Democrats Write a Blank Check for Bush's War

posted by John Nichols on 06/22/2008 @ 3:49pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (63)

Subscribe Now

George Bush, who has never chosen to take responsibility for addressing the mess he created in Iraq, has now been given permission by the U.S. House to finish his presidency without doing so.

After the House voted 268-155 to provide $162 billion in additional "emergency" funding for the Iraq war last week, Bush was effectively assured that he will be able to finish his presidency next January 20 and head back to Texas without taking any steps to conclude a conflict that has killed and permanently disabled tens of thousands of Americans, killed and dislocated millions of Iraqis and destabilized one of the most complex and dangerous regions in the world.

"The president basically gets a blank check to dump this war on the next president," says Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern, who voted against letting Bush off the hook – and against setting up a situation where the next commander-in-chief, be he Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will be "a war president."

Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, another "no" voter, explained the frustration of those who opposed a measure that ultimately passed with Republican and Democratic support by members of the House who are no more willing than Bush to take responsibility for ending a war that should never have begun.

"We have lost 4,103 of America's best and brightest young people, another 30,000 are grievously wounded and will require care for much of their lives, and we are spending $10 BILLION a month in Iraq. We have built over 800 schools, nearly 5,000 water and sewer projects and over 1,000 roads and bridges – in Iraq – while gas and food prices go through the roof here, home foreclosures wreak havoc on American families, and our infrastructure is in a shambles. Enough is enough! One day of spending in Iraq would finance the entire reconstruction of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis" said Ellison, a first-term Democrat who has been meticulous about opposing moves to continue the war. "I will not vote for more American taxpayers' money going to Iraq until that proposal contains deadlines and timetables for the safe withdrawal of our troops."

That's what a congressman who takes his duties seriously sounds like.

Unfortunately, that's not what the majority of House members sound like.

The measure was opposed by 151 Democrats – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Appropriations Committee chair Dave Obey – and four Republicans (Califonian John Campbell, Tennessee's John Duncan, Arizona's Floyd Flake and Texan Ron Paul).

Voting for the Iraq spending hike passed were 188 Republicans and 80 Democrats.

The votes of those 80 pro-war Democrats were definitional

If House Democrats had simply held together as a caucus, this "blank check" for more killing, maiming, dislocation and mass destruction would not have been written.

Unfortunately, a number of top Democrats in the House -- including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel, D-Illinois, and Chief Deputy Whip Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat who has served as a point-man in the chamber for the Democratic Leadership Council -- voted with the Bush administration.

Democrats were elected in 2006 to end the war in Iraq.

When more than one-third of the House Democratic Caucus supports maintaining the war into the next presidency, it is not just individual Democrats but the party as a whole that is failing.

Any large party caucus in a legislative chamber has mavericks. After all, four Republicans just broke with the Bush lockstep to oppose the additional war founding -- and two of them (John Duncan and Ron Paul) are longtime and consistent critics of military misadventures abroad.

But when one out of every three members of a caucus -- including much of its leadership team -- votes to help the president of an opposition party maintain a war that most American oppose, we're not looking at a case of leaders allowing mavericks to let off steam. We're looking at a case of a Democratic Party that is dramatically better at mouthing anti-war platitudes than exercising any sort of leadership.

Comments (63)

"But when one out of every three members of a caucus -- including much of its leadership team -- votes to help the president of an opposition party maintain a war that most American oppose, we're not looking at a case of leaders allowing mavericks to let off steam. We're looking at a case of a Democratic Party that is dramatically better at mouthing anti-war platitudes than exercising any sort of leadership."

Maybe it's because these Dems, unlike you Nichols and the rest of the anti-American, anti-win left, actually care about America, our troops, and our national security.

My thanks to those brave Democrats in the House who voted for America rather than MoveOn.org

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/22/2008 @ 5:08pm
I have a modest proposal: Let the Honorable Representative Nancy Pelosi, who seems once again to have joined the progressive movement, demote Majority Whip James Clyburn to a more suitable position, like "Majority Doormat."

Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel should be demoted to Democratic Caucus Footstool. Steny Hoyer would make a better Majority Go-Fer than a Majority Leader. Ron Kind and the entire Democratic Leadership Council deserve nothing more than cold stares.

Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008 @ 5:15pm
Stupid question: is this the same war funding bill that has the new GI Bill tied in with it? If so I can overlook it until the new administration re-directs the funding.

Posted by yutsano at 06/22/2008 @ 5:16pm
Dear "LVLiberty,"

Those who would pursue victory at any cost, sadly, would in the process sacrifice both thousands of our troops and our national security in this pursuit. I do not doubt that the Bush Democrats care for America. Their problem is that they, like Bush, just don't know how.

Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008 @ 5:21pm
And now we know. it isn't democrat republican, it is honest versus dishonest How did we get to this point? I watched an listened and tsat silently b as the media destroy two hones men with hair cuts and ufo's. how did we end up with a few honest people being marginalized while the massive majority are turned into heroes by the crowds and the media ? Our campaign rallies sound like rock concerts with people screaming on cue at just the sound of the politicians voice. The politicians mouth trite platitudes that they don't mean or intend to act on and we all march behind them like smart little cyborgs and wonder why people are dying in wars of arrogance. I watched silently, and listened quietly , while the media demonized an hones pastor and an honest congressman who where speaking the truth. It seems to me that Rev. Wright and Peter Stark where correct in their outrage at arrogance and stupidity, yet we all moved to the back of the auditorium and let them take the heat by themselves. We have a short supply of courage in this country. I can understand now how we all ended up yelling "crucify him". John Edwards was right, in spite of his 400.00 dollar hair cut , "we do have two Americas".

Posted by julien38 at 06/22/2008 @ 5:45pm
I need an editor and a spell check. So very sorry.

Posted by julien38 at 06/22/2008 @ 5:49pm
Maybe it's because these Dems, unlike you Nichols and the rest of the anti-American, anti-win left, actually care about America, our troops, and our national security.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/22/2008

If you are referring to those who oppose continuation of Bush's disaster, I think that you mean the anti-idiot left.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2008 @ 6:13pm
Maybe it's because these Dems, unlike you Nichols and the rest of the anti-American, anti-win left, actually care about America, our troops, and our national security.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/22/2008

Hmm. If I oppose the war I'm anti-American, and am not concerned with the well being of of American soldiers.

Those soldiers were sent into an unjustified and unwinable war. The war was mismanaged by Rumsfeld at a criminal level. Anyone with knowledge of military history sat in awe watching this war spiral down into the morass that it has become. It is an unwinable war because bunker babies such as Bush and Cheney have made it so.

Tens of thousands of American soldiers have been maimed for life, amputations, massive brain trauma, traumatic stress disorders. For this we should be inspired? Win the war for these young people, that's our patriotic duty?

Richard Cheney as Secretary of Defense paid Halliburton 14 million dolars to write LOGCAP which guaranteed that Halliburton KBR would be first in line at the trough. He then goes into the private sector and just happens to land a job with KBR and the boys. Then Dick is instrumental in starting a war that lays billions of dollars upon himself and his corporation. What a coincidence. Dicky boy loves the troops, he's a super patriot., and rich at that.

nhojjohn

Posted by Nhoj_John at 06/22/2008 @ 7:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/22/2008

See the "American" thing to do is to keep spending a TRILLION dollars in debt because to actually PAY for the war would hurt the cause that 70% of America no longer supports....

and the "pro-troop" thing to do is to keep killing the troops while you do it.

It's quite logical...to 30% of the country like LVLIB.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2008 @ 8:35pm
I have a modest proposal: Let the Honorable Representative Nancy Pelosi, who seems once again to have joined the progressive movement, demote Majority Whip James Clyburn to a more suitable position, like "Majority Doormat."

Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel should be demoted to Democratic Caucus Footstool. Steny Hoyer would make a better Majority Go-Fer than a Majority Leader. Ron Kind and the entire Democratic Leadership Council deserve nothing more than cold stares."

Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008

You're kidding, right!? Pelosi's nothing but a figure head in the House. She's one of the weakess speakers I've seen to date. She has no real power to unite progressive and conservative democrats. Almost every one of her proposals have failed to pass.

Right now the show is being ran by the blue dog democrats (Rahm and Steny) and they have no intentions of giving up their control of house anytime soon.

I got a feeling they're gonna boot her out after the general election.

Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008 @ 8:50pm
Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008

Why would they "boot her out"...if they're running the show and keeping the fire off themselves and onto her???

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2008 @ 9:59pm
Wasn't it 8 years ago that Ralph Nader asked us all, "What is the FAIL STANDARD for this party?"

The editors of this magazine and numerous other Democratic blabbermouths decried Nader as an "egotist," as "irresponsible," etc.

Well, here we are again, only this time the Democrats caved in to a president with an approval rating of 29%. Twenty-nine percent!

There's not one plausible reason for voting for another $200,000,000,000 for Iraq, especially considering that the country is $9,000,000,000,000 in debt.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/22/2008 @ 11:02pm
If ever an empire deserved to be humiliated & destroyed, it is ours.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/22/2008 @ 11:04pm
Zero, get a load of this stat from the July installment of Harper's Index:

"Estimated total value of investments in major U.S. military contractors owned by members of Congress: $150,000,000."

Posted by KSP556 at 06/22/2008 @ 11:21pm
"I think a lot of these Democrats are just as in bed with the nefarious interests that seek to continue the war as are most of the Republicans."

Posted by Zero at 06/22/2008

It'll be interesting to see which if both sects of the democratic party actively campaign for Obama. The progressives will try their best and the blue-dogs will give a tepid response, if any.

Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008 @ 11:24pm
"Estimated total value of investments in major U.S. military contractors owned by members of Congress: $150,000,000."

Posted by KSP556 at 06/22/2008

Which is all the more reason the more conservative wing of the democratic party is not going to back Obama.

Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008 @ 11:27pm
"Listen while they tell you of the horrors of fighting those wars and what it feels like for them when their Congress talks about taking their financial support away while they are still bleeding. I think you'll change your tune real quick"

oh, man! can any reasonable person respond to such propagandistic craziness?

as if soldiers on duty on iraq wouldn't want to come home ASAP from that mess!

as if soldiers on duty in iraq would somehow resent congress for bringing them home!

frankgrits = propagandist extraordinaire

Posted by darladoon at 06/23/2008 @ 01:48am
This war was always justified by speculation. All of the grand scenarios of Iraqi people greeting us as liberators and then becoming our ally were always speculation.

Define "Win" and every definition will contain speculation of what the end result will be. Even the best scenarios for post-occupation Iraq leave a lot of questions.

Even if the Iraqis could maintain their own security and provide free elections, the results could be very bad for the U.S.

Posted by koroviev at 06/23/2008 @ 05:23am
Posted by KSP556 at 06/22/2008

WHAT!?

But so many here will tell us that there is a huge difference between the dems/Gore and the repubs/Bush!

when push comes to shove the dems vote FOR the war, vote to fund it for 6 years as "an emergency", vote FOR protection of credit companies that hand out $10,000 credit to college freshmen, vote FOR immunity for telecoms that broke the law. They know these votes are wrong, but they also know where the money comes from. It's a SNAFU congress

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 07:08am
Rev Larry, could you please explain how this war is keeping America safe. Can you show me any evidence that Iraq, it's citizens or Guvt was ever a genuine threat to your congregation?

I could show you examples of how lack of domestic spending is harmful to our citizens. Therefore I can make a case that the larger threat to this country comes from unchecked spending of money we don't have, not imaginary drone planes or imaginary nook-yu-lar programs.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 07:13am
Of Ellison: "That's what a congressman who takes his duties seriously sounds like."

I like Ellison, but wouldn't a congressman who took his duties seriously at least allude to the IRAQIS who have been killed and injured as a result of the US invasion - they dwarf the American casualties.

What does it say when even our best politicians won't mention that?

Posted by jgold2 at 06/23/2008 @ 07:16am
Posted by frankgrits at 06/22/2008

I invite anybody who wishes to Google or "Nation" Archive search the words "FRANKGRITS" and "Iraq"...

and see what this FORMERLY honorable and non-brainwashed man USED to say, before getting Hillary Clinton another shot at her ambition in 2012 warped his mind to the point where he threw away all his beliefs to start sounding like the people he once claimed to (legitimately) hate for the danger they put his son in.

It is a sad and terrible commentary on a man's life that is now so wrapped up in a cult of personality, that he would help men like Bush and his would-be successor.

Truly, it is sad.

