Question(s) & Observations from the R side of the aisle

[sirs]

I can actually understand the principled liberal, in particular the hardcore Anti-war folks.  The ones who believe war is bad, in any case, should never ever be implemented, and when done so, demagogue it for all its worth, especially those that launched it.  I get that.  I get those who are steadfast in their position of how troops should be pulled out in an expedient fasion, if not immediately.  I get when they get mad at their representatives when they do not follow suit with their thought process.

Which brings me to what I don't get.....DC liberal politicians.  The Nov elections saw a lot of campaigning for "change", a "new direction", anything but "stay the course".  And the polls, (IMHO largely the effective application of the mainscream media's 24/7 doom & gloom reporting) appeared to help dictate that tact.  And Dems indeed took over.

Now, I ask you to move aside your feelings about me, my condescending tone, my being a partisan conservative, or my opinions on the mainscream media, and try to focus on my query.  The Dems have the reigns.  They have the power of not just the majority, but of the country's purse strings. If they are so dead set against Bush's "surge plan" why do they not pull the purse for that plan??   This NON-BINDING resolution garbage is crap.  It says nothing more than what they feel, and largely just what the Dems feel.  It has no bite, and won't have any sway on the President what-so-ever.  So why do it?

That's my query, that I'd love to see responded to, by level headed rationally minded folks (knute need not respond)

Now, here's where I will bring in my 2 cents, on the why.  The cartoon I posted a while back, that I'll repost here, paints that explanation quite accurately IMHO, though the 1st window of the Dem plan doesn't even require the troops to come home, though it would be a nice addition.  DC Dems, not to be confused with the principled Libs I referred to earlier, in large part WANT THE ISSUE.  Instead of the Liberal Dems who want to see the war come to a facilitated end, DC Dems want to bash Bush.  Anything that can hurt Bush & the GOP politically, is what they'll do.  THAT's what seems to drive their decision making, that and perhaps the perception that they'd be deemed the bad guys by the electorate if they did pull the purse.  But basically, policy is priority-"hurt the other side", and secondary-impliment the social left agenda

Yet, they could pull the purse, and call Bush's bluff, that he would then have to refrain from implementing a surge, because otherwise those troops will not have the necessary funding and logistical support.......right?  But perhaps they're too concerned that they'll look the bad guys, when they can easily convey to the public that the surge is not acceptable to "the American Public", and that they're not going to finance it.  But instead, they're going to pass non-binding resolutions that do squat, and then lament how the President won't listen to them.  THEY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE BUSH LISTEN TO THEM.  WHY WON'T THEY?  I do believe I've addressed that. 

But if I've missed something, or completely off base, please feel free to add your 2cents.  (in knute's case, a plastic cap)

[sirs]

So basically, with the noted silence, I'm correct in my 2cent observation of DC Dems?

[_JS]

You're a patient guy Sirs.

Of course no political party is going to deliberately withdraw funding for American soldiers at war. It is the same reason that the Republican Party never did anything with Social Security, but was happy to target insignificant drops in the bucket like Public Television or Amtrak.

Politics is a pragmatic game of survival. Bush will get his "surge" but it won't be the pollyanna world of the top line in your comic strip. Surely most on the right don't believe such a thing?

[Brassmask]

A while back, BT asked me if I would de-fund the "war" or not if I were in charge.  At the time, I was really hesitant because I feared that it could lead to something like the troops being over there and starving to death or not having bullets or something.

That, of course, was then.  I've now moved into the de-fund/bring 'em home now column since I learned that the "war" is funded through something like the end of October of this year.  Now, it is my opinion that the "war" should immediately be de-funded and begin re-deployment of the troops from Iraq while leaving some there to train Iraqis.

This change came about when I was having a discussion in the comments page of a local blogger's site.  An acquaintance of mine and nice guy, his stance was that we should wait a while to de-fund to give those on the right some "cover".

His comments here:

As of now there is funding for the war through September/October. I think a non-binding resolution is the right first step. It gives Republicans political cover to abandon Bush. In less than a month, a resolution to cap troop levels and begin withdrawal will be much more appealing because Bush will prove he is a stuborn lunatic. Just today, Warner put forward a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's plan.

I know this sounds politically calculating, but a constitutional confrontation is coming over this war. Delaying this confrontation by less than a month will line up support, especially by getting 15 republican Senators to end it quicker.

Of course, I met this with unfettered rage.

PD says "I know this sounds politically calculating, but a constitutional confrontation is coming over this war. Delaying this confrontation by less than a month will line up support, especially by getting 15 republican Senators to end it quicker"

Besides, what's a few more dead soldiers if we (The Dems) win and the GOP senators get some "cover"?

