‘We Can’t Afford to Leave’ (Dem Reyes calling for more troops)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.

But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

[TheDebbieDee]

1. Maybe this guy is a "Stealth repuke"........

[anotherdrew]

20. as a former Border Patrol chief who knows just how dirty he might really be

time to start the digging...

[donkeyotay]

64. A quick peek at opensecrets

and you can see all the usual defense contractors. If we had publically funded elections we could have more confidence in him. He spoke well. He's gone a full step beyond the Crawford Caligula by stating a purpose for staying in Iraq: to disband the militias. At least we can ask him if that is a realistic goal, which is an improvement over the pointless debate about what to call this disaster.

[shance]

2. Nancy's on quite a role......Steny, now Reyes. She sure wants an end to this war.

:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. She could have appointed Jane Harman

[stillcool]

3. Now if someone would step up...

and say WHY we can't/won't be leaving, there could be a discussion, or at least a meeting of minds. I mean, aren't there other ways to protect business interests in the Middle-east?

[goforit]

14. Yah, Their business interest at the blood of our sons and daughters!

[SharonAnn]

27. It's a "sunk cost". We can't afford to stay.

[Old and In the Way]

4. That's not what the people of Iraq seem to think

<>

Post up at Crooks and Liars...

[marmar]

5. We can't afford to stay....

Is everybody in Washington sharing one damaged brain cell? I'm so sick of this bullshit.

[0rganism]

7. No shit! Isn't that obvious to these stay-and-die idiots?

What is the opportunity cost of withdrawing from Iraq? I wish someone would tally that sucker up. Let's have some economists draw up a real cost-benefit analysis and see which is cheaper; I'm pretty sure I already know the answer, but it might be worth a few grand to put someone with a ledger to work on it.

[OhioChick]

6. I Thought That

"We The People" have "Spoken" regarding Iraq?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. Stupid ignorant motherfucker. No, wait, I'm sorry, I mean ...

STUPID IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKER!

[saigon68]

82. STUPID IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKER ( He won't do the dying)

I've seen his type before.

Lyndon Johnson and his criminals were the same way


We're waist deep in the BIG MUDDY and the big fool says PUSH ON

[Doctor_J]

9. Looks like our majority is going to last two years

OTOH, with guys like this "on our side", does it really matter?

[dflprincess]

10. Another song I heard 35 years ago

and another one I didn't buy then and I won't buy it now.

[David Zephyr]

11. Good Grief!

What is in the water in Washington, D.C.?

Get our troops home NOW!

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2864732

[Art_from_Ark]

15. Swamp gas, I think

Or maybe too much chlorine

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Back to square 1

dammit.

We GOT their attention on the subject, and now (already) some of them have forgotten. Or think they know better (they don't).

This is pretty disappointing. I didn't want Jane Harmon in there, but this is still pretty disappointing.

[bemildred]

13. This is sooooo VietNam.

What cannot be afforded is the clear admission of what a bunch of incompetent, narcissistic dumb fucks we have running the country in Washington, DC; which is what any timely withdrawal from Iraq amounts to.

[goforit]

16. I guess there IS NO Honeymoon.

[w4rma]

17. Damn idiot. Such a small amount of additional troops will do *nothing*.

The numbers of troops that would be needed to have any sort of effect are an order of magnitude or two higher.

And those troops don't exist in America.

We need to get out now and quit teaching Islamic militants new tactics in fighting wars.

[yurbud]

18. stabilization and training--also the last refuge in Vietnam. Who do these guys think voted for them

[anotherdrew]

19. this guy needs to have his mind changed quick, the heat must be turned up on him big time

this is the same damn idiot fool who voted to make the "patriot" act permanent.

I'm really getting sick and tired of these kinds of useless "leaders" who are nothing but brainless idiots. fuck this and fuck Reyes

[oasis]

21. Gen. Anthony Zinni was against Bush's War but now says more troops are

needed. I heard that today. Reyes is not alone.

Face it, there's no good solution.

[Telly Savalas]

26. Then perhaps we should go with the bad solution

that doesn't risk thousands of lives and waste billions of dollars instead of opting for the bad solution which does these things.

[oasis]

29. I didn't want Bush's War from the very beginning. Politicians have to sort

it out in a way which least damages our national security. (In the long run).