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2008 @ 07:35am
Rev Larry, could you please explain how this war is keeping America safe. Can you show me any evidence that Iraq, it's citizens or Guvt was ever a genuine threat to your congregation?

I could show you examples of how lack of domestic spending is harmful to our citizens. Therefore I can make a case that the larger threat to this country comes from unchecked spending of money we don't have, not imaginary drone planes or imaginary nook-yu-lar programs.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008

Crabs, you know the Rev can't do that. Instead, he'll rant some about the 'loony left,' wander through an allusion to his black ops past in 'Nam, then proof-text some verse which in his world is evidence that God chose Boosh for this moment in time.

SSDD

Posted by skeletonman at 06/23/2008 @ 08:08am
Ending the war will be easy - just surrender, which is what the Messiah, I mean candidate Obama, has decreed, and the Left salivatingly endorses. It's okay to call it a surrender, because that's what it is - so be proud of it. History is full of surrenderers who succeeded (not that I can think of one).

Then we can all go to fight the only good war which is Afghanistan, just as candidate Obama, has advocated. This of course will not be the least bit affected adversely by the US surrender in Iraq (just ask MoveOn.org). Certainly our American diplomats, who will implement Obama's post-Iraq surrender policy in his "diplomatic surge", will have all sorts of new influence with other nations as they see we give up when things get tough, abandon our allies who have trusted us, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Yeah, they'll gladly pick up the slack for us.

And as the Left is in unison about how the US took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, I'm sure the Left will now loudly encourage its adult children, students or even themselves to join the US military to go fight in Afghanistan (only). Oh wait, better let somebody else go instead, the Left is too busy hugging trees - besides HUMVEEs aren't "green" like a Prius. BTW, I have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Kosovo ("Clinton's war" in todays terms), so no whines that I should go serve in these places, because I have, and may do so again - gladly and proudly - can you say the same?

Posted by usa1 at 06/23/2008 @ 08:32am
TW, I have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Kosovo ("Clinton's war" in todays terms), so no whines that I should go serve in these places, because I have, and may do so again - gladly and proudly - can you say the same?

Posted by usa1

yeah right. and I'm the queen of Romania.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008 @ 08:40am
"Basically when one-third of your party votes with 98% of the opposition party it is because a majority of Americans support that vote."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/23/2008

Darin, what IS IT that the "American people support"?

and please show polling data to prove it (not just "I feel it").

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2008 @ 09:04am
Get over yourself. If the world were black and white there wouldn't be any disagreements.

Posted by marybretbrad at 06/23/2008

Huh?

Even if the world were black and white, there would still be two points of view.

Unless you are a neoconista, that is, 'cause then we'd just run American hegemony roughshod over the other side.

Ending the war will be easy - just surrender Posted by usa1 at 06/23/2008

Now you are contradicting your previous post - there is more than the outcome of total victory vs. total surrender.

You need to get your story straight before posting again, sport.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/23/2008 @ 09:19am
TW, I have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Kosovo ("Clinton's war" in todays terms), so no whines that I should go serve in these places, because I have, and may do so again - gladly and proudly - can you say the same?

Posted by usa1

yeah right. and I'm the queen of Romania.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008

And I swear that I saw monkeys fly out your butt.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/23/2008 @ 09:20am
I think Congress realizes that the worm has turned in iraq after a long horrific battle. I think they realize that we have to see victory there and to do anything less will be to have disnonored all those who died or shed blood there.

It has done nothing of the kind. An actual political solution is still not on the cards. Your idea that the way to honor the dead and injured is to create more dead an injured is an absurdity that you would not likely have embraced had Clinton been the nominee instead of Obama.

MBB As to the American sentiment, polling suggests the opposite. ABC's last poll had 55-41 titled towards withdrawing US forces as opposed to keeping them there until civil order is restored. The latest NBC poll had 54-40 tilting towards victory in Iraq being not possible as opposed to possible. Finally, the latest CBS poll had 42% wanting "large numbers of US troops" there "Less than a year, 21% "One to two years" and only 20% "As long as it takes".

As to that impact on Congress's supineness. First, it takes more than one election cycle for a consistent popular sentiment to change the Senate given its staggered election schedule. Second, although said sentiment is enough to change the House, it doesn't appear to be strong enough to created a veto-overriding supermajority (although it should change the party in the White House).

