Set Back, America

For heaven's sake, we had to wait until Reagan came along to reverse the pathetic, liberal nonsense that did so much damage to this country throughout the Sixties and Seventies; that today's liberal Democrats are so intent on setting America back to where she was then and worse should disqualify the Party from even existing at this point. Too bad the Republicans aren't all that much better.

And poor Hill'y was booed ... and it wasn't the first time. Aww .... I can't even muster up a freakin' for my boo hoo.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

Uh... she was booed because of her wafflely and wavering stance on Iraq. People want leadership to get us out, and she was unwilling to provide. Now she's paying the political price for her lack of vision. Kinda like the entire Republican Party.

Or maybe the crowd just doesn't like carrot-sticks
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-hillary-clinton-video-is-take-on.html

[southdakotaboy]

The Dems have a 14% approval rating, that is the lowest since gallup started to ask the question in 1973. God the dems are a bunch of twits, the country gave them a chance to show that they learned their lesson and they blew it in about six months. What a bunch of numbskulls. What a bunch of idiots how could these guys do it? Well they simply thought that people really supported what they were about rather than just voted to punish the Republicans. Now if the Republicans can get it together on the immigration issue the Dems will be on the outs in 2008.
That is when the investigations really need to start on all the treasonous Dems and their lackies.

[southdakotaboy]

LOL you can try and spin it anyway you want the fact is that most Americans don't like the way the Dems are handling things and their numbers are going to keep tanking. This kind of poll is just the first sign that the Dems overreached and went to far to the left.
I understand your "all politics is local" arguement, but that will only hold up for so long. You are falling into the same trap that the Republicans did (arrogance and corruption) only instead of taking 12 years it has taken your side 6 months.
This is the power of the internet. No longer can the msm completely shape the debate and people aren't going to stand the bias for to long.

[Ted]

With the confidence level in Congress at an all time low, we have to realize we have a crisis of confidence at all levels in our government. Hillary and Obama-man are the leading Dem candidates but now Mayor Bloomberg is hinting he might run...as a Dem? No one is sure who will be able to win and the liberals can't afford another loss. Bloomberg is a regional candidate and won't score many points in New Mexico or Iowa. Clearly, the Dems are running scared! Best bet for the Republicans will be Fred Thompson but the media will soon do a job on him and his gorgeous wife. Will America be served best by another actor?
Ted

[Fred Beloit]

Dakota, it is quite simple really. LOL, renowned psychometrist and demographer, will explain to you what any given poll means. We are too stupid and ignorant to do this for ourselves so LOL volunteers to do the research. He digs lustily into the nums, tweaks them, twists them, weighs them, filters them, sifts them, crunches them, unwinds them, defiles them, and tortures them until they tell the story he wanted to hear from the beginning. Got it?

[IslamoLlama]

"LOL you can try and spin it anyway you want the fact is that most Americans don't like the way the Dems are handling things and their numbers are going to keep tanking. This kind of poll is just the first sign that the Dems overreached and went to far to the left."

Classic conservative fantasy-land thinking. If the public objects to anything, it must be rooted in that thing being too liberal.

I don't suppose any of the conservatives on this blog happened to track Congressional Approval Ratings in the run up to the Timetables Veto showdown? Congress was climbing the entire time. Then Bush vetoed, Pelosi/Reid waffled, and weak-hearted Dems began to break away. When the funding bill was finally passed, with timetables removed, Congress's approval was back in the tank. Coincidence? Perhaps opposition to the war was driving the polls? Or maybe everyone was just pissed that Flag-Burning and Gay Marriage weren't getting enough screen time. Who knows, right?

[Fred Beloit]

Llama, how dare you. I am not opposed to flag burning and gay marriage (so long as gay marriage is enacted by legislators not mandated by courts). However, I DO oppose flag marriage and gay burning under any and all circumstances.

