Cynical Nation

I think warrior John and peace-mom Cindy would make an awesome ticket national ticket in '08.

John could throw Vietnam war medals at Cindy while she complains that she can't get John to talk to her.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I think that Cindy Sheehan is a great person who deserves sympathy and support. She lost her son because of the lies of someone. Instead of passively accepting her fate, she fights to save other young people from dying. Her cause is most certainly admirable.

7500 active duty service members died during Bill Clinton's term. The largest single cause was traffic accidents while returning to base from leave. Jimmy Carter managed to kill almost 10,000 service members in his four years; 6,000 of those were accidents, mostly in training.

Military service is dangerous no matter who the Commander in Chief is.

It would be interesting to poll new military recruits to find out if they would prefer to die in battle, or by getting hit by a drunk driver on the trip back from leave.

Cindy is entitled to her opinion and entitled to her grief, but she is no martyr in my book.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. [Blue Wind]

Absolutely!

But...not when it infringes upon and ultimately drowns out another's free speech which is what Sheehan and her minions did to Rahm Emmanuel.

This technique has been employed by leftists since I was in college when the SDS tried to intimidate and drown out William F. Buckley and S.I. Hayakawa on separate occasions on my campus.

Their view seems to be that free speech applies only to those who agree with them and that is just wrong, BW.

Hey,
WF, as I far as I know, noone died because of lies that Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter said. I can not say the same about your idol, George W. Bush.

Where do you and Cindy think the Dems are going to get the votes to end the war?

A little over 20% of the current Dems are Conservative "Blue Dogs," many of them more Conservative than some northeastern Republicans.

Sheehan and her followers are unrealistic in thinking that the Liberal-wing has any leverage over these Blue Dogs.

Beyond that, the fact that Moore, Sheehan and some other dopes insist on denying the reality that the U.S. has finally and belatedly engaged a global fight to the death with Sharia-based Islam that is only just beginning, doesn't change that fact.

Where do you and Cindy think the Dems are going to get the votes to end the war?

A little over 20% of the current Dems are Conservative "Blue Dogs," many of them more Conservative than some northeastern Republicans.

Sheehan and her followers are unrealistic in thinking that the Liberal-wing has any leverage over these Blue Dogs.

Beyond that, the fact that Moore, Sheehan and some other dopes insist on denying the reality that the U.S. has finally and belatedly engaged a global fight to the death with Sharia-based Islam that is only just beginning, doesn't change that fact.

JMK,
Your Blue dogs only exist in planet Mars. All democrats (with 1 exeption) and many many republicans have turned AGAINST the Iraq war.

P.S. I forgot, Lieberman is not a democrat any longer. I should had written all democrats without any exeptions.

"Jimmy Carter managed to kill almost 10,000 service members in his four years; 6,000 of those were accidents, mostly in training."

That gets my vote for stupidest thing I have read on this blog.

I agree. Sounds like something Hannity would say.

This is a very strange thread here. I regard most of you, including the ones among you with whom I disagree strongly, as pretty smart people who aren't fooled by the nonsense.

Here's my perspective: Sheehan was a very useful part of the anti-war movement. She was a good rallying point and she drew a great deal of attention to the cause, especially because of the moral authority given her by her loss. She was also misrepresented by popular media and the right-wing noise machine. However, she is no longer any of that. Should she go away? No. Why should she? She is no longer central to the story. Like Bill Clinton's penis, she has become the thing for which the thoughtless reach when they need a handy stereotype, a bit of shorthand if you please, because of a certain laziness that makes them unwilling to do any real analysis or give things any real thought. She elicits an emotional response rather than a thinking response. But, again, who cares? The anti-war movement has moved well and far beyond her and she is only a symbol to either side of the debate. She is not really relevant anymore. I don't know why anyone is discussing her except in (hi, Condi) a historical context.

Why is the anti-war movement beyond her now? Things like this. Review the polls on that page and the earlier ones.