This is an intentional part of the Constitutional design--requiring more than one election cycle (anticipating further Democratic gains in the Senate and the White House) to push the government.

Posted by brunowe at 06/23/2008 @ 09:34am
Yet another painful PROOF that the TWO party scam...err..system doesn't WORK!

Posted by digit at 06/23/2008 @ 09:46am
AIPAC whistles, AIPAC's Dem assets jump.

The American people be damned, their votes are meaningless.

Money is the mother's milk of politics, as LBJ & so many others have declared.

Posted by sloper at 06/23/2008 @ 09:47am
But, it's too late now. Iraq is here to stay. Our troops will be there forever, funded by slave labor HERE in the US, and more GOP connected corporations will make BILLIONS on the scam.

And, if ANY president withdraws as much as one soldier bam, there will be another 9/11 - The Neocons and mossad operatives are on stand-by...ready to stage another attack to blame on 'terrorists' and gain even more control over the American citizenry.

You know, Cheney and the Neocons weren't shredding just memos and evidence, they also put our Constitution through the shredder as well.

And, when people will finally wake up and demonstrate in mass Blackwater will be there to greet them.

Hey, that's what happens when the country is divided. When you have people who are so blind and ignorant that their only counter-argument is "hey, if you don't like it, leave".

Posted by digit at 06/23/2008 @ 09:55am
Alas, digit, you got it right.

Wish it were otherwise, but it ain't.

The alliance of neocons, AIPAC, Big Oil & Big Military Contractors have killed the republic.

And they'll kill anyone who threatens to give them a real fight. Which certainly includes the next president & he knows it.

Posted by sloper at 06/23/2008 @ 10:15am
Posted by skeletonman at 06/22/2008

"If you are referring to those who oppose continuation of Bush's disaster, I think that you mean the anti-idiot left."

You lefties are the biggest sucker idiots in the world. The Dems tell you what you want to hear in order to get your vote, then when they get into power they vote like adults. Where are you going to go, anyway?

Posted by pontificus at 06/23/2008 @ 10:52am
Ponti-In the real world republicans tell you what you want to hear and then do nothing,just like the democrats.It has nothing to do with being adults.In fact,quite the opposite.It shows an inability to act which shows immaturity.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 10:56am
If all Americans were like lvliberty then every POTUS would start a war in order to make criticism of them anti American.That is not the message that we want to send future presidents.I've noticed that war supporters have no facts,but just say pointless things like-the worm has turned(whatever that means)or they say that if you disagree with me then you are a traitor,but can't say in what way your views constitute treason or make one anti America,but what they can't do is show that creating the islamic state in Iraq, that we are creating, is good for our national security because they know that it is not good for our national security.They know that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from islamic states.Too many war supporters view war as a sporting event where "winning" is all that matters,but war is different because people die and so you have to be able to win something that is worth winning and creating islamic states simply is not something that is worth the lives of our troops.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 11:12am
FrankGrits-People in the military get paid whether there is a war or not.Those in a combat zone get combat pay,but it isn't enough extra that it would make one risk their lives in order to get it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:07pm
FrankGrits-I noticed that you did not become a war monger until your kid was safely back in America.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:18pm
FrankGrits-That's what I know.You were against the war when your kid was there and are for it now that he is back and safe.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:21pm
FrankGrits-Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my post and you responded with your usual childish put downs,but posted nothing relevant to my post.You were,again,exposed as a hypocrite who risks other peoples kids lives once yours is safe.I know all about combat related PTSD,but you don't so don't give me your self righteous hypocrisy.You are a babe who changed his views because you are having a tantrum because your queen did not get the nomination and because your kid is now safe..

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:33pm
FrankGrits-As you know,I'm a disabled Viet Nam veteran and you disrespect me on a regular basis which makes your claim of respecting veterans a joke.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:36pm
FrankGrits-I noticed that you did not become a war monger until your kid was safely back in America.

Posted by i'm nobody

this is why I think he's a phony. I did not believe his maudlin posts about his kid in Iraq, and I don't believe him now.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/23/2008 @ 12:39pm
emile-It is odd that Frank says that the war caused his kid to have PTSD,but then states his support of having other people kids suffer from PTSD by continuing the war.Why would he want other kids to suffer if he sees his own kid suffering?

