Are the Dems digging themselves a hole ?

[Murffieus]

Only two things can happen in Iraq----the troop surge works and the violence is quelled to a manageable level----or the troop surge fails and the Dems force us out.

If the trrop surge works, the political price the Dems play is obvious----in that case they were wrong and can be painted by the Republicans as not only incompetent on foriegn affairs, but also unpatriotic.

If the troop surge doesn't work and the Dems force us out by cutting funding-----and then all hell breaks lose there and an Iranian Theocracy puppet comes to power (Al Sadr and massive ethnic cleansing takes place (ala Yugoslavia)----or worse yet if this spreads to other countries (crape vs Sunni) or still worse yet if terrorist camps are set up ala Afghanistan and we get attacked again (inevitable) and/or oil production/shipment gets disrupted in a major way with obvious implications to our economy------the Republicans can remind the electorate, "I told you so".

Seems to me either way the Dems are screwed !

[mu_hilltopper]

Your argument is as if the Dems in Congress are out there on their own.  At this point, they are simply representing the will of the people.

The country is massively in support of ending the war.  ~65% oppose the surge.  True, that drops to 40% who want funding cut off, but that number would rise if the surge doesn't quell the violence. 

And honestly, I don't think there's any way the electorate will blame the Dems for bad things that happen in that region going forward.  The Bush  presidency is entirely about this war and the future, whether good or horrific, will lie at his feet alone.   To date, all congress has done is signed checks and blown hot air. 

[77ncaachamps]

Last November, The Dems - not the Republicans - can reminded the electorate, "I told you so."

As in, "I told you so that funding a protracted war in Iraq with no clear vision and with little of a just cause now would get us into this mess."

The citizenry knows either you stay or go. They voted for the Dems so as the above poster had intimated, "They're for a break from Iraq."

Even with all of the possible implications, it's time. It's time to get out.

The Dems can also remind the US people: Bush got us into this mess, he ain't getting us out of it...so clean-up is always harder to do.

[Murffieus]

The Dems should be leading public opinion not following it! That's a Bill Clinton MO-----look at the polls and do what the people want----tell them what they want to hear-----but is that good leadership?

The majority of people in this country are not always right (far from it). (people's opinion  follow sthe news----they don't lead it) e.g. Harry Truman had a worse approval rating than GWB when he left office in 1952-----now he's seen as one of our greatest Presidents-----go figure!

If we get out of Iraq------Al Quida and Hezbullah following will soar as radical Islam claims victory. Also when the going gets tough they see that America quits! Makes for a bigger and much more expensive war down the road-----not to mention an excelleration of terrorist attacks all over the world-----INCLUDING the USA !

[mu_hilltopper]

"If we get out of Iraq .. Al Queda/Hezbullah will soar.." -- Yeah, and who's fault will that be?  No one but Bush and the neo-cons.  Period.  The dems would very easily say "He started it.  He bungled it.  The plan for the future wasn't working.  We let him go 4 years (certainly a 5th and 6th will occur) and it's just plain hopeless.  So we cut our losses and ended it."

As I've said before, the only legitimate debate is over leaving tomorrow, or staying for 5-10 more years.  Any short-term surge is doomed, and quite frankly, laughable.  (It's been said more than once by these same leaders that the war on terrorism is a generational struggle.  Some 22k troops for 6-12 months gonna stop that generational struggle?  Yes.  Laughable.)

If Bush and the Republicans were the "leaders" you say they are, they'd cowboy up and propose an honest plan for the next decade, and an honest cost estimate (say, $3 more trillion or so ought to do it.)   But of course, that would mean their political death.  That would be some true leadership, though. 

[augoman]

I don't know, 'Topper', I think that the wise voice would have to say that Carter started it- not Bush- in 1979, when he failed to react to the acts of terrorism by Iran against the US (embassy, hostages, etc.).  It has festered ever since and exploded a few times (2 attacks on WTC, USS Cole, etc.).  If the terrorists weren't such cowardly fighters targeting non-combatants, women and children, it would be an easy battle to fight..., It's a tough fight, a tough decision, and tougher still to stay the course.  I think we would be better served w/ many more troops than planned and a massive 'clean-out of bagdad, or..., massive smart-bombing of infiltrated areas. 

[Murffieus]

hilltopper----you talk like this war against Al Quida is Bush's fault------it was radical islam (Al Quida) who started the escalation with 9/11. Bush has taken the fight to them in Afghanistan and Iraq (don't forget it was Al Quida that instigated the Iraqi civil stife with their bombing of the religious mosque)-----Al Quida and Iran can't come out of this with a victory----or heap big trouble for us down the road.