God knows we wouldn't want to go right into the confrontation now. That might endanger someone's re-election or result in bad press or something. Hey, it's a volunteer army! They knew what they were in for.

The reality is that this thing never should have started in the first place. The rationale has been that "well, we're in there now, so we need to make the best of it." Well, we've long since seen the best of it and we're moving towards the worst of it every single second.

This should have been the A Number One Bill brought up after the swearing in of the 110th and the time it took to walk to the floor.

There is no time for calculation. People are dying and Iraqis want us the hell out of their country. How many times do they have to say it?

And all this foot-dragging and political maneuvering and savvy behind-the-scenes to and fro is only getting more people killed and the real story will not be the constitutional crisis but the curiosity over why in the hell it took the Dems so long to come to the realization that Bush is a psychopathic moron who needs to be, if not literally straight-jacketed, at the very least metaphorically elephant staked.

Chuck Hagel was on fire yesterday talking about this same kind of thing.

Personally, I see it as outright cowardice and the same thing I've been saying about it all along.  This is a bandaid that they are trying to remove one agonizing arm hair at a time, crying "ow!" between each one.  My contention is that we should yank that suck off and be done with it.  There is no real solution other than withdrawal.  Bush won't do that without some kind of "victory" which is never going to happen.  He's in the last minute and a half and he's throwing Hail Mary's every down.

The Dems want to give the dumbasses on the right time enough to "come around" one at a time.  Warner comes out then that means that one who is a little more hardcore Bush-loving can come out.  And then it's like dominoes till the Dems get that magical number of votes to overturn any kind of a veto.

It's bullshit.

Any Dem with a brain in his head, a heart in his chest and a set would move to de-fund now and call Bush/Cheney's bluff on de-funding.  Bush/Cheney has set that up as the most politically damaging action the Dems could take but I submit that ANY damage that they take will be wiped fully away when the families are bolting across the tarmacs and airport corridors to smother their returning spouses, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters with hugs and kisses.

Then the only competition will be who can try to get the most of that kind of footage on their evening news and which candidates co-sponsored that bill.

[sirs]

My thanks to Js & Brass for their input.  When I have more time, I'll endeavor to comment on them later this PM.  I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge their rational contributions.  Thanks

[The_Professor]

Well, from the R side of the aisle:

I advocate a systemic and careful withdraw from Iraq. It was ill-advised in the beginning. fraught with poor decisions along the way, and, well, a litany of errors too many to pragmatically mention...sigh.

All this while poor Karzai sits in Kabul, wondering when he will be shot/assasinated. What we have done to both nations, IMHO, is beneath contempt.

There is indeed, in my mind, some justification to the concept that "we broke it, so now we should fix it". The pragmatic issue is that it simply cannot be fixed with the current poor level of decision-making being pursued by the gentlemen I helped elect TWICE. This latest surge will amount to zip. It still will not bring us up to even the minimum 1:50 ratio barely needed (military to civilian)

Tony Blair, bless his soul, took his hit for his valiant support. I respect him for it, even though the entire endeavor is beyond sad. In the meantime, e lose 10-25 soldiers per day and the number of Iraqis lost each day is, well, shocking.

As I have advocated in this forum many many times, if you intend to conduct warfare, then do it convincingly and then turn the baton over to either a constabulary force ( as the Roman Empire successfully did over the years) or to a local leader. So, what did we do? We won the initial land battle then dismissed the military. Huh? Where's the stabilizing force now? Well, its not anymore, they are all unemployed now...Anyway, I drone on and it is late and I still have many hours of work left to do. We are leaving or a cruise in a couple of days and I need to get alot more done before then -- http://www.christiancruises.net/CouplesOfPromise.htm.

More later on, chaps.

[sirs]

OK, let's take a few moments and check out these well thought out responses.

Js; <<"Of course no political party is going to deliberately withdraw funding for American soldiers at war. It is the same reason that the Republican Party never did anything with Social Security, but was happy to target insignificant drops in the bucket like Public Television or Amtrak.  Politics is a pragmatic game of survival. Bush will get his "surge" but it won't be the pollyanna world of the top line in your comic strip. ">>

Js is absolutely right that the GOP plays this game as well, and gets equal scorn from the hard core right for their lack of principled stands, SS being right at the top.  Immigration being a close 2nd.  I disagree with the "Pollyanna" reference, not because I believe Bush's "surge" will accomplish every goal that we're supposed to have achieved, but that IMHO it's an an attempt to minimize, if not trivialize, the sincere goals and effort America is attempting, which absolutely includes a democratically free Iraq.  Yet in the end, it appears Js is agreeing with my take on DC Dems.  I think


