (if you don't believe that then tell me how much safer you are that TSA made you take off your flip flops at the airport when competent security reports show that a bomb could be snuck through an airport's security system for as little as $50,000). Our country needs to learn from it's past.

We need to remember that other George's famous words as he left office - no not Bush Sr.; George Washington - speaking of political parties he said "..They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion...The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty..."

And let us all not forget President Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech warning us about the rise of the military industrial complex, "...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together... Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war - as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years - I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight... You and I - my fellow citizens - need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals."

Our current path of nation destroying and imploring our will to secure our economic needs over that of others can surely not last. We need to remember the principles on which our nation was founded or lest we find ourselves partioned to a section of future history books dedicated to the lament of past great nations who fell mightily due to hubris and division.

Posted by: Sean | May 3, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

steve what happened in vietnam under a Dem congress and President. Are you pineing for the old days when we could lose a war unchallenged?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

you cons stating matter of factly your views does not make it so.

'the 'enemy' LOL. Iraqis are our enemies? I thought iraqis were our friends... that we want to bring big buckets of nice warm democracy.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Nazi Islam? ooh you are a case, lars. Quite the case. Utter and complete tool. Let me explain. Nazis were rightwing fascists. They took a group of people in their own country {liberals, academics, homosexuals, Jews] and took away their civil rights, and then methodically murdered them.

Now I do have to agree with you that the fundamentalists are very hard right wing, as the fascists were, very anti-homosexual and anti-woman and anti-civil rights, and in favor of theological rule, but that gives them much in common with american christian fundamentalists. Although to be fair, they haven't burned anyone at the stake for a couple hundred years.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I am more than willing to entertain alternative strategies. got any?

you Dems stating matter of factly your views does not make it so. you try this with global warming and all sorts of other things, but those questions are are still open and likely will be for the foreseeable future.

My measure of failure may not match up to yours. I consider no attacks since 2001 a major success since that was the main reason to take the war to the enemy instead of fighting at home. What exactly was your metric for success?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

thanks to the democrat surrender monkeys...

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse


If it were up to the Democrats, we would be clearing out of Iraq right now and Iran and Al Qaida would be making plans to move in.

Whatever the Democrats were 70 years ago, they have little left to show for it now.

Had Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi been in charge when we lost 3,000 soldiers on the beach in one morning at Normandy, they would have declared the situation hopeless, surrendered and turned Europe over to the Nazis.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | May 3, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

congress can't win a war....... But they can sure lose one..... right skippy....

Iraq pullout plan a rare wartime rebuke
The passage of the legislation in many ways surpasses congressional efforts to end the Vietnam War, a longer and far deadlier war for U.S. forces. Congress went years before it was able to agree on legislation significantly challenging presidential war policy, holding some 94 roll call votes on the war between 1966 and 1972, according to data provided by the Senate Historian office.

viet nam
In sum, Congress played a very important role in building opposition to an unpopular and failed Cold War intervention. Legislators emerged as major voices of skepticism, criticism, and outright opposition to Vietnam. They checked the hawks in the administration who refused to believe the facts on the ground. Congress was ultimately pivotal to placing pressure on the Nixon administration

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Why didn't bush just issue a signing statement, take the money and refuse all guidelines about the use of that money? He has done this kind of thing in the past, what is stopping him now?

Posted by: NoOne | May 3, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Since you like Facts:

During WWII (under 2 democratic presidents) we fought on 2 fronts, invaded and conducted combat in 40 countries, invaded and pushed Japan and Germany country by country out of the Pacific and Europe and defeated and democrized both Germany and Japan in less time then Bush has needed in Iraq. Face it, if you want to win a war...elect a democrat!

Posted by: steve | May 3, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

KoZ writes
"It is about the USA and how we fight a modern war"

what a crock. Maintaining peace in the midst of a civil war is not a 'modern war' problem. The problem is that the elected officials in Iraq are apparently incapable of taking advantage of any respite in the violence brought about by our troop surge. Given this failure of the locals to find solutions to their own problems, it is time to pursue alternate strategies.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Steve your facts are slightly off.

Since you are willing to read the underlining could you support such a failed policy? The facts are, Bush has said many times that Bin Laden is in the 100 sq mile tribal areas of north Pak. So why have we not gotten him....why has nobody in your republican party held him accountable to get a murder of 3,000 americas. You call lib's me leaving bin laden alive to mock us for 6 years has been wayyyy more damaging then 200 congressmen asking for a deadline. Wake up!

Posted by: steve | May 3, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

@ kingofzouk

Are you on another planet?