[IslamoLlama]

If a man and a flag or a woman and a flag love each other enough, I don't see why the government should get in the way of them being married. So long as no one is marrying a box turtle, I think we're safe.

[seekeronos]

But what about marraiges between flags and box turtles?

[southdakotaboy]

E.R.B.T = Equal Rights for Box Turtles, WE NEED A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

[rwilymz]

"she was booed because of her wafflely and wavering stance on Iraq. People want leadership to get us out, and she was unwilling to provide."

That's sorta what happens when political neophytes define as "leadership" a politician mouthing a popularly comfortable fantasy. "We, the ignorant and uniformed masses, knowing nothing more about warfare, its doctrine, tactics or strategy, than we learned from reruns of Hogan's Heroes on Nick at Nite, have defined 'proper mid-east policy' to be leaving Iraq immediately and coming home. Only politicians who tell us what we want to hear will be considered as 'true leaders'."

The same is largely true of both parties, just mostly [though not entirely] on different subjects.

The Modern American Democrat doesn't want to hear reality: we are tied to Iraq. He also doesn't want to hear its antecedant: we were tied to Iraq long before Bush invaded in March of '03. He further doesn't want to hear the consequent: we'd be having largely this same discussion right now whether we invaded four years ago or not.

It is only of academic interest to discuss why; the relevant issue is: what are we going to do about it?

The idiot partisanships are false-dichotomizing into two idiot camps:
1] leave and come home and beg the world's forgiveness; or
2] stay the course.

As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton for her pie-in-the-sky liberal domestic nonsense [which is indifferentiable in form from part of Bush's foreign policy: if something has been shown to not work right, do twice as much of it], she at least has gotten sage foreign policy advisors on her staff at this point, who have told her that doing what the Democrat ignoramii-on-the-street wants to do is national suicide. Hillary's too polite to say that those who'd vote for her are too stupid to understand this.

Instead of entrenched idiocy, how about, since we're tied to Iraq now and will be for the foreseeable future, we use the local conditions to play the sparring, multi-sided factions against each other until the squirmy mass is somewhat more manageable?

Or is that too cynical and RealPolitik for certain idealistic puritanical partisans to sully their hands with?

[IslamoLlama]

"The Modern American Democrat doesn't want to hear reality: we are tied to Iraq. He also doesn't want to hear its antecedant: we were tied to Iraq long before Bush invaded in March of '03. He further doesn't want to hear the consequent: we'd be having largely this same discussion right now whether we invaded four years ago or not."

Wow. Dude. What are you smoking and where can I get some? You're claiming that if we hadn't invaded in '03, we'd be half a trillion in the hole with 3500 dead soldiers, standing in the middle of a civil war?

"Instead of entrenched idiocy, how about, since we're tied to Iraq now and will be for the foreseeable future, we use the local conditions to play the sparring, multi-sided factions against each other until the squirmy mass is somewhat more manageable?"

We've been doing this for four years. It's gained us nothing and cost us everything. We are, in so many ways, reliving Vietnam. America did not collapse when we withdrew from Vietnam. Nor did Vietnam collapse - their President is visiting the US this week to talk trade deals with us. But every day we remained in Vietnam, we rubbed salt in the bleeding wound. Every day we remain in Iraq we do the same as we once again fight the masses who have rejected our incursion.

Iraq is lost. We failed. Live with that and move on.

[southdakotaboy]

Wow did anyone notice that Islamollama thinks that the good guy in Vietnam was NORTH VIETNAM! Dude you are messed up in the head go home and lie down before you hurt yourself.

[Phoenix]

"Every day we remain in Iraq we do the same as we once again fight the masses who have rejected our incursion."

Really. We should leave those masses who reject us. They won't be around long after we go, but take that for rejecting us. Same with those masses Pol Pot spanked and the South Vietnamese who died for 'siding with the enemy'. We can live with that and move on.

I think you're right, SDB.

[IslamoLlama]

"Wow did anyone notice that Islamollama thinks that the good guy in Vietnam was NORTH VIETNAM!"