Brass; <<"Personally, I see it as outright cowardice and the same thing I've been saying about it all along.  This is a bandaid that they are trying to remove one agonizing arm hair at a time, crying "ow!" between each one.  My contention is that we should yank that suck off and be done with it.  There is no real solution other than withdrawal.  Bush won't do that without some kind of "victory" which is never going to happen....It's bullshit.  Any Dem with a brain in his head, a heart in his chest and a set would move to de-fund now and call Bush/Cheney's bluff on de-funding.  Bush/Cheney has set that up as the most politically damaging action the Dems could take but I submit that ANY damage that they take will be wiped fully away when the families are bolting across the tarmacs and airport corridors to smother their returning spouses, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters with hugs and kisses.">>

Brass is much closer to the Hard core Liberal I originally referred to.  Wouldn't blink twice is condemning the inactions of the DC Dems, if they stray from a hard left platform, especially one that's anti-war.  That's why a hard core liberal like Joe Lieberman can be pilloried because he dares not support an anti-war stance. 

Of course, I have to add he appears to put up a false premise in that the diabolical Bush/Cheney have masterminded the Dems into a no-win scenario.  Yet I'd argue, again, that Nov elections said "change".  It said "different direction".  It has given the Democrat party political capital, and the majority, to deal with the biggest issue facing this nation, and hint hint, it isn't minimum wage.  They can easily convey that the American people have said no more. But it's obvious they're worried that such a position would allow Bush & the GOP to paint the Dem party as "not supporting the troops".  Not funding the surge isn't not supporting the troops.  It's simply not supporting more troops.  In which case both Brass & I have to scratch our heads at the inaction of the DC dems outside of a pathetic non-binding resolution.  Again, I'm still under the belief that they WANT the issue, rather than attempt to stop what they consider an unjust war.  And that's precisely what that resolution facilitates


Professor; <<"I advocate a systemic and careful withdraw from Iraq. It was ill-advised in the beginning. fraught with poor decisions along the way, and, well ,a litany of errors too many to pragmatically mention....All this while poor Karzai sits in Kabul, wondering when he will be shot. What we have done to both nations, IMHO, is beneath contempt....There is indeed, in my mind, some justification to the concept that "we broke it, so now we should fix it". The pragmatic issue is that it simply cannot be fixed with the current poor level of decision making being pursued by the gentlemen I helped elect TWICE. This latest surge will amount o zip....Tony Blair, bless his soul, took his hit for his valiant support. I respect him for it, even though the entire endeavor is beyond sad. In the meantime ,we lose 10-25 soldiers per day and the number of Iraqis lost each day is, well, shocking.  As I have advocated in this forum many many times, if you intend to conduct warfare ,then do it convincingly and then turn the baton over to either a constabulary force or to a local leader. So, what did we do? We won the initial land battle then dismissed the military. Huh? Where's the stabilizing force now?">>

Another very well thought out post, and one demonstrating how NOT lock step the right is when it comes to Bush or even the war.  While I can strongly agree with the many mistakes made (disbanding of the military being way up by the top), as well as the acknowledgment of any death be it American or Iraqi is tragic, I would have to remind the professor That most of those deaths are at the hands of the terrorists and insurgents.  That much of the sectarian violence was initiated by Suuni/Saddam sympathizers, who really couldn't bear the notion that their minority was no longer in dictatorial control of the majority.  I'd have to remind the Professor that legitimate and conclusive reasons were given for our actions, validated by the intelligence at the time.  Following the events of 911, combined with the threat posed by Saddam's WMD, I argue it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have acted in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Were mistakes made? absolutely.  Is any war perfect?, I'm not aware of any myself.  Point being Bush took us to war on what was deemed slam-dunk intel, concluded not just by our folks, but by a whole host of other country's intel agencies, which even included France, Germany, Russia, and the UN.  Some folks hate Bush so much (not pointing any fingers currently), they'll ignore that fact, and claim Bush lied us into war. 

But let's pretend for a moment he did.  Let's pretend for a moment that Bush really is that nefarious, that diabolical.  Is that not MORE a rationale for the Dems in DC to pull the purse for any surge??  It would be...it should be.  But it's not.  why?  Because the Dems want the issue.  They want to Bash bush, while still looking like they "support the troops".  The war means very little to them compared to that.  Our soldiers dying in an "unjust war" apparently means far less to them, in order to pass non-binding resolutions that say and do squat.

