"The US Congress' vote to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was wrong and will bring comfort to Al-Qaeda insurgents, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070427024429.z5eu5xpb&show_article=1

This is so obvious to most of us, but seems impossible for the liberal extremists in this country to grasp. Oh, I forget, we've got an election coming up and getting back in power is more important to the Dems than the future of the country. Pitiful.

At least 60 percent of us agree with the Democratic party strategy. At least 30 percent disagree with the Bush administration strategy. Given the recent election results, it's a stiff burden to declare a growing majority of Americans "liberl extremists".

Bush sucks, and most people realize that.

>>>>"t least 60 percent of us agree with the Democratic party strategy."


You're only echoing back what the Dems and the liberal press keep preaching.


>>>"Democratic party strategy"

Waving the white flag and surrendering is a strategy? You must be French.


>>>"Bush sucks, and most people realize that."

Certainly a statement that shows how shallow the thinking is. Selling the country down the tubes because you don't like Bush. Pitiful.

Oh Yeah, John Howard, he's such a paragon of virtue:

Australian premier drawn into Iraq scandal
By Sundeep Tuckerin Sydney
Published: January 31 2006 02:00

The official investigation into whether Australia's monopoly wheat exporter paid A$300m ($225m, €186m, £127m) in bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime has unearthed evidence drawing John Howard, prime minister, into the alleged scandal for the first time.

The Commission of Inquiry, which is probing allegations that AWB paid kickbacks to Iraq under the discredited United Nations oil-for-food programme, released a letter written by Mr Howard in which he sought to work "closely" with the wheat exporter, just weeks before the company's chief executive visited Baghdad to negotiate illicit payments to the Saddam regime.

------------------------------------------------
After seven weeks of damning evidence from the Howard government’s Cole inquiry, the real issue in the scandal over the Australian Wheat Board’s payment of $300 million worth of bribes to Saddam Hussein’s regime is not whether Prime Minister John Howard and his ministers knew about the kickbacks. That has certainly proved to be the case.

Testimony and documents presented to the inquiry have revealed nearly 20 occasions on which Australian Wheat Board (AWB) executives and various officials told senior government ministers or their advisors of the payments. Last week came the most incriminating document so far—a now-declassified secret cable sent from a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) officer attached to the UN in New York warning that AWB had been asked by Iraq to pay “port fees” of 50 US cents a tonne and that such fees would breach UN sanctions...
--------------------------------------

Don't forget the "Children Overboard" scandal too. The guy's just as bad as Bush.

You nailed it, Deane.

To the radical left, winning in 2008 is more important than winning against terror.

Ironically, by election time, the left's appeasement strategy will be obvious even to those presently in denial.

And by then it will be to late for the democrats to recover. They will have struck out three times in a row in their tarnished dreams of the presidency. After the successful chipping away at Roe v. Wade, it will merely continue their slide into the abyss of irrelevance.

As democrat Zell Miller says, his party is a national party no more.

Herb

"To the radical left, winning in 2008 is more important than winning against terror."

Yeah, right.

Tell us again. Who exactly is the "radical left"?

And how on earth did you infiltrate their secret meetings and become the expert on anyone's opinion besides your own? Sheesh. Maybe you should do something useful and infiltrate some real terrorist cells since you're so invisible, undetectable and insightful.

So......

Someone want to explain how we win this war? Step-by-step?

Because it looks to me like we're into a civil war in Iraq, Sunni-vs-Shiite, and meanwhile Al Qaeda is using our involvement as public relations fodder to further their cause.

So that would mean ... yup, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS HELPING AL-QAEDA.

Which, actually, is much closer to what our allies are saying (eg, the Brits saying they're not going to use the phrase "war on terror" anymore). Last time I looked, there was no ally closer to us these days than the UK.

Sutton, there is no question we are in a bad situation in Iraq.

Here's what will happen if we pull out.

1. Iran will move in and run Iraq.

2. Al-Qaeda will move in and take over and have a base of operations all their own. Don't forget, Al-Qaeda and the militants intend to defeat the world.

None of these things are acceptable to the U.S. interests.