[UTUSN]

22. He voted AGAINST the Iraq attack. He's Center-RIGHT & from TX.

So he ain't going to have much of a shelf life here.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. Wouldn't someone who is "Center-Right" vote with the right more than the left?

:shrug:

[Vidar]

23. Disgusting sellout asshole.

[ChittyChittyBangBang]

24. Damn! That is some funny shit!

I saw this coming. Doesn't matter who wins the elections anymore.

[demo_not_full]

25. Even more here ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16057734/

By the way they talk..the Democrats are indeed up to something good but obviously treading lightly as possible, considering they have 2 years to make major changes. But it does seem like a possible letdown to many voters if they fail at blocking the spending bill. Other posts suggest the possibility that the GOP wanted the Democrats to win in order to shift the responsibility of the war away from Bush, or the darker sided devils that lurk behind him. I am very anxious to know what others think about this.

[magellan]

28. WTF?!?!

All right, that's IT, finito, over. Someone let me know when the Democratic Party returns to power, if it ever does.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Democrats officially take over Congress at Noon on January 3

[magellan]

44. I mean the REAL Democrats

The ones who aren't bought and paid for by corporate interests, the ones who don't spit in the faces of the people who elected them in order to appeal to "everyone" and actually care about fixing things like wasteful deadly wars and running/keeping criminals out of office.

THOSE Democrats.

Think back. I know it's been a long time since we've seen them, but they really did exist once.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. What evidence do you have that Mr. Reyes is "bought and paid for"

by corporate interests? Just because he doesn't agree with you on this one issue doesn't mean that his positions are being dictated by corporate interests.

[magellan]

48. Uh, right

One of the few Dems celebrated for initially opposing the IWR, and suddenly he's for increasing troop levels -- there's nothing fishy about that at all.

I don't need no stinkin' evidence. His lips are doing the talking, and I fully expect he'll be walking the same "squishy middle" walk come January.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Just because he agreed with you on starting the war doesn't mean

that he will agree with you on the best way to end it.

[magellan]

51. Oh stop

You're not convincing me or anyone else here that this bait and switch is OKAY.

"The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel."

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. How is this bait and switch?

Did he ever publiclly state the he was opposed to increasing the number of troops?

[magellan]

54. Do I really need to explain to you the correlations people make

...between "prominently cited" past actions and expectations? Pelosi went out of her way last week to cast Reyes as someone who would seriously look at getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible, because he opposed the war in the first place. Now that he's been fitted for the new job he's done a complete 180 from the position Pelosi framed him for. That doesn't seem like false advertising to you?

Bah.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Her official announcement of Reyes' appointment makes no mention

of getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible:

Pelosi Names Reyes as Chairman of Intelligence Committee
Washington, D.C. – Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today announcing that she has named Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

"Congressman Silvestre Reyes has impeccable national security credentials. He has served our country as a soldier in combat, a senior law enforcement officer on our southern border, and in Congress as a member of the Select Intelligence, Armed Services, and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. He understands how our troops rely on intelligence to do their jobs and to keep them safe and how policymakers need reliable and timely intelligence to make decisions that will advance our interests worldwide. When tough questions are required, whether they relate to intelligence shortcomings before the 9/11 attacks or the war in Iraq, or to the quality on intelligence on Iran or North Korea, he does not hesitate to ask them.

"Congressman Reyes knows that the men and women of our intelligence community are its greatest asset and that the more diverse they are in terms of background, religion, and ethnicity, the more successful they will be against the hardest intelligence targets they will face. The committed approach he has brought to his work on challenging issues such as Theater High Altitude Air Defense will serve him well in dealing with the unanticipated situations which regularly confront the intelligence committee. His appreciation for the dangers inherent in the operation of secret activities in a democracy ensures that he will be a zealous protector of the civil liberties that define us as a nation.