That's my two cents' worth, anyway.

Some valid points, DBK.

However to suggest that she is no longer 'central to the story' is erroneous, IMO.

She craves attention and almost always receives it as Rahm found out yesterday.

She then was the ONLY member of her group to utilize the battery of microphones which Emanuel had abandoned. Were she irrelevant, the media should have shut off the mikes and the cameras.

They did not.

Like it or not, she will never allow herself to go softly into that good night.

""Jimmy Carter managed to kill almost 10,000 service members in his four years; 6,000 of those were accidents, mostly in training."

That gets my vote for stupidest thing I have read on this blog."

It gets my vote also.
Congratulations WF you made history in Cynical Nation. I expect that Barry will create a special award for that.

Maybe, mal, but you will also notice that, if you stroll through left Blogtopia, nobody is paying any attention (except that guy on Kos and the commenters, most of whom, I might add, were supportive of Sheehan). Yes, she can find herself a forum and there are still reporters who jump to report what she says when she says something, but she is no longer central to anything, and she used to be absolutely the banner around which the anti-war movement rallied.

Military Deaths per 100,000 Full Time Equivalents

Here’s a handy graph that puts to bed the latest ridiculous talking point claim by the most extremely out of touch from the right (and just for the record I don’t believe that means everyone from the right – just the nuts).

Clearly there’s a spike in deaths from hostile fire coupled with a reduction in deaths by accident. Why are the raw numbers so deceptive? Because there’s been “a 27% drop in the size of the armed forces, and a 54% drop in the death rate from accidents.”

As a matter of fact deaths from all other causes except hostile fire have remained relatively flat over the last 15 years. It’s hard to believe that anyone intelligent would make such a claim unless they were being intentionally decetive.

"Your Blue dogs only exist in planet Mars. All democrats (with 1 exeption) and many many republicans have turned AGAINST the Iraq war." (BW)
"Republicans “did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats” in last week’s elections, said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. “Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats.” "

Here's the full article.

As penance for your sin of foolishness, you must read the entire article...believe me, it's GREAT!
Conservative Democrats Seek Larger Role in New Congress

By Associated Press
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=167483

WASHINGTON - For a dozen years, the Democratic conservatives known as Blue Dogs have been baying at the moon, ignored by Republicans and tolerated by their more liberal Democratic colleagues. Now, these House lawmakers say that is about to change.

Republicans “did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats” in last week’s elections, said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. “Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats.”

“We’ll have a lot to say about what passes and what doesn’t” when the 110th Congress convenes in January with Democrats in control for the first time in 12 years, said Ross, new communications director for the caucus.

With the addition of nine newly elected freshmen, the Blue Dogs claim 44 members, nearly 20 percent of the incoming Democratic majority. They will be led by Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., and include Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in line to become the next Agriculture Committee chairman.

The Blue Dogs were formed in 1994 after Republicans swept the long-entrenched Democrats from power. They tend to be social conservatives on such issues as abortion. But their big issue is fiscal discipline - balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt.

Many in the group are from the South, and the group took its name from the old adage that southerners would vote for yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ballot. A blue dog, they decided, was a moderate or conservative “choked blue” by the Democrats in the years leading up to 1994.

Already, leaders from both parties are courting their votes. Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi, a California liberal, has promised to make “paygo,” a Blue Dog-backed principle that any new spending be paid for with cuts in other programs or new revenues, one of her first legislative goals.

“Leader Pelosi looks forward to working with the Blue Dogs in the 110th Congress,” said Jennifer Crider, Pelosi’s spokeswoman. “They are important voices in our diverse caucus.”

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who is running for the position of Republican leader in the next Congress, listed cooperation with the Blue Dogs as part of his platform.

“We also will attempt to restart the old GOP-Boll Weevil coalition that proved so successful in the 1980s to advance President Reagan’s revolution,” Pence said. “There are Blue Dog Democrats that want to balance the budget, address our nation’s abounding debt, strengthen Social Security and protect life and marriage.