It does no good to say Bush should have done this, Bush should have done that, Bush lied. We are where we are and we need to thing towards the future. Bush will be gone in less than two years and we have a lot of years ahead to deal with.

>>>"the Brits saying they're not going to use the phrase "war on terror" anymore"

The liberal Brits are afraid of offending their growing Muslim population. Appeasement won't get them anywhere. Look where France's appeasement is getting them. Coddling the Muslims will not work.

Deane, I agree with you on everything you say. I don't see any "win" for us.

We can continue to be there for decades, but I don't see anything that qualifies as a win. Iraqis are not about to step up and own their country, so our tenure there is destined to be years of bloodshed with no real accomplishments.

There is an extreme wing on the left that thinks we should just leave. There is an extreme wing on the right that is convinced this war is a just cause run by a brilliant chief executive.

I gotta have sympathy for the newly-elected conservative and moderate Democrats (ie, Heath Shuler of NC, John Tester of MT) who were elected to do something about Iraq ... but there's not enough centrists to hang together in the middle and be the grown-ups in this situation.

One more thought here. Al Qaeda wins whether we leave or not. That's one reason this is a tough problem and not black or white.

If we stay, it's a huge recruiting and public relations benefit for Al Qaeda. They are scooping up members right and left based on us being an infidel occupying power in a Muslim land.

If we leave, that encourages Al Qaeda as well. Especially when you consider that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are giving us lip service, while encouraging extremists inside their own countries. Jordan may be doing the same thing. And Afghanistan ... our confused, unfocused efforts there are allowing the Taliban to surge.

So we're stuck in a civil war between religious groups who hate each other more than they love their own country. Meanwhile, our "allies" have their own issues with Islamic fundamentalists. With all that going on, is it any wonder it looks like there is no good simple solution?

Deane- do you agree with my impression that Iraq is a inherently divided nation, with little to hold the disparate groups together?

If that is so, what *are* the options here?

Find a new Saddam-style strongman to keep the nation united by force?

Prop up one side (Sunni/Shiite), allowing them to suppress (aka kill) the other side until there is "peace"?

Use our armed forces to fill the strongman roll? Indefinitely?

Divide the country into 3 parts?

It seems apparent the idea of building up the Iraqi government until they can "stand on their own" is doomed to failure, because ultimately either the Sunnis or the Shiites will be in charge of the government, and they will use that power against the other group. Do you disagree?

Maybe we should put the Kurds in charge?

I know you don't want to hear a Vietnam analogy, but lets say for a moment that we didn't pull out of Vietnam, but rather stuck with it until the bitter end. Don't you think we'd STILL be an occupying force battling a guerrilla resistance today? Don't you agree that, even though they are "still communist", they and we are better off now than if we hadn't left?

There is no question we need a new idea.

We should find out what the Iraqi people want. Do they want a central government, a strong man like Saddam, or a bunch of tribes fighting. Then, we should give them what want. It might be that we just have to pick the most powerful of the bunch and turn it over to them.

This whole thing is complicated by Iran and to some extent Syria. They are behind much of the chaos. Do we take them out. Probably not. But then, they're going to be there.

This thing is so complicated that it makes me sick to the stomach to see these cheap political grandstand stunts in Congress when we should be looking at some serious new ideas instead.

Vietnam did indeed turn out OK for the Vietnamese, but that's a whole different culture. No tribes, just communists.

I've come around to the idea that withdrawl from an unstable Iraq would be a disaster for America, not just Iraq. It could well lead to another failed state like Afghanistan, another safe haven for terrorists.

The problem is that George W. Bush is the worst person to be in charge of Iraq at this time. He's shown after four years that he is incompetent, stubborn, and won't listen to anyone outside his administration on Iraq. He has no clue how to fix it, so he's just staying the course, continuing to alienate the rest of the world into not helping us. Bush policies have been a disaster and 70% of the country finally accepts it.

I really feel that the Congress should pursue a completely different strategy for Iraq. Instead of calling for withdrawl, they should demanding of Bush, "Work with us on a SUCCESSFUL strategy on Iraq, or we will impeach you and Cheney and get someone else in who can do it." Get other nations involved. Give them some of the spoils of a peaceful Iraq instead of bullying them. Give Iran and Syria reasons to cooperate with us. I believe that most Americans really do want to see a peaceful Iraq before Americans come home, but Bush has had four years to prove he CANNOT get it done, and we are stuck with his catostrphic policies the next two years. Pulling out now may really be the least worst choice.