"Congresswoman Jane Harman has served with distinction in her four years as Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee. She has worked tirelessly under difficult circumstances to make sure that our intelligence agencies had the resources, direction, and leadership needed to do their jobs well. In those efforts, she has been assisted ably by the other Committee Democrats. In particular, Congressman Alcee Hastings has brought foreign affairs expertise, deep patriotism, and dedication to the work of the Committee. All of the Democrats who serve on the Intelligence Committee in the 109th Congress will continue to be great resources on national security matters to the Democratic Caucus, the Congress, and the country."

http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=1944

[magellan]

58. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

You're looking for things I never said were there. I said Pelosi cast Reyes as someone who would look at getting us out of Iraq, because of his opposition to the IWR. He did a lot of the work himself, even saying (again) on Dec 1 that pre-Iraq war intelligence was "cherry-picked and manipulated to make the case to go into Iraq." But it turns out he isn't very interested in going back to look at how that happened, now that he's been made chairman of the intelligence committee.

Read the article in the OP. The phrase "prominently cited" as opposed to the war wasn't pulled out of thin air.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. Opposition or the IRW does not equal support of immediate withdrawal

Perhaps you made that assumption because it was what you wanted to believe.

[magellan]

71. Opposition of the IRW doesn't equal sending 20,000 more troops either

And yet, apparently it does.

Look, you go on trying to sugar coat this while I, and most of the others on this thread, express our legitimate outrage.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Your outrage is duly noted

Democrats didn't campaign on immediate withdrawal, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect them to govern that way.

[magellan]

74. THEY DIDN'T CAMPAIGN ON SENDING MORE TROOPS EITHER!!

STILL missing the point! Go defend your bs excuses for the Dems to someone else!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. Isn't it more reasonable for

you to go bash the Democrats somewhere else? This is DEMOCRATICunderground.com

[magellan]

78. Ha ha ha!

Peddle Dem purity somewhere else, I don't do the goose-step.

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. Yet you are the one bashing Congressional Democrats for not

walking lockstep. Come January, you will find much more of this.

[magellan]

80. Now you're intentionally misrepresenting what I said

...and conflating it into an unfounded petty accusation. That's another lousy attempt on your part to distract from the anger shared by many on this thread.

Criticism of Reyes and Pelosi for the position he's taken on Iraq is legitimate. If you want to be a glorious loyal supporter of the Dems who believes they can do no wrong, be my guest. Just do it away from me.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. You didn't just criticize his position, you said that he was "bought and paid for"

That is a pretty serious accusation, one you still haven't backed up.

[Psephos]

90. Good posts in this thread, Freddie

You stuck to the facts, and you kept your cool despite some pretty disrespectful commentary.

Why must so many treat a difference of opinion as a license to spew insults or indignation? I can think of no less effective method of persuasion.

Peace.

[ryanmuegge]

87. It was a hell of a lot more risky to oppose action in Iraq then

Than it is now. After 9/11, it was very easy to be labeled "soft" on "national security" to oppose anything Bush did, whether it was tax cuts or whatever, especially matters related to defense and the military. Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, and all of the other Clintonistas all folded under the pressure and voted for the blank check for Bush, all to protect their political careers. Now, it's very popular to bash the war. I'd be a little hesitant, as weak as the Democrats are these days, to make the insinuation that this guy isn't principled.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. Let's start by sending his kids over there. n/t

[Skittles]

62. my immediate thought also

let's comb the Reyes family tree for candidates. How you doing, Guy Whitey Corngood - still my favorite DU tagname of all time; yes INDEED!!! :hi:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

66. Thanks, BTW how's that round fluffy feline of yours doing? n/t

[Skittles]

68. do you mean my hairy tuxedo bastid Riff Raff?

the one obsessed with a calendar and who has lately taken to stashing his ratty chewed up mice toys in my purse? :o

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. That would be the one. What's up with the calendar? That's hilarious. nt

[Skittles]

77. well, I thought he was simply lusting from afar

but when I held him up to show him it was a piece of papaer, he tried to pummel the sh** out of that paper cat

[Occulus]

89. Do you have other cats?

Does he recognize that shape?

I've often heard that cats love mirrors, but mine just goes 'meh' and turns his head away. Sometimes he'll see me in the mirror, sitting behind him, and then whip his head around to look at me. :shrug:

Mine's a Maine Coon/black tabby cross. He's adorable, but right now he wants that bedroom door open, and he wants it to STAY open. He's being a twit for sure... he's hollering at me about it...

[Skittles]

91. funny you should ask

I held my 8 year old pound kitty Clancy up to that pic and it was obvious he could not see it - also, that is a black cat calendar and has been up all year - November was the ONLY pic that caught Riff Raff's eye - go figure.