Do you visit a different message board before you post?

"Same with those masses Pol Pot spanked and the South Vietnamese who died for 'siding with the enemy'."

We helped install Pol Pot because we thought we could run Cambodia better than the Cambodians. The South Vietnamese who died for 'siding with the enemy' would never have had an enemy to side with if we hadn't been propping up a puppet regime for ten years longer than it should have existed. These are two perfect examples of how US interventionism just managed to get a whole bunch of native people killed.

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who once said, "The nine scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"?

[rwilymz]

"You're claiming that if we hadn't invaded in '03, we'd be half a trillion in the hole with 3500 dead soldiers, standing in the middle of a civil war?"

Where did I say that? I said we'd be largely having this same discussion. What discussion is that? "How do we extricate ourselves from Iraq". You are advised to listen to what I say and not the gnomes living in your skull and whispering messages to you. 'kay?

*Why* would we be asking ourselves how to get out of Iraq if we hadn't invaded? because we were tied to Iraq as long as the UNSC had defined Iraq as "a regional threat". From a practical standpoint, that would have been as long as Hussein was in charge [or, upon his death, one of his sons]; from the perspective of international politics, it would have been as long as Russia and China and, yes, even France, all needed to have a double-digit share of the US military forces tied down to a signle spot babysitting a petty tyrant. As long as the US military was sitting with their thumbs up their collective ass in Kuwaiti and Saudi sand, many of the nations who are jealous of our military projection capability could keep an eye on us.

With Hussein gone, we *can* leave any time, but then Russia, China and yes even France wouldn't be able to watch us as well. [So guess why the veto-holders didn't want Hussein removed?]

"We've been doing this for four years. It's gained us nothing and cost us everything."

Hyperbole is fine for literature, particularly comedies; but in [supposedly] intellectual discussions it's sole purpose is to create an academic speedbump. You have to be careful with such literary device in serious discussion. Unless you're trying to be purposely funny in using the grossly dishonest "nothing" and "everything", then I'm going to have to assume you were serious. If you were serious then you were factually wrong. And since you would be factually wrong, none of the subsequent conclusions you draw would have any merit and you'd be relegated to yet another wet-panty reject who seeks to promote his opinions to the rank of Reality.

It don't work that way.

So I'm going to assume, for sake of continued discussion, that you were trying to be funny. ...and simply failing.

"We are, in so many ways, reliving Vietnam."

Yeah? Name one.

There are some, but mostly they are notional or abstract similarites that matter not a practical whit; the only relevant realities are usually those which are completely ignored by [or beyond the experience or knowledge of] those who make the comparison.

For example: the emotion-laden term "quagmire" is commonly tossed around. Vietnam and Iraq are both a "quagmire". But "quagmire" isn't tangible; it is descriptive, much like "blue". And you would hardly go around trying to tell anyone that your Hyundai Excel is equivalent to my Lexus because they are both blue, would you?

"America did not collapse when we withdrew from Vietnam."

We didn't? How are you defining this "non-collapse"? In a fairly real way we did. We've become entrenched in partisanship, to the degree that if Bill Clinton said the sky was blue, Republicans would say it was pink just out of principle, and if Dubya says 2+2=4, Democrats would argue it was 5 for same. Please explain how this is a good, workable manner of propelling a nation, cohesively, into its future. In all practicality, we are running on inertia at the moment.

This is essentially how Byzantium fell apart. Two bickering factions who would not agree even on basic reality. Even as the Turks were invading and stealing their food. "They invaded through your province, so I'm not responsible; it's your problem. I still have food in my province."

"Nor did Vietnam collapse - their President is visiting the US this week to talk trade deals with us."

Uh ... the Vietnam war was over in 1974, and it is now 2007. Do you not register the passage of 33 years? "Now" is not equivalent to "then" -- unless you have a Wayback Machine that you're hoarding to yourself. Vietnam had a civil war, a war with Cambodia, and withstood strong-arm manipulation from China in the meantime. Suffice it to say, Vietnam's standing was hardly assured.