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 12:46pm
I don't care who is President, my view on this war will be the same.

Sorry FG, but you didn't start articulating this position until after it was clear that Clinton wasn't going to get the nomination.

Posted by brunowe at 06/23/2008 @ 1:22pm
USA-Why would anyone be glad and proud to fight in bungled wars that should be over by now?

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008 @ 1:50pm
People in the military get paid whether there is a war or not.Those in a combat zone get combat pay,but it isn't enough extra that it would make one risk their lives in order to get it.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/23/2008

IM,

Excuse me, but what do people in the military get paid for? fighting wars. That's what they train for.

They are not in the service because it's a social network. They are supposed to be skilled warriors.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/23/2008 @ 3:49pm
There are times when they cannot be guided by polls. This is one of them. The people who are polled aren't smart enough or informed enough to give an educated answer to a polling question.

Let me ask you this. If you were a Congressman and you knew what was at stake in Iraq, would you vote, as a matter of political expediency, the way your constituency responds to a poll or would you use your head, look at the facts and vote accordingly?

Posted by frankgrits at 06/23/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

In this case, the two aren't contradictory. The surge contributed to a strategically barren tactical gain. Hardly anything to justify a continued committment in Iraq. Further, my reference to the polls was in response to MBBs statement that the House voted the way it did because he thought the people aren't as anti-Iraq war as they, in fact, are.

Posted by brunowe at 06/23/2008 @ 5:00pm
I have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Kosovo ("Clinton's war" in todays terms), so no whines that I should go serve in these places, because I have, and may do so again - gladly and proudly - can you say the same?

Posted by usa1 at 06/23/2008

So go finish what you started, just don't expect me to pay for a 20 year war that cannot be won militarily against a populace that was never a threat to me, or you.

The "Clinton war" has produced almost no casualties since it was declared "accomplished". Kind of like his blow job produced no ill effects for those not in the room.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:44pm
bad analogy.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:45pm
PONTIFLOGIC, care to take a stab?

How has the Iraq war made me more safe from Saudi/Yemini/UAE terrorists?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 5:48pm
What percentage of people in the armed services see combat?

Of those that serve in Iraq, up to 20% come home with PTSD. according to a RAND study 300,000 suffer from PTSD and 320,000 have suffered brain injuries requiring treatment.

The DOD says they have treated 120,000 for such injuries/conditions. But, only 43% report that they have been evaluated and only 53% have sought treatment for depression or PTSD.

We are going to be dealing with these "warriors" (18-20 years old in many cases when Luvvy sent them to find WMD's that were a fantasy) for decades. They will begin to fill our mental institutions and will be found in jails/prisons where mental care is unavailable. According to The Army Times police are now training to spot Iraq veterans so they can help, who pays for that? Why is it necessary if serving in this war is so "honorable". What happens to the "skilled warrior" when he returns to loading hot dogs at the warehouse?

For what? No threat has been diminished. Iran has sway over the region. The tax dollars that have to be wrought from the hands of the anti-tax neo-cons is being used to buy off the Sunni Awakened, often it is just lost in the shuffle to the tune of billions of dollars. 6 years on the Iraqis cannot decide how to govern, how to split their oil money or how to control Kurdish separatists. Terrorism is still going on worldwide. A reason for high oil prices is instability in the Gulf Region.

So, again, how is this keeping America safe?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 11:02pm
And why don't we have a "war tax" to pay for this? Why is it "emergency funding after almost 6 years when the Plan is to stay for at least another 6, if not 100. Why do the conservatives not want to pay for their war and why do the dems allow them to not pay?

It is allegedly becoming more safe in Iraq, "only" 200 bombings/shootings last month. Why are there not more people stepping up to go to Iraq to build structures and society? Why are we relying on Philipinos and Columbians to do the work? Is it because "Americans won't do these jobs"? Why not?

why won't Luvvy go minister in Iraq?

Why won't MBB go do actuary work in Iraq and train up the new generation of insurance professionals?

Why won't Maasch go teach sales techniques and investment strateegery to Iraqi youth?

why won't USA1 go finish the job?

