Huh?
It's no surprise that Norm Coleman voted with Bush and against bringing the troops home from Iraq. According to Bush, the "next president" will decide when the troops will come home, not Bush. That means almost three more years of IEDs, insurgent attacks, torture, and other good stuff that doesn't accomplish much of anything. Norm doesn't have a problem with that, apparently.
But what I don't get is why Mark Dayton is on the Bush side of things. Does Dayton really believe that U.S. troops need to continue to be put in harm's way for so long? Does he honestly believe that this administration has a plan, that Donald Rumsfeld is going to make things better?
It's time to face facts: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. blew it. They have done just about everything wrong that can be done in war. Oh, sure, we have a "government" in Iraq, but Sunnis and Shiites continue to kill each other. At this point, the only thing that would stop them from doing so would be to send so many troops to Iraq that nobody could sneeze without being seen. Since that's not going to happen, what else is there to do?
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 17:36
13 Comments:
There was a great quote from W. today at the site of the Hungarian Revolution Memorial:
The lesson of the Hungarian experience is clear: Liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied. The desire for liberty is universal, because it is written by our Creator into the hearts of every man, woman, and child on this Earth. And as people across the world step forward to claim their own freedom, they will take inspiration from your example, and draw hope from your success."
I just want to keep reminding you white liberals that non-white, non-Western European people deserve your support as they seek freedom.
Answer this question: "If the Iraqi people were white, would you support the War?" I think most of us know the real answer.
Ask the Iraqi people what they think about our invasion and occupation.
And ask if we'd even be there if it weren't for oil. I think most of us know the real answer.
If the Iraqi people were white, would you support the War?
Let's see: the administration is determined to go to war in Iraq, despite the very good reasons provided in the first Bush administration not to take over Iraq after Gulf War I. The admin uses the fear prevalent after 9/11, false linkages between Iraq and 9/11, and intelligence that is not believed even by its own intelligence agencies, to sell the war to the public. After Iraq is taken over, it is completely mismanaged: looting is prevalent due to very low troop levels and general security cannot be provided. Troops who have been put into a very difficult situation by their civilian leadershiop do not have the equipment needed to protect themselves. The troop levels themselves are substantially lower then those advocated by career military men, such as Shinseki, overridden by admin officials with no appreciation for what is entailed in occupying a country. As each day goes by, the country slips closer to a civil war fought between Sunnis and Shiites. The best we could have ever hoped for would be an Islamic theocracy, and they will probably end up with that eventually, but only after a bloody civil war.
For all these reasons and several more, an increasing number of people are dissatisfied with the war. And Da Man thinks our opposition is because they are not white or western?
I am continually amazed at how the right can adopt a view of a situation, maintain it despite mounting evidence that that view is incorrect and never was correct, and then in turn try to attribute people's opposition to their view with non sequiturs as that offered above.
Crisyshot and Anonymous II -
Yes, exactly, and let's also remember Afganistan, which this Administration has totally FUBAR'd, but which Dumya still points to as one of his "achievements".
Ms. Anon
We can't let our contempt for who led us to war guide how we get out.
As much as I don't want to support the president on... well anything really... I do believe that at this point the criteria for leaving should be set by what we accomplish not an arbitrary timeline.
We shouldnt be there but we are and now we have to live with that reality and make the best of it.
You people are a bunch of fucking morons. "Bush lied, people died." Well if you don't like it, then why don't you go over there and reason with the terrorists. Maybe we'll get lucky and your heads will be cut off like the terrorists did to our hero soldiers last week.
Quit blaming America first or leave the country and go to Vienna with Cindy Sheehan.
Troll, I'm typing this slowly because I know you can't read very fast. We are trying to save OUR country from the political terrorists that people like you voted into office. Go eat some toadshit or something.
For the Anonymous who posted at 1:21 PM, June 23, 2006:
First, don't be too quick to dismiss arbitrary timelines. Most projects are managed by scores of arbitrary timelines.
Second, don't buy the old "Cut and run" line. What was truly arbitrary was the decision to invade in the first place. We've come to the realization (root word "real") that there are no weapons of mass destruction, there is no capability to create WMD, and there is no infrastructure to support creating the capability to create WMD. Regime change has been accomplished - Hussein and his minions are no longer in charge. The President and his political allies, who are directly responsible for destroying the social structure already in place in Iraq, have denied further funding to rebuild the country. What little was provided was severely compromised by the grubby fingers of the handmaidens of Darth Cheney.