Our minority will look for opportunities to work with them when there is agreement.”

Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College, said the influence of the Blue Dogs could depend on President Bush. If the president “shows interest in legislation on Social Security, the deficit, and fiscal issues that the Blue Dogs care about, then I think they will have a lot of leverage,” Fowler said.

Americans, said Stephanie Herseth, a Blue Dog Democrat from heavily Republican South Dakota, “are looking for leadership from the center.” She said they will seek consensus with other Democrats while at the same time will “certainly continue to work with our Republican friends in a bipartisan way.”

BW, stick to disagreeing with me over your opinions, every time you disagree with me over the facts something like this happens to you.

TYPO ALERT: "the 100th Congress" = "the 110th Congress" - the one now in session.

"BW, stick to disagreeing with me over your opinions, every time you disagree with me over the facts something like this happens to you."

I am in trouble I guess :)

In any case JMK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their perception of the facts. As a famous Italian philosopher said:
"It is true, if you think it's true".

DBK: "That gets my vote for stupidest thing I have read on this blog."

fred: "I agree. Sounds like something Hannity would say."

Blue Wind: "It gets my vote also.
Congratulations WF you made history in Cynical Nation. I expect that Barry will create a special award for that."

So: You guys are saying that those service members didn't actually die or that Clinton and Carter weren't actually Commanders in Chief when they died?

And I'm still wondering if soldiers really prefer to die in traffic accidents, which you seem to be implying.

JMK, I believe that what BW is trying to say is that your projected power of the Blue Dogs is greatly exaggerated.

I happen to agree with him.

It is quite easy to run as 'my own man'. It is another thing entirely to tell Steny Hoyer that, in good conscience, you cannot support an important Democrat bill.

Freshmen don't do that, JMK, as much as you would like to believe that they will. They want to be re-elected and they can't be if they are not allowed to show that they have done something positive for both their party and their district.

LBJ once cautioned Hubert Humphrey, his VP, who was looking for some independent space in order to run in 1968 that "I have your balls in my pocket."

I promise you that Hoyer will remind the new Blue Dogs of this in the two years ahead.

Your blue dogs will be tossed an occasional bone but will be kept on a short leash.

It's the way DC works.

"In any case JMK, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their perception of the facts." (BW)
"Republicans did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats” in last week’s elections, Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats.”

That's as much a declaration of war by the Conservative Dems, as anything. There's little doubt they'll support the moderate Democratic measures, but highly unlikely that they'll go along with any of the Liberal agenda.

The "New Democrats" leverage comes from a fact that Rham Emanuel tried to convey to the rest of the Party, that you can't win courting the Liberal vote, not in a country where Conservatives outnumber Liberals by three to one.

Already the Sheehans and the rest of the far Left are annoyed that Iraq isn't even on the Democrat's early agenda. They seem content to go along with the recommended troop surge.

Anything that makes the Left tremble with rage, makes me smile.

Heh, as usual, idiot JMK can't simply accept the utter rejection and defeat of his Fascist party.

How desperate is his Hannitized attempt to grasp at the straw of "Yeah, but we lost to really CONSERVATIVE democrats!" LOL!

You lost. Your ideas lost. Your party lost. Bush lost. Your fake brand of conservatism, which is actually fascism, LOST. America won. The Constitution won. The entire world WON.

Your entire point is based on the fallacy that before 2006, all Democrats were wild-eyed liberals. They weren't. Never were.

Turn off the 24/7 talk radio and try to see and think for yourself.

First withoutfeathers writes: "Jimmy Carter managed to kill almost 10,000 service members in his four years."

Then he writes: "You guys are saying that those service members didn't actually die or that Clinton and Carter weren't actually Commanders in Chief when they died?"

Heh. I love it when they write stuff like that.

Anonymous, JMK is not an idiot. I disagree with him very strongly on practically everything regarding politics, but I don't agree with that assertion.