"Every day we remain in Iraq we do the same as we once again fight the masses who have rejected our incursion."

But that's a large part of your perception problem. We aren't fighting them, for the most part. They are fighting themselves. And to a very great degree, when US soldiers are shot it's because *they* are the ones caught in the crossfire. It's more or less by accident.

You said it yourself: we're standing in the middle of their civil war. Which means they are fighting each other. If you're trying to claim that a few of those factions would rather be fighting us -- the Mehdi Army run by Iranian stooge and all-around swell guy Muqtada al Sadr, for example -- you'd be right. He very famously and publically exhorted the masses to stop shooting each other and shoot Americans. And we see how well the masses listened. His display reminded me of Niedermeyer in _Animal House_ during the parade-cum-riot, shouting into the gale, "all is well!! all is well!!"

All was not well, and Iraqis are more interested at this time in settling old scores with the unarmored enemy tribemen in their own country than in going up against a highly armored US military who shoots back with lots and lots and lots of guns.

...ever see _The Life of Brian_? The plot to kidnap Pilate's wife? The Peoples' Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front meet in the sewers under the palace, both to do the same thing, kidnap Pilate's wife so as to drive the Romans out, but instead of cooperating they start to battle each other over who gets to do the kidnapping, the battle spills out into the palace throne room, and the Roman guards are attracted to it and start to fight back, but then they simply shrug, sit back and watch the two groups, sworn to drive the Romans out of Judea, killing each other.

That was farce when Monty Python filmed that. It is reality in Iraq. Just like it is reality in Gaza and the West Bank. The only difference between the US in Iraq and the Romans in Pilate's throne room is that the US isn't shrugging and allowing its sworn enemies to slaughter each other apace. We're -- get this -- trying to separate them.

That's a *polite* thing to do; it's certainly a new-agey faux-enlightened thing to do. But from military tactics/doctrine/strategy point of view, it's uber-foolish. They wanna kill each other? let 'em. The more the merrier. It is in our national interest to have fewer enemies. It is therefore in our national interest to take them out ourselves, or manipulate them into taking themselves out. They are doing their part in the latter; we need to do ours: stir the pot and let them fight; when they slow down, stir the pot again.

That hardly equates to "Iraq is lost. We failed. Live with that and move on."

It also hardly equates to what Bush wants to do, but there ya go. He's also a product of the idiot entrenchment of ideology that you yourself suffer from. ...and which never, never, never suggests a major fracture in US political structure emenating from Vietnam. Perish the thought!

[templar knight]

rwilymz, that might have just been a fatal dose of reality you just administered to the Muslim Llama. His total lack of intellectual skills would be funny were it not for the seriousness of our situation. There are so many in this country just like this guy, superficially intelligent, but with no real knowledge or experience. They come out of liberal institutions, indoctrinated with leftist thought, with degrees in all manner of the humanities, but no real education. A pathetic example of a public education, or perhaps even private, these days. Think about the recent situation at Duke where 88 professors prejudjed the guilt of the Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. Now there is the perfect example of the type of person I'm talking about, yet they decry the treatment of foreign terrorists, and wish them to have access to the US Courts. The only motivation one can see here is the destruction of our country and way of life.

[macacawins]

rwilymz= too much free time.