Dumya has steadfastly refused to delineate what he considers to be an acceptable outcome for this war, beyond an extremely nebulous "Bringing d'mockrussie 'n freedum" to the Ah-rackie people" - which is impossible, as has already been explained in previous posts on this thread.
I'd prefer an "arbitrary" but actionable date for the redeployment of U.S. soldiers from an UGLY situation, than to witness a PERMANENT INSTALLATION of U.S. occupation forces (in the 4 huge bases they are building in Iraq) that is in place SOLELY to protect Big Oil profits.
Enough of our soldiers have been killed or maimed in this horrific and bloody farce that the Chimp calls foreign policy. No MORE! Get our people out of the carp barrel!
Ms. Anon
At 1:41 PM, June 23, 2006, Anonymous said...
You people are a bunch of fucking morons. "Bush lied, people died." Well if you don't like it, then why don't you go over there and reason with the terrorists. Maybe we'll get lucky and your heads will be cut off like the terrorists did to our hero soldiers last week.
Quit blaming America first or leave the country and go to Vienna with Cindy Sheehan.
The intellect displayed in the above post demonstrates how we can have an administration that is so incompetent and yet still be supported by people such as this. Any logical or fact-based arguments will be lost on him.
Ms. Anon
Thanks for your comments. (I posted the accomplishments vs timeline comment)
Check out Mr. Sponge's post at minvolved here
He articulates the argument a lot better then I can.
Anonymous,
Thanks for the link.
The results that Mr Sponge specifies must be achieved before we exit Iraq -- "a fully functioning democracy, an operable security force and a sustainable infrastructure" -- may make a good wish list, but I seriously doubt that the first one is achievable in any real sense of the word, given the religious and philisophical differences of the major parties involved. The second one is possibly doable, but it will take a really long time to establish. The third - well, they had the third, but it was only because a ruthless dictator enforced it with threats, torture, death, etc. (Just in case anyone is unclear about this, I'm talking about Hussein this time, not the bloody Mad King George.)
We propped up the Shah in Iran, and it got us nowhere. I'm not any more optimistic about the chances for even nominal democracy in Iraq with Bush's puppet in power, even if our soldiers are there to allow people to cast votes.
(Frankly, I think a better use of our troops would be to monitor elections in the U.S.....)
So you and I continue to disagree about this. I hope I'm proven wrong, and a good solution is soon found that will allow us to save our soldiers AND provide all appropriate support and remediation to close the Pandora's box Bush & Co. unleashed. (Heavy sigh.) I just don't think it will happen.
Ms. Anon
It would seem that this Blog and all Liberal Blog’s are full of chicken shit losers. Since you have no plan for anything your political party has complained about, whined for, bitched and moaned about you attack, and attack and attack. When it comes to talking and words, you are fighters and always keep you lips flapping in continuum without ever stopping. Why, just because you can. It's amazing how much you ramble without ever saying anything. And then when you post, you don't even have the guts to use your name so you use a fake name or anonymous or whatever you dream up, just like your arguments.
Each of you including the owner of this Blog is a coward, revisionist liar and bully. Maybe if you would shut up and listen for a moment, your side might actually develop a coherent plan that is credible and not filled with all of your platitudes and demagoguery.
Bottom line is simple…Grow up! Politics may be a game to the liberal left but governing is not and with the childishness you show, your party will never be more than a collection of lamp shade wearing clowns.
I will have plenty of crow for you liberals to eat (slow roasted, with onions) when the Iraqi people have their freedom at last, which will be sooner, rather than later.
I just want to keep reminding you white liberals that non-white, non-Western European people deserve your support as they seek freedom. I urge you white liberals to stop your tribalistic (not the same as racist) thinking!
"a fully functioning democracy, an operable security force and a sustainable infrastructure" -- may make a good wish list, but I seriously doubt that the first one is achievable in any real sense of the word, given the religious and philisophical differences of the major parties involved."
Would some please explain to me why Muslims with religious and philisophical diffrences are not capable of democratic (small 'd') self-rule? After all, we have people of all faiths living here in the US who vote and live freely.
Post a Comment
<< Home