But JMK, you wrote: "Already the Sheehans and the rest of the far Left are annoyed that Iraq isn't even on the Democrat's early agenda." Yet the first graph in the top story on CNN.com this morning says: "President Bush is changing his top military and diplomatic leadership for Iraq amid speculation about his new plan for the region and pressure for change from a new Democratic Congress." Sounds like Iraq is up there. In fact, it is hard to see how it couldn't be up there at the top. Iraq is one of the three top reasons Democrats won the House and Senate. It might be the number one reason. I don't think the representatives are unaware of it and I do think they are responding to it. It would be, in my opinion, foolish to claim otherwise on this, the second day in which Democrats have control of the Congress and prior to Bush announcing his "new direction". Fools rush in, you know what I mean?

Hell, last night, on the first day, we had something I haven't seen in 25 years of pleading for it: a real discussion of energy policy on the floor of the House that wasn't about how much money to give to the oil companies. Things are definitely different.

As for how conservative the country is, I have to get my copy of Wait! Don't Move to Canada! and check that poll data in there. Apparently there is a company that has done the same poll annually for 25 years and every year a majority of the country supports liberal ideas like universal health care and social security and so on. When the labels are dropped and the ideas alone are presented, the liberal ideas tend to win the fight. It is only when the ideas are attached to labels that they become muddied by people's needs to self-identify.

Mind you, the US is definitely not a "liberal" country. Most Democrats would be considered centrists or conservatives in other countries around the world. But again, when you strip the labels from the ideas and present them simply as ideas, liberal ideas win.

In the interest of fairness, I recall a poll about ten or so years ago where people were asked whether the following should be law:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Something like 60% not only didn't recognize that as part of the First Amendment, but they were against it. I did not look at the legitimacy of the polling methodology at the time, so I can't speak to that.

....oh boy, here it comes...get ready......

Hurricane JMK is headed this way....

"Hurricane JMK is headed this way...."

Yep......

Oh, and JMK, as regards Iraq being on the agenda, this is from the WaPo:
Her call yesterday for a new direction in Iraq "that allows us to responsibly redeploy American forces" elicited strong applause in her party while clearly splitting Republicans, many of whom joined the ovation.

DBK: "That gets my vote for stupidest thing I have read on this blog."
fred: "I agree. Sounds like something Hannity would say."
Blue Wind: "It gets my vote also.
Congratulations WF you made history in Cynical Nation. I expect that Barry will create a special award for that."
Withoutfeathrs: So: You guys are saying that those service members didn't actually die or that Clinton and Carter weren't actually Commanders in Chief when they died?
And I'm still wondering if soldiers really prefer to die in traffic accidents, which you seem to be implying.

I’m still wondering why you didn’t reference my response – too many facts?

Are you denying that there’s been “a 27% drop in the size of the armed forces, and a 54% drop in the death rate from accidents”?

I’m still wondering if soldiers really prefer to die as a result of hostile fire in greater numbers, which you seem to be implying.

Here’s the link again to the graph:

Military Deaths per 100,000 Full Time Equivalents

DBK, there is yet ANY "Democratic plan" on Iraq and nothing but those sorts of vague comments from the Democratic leadership.

I'd have preferred to have deposed Hussein's government (he was the leading State supporter of international terrorism at the time) and then let Iraq repartition itself as it saw fit.

It is currently an amalgamated nation of disparate ethnic groups with deep divisions and few common interests.

The Kurds have already basicly moved on in northern Kurdistan, while the Sunnis and Shiites are at each other's throats throughout the rest of Iraq.

We'd lost 500 troops by December 2003 (when Saddam was captured)...since then, Americans have seen 2500 more troops killed for very little positive result and we may still ultimately see the repartitioning of Iraq, which would make all those deaths in vain.

The problem BOTH Democrats and Republicans have is with explaining the real nature of the WoT - a global war against Sharia-based Islam.