I do appreciate your folks' time and consideration in this matter.  Thanks

[The_Professor]

"While I can strongly agree with the many mistakes made (disbanding of the military being way up by the top), as well as the acknowledgment of any death be it American or Iraqi is tragic, I would have to remind the professor That most of those deaths are at the hands of the terrorists and insurgents."

True, but if we weren't there to begin with, then it really wouldn't be noticed by us or really shouldn't be. The problem again is similar to many others in the past such as Tito's Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain or, welll, many situations where you have a "nation" of bloody factions and the nation only becomes "calm" when a disctator makes it so. If we wouldn't be over there now, then it would be outside our purview. We simply do not have the resources to be the arbiter of good and evil in the world. (another question is "Should we?") Sometimes, people have to take their lumps without us being there to intervene. I pray for stuff like this regularly. Beyond that, there is simply not much we can or should do.

"I'd have to remind the Professor that legitimate and conclusive reasons were given for our actions, validated by the intelligence at the time.  Following the events of 911, combined with the threat posed by Saddam's WMD, I argue it would have been irresponsible for Bush NOT to have acted in both Afghanistan and Iraq. "

Whoa. Afghanistan? Surely. Even then, we didn't get he job done. Excuses are excuses. we didn't get Bin Laden, did we? So, we even bungled it then. I do not however link Afghaistan and Iraq. If we invade any nation with terrorists, we would be doing this until Jesus comes and to little avail. Simply not our job, Sirs, IMHO.

"Were mistakes made? absolutely.  Is any war perfect?, I'm not aware of any myself.  Point being Bush took us to war on what was deemed slam-dunk intel, concluded not just by our folks, but by a whole host of other country's intel agencies, which even included France, Germany, Russia, and the UN.  Some folks hate Bush so much (not pointing any fingers currently), they'll ignore that fact, and claim Bush lied us into war. "

Ok, bad intel. I honestly do not, like some of my liberal friends, think he deliberately lead us into Iraq. I believe he was swayed by inaccurate intel. I am afriad some people let their unbottled emotions and, yes even hate, sway their view of current events. HOWEVER, why go over there, e.g. Iraq, to begin with? WMDs? Not enough. By that logic, why aren't we in North Korea, etc.? What, do we create a list of nations that MAY have WMDs and MAY be harboring terrorists and invade them? Huh?  Sometimes, Sirs, we jsut need to mind our own business (we sshouldn't have been in Kosovo either. Let's see what Brass & Co. say about that. Interesint how many liberals condoen tHAT action but I notice we weren't in Rwanda, etc.? Interesting, huh?)

"But let's pretend for a moment he did.  Let's pretend for a moment that Bush really is that nefarious, that diabolical.  Is that not MORE a rationale for the Dems in DC to pull the purse for any surge??  It would be...it should be.  But it's not.  why?  Because the Dems want the issue.  They want to Bash bush, while still looking like they "support the troops".  The war means very little to them compared to that.  Our soldiers dying in an "unjust war" apparently means far less to them, in order to pass non-binding resolutions that say and do squat."

I am not sure what their motivation is. Pehaps this is it or not. Maybe they are just tired, as I am, of an ineffective "war". Results count and no favorable results have come out of this Iraqi incursion or apparently are likely to, I  am afaid.

I know you support the incursion and many of my R friends are still in support. However, we've bungled it. We need to take our lumps and come on home and try to find jobs for all these troops back here (which may be difficult as the economy may be slowing down). Once again, pick your battles carfefully, but once you commit, then do the job well and fast and get out. That is my position and I feel it is effective. Iraq violated this premise and we have paid the price in lives, billions and billions in funding, slef-respect, poorer international relations and on and on.

[sirs]

"While I can strongly agree with the many mistakes made (disbanding of the military being way up by the top), as well as the acknowledgment of any death be it American or Iraqi is tragic, I would have to remind the professor That most of those deaths are at the hands of the terrorists and insurgents."

True, but if we weren't there to begin with, then it really wouldn't be noticed by us or really shouldn't be. The problem again is similar to many others in the past such as Tito's Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain or, welll, many situations where you have a "nation" of bloody factions and the nation only becomes "calm" when a disctator makes it so. If we wouldn't be over there now, then it would be outside our purview.

So basically Professor, you're saying 1 of 2 things I believe.  Either A) we have 911 hit, we determine conclusively who was involved, and what their goals are, and just sit back and hope & pray that some of Saddam's WMD aren't sold to any terrorists?  Or is it B) following 911, we do go after the terrorists, we take them out in their own training locales, and we take out a great potential for where they could have aquired WMD that'd make 911 look like a picnic, but tell the Iraqi people afterwards to go pound sand?