Don't get me started on the door - if I try to keep it closed I end up with furry paws clawing underneath the door, making a racket. :o

[lovuian]

31. Its Amazing how even the Dems don't get it

"WE LOST" Its a BAD strategy
to continue it
will only bring MORE LOSSES

Better to get out now while the getting is good

[badgervan]

32. Unbelievable

We would need at least 400,000 more troops in Iraq to even have a realistic chance of defeating all those who are fighting there. Even if it were possible to manufacture 400,000 trained troops out of thin air, the odds determine that roughly 10% of them will die or be maimed for life. The Iraqis want us out, most of us want us out, and the rest of the world wants us out. And like the Vietnamese, these people will never surrender. Reyes disappoints big time. Like McCain, he can kiss his political future goodbye.

[Trillo]

33. Hitler never took out Switzerland's militia.

Why does Rep. Reyes believe Iraq's various private militias can be dismantled?

To me it sounds like more of the same 70-year strategy, if so, it is hardly a "surprise twist". Bye Bye Social Security....

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Hitler never never invaded Switzerland

[atreides1]

65. That's very true

And 20,000 to 30,000 more troops won't "dismantle" the private militias either, not without killing 20,000 or more right off the bat, and let's not forget the Iraqi civilian casualties that will result
from this attempt.

And the more civilians that die, the more recruits for the militias, it's 'Catch-22'!

[AndyTiedye]

34. Perhaps Reyes is Being Blackmailed

The regime still has everybody's phone tapped.

[Freddie Stubbs]

95. Why aren't they blackmailing you?

:shrug:

[Amonester]

35. Bloggers unite: Call & write to this guy, and don't give up until...

he gets it. Like "We Can't Afford To Be The World's Police! This Bush Cabal's Quagmire From The Start Has Cost US Half A Trillion We Don't Even Have! We Should Never Have Spent A Single Penny In Iraq But Just Let The UN Inspectors Finish Their Job! Like Vietnam, This War Cannot Be Won! It Will Continue To Bankrupt The Treasury Until The Day We GET OUT! Our Brothers, Sisters, Daugthers, Sons, Cousins, And Friends Will Continue To Die Or Get Maimed For Life For A Lie Until The Day We GET OUT!! We The People Elected You And The Dem Congress Because We Want You To Bring The Troops HOME! Enough With This Shameful War Of Aggression In Which Tens Of Thousands Innocents Suffered And Died FOR NOTHING! They are Worse Off Than They Where Before War Criminals Like Bush, Cheney And Rumsfeld Sent Our Troops There So They Could Steal Their Oil And Pass The Bills To The US Taxpayers!"

BRING THE BOYS AND GIRLS BACK HOME!

That's What A Majority Of Voters VOTED FOR!

The Iraqis Will Take Care Of Themselves!

The Vietnamese DID!

THEY WANT US OUT AND WE WANT US OUT!

Staying There DOES NOT MAKE US SAFER!

Have you got it yet?????????????????

[4theheart]

40. hmmm

And several people said if pelosi picks him they'll trust him...well as ronald reagan once said (reviled as he is): Trust, but verify.

[leesa]

39. I wonder who "we" is?

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Probably the United States

[lonestarnot]

41. WTF!?

[Nihil]

42. Unbelievable

> “We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those
> militias, those private armies,” Reyes said.

Has this dickhead even *thought* about the problems in Iraq?

What does he think is keeping a large chunk of the existing US forces
holed up in the Green Zone rather than wandering around the country
as peacekeepers? If you put every able-bodied trooper in the entire
US armed forces into Iraq, your only gain would be the rate of coffins
returning to the mainland.

> the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee

Nice to know that nothing's changed then ... it's still an oxymoron ...

[talk hard]

45. last thing I wanted to hear

[Le Taz Hot]

47. May I just remind people of something

that was said over and over and over and is still being said? "We must first WIN elections before we can change things." You guys wanna run that one by me again? :mad:

[magellan]

49. No kidding

What we won is more of the same, it seems.

[DancingBear]

60. Beautiful!!

You won't be able to find those folks with a geiger counter - at least until the next "crisis" comes and they try and shovel the same pablum yet again.

Some will shovel eloquently, some will shovel with brute force, and some will (my favorite) try and make you think that if YOU'RE not shoveling you're part of the problem!