Jane Harmon knew the facts and the seriosuness of the threat and that's why she virtually never opposed the current administration's plans either at home or abroad.

"I'd have preferred to have deposed Hussein's government (he was the leading State supporter of international terrorism at the time) and then let Iraq repartition itself as it saw fit."

Um, that's kind of not borne out by anything I ever saw or heard before. I mean, I don't want to drag this into THAT discussion because I frankly have no time to go into all the response it would require, but that just isn't working for me. If you said Syria or Iran or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or any of a number of places, I could let it stand without challenge. I just don't have the time to challenge it. Already I gave this thread more time today than I should have.

Hell, even the Bushies said that they turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorists so they could "fight them there". The claim that Iraq was a major state sponsor for terrorism, let alone "leading" it, is tenuous at best.

No, I am not going there, and not because I can't argue it, but because that claim is not central to anything now. On the other hand, it works against my grand, master plan to find common ground and unite people with ideas that can work (I am seriously working on that, in my own, humble way). But that argument is one that puts us in the position the country has generally been in for four years now: shouting past each other. I pretty much guarantee we won't find common ground there.

So, how do you feel about escalation versus withdrawal to the periphery? That's where we are now, not where we were when Hussein was in power. How's about a starting point rather than refighting old wars?

zilla: "I’m still wondering why you didn’t reference my response – too many facts?"

Sorry, I didn't realize you were looking for a response from me.

zilla: "Are you denying that there’s been “a 27% drop in the size of the armed forces, and a 54% drop in the death rate from accidents”?"

Not related to my original point. I wasn't trying to compare death rates from any cause. I was trying to make the point that soldiering is a dangerous job under any circumstances and, in fact, the death rate was not zero prior to March 19, 2003 or January 20, 2001.

Any service member who dies on active duty from any cause (with the possible exception of suicide) dies in service to the country as far as I'm concerned. Cindy Sheehan should get no special consideration because the current president's policies are unpopular.

Just a reminder that, as I have posted more than once here: I believed that invading Iraq would be a mistake before it happened and I still believe that the invasion, subsequent war, occupation and counter-insurgency were all mistakes. We shouldn't have done any of it. But I refuse to accept that any soldier's death is any more or less tragic than any other soldiers death because I don't agree with the policy.

And, the fact of the matter is -- as shown so graphically in your chart -- that the war in Iraq is not particularly bloody by historical standards.

"So, how do you feel about escalation versus withdrawal to the periphery? That's where we are now, not where we were when Hussein was in power. How's about a starting point rather than refighting old wars?",/i> (DBK)
"So, how do you feel about escalation versus withdrawal to the periphery? That's where we are now, not where we were when Hussein was in power. How's about a starting point rather than refighting old wars?",/i> (DBK)


That IS indeed where wea re now.

We can't leave Iraq the way we left Vietnam.

It seems that we have two possibilities, we can either add troops in an attempt to stabilize that area so the Iraqi government can retain control, OR we can help with some sort of partition plan.

Just up and leaving seems like a real bad idea.

I think one of the main problems is that this WoT hasn't been defined properly from the start and probably out of very good intentions (not wanting to flame widespread anti-Arab/anti-Muslim violence in our streets).

We're not in a wqar against "terrorism" or al Qaeda, not even a war against "radicalized islam," as Sharia Laws dictates everything the so-called "radicalized Muslims" say it does.

In fact, around the world it's not al Qaeda or "radicalized Islamists" who are creating the conflicts we see all over the globe, it's regular Sharia-Law believing Muslims, from Bosnia, where Sharia-adhering Muslims are in conflcit with Christian Serbs, to Kashmir, where Sharia-adgering Muslims are in conflict with the Hindus, to Indonesia where Sharia-adhering Muslims are in conflict with Catholics.

Iraq's certainly been mishandled post-Saddam, but the worst thing is that Iraq is a small part, an infinitesimal part of the broader WoT.

At least that's my view on that.