As I said, it would have been egregiously irresponsible of Bush not to have done A, with what we knew at the time.  And it would have been wrecklessly immoral not to have done B, as you seem to have conceded referencing the "break it --> fix it" clause. 

Of course none of this has to do with my original query to this thread, but that's ok, as it's always enjoyable to hear what the Professor has to say   

[Plane]

  I don't credit the idea that Iraq was peacefull while it had Saddam in charge.

   There was an ongoing killing program for Kurds that went on through his whole tenure, the Shiia were not causeing a lot of probems to him because  he was killing their leaership on a regular basis , he was willing to cause ecological distaster by draining all the wetlands in the south of the Tigris so that he could hunt down the "Marsh Arabs" and another ecological dister by burning all the oil in Kuait in the open air. If all the death and destruction he caused in pacifying his own population doesn't seem so bad, then consider that at the rate Iriquis are dieing now it will take another decade for this to total up equal to the death toll of Saddams war with Iran.

[The_Professor]

I concur, Plane, that Saddam was evil. No quesiton about that. But, does that mean a + b = c. that we should then go on and "take care of it"? I do not believe so. If you use this as your barometer, then we would be in many countires all the time. The key, I believe, is WHERE DO OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS LIE? As despicable as the Darfar situation is, it is an African issue. Sure, we can help from afar materially and diplomatically (and we probably should), but that should be the limit of our involvement. Same strategy with what used to be Yugoslavia, e.g it was a European issue. If Saddam wanted to kil his own people, whcih he apparenlty did liberally, then that is disgusting, but does that necessarily mean we should go in and "take care of it?" Nope, not in my opinion anyway.

[The_Professor]

Sirs said: "So basically Professor, you're saying 1 of 2 things I believe.  Either A) we have 911 hit, we determine conclusively who was involved, and what their goals are, and just sit back and hope & pray that some of Saddam's WMD aren't sold to any terrorists?  Or is it B) following 911, we do go after the terrorists, we take them out in their own training locales, and we take out a great potential for where they could have aquired WMD that'd make 911 look like a picnic, but tell the Iraqi people afterwards to go pound sand?

As I said, it would have been egregiously irresponsible of Bush not to have done A, with what we knew at the time.  And it would have been wrecklessly immoral not to have done B, as you seem to have conceded referencing the "break it --> fix it" clause."

Well, Sirs, it is simply noy clear to me that WMDs were even in Iraq. And, even if they were, how does that potentially link them to any event in the U.S.? As far as finding terroist camps, that is why you have covert ops. If your policy is to eliminate or mitigate the WMD danger, thne od it voa covert ops, not overt warfare. Plus, the decision-making in this arena is suspect to me. WMDs are probably in many ptoher countires and yet we do not invade them. Interesting, huh?

Look, I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to roast in Hell. But, the way we went about it bothers me. Hey, we took Saddam out but couldn't even get Bin Laden. Pretty sad, I would say.

[The_Professor]

Excellent question you posed, Sirs (as usual).

Sirs said: "If they are so dead set against Bush's "surge plan" why do they not pull the purse for that plan?? "

Well, they are not really in a commanding position. Sure, they havethe numbers in the Senate, but not in the House. Plus, there are more conservative Dems like Shuler than nthere are liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe. "Also, they have to tread carefully when troops are involved as much of their support is still conservative (Reagan Dems, etc.) As an example, the Dems around here are pretty conservative and so the Pelosi crowd really does not have as much latitude as might be imagined.

[Plane]

I concur, Plane, that Saddam was evil. No quesiton about that. But, does that mean a + b = c. that we should then go on and "take care of it"? I do not believe so. If you use this as your barometer, then we would be in many countires all the time. The key, I believe, is WHERE DO OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS LIE? As despicable as the Darfar situation is, it is an African issue. Sure, we can help from afar materially and diplomatically (and we probably should), but that should be the limit of our involvement. Same strategy with what used to be Yugoslavia, e.g it was a European issue. If Saddam wanted to kil his own people, whcih he apparenlty did liberally, then that is disgusting, but does that necessarily mean we should go in and "take care of it?" Nope, not in my opinion anyway.

I do not think that we can possbly rid the world of all evil.

So we should rid the world of no evil?

When it is possible or advantagious to us to get on a dictators case ,just one dictator , I don't consider it hypocracy to allow the other dictators to wait their turn.

[The_Professor]

A problem exists, however, {lane, that we apparently cannot deal with this issue in an expeditious and effective manner. Plus, you are again advocating an imperialistic, e.g. interventionist, policy. This is a policy I reject. In order to advocate this policy, then you must believe that our interests lie in a broader scope than I do. That is a major difference in philosophy here.