[Phoenix]

Here's something from the horse's mouth. Let's see what happens when Dubai, Oman, Yemen, UAE, and Kuwait get tired of this. Maybe even Israel will get tired of it. MuslimLlama will love this. He'll say we started it. We caused all that modernity in those countries, don't you know. How dare we meddle so!

~~~
Arab Times, Kuwait
Teheran Takes its Battle to America's Friends and Allies

"This is part of a strategy adopted by the Iranian regime to expand the conflict zone by accusing others of being Washington's agents."

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah


Editor-in-Chief, Arab Times

June 20, 2007

Kuwait - Arab Times - Original Article (English)
THE attack on a Kuwaiti diplomat in Tehran, and the four-hour encirclement of Kuwait's Embassy in Baghdad by the Revolutionary Guard are definite signs that Tehran has now taken its battle to friends of the United States, and that it intends to turn every Arab nation into a battlefield like Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine. This dangerous act was only the beginning, and is part of a strategy adopted by the Iranian regime to attack American projects in the Gulf region and expand the conflict zone by accusing others of being Washington's agents. Previously, Iran had threatened to attack American projects in the Gulf if the United States attacked Iran. These threats are an attempt to impose Persian interests on Arabs, who are now acutely vulnerable.

[Editor's Note: Kuwaiti diplomat Mohammad al-Zubi [see photo, right] was physically assaulted in Tehran, it was reported June 20. Al-Zubi was stopped by two cars outside the Kuwaiti Embassy and assaulted by six men, while Iranian Guard soldiers stationed at the embassy reportedly did nothing].

Iran appears to be so active outside its borders, that it has succeeded in dividing Iraq into tiny portions, is in control of Syrian planning and decision-making, is now threatening to turn Lebanon into another Iraq and has just succeeded in ending the Palestinian dream of establishing a homeland.

Now the Palestinian Authority is looked on as an American agent and the Hamas movement has taken over the Gaza Strip. Given what we know of the Iranian Regime's ideology, one cannot separate the attack on the Kuwaiti diplomat from the regime's attempts to involve all Gulf countries in Iran's dispute with America.

And since Tehran regards the Gulf States as American agents, the regime reserves the right to fight against us. The Arab nations must take a firm stand to stop this Iranian behavior, before all of our nations are turned into battlefields in the settling of accounts amongst Iran, the United States and the West.

The Arabs are with the international community in wanting to curtail Iranian ambitions. Arabs sense that they are being invaded. Some Arab countries are already at the mercy of Tehran, which in full control of their future and their fate. And as Tehran displays all of this aggressiveness, it is at the doorstep of acquiring a nuclear bomb. One wonders how Tehran will behave when it actually possesses a bomb.

The world isn't buying Iran’s accusation that America plans to control its natural resources. Such propaganda is insufficient to explain Iran’s interference in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. But regardless of its explanations, we must treat the Iranian regime with extreme caution. But ignoring or downplaying the attack on our diplomat in Tehran will not dispel the danger left in its wake … this is a serious matter.

What happened to our Embassy in Tehran could happen to embassies of any Gulf State. Perhaps this is why the international community is determined to put the Iranian nuclear program under close supervision and monitoring to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian regime will be unable to hide its domestic failures by creating "outside" disturbances to distract Iranians and focus their attention on things that don't concern them. When the regime finds itself under the anticipated military attack, this game will be over.

[rwilymz]

"rwilymz= too much free time"

Incorrect; rwilymz = "this is what I do for a living, and it's easily transferable to another venue."

But thanks for thinking of me.

[IslamoLlama]

So, to borrow a phrase from Fred/South/Temp, do you get paid by the letter or by the hour?

[rwilymz]

I get paid by something even odder than those: the guvmint, ultimately.

I know, freaky.

[IslamoLlama]

But to address you're misguided views:

"As long as the US military was sitting with their thumbs up their collective ass in Kuwaiti and Saudi sand, many of the nations who are jealous of our military projection capability could keep an eye on us."