"Cindy Sheehan should get no special consideration because the current president's policies are unpopular."

Is lying called "unpopular policy"? Have you thought that thousands of people would be alive today if someone had not lied to start that insane war?

"But I refuse to accept that any soldier's death is any more or less tragic than any other soldiers death because I don't agree with the policy."

All deaths are tragic. We agree. But when it becomes obvious that people are dying for no cause, any effort to reverse it is admirable. No matter whether you agree or not with the politics of Cindy Sheehan, she has both honor and integrity. GWB has neither.

"Cindy Sheehan should get no special consideration because the current president's policies are unpopular."

Is lying called "unpopular policy"? Have you thought that thousands of people would be alive today if someone had not lied to start that insane war? [BW]

Once and for all, where is the lying that you, BW, and your ilk, claim?

From 1998, Clinton and a whole host of Democrats claimed that Iraq possessed WMD. It's on record and I have heard the clips numerous times. Hell, your most recent candidate, Kerry, said 'If you don't believe that Saddam Hussein possesses WMD,then don't vote for me.' Of course, this was pre-Iraq War.

As one of your own, Bob Woodward, reported in his book, George Tenet told a reluctant President Bush that the finding the WMD was 'a slam dunk.'

Memebers of the house and senate intelligence committees saw the same evidence that Bush saw before going to war. Has anyone of them ever said that they were deliberately lied to?

No. Not even Rockefeller and certainly not Jane Harman in the house. They know better.

There is only one lie here and it is this typical Democrat mantra about lies.

I expect this from some here, not from you.

"Once and for all, where is the lying that you, BW, and your ilk, claim?"

If you can not see it after all this, you probably never will. You chose to select pieces of information that are consistent with your views. For example, Bob Woodward in his book makes clear that Bush was planning to attack Iraq no matter what. But you only chose to acknoweledge the stupid statement of Tenet about slam dunk.

The fact that Bush and McCain today say they would do the same thing all over again (knowing what they know now) clearly reflects their original motives. The WMD issue was a (fake) excuse, and not the real reason. I think that is more than obvious now.

Dont let your distaste for democrats blind you. The liars in this case are Bush, McCain, Cheney, Rice etc etc

I thought more about what I wrote and I realized I could be clearer about one point: I no longer care whether Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism or not and don't think there is any point to discussing it. What do we do NOW is what I want to know. Apparently it is what Bush wants to know and he has no answers either. He dismissed the general who said that any surge would have to have a clearly defined objective. He's shuffling the deck chairs and "staying the course" while pretending there is something new going on.

When you say we can't leave, I feel that the point of staying is to benefit Iraqi interests, in the hope that we can save them from becoming an Iranian satellite.

I do not believe that is possible.

I believe that the cause is lost and only a fool would leave his country's army in danger when that army serves no purpose but to forestall an inevitable failure. In either case, staying the course meets a fairly common definition of crazy: doing the same thing over and over in the hope that there will be a different result.

"I believe that the cause is lost and only a fool would leave his country's army in danger when that army serves no purpose but to forestall an inevitable failure. "

Would you expect any better from GWB?

The cause was actually lost in 2003 when Bush ignored international law and the desperate calls of the europeans to stop him from creating this catastrophy. What amazes me is that Bush, Cheney, McCain, Lieberman and the rest say that they will still do the same thing if the knew then what they know now. In what planet do these people live? That is beyond insanity.

Would I expect ebtter from Bush, the man to whom I generally refer as President Chauncey Gardiner? Let me put it this way, I save that kind of talk for my own blog. Around here, I am genuine in my search for common ground.

However, being that I love to find additional support for my claims and just keep piling it up, I have more for JMK:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/05/snow/index.html

That's more regarding whether Iraq is a Democratic priority. It is not, as you can tell from the First 100 Hours agenda, a legislative priority, but I expect that there are good reasons for not trying to intrude on presidential military powers. Personally, I would like to see the Democrats repeal the act that gave Chauncey Bush his emergency powers. However, since that is not looking like happening in the next week or so, I will settle for the linked article as more evidence of Iraq's high place on the list of concerns.