Andrew

I think it's the least worst choice.

I also strongly agree with the work with others on a successful strategy idea. That's an excellent option, though it does require the President to lose face, or face forceful removal.

And bush sucks is not shallow thinking, it's expression of this asshole denying us any solid options, just because he needs to not lose. It's also a reminder that the GOP is a big part of the problem in it's ongoing support of his very poor leadership.

(even though he essentially has by getting us here)

As for winning against terror over winning in 08, count me out. If we get somebody solid in office, we can deal with terror period.

I do know we cannot win against terror this way. Not gonna happen ever. Right now, we are nothing more than tools in how we behave. Inability to lose face, deal with acceptance on that and reconsider other options makes us totally weak. As long as that mindset holds the reigns, we are screwed and terror isn't.

Of the stuff Andrew wrote above, there is one thing I consider necessary and that's getting other nations involved, with a stake in how things come out, resources, etc... They've gotta have skin in the game and that means we've gotta be humble and we have to share.

Nothing substantial will happen until we see that, or a massive draft, and near genocide to level the place and start over. Even that has high economic costs I'm not sure we could bear without some serious consequenses.

The brits have a point. Pretty tough to wage war on an idea or tactic. This whole mess underscores just how effective that tactic can be when the wrong people (stubborn tools) are in charge.

One other thing about getting nations involved again. Terror is a common interest. Some success in this regard, done multi-nationally, could serve to unite the large fraction of the world that wants to be terror free. This would change the game considerably where being a potential terrorist is concerned.

Right now, the world is fragmented and distracted. There is not sufficient focus to address the problem in a holistic way. Change that and terror will cease to grow.

If, somehow, that conversation can get started, perhaps we might see more of the GOP willing to engage in that, meaning the pressure then applied will have enough teeth to force change.

Deane: Yep, saw it right there on my TV.

The greater point, if you and Herb can get past the nasty labels, is that nearly all of us want change. We want it because we want a positive result.

The approach they are currently taking is change, which is what they were put there before. I'm not sure they've explored all the options, but it is change and that's where the agreement is coming from.

It's going to be difficult to get both the war in Iraq, and the overall war on terror under any kind of control until all nations of the world learn that the war on terror is real, is a world war, and will affect them.

The terror plans the Saudis just broke up is a classic example of how real it is. The plan to blow up the bulk of the Saudi oil production, which would plunge the entire world into an economic disaster, would effect virtual every human on earth. It would have been a disaster.

I become frustrated when I read the posts of the simpletons who think "bringing the troops home" will make everything right in the world. No it won't. It will only ad momentum to a very bad situation we and the rest of the naive world are in.

I become frustrated when I see the Democrats using the troop thing to try to gain political advantage in the upcoming election at the expense of the country's future.

Do we have to be plunged into economic chaos in order for folks to catch on. My fear is that we do.

"Waving the white flag and surrendering is a strategy? You must be French." Viva Le Democrate....LOL

I am gonna weigh in. Deane, I really do not think we are all that far apart on this issue. A knee jerk problem is never solved with a knee jerk solution. I paraphrased something you said -- how does it read this way?

"I become frustrated when I read the posts of the simpletons who think "leaving the troops there" will make everything right in the world. No it won't. It will only add momentum to a very bad situation we and the rest of the naive world are in."

I think that pretending any majority of our allies are behind a stinky wobbling heap of bad decisions is kind of silly. As far as the non-straw chewing world is concerned, John Howard is the George Wallace of Oceania. Look to John Howard if you are writing an essay on racism and xenophobia. Look to the leaders of the EU if you want some intelligent insight from dozens of different points of view, not just a tropical parrot.

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraq is apples and oranges. Sure, both countries provide a tar black substance that has many Americans hopelessly addicted. Sure, both countries were victims of the completely misguided foreign policy of a superpower. Sure, there are ancient ties, but really, these are two completely different places.