I mean, this is a generational commitment, it is Important Job #1, they tell us that "we must not fail", but they don't want to pay, they don't want to fight and they don't want to go. Why? what prevents them from doing the right thing?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2008 @ 11:12pm
LvLiberty-People in the military get paid even if no war is going on so they do not need war for their lively hood.A plumber in the Air Force,a cook in the Navy,etc are trained warriors?Since when?

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/24/2008 @ 03:02am
FrankGrits-You contradict yourself so much that no one,including you,knows what your position is on any issue.You have no facts to back up your claim that the worm has turned in Iraq nor do you have an advantage that the rest of us don't have.We all have access to the same information.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/24/2008 @ 2:47pm
This is not just from what I read but from people who are actually over there on their second and third tours. I also have a son who served their during the worst of it. I have that advantage where the rest of you don't.

So in the future before you try to define me or my position, get your facts straight or keep your damn mouth shut.

Posted by frankgrits at 06/24/2008 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Why don't you try to shut it Frank? Further, the only advantage your son having served in Iraq gives you is your ability to exploit it for whatever rhetorical purposes you think it serves.

The surge has been going on since the Spring of 2007, you didn't talk about the worm turning or the need to stay in Iraq until Clinton lost.

What do the people to whom you refer see about the Sunnis reaction to the de-Ba'athification bill; what is their take on Kirkuk (they spend much time sounding out the people there and the Kurdish government?).

Posted by brunowe at 06/24/2008 @ 7:36pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/24/2008 @ 2:47pm

"You have no facts to back up your claim that the worm has turned in Iraq"

Nonsense, IM. The facts are quite clear that the 'worm has turned' in Iraq. The fact that you don't know that is a testament to your determination to remain ignorant. .

Posted by pontificus at 06/24/2008 @ 10:02pm
The worm turned in:

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Spring 2008

summer 2008

Yet, the government of Iraq cannot supply:

Clean water

electricity

security

to it's people.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2008 @ 07:09am
Ponti-I noticed that you forgot to post facts and just gave an opinion about the worm has turned.Study a bit about their history and culture and try keeping up with events inside of Iraq.You have created an islamic state that is in a state of chaos and will continue to be in a state of chaos for many more years so no worm has turned in Iraq nor will any worm turn in our lifetimes.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 10:29am
FrankGrits-McCain did not agree that there were not enough troops until that became obvious.When Bush first did war on the cheap McCain went along with that and said that we would win quickly.He was wrong because he knows little about military operations which is one of the reasons he was not given a command when he was in the military..Like Bush,McCain did not go with the number of troops that the military originally requested and,also,thought that we could win by fighting war on the cheap.He flipped flopped on the troop number issue.The reason that the deaths from ieds is down has nothing to do with the troop increase,but has do with al sadr and others like him waiting and regrouping.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/25/2008 @ 10:38am
while we feed a steady stream of young Americans into the maw of death, that is Iraq.

they are NOT defending America over there, and their unnecessary deaths will be America's shame forever.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:39am
Do you want to see America fail in Iraq and have the troops come home dishonored and have all those who've died and been injured done so in vain? I don't think you'll be answering this question honostly. It fits your M.O.

Posted by frankgrits at 06/25/2008 @ 10:34am | warn this person

America has already failed in Iraq insofar as the goal of establishing a stable, friendly government is concerned, it's just a question of how many people of ours we lose because the advocates of continued occupation don't want to face that.

I notice that you didn't answer any of my questions of what your contacts there told you about the political issues I mentioned. The lack of advance in those areas is more dispositive then transient tactical successes. As Joe Klein observed, it's like putting whipped cream on a pile of refuse.

The troops suffer no dishonor from that as it was the policymakers who messed up. Finally, the idea that we should stay there just because we've lost thousands of dead and injured is silly to the point of insulting.

Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 11:35am
Do you want to see America fail in Iraq and have the troops come home dishonored

america has already failed in Iraq, without my help.

the troops have not been dishonored by this failure, and they have not covered themselves with glory either.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 12:38pm
It hasn't been reversed. You haven't point out on actual political gain. The Sunni party broke off talks on reentering Maliki's government; the de-Ba'athification law is a joke; there has been no resolution of the oil or the Kirkus issues. You're going to need a better argument than just your assertion that there's been a change in the political situation.

Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 1:13pm