America: For the people, by the people.

Please tell us how the country BENEFITS by staying in Iraq for even one more minute.

Enlighten us.....

Posted by: the real king | May 3, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Theodore Roosevelt stood up to fascist nazi islam... why won't the democrats???


In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Sound familiar?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defeated the fascist nazi muslims 200 years ago
And again 100 years ago with Theodore Roosevelt
Tunisia in 1881 by France and Libya in 1911 by Italy. By then most of the Islamic world was under Christian domination. With the Ottoman Empire defeated in WW1, secularist Turkish rebels in 1923 overthrew the last Islamic Caliphate,

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I love how you try to find ANYTHING bad about Obama, and yet nono of it is nearly as bad as the daily happenings of this administration. Laughable.

You must really be scared of Obama....Oh noes, a black president.....idiots

Posted by: Jason | May 3, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot. Clinton captured and tried Mulosavcich through bombs, diplomicy and world pressure, Kennedy forced Russia to remove Nukes from Cuba through backdoor diplomicy and the treat of force without ever firing a shot

Steve your facts are slightly off. reagan fired many shots in Grenada, Panama, Nicurauga, etc. clinton had no world pressure, it was all US, the europeans did nothing and BTW, clinton's war was supposed to be one year (still there) and congress never approved and UN never approved. Kennedy gave up our missiles in turkey and would never have been in that situation if he had exerted the force required at the bay of pigs.

Not that any of this matters, but if you want to list a string of examples, it helps if they are pertinant and correct.

this is NOT about george Bush, mush as you Libs want it to be. It is about the USA and how we fight a modern war while being handicapped at home by vocal opponents with political stakes they consider more urgent than the country's benefit.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

talk about your failed leader...

"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling," Geffen said.

hahahaha people paying to listen to an admitted, proven, convicted, impeached, disbarred
For Clinton, New Wealth In Speeches

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

This election year will be quite simple for me. The candidate who proposes to repeal PATRIOT ACT is the one who will get my vote.

Posted by: Leo | May 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Patrick Henry...I bet the right loves you and your narrow minded perspective. This is not about Democrats or Republicans its about incompetent leaders in the White House. Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot. Clinton captured and tried Mulosavcich through bombs, diplomicy and world pressure, Kennedy forced Russia to remove Nukes from Cuba through backdoor diplomicy and the treat of force without ever firing a shot, Both world war one and two were won by Democratic Presidents. This is about a failure of Bush as a man and the failure of the republican congress to sell itself and the america people short by backing a failed leader. Since the democrats took back congress, Bush has introduced a plan 'the troop surge' to try and turn things around, he fired Rumsfeld, he has now opened talks with Syria and Iran...the democrats are doing more to pressure a positive outcome then the republicans ever did.

Posted by: Steve | May 3, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

We all need to stop getting bogged down in the micro exceptions that are generated from every debate. We should all simply look at the bulk of what we agree on and focus all our energy on them, i.e., destroy our enemy that is mostly located in Iraq at this very moment. We can work out all the little exceptions later.

It seems like every major decision that comes to the table now is paralyzed by tiny exceptions that some people make into huge campaign issues, i.e, you cannot secure the borders because all the people that work for the drug dealers will not be able to feed their families so if you support the bill to secure the border then you are terrorizing women and children by denying them money for food, etc.

We better wake up soon! or we will loose it all.

Posted by: InSumo | May 3, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961 "

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." --John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961 "

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Winston Churchill

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Plan B to end the war? Here we go.

Congress should first repeal outright the 2002 Iraq War Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution.

Make the repeal effective 45 days after passage by both the House and the Senate, unless within that time period Bush, the Republicans, Joe Lieberman, or anybody else can draft a new AUMF setting forth a coherent military mission for the troops stationed in Iraq.

Assuming no such substitute AUMF is passed, Congress should then proceed with targeted resolutions imposing an end to the occupation.

End the construction work on the so-called enduring military bases. Audit within 60 days.

End the funding to third party no bid contractors not directly involved in combat operations. Audit within 60 days.

End the US role in operating prisons in Iraq (where we guard over 20,000 civilian detainees).

And above all, pass my favorite resolution:

"The 2002 Iraq War Authorization for Use of Military Force having been repealed, it is the intent of Congress that no member of the armed forces of the United States shall be confined, court martialed, reduced in rank, reduced in pay, or otherwise subjected to any form of discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or any other federal law, who shall respectfully refuse to obey an order to leave the United States or any United States military base abroad for purposes of being stationed in Iraq."

As Rummy put it, you go to war with the army you got, not the one you wish you had.

