Reply #144: Why not? Duckworth's progressive credibility is certainly an issue here

[0rganism]

> she's not wrong.

Excuse me? In what way is, "allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists" not grossly inaccurate assessment of consequences in light of the current situation?

> And she has been there and served.

Hence my comment about "she of all people should know", but apparently she doesn't.

> At present Iraq is a magnet and haven for terrorists. It could easily become the base, although it
> probably already has.

I would say you just agreed with me. The difference between "magnet and haven" and "base" is semantic at most. We can't allow it? Sorry, too late Tammy, we already did. Like it or not, Saddam was the one preventing that situation. Now, the presence of American forces is exacerbating it.

> The point is that we were deceived about the reasons for going to war in Iraq

That's A point, but in this context, it's non-sequiter.

> Everything that Clark has said would happen, has.

I have the utmost respect for Wes Clark, but his predictions are not relevant to Tammy's comments.

> I am convinced it was nothing more than an oil grab at this point,
> with the lagniappe of throwing out an ahole named Saddam

Much as I agree, I must point out to you that this too is irrelevant.

> Now, it is obvious at least to every other country in the region that the instability
> makes it a prime oil grab opportunity for whatever Islamic religious or secular faction
> can get it first. I even think they would be willing to share the spoils.

All of which begs the questions of whether our forces' presence in Iraq is a stablizing one, and whether the United States, let alone the United States military, should have any say in how any other nominally sovereign country conducts its internal affairs or allocates its oil resources.

> Remember that old saw about the Iraqis producing enough oil to sell and run their country
> and flourish in Democracy?

Right now, under American occupation, Iraq isn't even producing enough oil for Iraqis. The notion that they'll experience a favorable balance of trade under occupation is pure speculation.

> * just sent in 2000 more soldiers to help POLICE Iraq.

Soldiers doing the jobs of local police is half our problem. Please spare me any repetition of bush's half-assed rhetoric.

> We broke Iraq, we need to fix it.

Well, you're half right. There are two salient questions interventionist advocates consistently fail to address: whether Iraq can be "fixed" at all in a way we would recognize as such, and whether "we" are the people capable of doing the job.

> We can't leave it in chaos, at least not a chaos that we created - if that is even
> possible at this point.

Again, no one, not you, not Tammy, and definitely not the bush administration, has been able to show that an American presence enhances Iraq's progress to order more than it hinders said progress. At least you are willing to entertain the concept that it may not be possible -- a step further than our leaders are willing to go.

> But you don't inspire confidence and get votes by saying we just spent 2 trillion
> dollars on nothing, but we're sending more troops in.

Sorry, the time for such pretensions has passed long ago. As long as "inspiring confidence" requires lying about these things, the Republicans will beat us in general elections like proverbial redheaded stepchildren. We need to understand, as a nation, that we did spend 2 trillion dollars chasing shadows, and we're continuing to send our soldiers (not to mention the entire Iraqi population) into a meat grinder of our own creation. Until we level with ourselves about this much, there's no way we can hope to compete with the Republicans.

> The only way we are EVER going to stop this is to get candidates elected who are
> willing to mine the love of American troops with a non-partisan condemnation of
> the policies that put us there.

The only way we can stop this is to get the electorate to recognize the reality of our situation. As long as our candidates entertain vain imperialist fantasies and economic delusions like "unlimited oil wealth" we compound our problems by further entrenching misconceptions and lies in the American political discourse. Once the truth is spoken sincerely and understood, all the lies in the world will damn the liars with their own words.

> Let there be a a primary already, if Cegelis has any money to run in it, so people
> can discuss and debate what is actually happening in Iraq.

There will be a primary. Let us hope that the winner will not have to resort to pablum and platitudes that put her at a disadvantage in the general election, and policy statements about Iraq will reflect reality rather than reinforce illusions.

> Our country has to believe it is time to leave. Unfortunately, there are not enough
> of us at that point. But if we keep discussing it as us, it will happen sooner.

Then feel free to discuss it, but you won't change any minds with bushisms like "We can't leave it in chaos."

> Or, I'm just an optimistic moron.

I wouldn't call you a moron, but I do think your optimism about the results of American occupation is misguided. The Iraqis are ready for us to leave, as ready as they'll ever be. They have a constitution, whatever its flaws, they have an elected government, however legitimate it may be, and what they choose to do with their nation now is an internal affair, not one for our nation to dictate. May their democratic decisions bring them the peace and prosperity they have done without for so long.

For our troops, it's time for Mission Accomplished. Saddam is gone, no WMDs, no nuclear program, "democracy" established, looks like the beginnings of an exit strategy to me.