Afghanistan is a vast relatively undeveloped and unstable state full of nomads, militia groups, poppy growers and little of value beyond the ever tempting possibility of a pipeline for the resources of the former Soviet Union. Yes, there are some folks who want something better, but they really don't have a dime, and -- beyond stooping to even more heroin production, or a sudden urge to build ski resorts -- they probably never will.

Iraq is an ancient cradle of civilization. While keeping a foot planted firmly in the past, it has developed into a modern state full of educated people, western attitudes toward technology and large reserves of oil. These folks have the potential to be wealthy players in the global economy and could become very rich and influencial if the circumstances were different.

No question, both countries would benefit from a representative Democracy. No question, both countries have quite a bit of potential for bloodshed if they are abandoned by the world community. No question, there is no simple solution to our occupation now, and a draw-down in the future.

I disagree that the majority of Iraqis will simply let Iran, Al Qaeda or anybody else gain control without a big fight. Even if Iran is a nuclear power, the Iraqis will react every bit as warmly as they currently act toward the nuclear power in their streets. Iraq has tasted freedom and they want autonomy. A car bomb for us today is a car bomb for somebody else tomorrow.

Dividing America into "Al Qaeda supporters" and "Al Qaeda killers" instead of more accurately reflecting a universal American opposition to Al Qaeda is stupid and very dangerous. Any claim by any member of any party that the terrorists are gaining strength is helping those very same terrorists, period.

What helps terrorism is instability in a given region. What helps terrorism is giving them too much credit for their power base. What helps terrorism is admitting any erosion of our basic American rights is a better approach than finding and eradicating a small group of misguided billionaires and militants.

In their haste to crush the Soviets, our government trained and funded a group of rag tag warlords and wingnuts. Then, when that group started to get organized, our government annointed them "Al Qaeda" and artificially boosted their standing and reputation in the world. Like the previous WTC attack, Osama never claimed 9/11 until the administration gave Al Qaeda credit for the attacks.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has benefited greatly from armchair quarterbacks and sidelines full of unintentional cheerleaders. This kind of black and white thinking is clearly emboldening the terrorists abroad, but more important, it is killing Democracy here at home.

I am asking the thinking folks here to reconsider crowing the lie that there is any hint of broad American support for terrorism. We have reached this horrible impasse through mistakes made by American leaders of both parties. Only after the realities of our mistakes were brought to light did this become a partisan issue.

Deane, I agree, but take issue with there being a world war on terror.

It's not a thing or person, but an idea --a tactic. Framing it that way will lead to the wrong expectations, which will delay good solutions.

IMHO a lot of nations understand this. Not all of them, but a lot of them do --a majority. We just are not all that good at working with them. It's a leadership kind of thing and well....

I'll just leave it unsaid at this time.

Herb said>>>>
You nailed it, Deane.

To the radical left, winning in 2008 is more important than winning against terror.


As could be said about the EXTREME INSANE RIGHT neo-CONs. Anything to win! Muck rake, half truths, and plain ol lies.
2008 without Turdblossom will be a fist fight but somehow the EXTREME RIGHT neo-CONers will find a way to drag each and everyone (even their own candidates) through the mud of lies and deception.
Herb will be giddy with delight when the first muck raking ads start for his forsaken neo-CONer RIGHT.......

Nothing like one of Trixter's in-depth posts to get the discussion going in a serious direction. NOT.

Trixter, I'm a Nixon man.

I don't even know what a neo-con looks like.

Herbert Milhous

Google "Neo Conservative Leadership" and the very top link is the Project for the New American Century. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This group is the driving force behind the Neo-Conservative movement and is guided by William Kristol, a disciple of Leo Strauss.

I have explained this before Herb, but you have been unwavering in your disbelief that these people even exist. You also have been unwilling to acknowledge that these folks have no respect or love for Nixon, Kissinger or any other traditional conservatives, including you.

You may have posted that link before, Littlesongs, but I don't recall that particular one. It looks very interesting. You have mentioned Leo Strauss.

I'll check it out some more. If this group has no respect for Nixon & Kissinger, then that's a major problem for me.

Herb