Congress should expressly enable every single soldier to refuse to deploy into a war zone where Congress has withdrawn its authorization to engage in combat.

Those who want to obey orders to deploy may of course do so, with our prayers and continued support, with future funding issues to be addressed.

But those who respectfully decline to obey the Commander in Chief's unilateral order to take part in a neocolonial army of occupation may not be penalized in any way for their refusal.

That's what an all-volunteer military should be all about.

Let the troops start voting with their feet and see what Little George does then.

Bill from Saginaw

Posted by: william t street | May 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

wow i love Jim Stahl's one
great idea

make Bush take responsibility for his war funds! quit writing blank checks!

Posted by: shannon | May 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The smartest thing the "Democrats" could do is to step back and reevaluate their entrenched positions.

They have painted themselves into a corner by basing their political success on the failure of Democracy in Iraq, and military defeat of the US. The "Democratic" Party platform is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from that of Iran and Al Qaida.

The worst thing that could happen to the Dems now is peace in the Middle East.

Posted by: Patrick Henry | May 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"terrorism is a war crime!!!"

so is torture

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the idea that we should provide our troops with the money needed, but make the condition that we begin to pull the contractors funds @ given bench marks. These no bid contractors (which were mostly trained as soldiers @ US taxpayer expence) have been collecting up to 5 times what we pay our soldiers. I find that reprehensible.

Posted by: Jeff Tuttle | May 3, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

terrorism is a war crime!!!

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Reading this makes me so proud of our country and all Americans. To see so many Americans who know that this war and Bush is just a sad political money grab by the corrupt and powerful right. To know that you are not all fooled by the slander. We need to re-group and re-focus on killing Al Qaeda...with the strength and dignity of the great Harry Trumen (a democrat).

Posted by: Steve | May 3, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

billy bob plastic writes
"I think the Dems should meet with Gen Petreaus and hear his side. This is hard work and the troops are working hard, so let's support and pray for them."

Gen Petraeus has stated his side. It is that the military cannot solve a political problem. The job of the troops is to create enough stability that the Iraqi government can take control of their country. Whatever military goals are being accomplished, the Iraqi government has thus far failed to capitalize on our forces' efforts. If you're going to pray for something, pray that someone in Iraq will acquire enough charisma and political will to build some coalitions and take control of their own country.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

the democrats want to have some credibility, and you're not going to find that on faux noose.

not sure that they allow the word "debate" to be used on faux, it's more like "slam" ennit?

if libs are adolescents, repugnants are screaming, spoiled 2 yr olds.

libs might be firing comments that are not so mature sometimes, (who really knows how to do war well anyway?) but that beats having a kid raging around the world with a squirt gun in his hands, especially if the squirt gun is filled with the blood of our troops.

to try to decide for all those that come after us that we can trash the planet at "acceptable" levels to save corporate interests is obscene cynicism. must be one of those who think there are acceptable levels of violence as well.

the only foregone conclusion is that the r debate tonight is superfluous. how do you escape being known as the incompetence party? how did we know hawks couldn't plan a war? jeepers. how do you escape being the party of the rich that use cronyism and corruption to advance their narrow interests? how do r's walk away from the one thing, iraq, that is going to break our economy for ages to come and in the long term, harm our national security interests?

no wonder people are waking up, the stench is approaching corpse proportions.

Posted by: pre AmeriKKKan | May 3, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Bush should've been impeached in 2002.

Posted by: LANCE | May 3, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

DDT was never banned for use against malaria in tropical regions, including Africa. People have not died in large numbers due to DDT bans. Especially since mosquitos have started becoming resistant to DDT.

Posted by: Blarg | May 3, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Amazing. The Liberals have put all of their hopes for political gain in the defeat of the United States in Iraq (and for that matter the whole region) and now are faced with having to think about how it will look if that defeat happens during a Democrat's administration. The problem with today's Democrat Party is its lust for power at any price and its inability to see the real and dire consequences of its actions and policies. It appears they have yet to learn the meaning of "be careful of what you wish for"

Posted by: S. Dingle | May 3, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Jane - open the window shades and look outside. there is a real world out there which you are totally unaware of.

do you deny that millions have died of malaria. Or perhaps that DDT kills mosquitoes?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I think the Dems should meet with Gen Petreaus and hear his side. This is hard work and the troops are working hard, so let's support and pray for them.

Posted by: Billy Bob Plastic | May 3, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

'Perhaps now that the chief Al Qaeda propagandist in Iraq has apparently been killed, some of the fervor that AQ has managed to whip up will ease off with the removal of the voice.'