You're now claiming that our invasion of Iraq has somehow liberated the US Armed Forces. So the fact that we're overcommitted, hyper-extended, and leaning heavily on National Guard supplies and troops is a feature, not a bug, of the glorious invasion? The half trillion we've spent and the 3500 troops we've lost (not to mention the 25k+ soldiers crippled or maimed in combat) has increased our troop readiness? Now that we don't have to babysit Iraq from afar we are free, because we're babysitting it from inside the Green Zone? I think you are mistaken.

"You have to be careful with such literary device in serious discussion. Unless you're trying to be purposely funny in using the grossly dishonest "nothing" and "everything", then I'm going to have to assume you were serious. If you were serious then you were factually wrong. And since you would be factually wrong, none of the subsequent conclusions you draw would have any merit and you'd be relegated to yet another wet-panty reject who seeks to promote his opinions to the rank of Reality."

Well, if we're playing hyperbole games, it's good you can play too by offering not a single counterpoint to my claim. What have we gained? Your lack of answer speaks for itself. What haven't we lost - troops, money, time, political capital, allies, region authority, diplomatic weight... - all these were sacrificed over the course of the 4 year occupation. Can you name something that wasn't? Can you print it?

"'We are, in so many ways, reliving Vietnam.'
Yeah? Name one."

Indefinite occupation. Fighting a guerrilla troops. The inability to distinguish friend from foe. Shoddy equipment and poor care for our soldiers. The politics of fear prolonging the invasion. Large-scale anti-war sentiment at home. Loss of prestige abroad. Losing. That's what leaps to mind. Pick your favorite.

"This is essentially how Byzantium fell apart. Two bickering factions who would not agree even on basic reality. Even as the Turks were invading and stealing their food."

Ah, the invasion myth. I'll cede you the bickering factions, but you'll have to point me towards the "invading Turks". Perhaps the Iraq War is designed to secure the border against Mexicans? Yeah, your logic stinks. In the wake of Vietnam our economy grew and our military might expanded while the Soviet Union collapsed. We lost Vietnam, then ten years later won the Cold War. I'd say we did very well.

"But that's a large part of your perception problem. We aren't fighting them, for the most part. They are fighting themselves. And to a very great degree, when US soldiers are shot it's because *they* are the ones caught in the crossfire. It's more or less by accident."

Tell that to the marines killed every day by remotely detonated IEDs or sniper bullets. Check any poll or politician in Iraq. The people want us out. The Parliment wants us out. The religious leaders want us out. We're getting shot at while everyone else is too. It's a mess we created, and its one we don't have the capacity to fix. Why? Because Bush fucked up. Hard. No war planning. No political solutions. Shitty contractors. Bad policies. It's done and we need to come home because we're doing more harm than good every day we remain.

[macacawins]

Wow, how impressive. Between writing boring paragraph after paragraph, collecting a check, playing with sheep and having a dynamic woman in your life who arranges pieces of colored glass I'd say you have the world by the balls.

Shoot.me.now.

[rwilymz]

"You're now claiming that our invasion of Iraq has somehow liberated the US Armed Forces."

Not only now, but before as well.

"So the fact that we're overcommitted, hyper-extended, and leaning heavily on National Guard supplies and troops is a feature, not a bug, of the glorious invasion?"

They were the cost of freeing up the 100-some-odd thousand troops the US had devoted to babysitting Iraq. You can value-pack it how you like.

"Now that we don't have to babysit Iraq from afar ..."

Incorrect. Again, squirt, before you can have your conclusions taken seriously, you need to be factually correct. We had roughly 5 division-equivalents on the ground in Kuwait and Saudi; that is not "from afar"; that is "from virtually atop". This doesn't include the anywhere from 3-5X uniformed support in the rest of the world.

"we are free, because we're babysitting it from inside the Green Zone?"

We don't have to be, in case you recall. That is the instant point of contention between idiot administration ankle-biters and the idiot administration apologists.

Do you typically argue whatever vacillating point you need to in order to address your critics?

We were obliged to babysit the Hussein-led Iraq because, in 1991 and flush with our "peace dividend", we volunteered when the UN looked at us with hat in hand. When we needed our troops back, the UN said -- to quote the Frogs -- "Non!"