3 trillion or whatever-----this is a fight to the finish-----and it was started by Al Quida's 9/11 (not any country----as radical islam knows no boundaries)!

[mu_hilltopper]

hilltopper----you talk like this war against Al Quida is Bush's fault--

I shouldn't sound that way, since it's not what this thread is about, nor what I said.  This thread is about Iraq (and the Dem's plans.)  I will say I do believe Iraq is Bush's fault, as it was, unarguably, a war of choice (or at best, a war based on flawed intel.)   -- Let's not forget that Al Qaeda was nearly non-existent in Iraq with Sadam in charge, and more specifically, OBL had negative things to say about Sadam.   As the National Intel Estimate report explained, the war in Iraq is creating more jihadists than it kills.   What a mess.  Bottom line, Iraq was not a part of the war on terror prior to 2002, as in truth, Sadam and Iraq were rendered quite impotent over the years of sanctions -- a fact we found out too late.  Was Sadam a bad dude to many of his own countrymen?  Sure.  But no threat to us.

I do agree with you that the bad forces in the region can't get a victory out of this or we'll have a "heap of trouble".  Unfortunately, at this point, I don't believe it's avoidable anymore -- unless we're committed to occupy Iraq for decade(s), which politically, would be impossible to do, as any pol who admitted that's what it would take would never get elected.

There is no conceivable way this war lasts much past the 2008 elections, as, if it's still as grim as it is now, the people will not elect a president who won't end the war in short order, a lesson learned in Nov06.

[Murffieus]

Saddam was indeed a terrorist or jihadist-----he was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $30,000 apiece (a small fortune in the mid east) in very public ceromonies, he was ripping off the UN for billions (mostly our money) in the oil for food program, he was harboring a terrorist camp in norhtern Iraq (Anwar al Islam), he was shooting at our planes, and although there were no WMD found , the final report was that he had both the capacity and the desire to rebuild his arsenal once the sanctions were lifted.

Finally and most importantly-----you will notice that there hasn't been a terrorist attack here in almost 6 years----why----because we have AlQuida bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan------that's the battlegrounds right now----we lose in either place----and the battleground will be the USA !

Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as it takes is a necessary evil-----brought on by the provacation of the 9/11 attack-----Al Quida can not be given the opportunity to regroup !

[Tommy Brice for Coach]

Finally and most importantly-----you will notice that there hasn't been a terrorist attack here in almost 6 years

And there hadn't been a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 since Pearl Harbor. The reason they aren't attacking is because we have pretty much rendered them useless. We all know how ridiculously easy it would be for someone to walk into a shopping mall and blow themselves up in America.They don't have the man power and it isn't going to happen. It doesn't matter if we are in Iraq or not.

We need to stop this whole "everyone wants to kill us!!! The terrorists are coming!" attitude. They got their shot on 9/11. They are incapable of anything more today.

[Murffieus]

They are "incapable" only because GWB has put Al Quida in disaray-----they are attempting to reestablish themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan-----a win in either place or both-----and Al Quida has an even bigger ticket for more recruits than after we forced out of Somalia-----which by the way Al Quida used as a recruiting tool!

They're for real-----and they are indeed out to get us-----just listen to the Zwarhari tapes!!

[mviale]

George Bush dug a far deeper hole.  Seems like the dems are trying to get us out before we are buried in debt.

[Murffieus]

Far from being "buried in debt" (debt vs the GNP is at what historically has been very manageable levels)-----the choice is either finish the job now-----or down the road spend a lot more lives and dollars to finish what would be a vastly tougher task (not to mention WMD attacks here)!

[mu_hilltopper]

They are "incapable" only because GWB has put Al Quida in disaray-----they are attempting to reestablish themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan

Boy, then you must be pretty bummed after reading the Times this morning: "Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen to Regain Power"

Imagine that, 5 years after we invaded to squash Al Qaeda, with military might the world has never seen before, it looks like all we've managed to do is bog them down for 5 years, and they keep coming back like a weed.   Of course, I'm not happy with that either, but it goes to show that it's probably impossible to keep these guys under wraps for very long.  Plus, it doesn't take an army to pull off some terrorism.   Looks like 5 years didn't do it.  Maybe 10 or 15.  Should we make plans to stay forever?