You sure are gullible. How do you know who or what this guy is or was, if he ever existed? Just because the administration says so? Because they never lie?

Funny how all these big deal 'terrorists' are all getting 'killed' or 'rounded' up, just when Dems have submitted this Iraq Accountability Act, isn't it? Funny coincidence.

Posted by: Jane | May 3, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse


Terror is a tactic. It has been used by lots of independence movements over the years. When political settlements are reached, they generally abandon their terror tactics. The Israeli underground committed acts of terror prior to the British leaving Palestine. Terror tactics were used in many of the anti-colonial wars in Africa and Asia during the 50's and 60's. The Irish drove the British out of what is now the Republic of Ireland with terror tactics. So, there are lots of historical examples of political solutions to terrorism. I do not agree that there is a political solution to AlQaeda but there can be a political solution to the Shia-Sunni struggle in Iraq.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

lars asks
"Since when has there ever been a political solution to terrorists??? NEVER... They have to be eradicated..."

Ever heard of the IRA?

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Saying AQ is "only" 10% of the problem doesn't really address their influence or their goals. One might say that the hijackers only made up 5% of all the passengers on the four crashed flights (if even that percentage), but history has demonstrated what that 5% accomplished. 10% can easily instigate the remaining 90% of "the problem" into a civil war. Perhaps now that the chief Al Qaeda propagandist in Iraq has apparently been killed, some of the fervor that AQ has managed to whip up will ease off with the removal of the voice.

Posted by: 23112 | May 3, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

See? I told you koz would arrive here at noon and post every 5 minutes until 7. He does it every day, and hijacks the thread every time. And lies constantly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse


The number comes from intelligence estimates. Every report I have read puts the AlQaeda forces at a very low percentage. The point is that a political solution is needed to end 90% of the violence and that will make it much easier to go after the AlQaeda folks

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

The dire consequences predicted for leaving Iraq remind me of how all the nations would fall like dominoes to become communists when we left Viet Nam.

Posted by: dennis | May 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"One strategy might be to pass a 3 month bill and tie it to, say, closing down Guantanamo. We could pay allies to take the prisoners. Say, about 50 million apiece. They're obviously radioactive - you can't try them and you can't give them asylum. But for 50 million, a poor country like Albania could put them up in hotels, and give them 'body guards' to guarantee their safety."

For 50 million apiece, I'll take one. He can live in the shed.

Posted by: grandwazoo | May 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

'The cost of the DDT ban, in human lives, is difficult to calculate, but it is certainly in the millions, perhaps the scores of millions -- which ranks environmentalism with Communism and Nazism as the three great genocidal causes of the last century.'

This is the new meme being pushed by Exxon... I'm seeing and hearing it all over the place. Comparing environmentalists to Nazis/fascists. It would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous, because simple people really believe this bollocks. It is stunning how gullible movement conservatives have become.

It is an incredible insult to Jews, and an absolutely moronic proposition, but that won't stop Rush and his legions of brain-dead zombie followers from spewing out absurd epithets like 'envirorazis' and 'enviroterrorists' and using totally wild theories like the above to 'prove' it. These folks are happy to be tools for multinational corporations, at their own children's expense. Imagine that -- someone who is happy to have their children exposed to toxic chemicals. I call that child abuse.

'Family values' is the Big Lie.

Posted by: Jane | May 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

JimD, I would not put a lot of stock in a number like that. where did it come from - random sampling, polling.

Pollster: Are you or anyone in your household a member of al queda?

Regardless of the actual percentage, the effects of their operations are the key. Even if it is 50% or 5%.

Maybe if we encourage then to wear gang colors we could decide who to shoot and who to arrest.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Why are the Democrats waiting? There is enough factual information to impeach Bush and flush his cronies out of the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Steve Weckel | May 3, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Since when has there ever been a political solution to terrorists??? NEVER... They have to be eradicated...

Posted by: lars | May 3, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman says
"Al-Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence."

The problem with Sen Lieberman is that he & people who think like him give far more credit to al Qaida than they deserve. As JimD already noted, aQ is not the bulk of the problem in Iraq. Tribal leaders in Anbar are making headway against al Qaida - surely if they've lost the support of local sunnis, aQ's prospects of success in Iraq are increasingly grim. C'mon Joe, keep your eye on the ball.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

As long as Bush insists on putting our troops in harms way then we need to ensure they have the money and the equipment to do their jobs. At the same time Congress sets time lines for ojectives the Iraqis and our military must achieve, they should be establishing a diplomacy time line for Bush. Congress should tell the President to hold a summit meeting of Arab nations and other nations who are interested in helping to rebuild Iraq; and to tie the plans from this meeting into an exit strategy for our troops.