With Hussein gone, we **can** leave when we want. "Can" =/= "will"; "can" =/= "must". It means what it means: "can".

"I think you are mistaken."

You are wrong in the first two words.

"What have we gained?"

Iraq is no longer funding/supplying pan-islamist paramilitaries.

Libya is no longer funding/supplying pan-islamist paramilitaries.

"Your lack of answer speaks for itself."

Please don't get cocky, son. You'd need to be fa-a-a-ar more knowledgeable in the subject area first.

"What haven't we lost - troops, money, time, political capital, allies, region authority, diplomatic weight... "

Troops' job is to be used for these purposes. Was when I was in, is now.

We were losing money babysitting. At least now there's something being accomplished for it. What *you want* accomplished? Irrelevant. *Something* is being accomplished.

How have we "lost time"? Time keeps on slippin slippin slippin into the future no matter what we do.

"Political capital" is a great big ball of fart gas that means "everything I don't know how to quantify in my hissy fitted tirade".

Name an ally who is now not.

As for regional authority and diplomatic weight, I can guarandamntee you that having a prez who is will to defy the will of the world and rudely barge into other countries is, in world politics, quite a lot like a major league pitcher who has a 100 mph fast ball but doesn't know exactly where it's going from pitch to pitch. Chances are fairly good that the batter will bail out and fan on a pitch down the middle.

A la Libya, not to name names.

Then of course, there's the big little-man batter who'll stand there and take vicious hacks and strike out anyway. Iran, perhaps?

But, sure. **if he gets a hold of one** ... it can land over the fence.

Do you think Iran can beat us?

Come on, bud. Look around. We have the pre-eminent military force in the world. The only thing we don't have is the nerve to use it the way pre-eminent powers traditionally have.

"all these were sacrificed over the course of the 4 year occupation"

If, by "all", you mean "none" then you're right.

But at least you didn't commit the grand faux pas of calling it a "war". The war was over when Bush said it was; what's going on now is indeed occupation.

"Indefinite occupation."

Baloney. It is only American Political Neophytes who cling to this outmoded, outdated whimper. The US gets nothing by keeping what we conquer.

"Fighting a guerrilla troops."

Who are we fighting? They're fighting themselves.

"The inability to distinguish friend from foe."

You realize, of course, that the *easy* answer to this is that most of the foes are here, backbiting what we're doing...

"Shoddy equipment ..."

Eh?

The few celebrated examples of contracted equipment that hadn't been delivered is hardly the result of the DoD keeping it from the field; it's a function of the massive bureaucratic overkill in procurement that demands to ensure that the DoD only pays $15 for a $15 hammer instead of $250, even if it needs to pay $235 in overhead for each hammer to do it. ...and take 3 years while the paperwork runs its course.

Now, frankly, if your panty-wetting gripe here is that there's too much overhead involved, I'm right with you because I have to put up with the exact same shinola. Different command, same shinola.

"...poor care for our soldiers."

This has been a constant since the late sixties. The VA sucks, and has for over a generation. Nothing new.

"The politics of fear prolonging the invasion."

...as opposed to the politics of equal-n-opposite fear attempting to exact the false-dichotomied opposite?

"Large-scale anti-war sentiment at home."

Idiots don't know what they're talking about. Idiots also want microwave foreign policy. Get a plan, zap it on high for 45 seconds, out pops piping hot peace and stability. Don't work that way.

"Loss of prestige abroad. Losing."

But, of course, there's no politics of fear being played, is there...

"the invasion myth."

Uh huh. And 9-11 was a bad dream. Bobby Ewing wasn't shot in the shower.

Get away from the television, kid.

There's a whole culture taught the islamic eschatology: east v west, final grudge match, no holds barred. They believe it, they support those who act on it.

Just like Europe before WWI, they are itching for a war. Accept it or deny it, I don't care. The answer ain't changing. If you want a war, you'll get it; if you want to *avoid* a war so badly that you do anything to avoid it, you get a war anyway.

Listen to what the imams say when they're exhorting their masses. It's not a secret.

"you'll have to point me towards the "invading Turks"."

They're pan-islamists.