Thank you, LTH, for seeing past the smoke and avoiding all the mirrors...

[Strawman]

53. Steamrolled by the hawks

This is what happens when people get put into a position of supreme responsibility about important issues and they depend on information from members of the military industrial complex. Now this guy is probably getting briefed by military intelligence throwing all sorts of nightmare scenarios at him and I suspect he is trying to do the right thing for people in Iraq and for us here in the United States since the threat that these analysts are constructing from a US withdrawl from Iraq is probably framed as an existential one. You can tell in his comments he wants us out, but now is not sure how to get us out in a responsible manner.

In a position like House Intelligence Committee Chairperson we need someone who can seperate the truth from the bs in dealing with the military industrial complex. Not someone who goes with the flow, whether that flow is anti-war populism or hawkish poilcy framed as cold hard "realism." Apparently, this guy is not that kind of person. Ike predicted that future presidents and other key decision makers with less understanding of the military and intelligence services than he had would get steamrolled by the military on issues like these and he was exactly right. Reyes needs to hear from others like Ray McGovern and make sure he is not being manipulated.

I don't envy Reyes' position or Senator Levin's (on the Senate Armed Forces Committee). There are alot of considerations to balance (potential threats to the US in a power vacuum, the continued harm to the welfare of Iraqis under withdrawl or escalation). My own belief is that we ought to have never invaded Iraq in the first place and we have bungled the counter-insurgency campaign to the point where it is beyond repair and we should leave ASAP. What everyone is less certain about is the P in ASAP. But there will be negative consequences to that too. Chimpy picked the wrong branch in the decision tree to head down in 2003 and now we're simply trying to make decisions that will generate the least shitty outcome. It's an enormous repsonsibility and a difficult position to be in and the "correct" course is not as clear cut as one might think.

What I would ask Reyes and others in key decisionmaking and oversight roles in the next Congress to do is to simply not swallow whole the information they are being fed. That's why we're in this mess in the first place. It's not just the people with bad intentions or those drunk on fantastical neo-conservative ideas that allowed this war to happen. It's also those trying to do the right thing but were unwilling to examine the issue critically and assess inteligence reports with a healthy degree of skepticism. Those people who all eblieved that Saddam did have WMD when in fact there was plenty of compelling evidence out there from alternative sources to the contrary. Those people need to not simply go along without questioning anymore. Even this Baker-Hamilton report should not be accepted uncritically by people like Reyes.

[Zodiak]

57. What's more is this is a purged military

Chimpy got rid of the free-thinkers some time ago. All that are left are the ones who tow the line of the Commander-in-Chief, and their reports reflect that obsequiousness.

So the Generals do not know what the hell is happening on the ground.

The same exists with the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. Porter Goss purged the CIA of critical analysts some time ago.

So Reyes is definitely getting bad information.

Bush has broken our government so badly that we are sure to make more mistakes. Reyes recent position, I believe, is an indicator of this. This is evidenced the most by his call for a pittance of troops to take on this monumental task. Everyone knows it will take more troops than 20,000-30,000.

And that is not even addressing the fact that we are so arrogant that we do not even discuss what the Iraqis want.

[msmcghee]

55. I saw this one coming.

Taking over congress was based on the American people not trusting Bush to manage this war that he got us into.

The question that must be asked is, looking at the situation today, what should we do from this day forward that's best for US security and the world.

I have heard some pretty bleak narratives of what would happen if Iraq disintegrates. War between the Kurds and Turkey. War between Saudi Arabia and Iran, etc. Isreal is attacked by any of several ME states (like Syria) or Hisballah and Hamas simultaneously. This could become WWWIII pretty quickly - or worse.

Americans gave us congress to make the best of a really shitty situation. If it all goes south now - we will get the blame. Not Bush. Republicans will say everything was headed in the right direction until Dems took the reins of congress and made a "real disaster" out of it.

We'll say that Bush had it so fubared that it was impossible to fix it.

They'll say - "Yeah, but you said you could fix it. That's why we elected you."

We have to expect our Dem leaders now to do what's best for the US and the world. We gotta go non-partisan on this 100% and totally open and transparent with Repukes included every step of the way. Any political games now and everything bad that happens in the ME in the next two years (and there's going to be a shit-load of that no matter what decisions are made) will be blamed on us - and we could be dead ducks in 2008.