"When you say we can't leave, I feel that the point of staying is to benefit Iraqi interests, in the hope that we can save them from becoming an Iranian satellite.

"I do not believe that is possible." (DBK)
"We believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months," absent the troop surge the current administration seems to support in order to attempt to stabilize the unity government.

The second part,"while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror," seems to indicate that they believe that the principle current mission is "combat," which is demonstrably false.

The primary mission of the U.S. troops in Iraq IS training Iraqi Army Units and police, as well as logixtics and counter-terrorism.

The sooner we end the action in Iraq, the sooner we can fully engage other enemies in that region - we currently have gunboats off the coast of Somalia assisting the Somali and Ethiopian forces in routing the Islamists there.

I think there's few people (maybe Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan) who belive we'll be able to avoid a war with Iran...and possibly Syria, as well.

I have no problem with those who view the WoT as a cataclysmic global event and want to see us fight as exeditiously as possible, but I have a HUGE problem with those who feel otherwise, with those who feel, "If we can force the abandonement of Iraq, we can undermine any support for any of the remaining WoT."

I can't put it any nicer way, I truly believe that those who believe the latter, are as much enemies of America as are the Jihadists.

"The second part,"while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror," seems to indicate that they believe that the principle current mission is "combat," which is demonstrably false.

The primary mission of the U.S. troops in Iraq IS training Iraqi Army Units and police, as well as logixtics and counter-terrorism."

The search for common ground yields results. I didn't understand that part of the Pelosi/Reid letter for the reasons you cited: that IS the current mission.

I also agree that the sooner we leave Iraq, the better we can fight a WoT, if we are really trying to do that. I keep remembering when Haiti blew up not long after the Iraq invasion. Colin Powell had to basically punt the ball on solving that issue to other countries when a few divisions of US Marines could have ended the thing in a couple of days. I just remember thinking how, if our military were not tied up in the fool's errand in Iraq, we could continue to support the Monroe Doctrine in Haiti. Whether Somalia or other places need a deployment of US troops or not, we don't have them to deploy.

I also think that the WoT is best viewed as a law enforcement issue, much as Kerry said. You need intelligence and you need to arrest people before they blow stuff up. Attacking countries hasn't worked out terribly well for us.

"I also think that the WoT is best viewed as a law enforcement issue," (DBK)
(DBK)


On the "law enforcement" view, I couldn't disagree more and not just because I know that John Kerry's a real-life moron (he is, believe me...I know, I've seen him up close and personal), but because terrorism, at least in my view, is not a "crime."

How can carrying out unconventional warfare on a target nation be a "criminal action?"

It's NOT!

Terrorists are "soldiers" who use "unconventional warfare techniques" against enemy nations.

While its true that "soldiers" who fight out of uniform and target civilian populations are called "illegal combatants" and are not protected by the Geneva Accords, they are also NOT "common criminals."

James Fox, then head of the NYC Office of the FBI said, in the wake of the 1993 WTC Bombing, "Dealing with international terrorism is beyond the scope and purview of U.S. law enforcement."

I'm certain that Fox was right. There is no law enforcement agency in America that can match the resources of the various rogue states that are and have been sponsoring, harboring and otherwise assisting international terrorism.

...

My feelings on Iraq are that if Iraq was "misguided," then our foray in the Balkans was even more so (it was just as "unprovoked and UN opposed"), made even worse by our supporting the wrong side (the Muslims, the very same Muslims who initiated the genocide in that region) in that particular conflict.

If deposing Saddam was wrong, then so would have been any intervention on our part in Rwanda, even though I believe that the 700,000 Tutsis slaughtered in less than six months was a terrible atrocity, on par with any that Saddam Hussein carried out in Iraq.