Posted by: andrea | May 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

JimD -
your 1:06 post is exactly why the Congress should include Baker-Hamilton in their appropriations bill, rather than deadlines or benchmarks. Tie the military funding to non-military efforts on the part of the Bush admin. With Sec Rice's new willingness to engage with Syria & Iran, perhaps there is still time to do effective diplomacy.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse


That is correct about AlQaed's aims, however they are a distinct minority among the troublemakers. Senator Hagel just returned from a visit to Iraq and his briefings identified the AlQaeda element as, at most, 10% of the problem. A political settlement that resolves the other 90% of the violence will make it far easier to deal with the AlQaeda element. Meanwhile, our troops should be concentrating on AlQaeda and not policing the Shia-Sunni civil war.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 3, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

congrats zouk, you finally found a poll that has your hero rudy beating all the other canidates

too bad the general election isnt for 557 days and counting.


Posted by: give it a rest zouk | May 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Al-Qaida is not mass-murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table - along with everyone seated at it. Al-Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality."

From joe Lieberman - the only sensible Dem left it would seem.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Washington -- Good news for Republicans: Their top presidential contenders beat the top Democrats in a 2008 White House matchup, according to a new nationwide Quinnipiac poll released this morning. The survey comes at a crucial time, just before GOP rivals square off tonight in their first nationally televised debate. And it was taken April 25 to May 1, at and after the time Democrats held their first debate April 26.

foregone conclusion.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

There are really no good answers for the situation in Iraq. The invasion was a strategic mistake of monumental proportions. However, neither "staying the course" nor withdrawing on a timetable is an intelligent response to the problem. It appears that the Shia militias are lying low waiting for the surge to be over. That is the problem with a purely military response - it is like squeezing a water baloon, apply pressure and the water re-locates. The only solution to the chaos in Iraq is a political solution that all three parties can accept. I do not see the Bush administration pushing for a political settlement.

I think we should stop trying to play referee in the Shia-Sunni civil war and redploy our troops to secure areas. The troops should be used to train Iraqis, deter neighbors from meddling and conduct strikes against terrorists. Meanwhile, I think the Biden-Gelb proposal to create a loose federal system with highly autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions is the best of a bad bunch of options. I would also continue to engage Iraq's neighbors, as it appears the administration is finally doing, in efforts to achieve a stable Iraq. I have no illusions about most of the neighbors having noble intentions but it is in no country's interest to have a chaotic, failed state on their border.

We need to press the Iraqi government hard. Maliki's government is far too beholden to the Shia militias. He has called off US troops from arresting key militia figures, he has purged the army and police of officers who were too aggressive going after the militias. The Iraqi police forces are hand in glove with the militias. Tying some specific budget items that support the Iraqi government to specific benchmarks for progress towards a political solution might help also.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 3, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The 1962 publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson is often cited as the moment environmentalism went mainstream, and by the second half of the decade the book had spawned a full-fledged social movement -- which culminated in the first Earth Day in April 1970. The problem was that Carson's jeremiad about the effects of synthetic chemicals on the eco-system was based on (to be as charitable as possible) shaky evidence and dubious methodology. No matter, because the flower children took her message to heart, and with their signature combination of ill-informed commitment, self-righteous indignation and (as Yeats might have put it) passionate intensity, the movement pressured the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency into banning Carson's béte noir, the pesticide DDT . . . after almost 30 years of safe and effective use. Much of the developed world followed the American ban. That was great news if you were a bug, but very bad news if you were a human being living in sub-Saharan Africa -- where mosquito-borne malaria continued to decimate vast populations. Last September, over three decades after DDT had been pointlessly phased out, the World Health Organization recommended the resumption of DDT use in malaria-ravaged areas, and the United States Agency for International Development announced that it would fund the effort. The cost of the DDT ban, in human lives, is difficult to calculate, but it is certainly in the millions, perhaps the scores of millions -- which ranks environmentalism with Communism and Nazism as the three great genocidal causes of the last century.

enviros just keep getting it wrong at the expense of the poor. Like bad schools and social security - they are OK with us as long as we maintain the power.

More on Liberal adolescence regarding the war -

Why do Dem proposals sound so good and turn out so bad? consequences.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama is having another bad day:

Posted by: William | May 3, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are "biased." But they'll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

At this, even Hillary Clinton was thinking, "Come on, guys - let's grow a pair."

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company