[torrentprime]

72. I agree

For both political and patriotic reasons. It's bad for the Democrats to lead us to defeat, or to be seen to, and it's horrible, horrible for the world and the Middle East to not do what we can to stop the slide into worsening disaster.

Much as I hate it when I see the casualty reports, as bad as it is for our troops and our mission over there, every single thing I have heard about the current situation over there is that to leave now and let the disaster worsen will only make their lives and our lives harder. Even though we have very few options, I don't know if morally or pragmatically we can just walk away and let the country disintegrate.

No one wants to hear it, but we took a pseudo-stable murderous dictatorship and turned it into a civil war that threatens to destabilize further the entire region, murder even more civilians, and threaten American interests. We may not have a choice but to accomplish something else before we leave. Also, from a more America-centric point of view: if we can salvage something, anything, out of this war, as a country we can place our defeat solely on Bush's shoulders, frame the last few years as an aberration, and try to recoup some of the world-wide prestige and moral high ground we used to have. Also, and again speaking very, very bluntly: we need to show strength and resolve against those terrorist organizations that ARE out there: just because Bush trots the "evil-doers" out to justify every crappy policy decisions in the last 6 years does NOT mean that they aren't real, that they aren't an actual threat, and that this multi-year disaster in Iraq doesn't embolden them simply by being viewed as a defeat for our country. We do have a real war to fight (whether its conventional or not), and this Iraqi disaster threatens to make that fight harder.

We can't just leave. Kudos to Reyes for looking at options.

[Amonester]

85. "We can't just leave" so when are you going there? Or, when...

is one of your children going there? Or when will one of your brothers or sisters' children going there?

[torrentprime]

86. Ah, yes

The chickenhawk argument. Also know as the "nah-nah-I-can't hear-you" gambit, or the "I know you are but what I am" defense, or possibly the "I can't or don't want to argue your point on the merits, and the very facts which condem Bush's execution of the war and establish his incompetence also confirm the danger which Iraq faces but I don't want to deal with that" response.

I'm sorry, what was your argument again?

[Amonester]

88. My argument? My argument is: nothing is gonna change in Iraq.

The needless deaths, the pain, the thousands of Iraqis and Americans lives and limbs will continue to pile up, day after day after day after day, no matter how much more troops, more billions, or more anything you want, will be added there. Mark this date as the one I just told you that the day the troops will finally come home, no matter if that day will be next month, next year, or a in decade or two or three or four, you will look a this date as the official one I've been telling you this: "I Told You So."

How many more US deaths and maimings will be enough for you? More than Vietnam? Or will you be satisfied with less?

Edit: typo. And also: the only way to end "terra" is to address the roots of "terra" (that involves "negociations" including "talks" to some "adversaries" who are not real "adversaries" but many different cultures who are sick and angry at the American "oligarchy" always fucking up their countries: in other words, "When will the fucking imperialist two-percenters stop screwing us up, and mind their own business?").

[Betty]

61. I would be willing to guess that 20-30 K is not nearly enough

to actually make a difference, so it would just mean more of our people being killed (and even more innocent Iraquis) with no positive outcome in sight.

[superconnected]

63. FOOL! We're already financially broke from this failed war

Well, since it was all about collusive contracts, we can certianly see who's on the payroll.

[Marie26]

67. The military industrial complex

steams ahead no matter who's in power.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Yeah, I figured this sort of thing would happen.

[BlueStater]

75. Then YOU go over there

What the hell is wrong with these people? Ugh.

[truthisfreedom]

84. Ahh, more targets for IEDs. Pretty much a perfect plan.

Not.

[depakid]

92. Escallation worked well in Vietnam

and we could have won that war, if only we didn't have to fight it with one hand tied behind our backs....

:sarcasm:

[nolabels]

93. The cowards in congress will never have the strength to leave till..........

the blood bath escalates much higher and my bet is it will. I am not optimistic(except in the long run) and the US government is just a reactionary wing of multinational control that IS. Blaming the government for the mess is like blaming water for getting you wet.

[KansDem]

94. So how long before we hear the ol' "peace with honor" canard?

It worked so well for President Nixon, both in 1968 and in 1972...
:sarcasm:

edited to fix something