So ... are you trying to play dense? or is this part of the Magic Of You? "Analogy" is not "identity".

"In the wake of Vietnam our economy grew and our military might expanded"

You are implying causality, here. In the wake of Vietnam, qua Vietnam, our economy shrank and our military might was emasculated.

Our economy grew because of early 80s tax cuts and our military might expanded because we had another pitcher, elected in '80, who was also "effectively wild".

"We lost Vietnam, then ten years later won the Cold War. I'd say we did very well."

Losing Vietnam was a completely political event. Militarily, we won just about every engagement. But Vietnam shows how reailty itself loses in the face of convenient fantasy.

"Tell that to the marines killed every day by remotely detonated IEDs or sniper bullets."

They already know.

"The people want us out."

You can keep saying this, but it doesn't make any difference: if you want to understand the issue, then the opinions of unknowledgeable Barstool Pattons is completely irrelevant.

If you want to get elected, then and *only* then does the Will of the People® matter a tinker's dam.

"It's a mess we created, and its one we don't have the capacity to fix."

We created 5,000 years of tribalist mentality and traditional enmity? Nay nay, my good self-loather; nay nay.

And who said anything about "fixing"? We are not the Overseer of the World here; just a single nation operating out of self-interest. It is in our interest to have, in descending order:
1] a stable, peaceful, democratic and capitalistic Iraq; and
2] an unstable Iraq, chock full of internecine squabbling that sucks the wherewithal of our enemies.

What we do not want at all is a stable Iraq which grants a toehold to our enemies.

"Bush fucked up. Hard. No war planning."

Right. There's a group of folks I used to work with/for in the building next to the guys I work with/for today who'd quibble.

"No political solutions."

You get half a point for this.

"Shitty contractors."

Bang goes that half a point. And then some.

"Bad policies."

You like those insupportible value judgments, doncha? Correction, squire: "policies you don't agree with." All policies have good points and bad points. The fact that you cannot [or will not; I suspect the latter] see anything but what you want to see indicates far more than anything else, here.

"It's done and we need to come home because we're doing more harm than good every day we remain."

Define this "harm".

The way a long-term historian would view it is that the more we stir this pot, the more our enemies kill each other, and the better off we are in the long run. Now, if you're a short-sighted kinda guy who can only look as far as his next microwave mac-n-cheese, then of course your opinion would differ. But it's not because of any objective reality; just perspective.

"I'd say you have the world by the balls."

I'd say you're right!! Thanks for believing in me.

[templar knight]

Checkmate.

[Purple Mushroom]

If you won't listen to intelligent people without whiny little name-calling, rwilymz, maybe you can listen to Richard Lugar.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/iraq.lugar/

"Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world," he said [...]

He said he sees "no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, "taking a toll on recruitment and readiness."
...
"The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing," he said.

"A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq. If the president waits until the presidential election campaign is in full swing, the intensity of confrontation on Iraq is likely to limit [options]," he said.

[templar knight]

"If you won't listen to intelligent people without whiny little name-calling...."

There would need to be an intelligent person for him to listen to, Mushroom boy. I don't know of a single intelligent lib who posts on this blog. Nothing but a bunch of tools and shills are all any of you are. Now, begone. Before someone drops a house on you.

[rwilymz]

"If you won't listen to intelligent people without whiny little name-calling, rwilymz, maybe you can listen to Richard Lugar."

Wait, wait, wait. Let me see if I have this straight.

Politicians, who will tell people what they want to hear in order to get elected and stay elected are liars and knaves when they say things you don't like, but they are dispensing gilded wisdom from on high when they say what you want to hear?

Izzat right?

Izzat the profound, "in my face" insight you're throwing at me, here?

Cuz I'd hate to have missed the point of your Appeal To Authority. Maybe if you could toss in another few rhetorical fallacies. I'm sure that would help. God knows, all you have to do is say "The US is wrong" and that automatically makes you right.