My gut tells me that much of the anti-Iraq fervor was part and parcel of the strong anti-Bush sentiments of many in the media and on the Left in academia.

Likewise, most of the opposition to the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping also seems to be primarily the result of BDS.

I don't think you can look at the minimally intrusive domestic security programs initiated under such criticism and come to any other conclusion.

Withoutfeathers – “Not related to my original point. I wasn't trying to compare death rates from any cause. I was trying to make the point that soldiering is a dangerous job under any circumstances and, in fact, the death rate was not zero prior to March 19, 2003 or January 20, 2001.”

Thanks for responding. Your point is a valid one and put the way you just did it makes more sense. You have to agree however in order to accurately understand those statistics we have to account for the 27% reduction in troop levels. When comparing two different sized populations you have to compare ratios or percentages, raw numbers can easily be misleading.

You also should agree that there isn’t a causal relationship between accidental deaths and who’s in the oval office, while there is a causal relationship between deaths from hostile fire if those troops were sent into harms way by the president, whether justified or not.

A death is a death of course, however the goal should be to reduce them no matter what the cause. There was a 54% drop in the death rate from accidents, it appears some measures were taken to reduce them.

WF – “Cindy Sheehan should get no special consideration because the current president's policies are unpopular.”

I agree, she shouldn’t get special treatment. She’s become an activist for better or worse. She has her own axe to grind to be sure, however people like her do shine a light where the government would like it to remain dark. I don’t think her son merits any more special attention then the next soldier, living or dead. It’s not as if anything she’s doing will bring him back, so in her mind she’s adopted the cause for every other soldier out there. I realize they don’t all want her as their advocate, and she might not be the best advocate, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need an advocate. There are a lot of issues with the military – supplies, body armor, multiple tours of duty, using the national guard to make up for reduced troop levels, etc.

WF – “Just a reminder that, as I have posted more than once here: I believed that invading Iraq would be a mistake before it happened and I still believe that the invasion, subsequent war, occupation and counter-insurgency were all mistakes. We shouldn't have done any of it. But I refuse to accept that any soldier's death is any more or less tragic than any other soldiers death because I don't agree with the policy.”

I agree with that completely. I think the only clarification for me would be if the soldier’s death was caused needlessly (IMO) by the policy. And that doesn’t mean I’m belittling accidental deaths, I just believe that we owe our troops a measure of trust. They are there for us, and they get almost nothing for it. I think we’ve failed them in that trust. An example is the National Guard. Those men and women signed on because they felt it was important to be available to defend our shores in an emergency, now many have been deployed in a way they never could have expected for indefinite periods. They’ve lost jobs, even homes in some cases because with their lost income the mortgage couldn’t be met. I just don’t think we’ve honored their trust.

WF –“ And, the fact of the matter is -- as shown so graphically in your chart -- that the war in Iraq is not particularly bloody by historical standards.”

However it is somewhat bloody considering the fact that we are essentially policing the place, not actually waging war.

JMK – “I don't think you can look at the minimally intrusive domestic security programs initiated under such criticism and come to any other conclusion.”

You do remember instances such as the one where the government used the Patriot Act to subpoena the medical records of women who’d had abortions. There are other examples but I’m trying to keep this brief.
You may feel it’s minimally intrusive, how do you think those women feel? Or doesn’t that matter?

The medical records, like the NSA program were NOT the result of the Patriot Act!

The NSA program (Operation Eschelon) was used to nail Aldrich Ames way back inthe 1990s.

There was one misuse of the Patriot Act that I've come across and it was in Tennesse and it was struck down by local courts.

The police there decided to use the Patriot Act to ingeniously go after Meth Lab operators, adding on the charge of "producing WMDs," reffering to the poisonous gases that result from the distillation process.

The courts were right to strike that down, but I think it's cool that the Tennessee police were looking for new ways to keep Meth makers in prison, after all that's their job!

Personally, I'd file that miscue under, "boys will be boys."

No harm done - the courts did the right thing there.