[tower912]

The homily at mass yesterday was about turning the other cheek.  The priest asked rhetorically what would the world be like if we had used some of the trillion dollars we are blowing in Iraq on things like rebuilding the towers, rebuilding our own infrastructure, sending 100,000 peace corps workers to the middle east.   What would our image in the world be, what would our country be like, and wouldn't we be living Christ's call.    They can never defeat us, only we can defeat us.   And by giving away our civil rights, aiding them in their recruiting by illegally, pre-emptively invading countries based on fallacies, and isolating ourselves in the world through this fool's errand of a crusade, we are surely destroying ourselves and this country we hold so dear.   Why the sycophantic support for the race to armageddon?

[WashDCWarrior]

I wouldn't take that as a rhetorical question.  Perhaps we would have had an attack dwarfing 9/11.  He seems to view this from 10,000 feet.

[mviale]

Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen to Regain Power
News – Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism official.

[Murffieus]

That's what happens when they get a sanctuary (Pakistan in this case)----it's like stepping out an ant hill ------ they keep coming back. Ditto for Anbar province in Iraq should we leave there before the job is done.

Priests are very idealistic when looking at world events------sure all the billions spent on arms would be better served on bettering lives (most everyone would agree with that)----but the reality is there won't be many lives to serve if Al Quida gets WMD (especially nukes------and don't think they're not trying to get them)!

BTW-----where are we going to get 100,000 peace corp workers to go to Iraq------who wants to be beheaded-----not a good way to go!

[Tommy Brice for Coach]

but the reality is there won't be many lives to serve if Al Quida gets WMD (especially nukes------and don't think they're not trying to get them)!

This is what is called a red herring argument. It is a logical fallacy that I learned in my English class here at MU. A red herring is an argument that does not address the original issue.

On top of that, it is a bit of a slippery slope argument, yet another logical fallacy.  There really isn't any proof that us leaving Iraq will cause Al Quida to get nukes - you are just playing on emotions.

BTW-----where are we going to get 100,000 peace corp workers to go to Iraq------who wants to be beheaded-----not a good way to go!

BTW, where are we going to get a bunch of soldiers to go to Iraq... oh, wait.

Offer them free education - just like the armed forces.

Don't misquote me here - I have the utmost respect for our troops. But maybe, just maybe, we should refocus our foreign policy to one of peace instead of aggression.

If people see us making an effort to start be peaceful, I bet they would have less of a reason to attack us.

If I could see the Peace Corps and the Military trade roles in our society, I would be ecstatic.

PS: Here's one college student signing up for the Peace Corps when they start offering free education.

[mviale]

Thankfully the pro-military action in Iraq only has 30% support.  70% of americans have moved on past vietnam, I mean Iraq.  By 2008, we are gone, its just a matter of how fast we can make this happen as Bush is still trying to save his arse.

[augoman]

Thankfully the pro-military action in Iraq only has 30% support.  70% of americans have moved on past vietnam, I mean Iraq.  By 2008, we are gone, its just a matter of how fast we can make this happen as Bush is still trying to save his arse.

Man, I don't know how you can even hint at comparing 'nam to Iraq.  If the Kennedy brothers hadn't assasinated the pres of S. Vietnam and thrown troops in the area as 'advisors' we wouldn't have been there at all.  50,000 US deaths later, Johnson was still throwing troops in- with his draft and his temporary student deferrment.  When we fled, Pol Pot took power in Cambodia and killed MILLIONS of his own countrymen.  I guess I'd have to see those things happen in Iraq to see any similarity.

[Murffieus]

Chunchen----you don't think that leaving Iraq wouldn't bolster the support in the Mid East for Al Quida & Iran? Well call it a "slippery slope" or anything else you want to call it----but if we leave Iraq without finishing the job, Al Quida and Iran are the big winners------they will look to be the winners in this war and impovrished mid east people are very vulnerable to be attracted to what they perceive as a winner. With winning comes money, power, and following-----everything has it's price-----and that includes Nukes and other WMD (Pakistan, N Korea, black market, and eventually Iran).

Not coincidence no attacks here----GWB has taken the fight to radical Islam----leaving Iraq gives them an opportunity to regroup in Anbar province and follow us here! Quitting, down the road means a bigger war with many more lives lost and much more money spent.

Your position of quitting Iraq assumes the absolute end of Islamic Facism would follow-----talk about "slippery slopes"!

BTW-----do you really think 100,000 would flock to Iraq as peace corp volunteers for a free education? There is no way in God's green earth that you'd get a groud well of volunteers there-----that would be like 100,000 jews volunteering to go to Hitler's Germany to educate the people there on why the death camps should be plowed under and inmates let go-----after all they would get a free education!