...go from here?

Gotta hand it to him though. Most stubborn President ever.

Stubborn?

Naw, the guy just has backbone and doesn't commission a poll to find out what he thinks, unlike prior office holders.

Herb

The captain of the Titanic had a great backbone too and didn't poll the passengers either.

Lets take a moment to take our hats off for two great strong backed idiots.

As the Titanic (and the Bush admin) sank (sinks) to the bottom of the sea (history books) the last thing these guys are thinking is "mission accomplished!"

*taps*

Name-calling doesn't change the fact that we'd all be talking German, Japanese or Russian if leaders like Churchill and FDR didn't exhibit backbone like Mr. Bush.

Herb

Herb-

The deficit this war has put our country in is going to create some real problems here at home. We already have 35-36 million American's living in poverty and many are working American's who served this country. Now they may never get help because the agencies that were supposed to be there for them are going bye bye. But thousands of Iraqi's are free while millions of American's are in financial bondage and freedom certainly has a different meaning for them.

I'm just glad to see the system work the way it should this time. ALL the way through. Even if I don't like the outcome, I can feel GREAT knowing it went as designed. It's been a long time since I felt good about this era.

I'm not saying it's over. But you gotta admit, this is the way it's supposed to go. It's what the system allows for.

Yep, it's damn slow though.

Think of it this way, America was put to an extreme test: Appoint the most inept chickenhawk in the oval office, give him control of BOTH houses and a mandate to rip the consititution to shreds for 6 years and see if the country survives.

Well folks, it looks like we'll make it but our children will be cleaning up the mess and our grandchildren will still be paying for our little experiement with WPE.

Have a half-way nice day.

Herb, you are a student of history. I would expect you to remember that the Germans never attacked U.S. soil. The Japanese shelled the states once, in Oregon, and took out a backstop on a baseball diamond. The Russians did not even attempt to take back the hunk of land we bought from them back in 1867.

We had a strong base in manufacturing, we had some of the brightest minds, we had the best technology, we had infrastructure, we had media, and we had worldwide support. At home, our country, every person, tried to work together for the common good. Even the color line was broken here and there. The momentum we gained by unifying our corner of the world for a few years during the Second World War, carried us for decades.

Yes, we won World War Two, but really Herb, it was a war we entered to help our friends in need. It took the support of every American and it was a just cause with a good solid case for involvement. It was not won single handed either, but as a group of United Nations who worked together with us for their own defense and liberation.

We liked Stalin when it was convenient and prudent, got his attention when we dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, and graphically showed what other potential atrocities our labs could render to a future enemy. The message was clear -- even to adversaries who could brandish the exact same weapon a few years later.

There was plenty of sabre rattling, paranoia, and profiteering, but there was little chance our countries would have come to blows. Russia was proud of victory in World War II and took full advantage of the extra real estate, but the memories of the bloodshed and toll of war were much more personal because so many lives were lost in their cities and fields.

Horrific things happened under Communism, but there was never a reason to believe our country would be invaded. We all thought there was, but we all know better now. The wall is down and the facts are in. They had a great military, but hardly the sophisticated toys born of blind fear and bottomless finance that we developed.

In the end, we simply outspent the Russians. They had to have a pioneering genius like Gorbachev fix the problem by changing the system from the ground up, or risk utter domestic ruin. Did we really do anything more than win an incredibly expensive forty year long pie eating contest?

Totalitarianism was derailed for several decades because of a change in leadership that the Russians and others demanded, not because America ordained it. If America were still a true voice for freedom in the world, we would be asking tougher questions of Putin. We would also be asking tougher questions of ourselves. After providing times of so much light and hope in the world, how did we lose our way again? What about our dark past is reflected in the present?

The last great push to expand the American empire occurred around the end of the 19th century when we ran out of America to put Americans. Civil rights were suspended. Our country invaded other countries under false premises, took over parts of paradise, and exploited resources globally. Men fought and killed for front page photo opportunities, sensational news stories, and political gain.

Unsavory business dealings were reinforced by corrupt politicians until the scandals buried the usual yellow and vainglory headlines. Immigrants were deported, persecuted and killed. Patent medicines and pharmaceuticals were abused by many adults. Poverty was rampant, Unionists were attacked, crime became organized and the class separation became deeper. Eventually, we were headed into a very bloody, but very profitable World War on another continent. Does any of this sound familiar?

We cannot continue on this path. As a nation we have become the authors of a very dark chapter in not only American history, but world history as well. It is only a chapter now, and it need not be the end of the book of our nation. It would be truly tragic to have a book open with the Declaration of Independence from King George, only to end in a corporate controlled police state, much like it began.

We all owe it to ourselves to take a good long look at the flag, and ask why it has to stand for this total perversion, distortion and destruction of America's promise. Our nation was once strong, proud, and most of all, peaceful. America was not always perfect, but optimistic, goodhearted, and a leader in spite of ourselves. What are we now?

Americans.

Anyone for tea?

Littlesongs sez: "In the end, we simply outspent the Russians."

This caught my eye. Right now we're spending hundreds of Billions of dollars fighting an "enemy" seemingly financed by peanuts. Suppose we had a REAL threat to the U.S. using similuar tactics, how are we to defeat them? Are they gonna drive us broke and defeat us that way? Looks like we need to revamp our entire military thinking in the next few years and get better return for our dollars or else face defeat by bankbook.

Streamline defense contracts, but not the service. The more folks we have in uniform, sworn to the Constitution, healthy and happy, the better. Watch out for Blackwater while you are proposing cuts. Remember, our boys have been told that they can't fix a meal or a flat without a contractor. If things go as planned, we may be a country with no substantial domestic or foreign military, but a private mercenary force operating outside of, and above, the law.

What incentive does a former policeman who murdered Blacks in South Africa have to do the right thing? Much of our Iraqi occupation is augmented by private security forces. These forces have some very bad people working for them. People who know the profit in planting a bomb of their own once in a while. It might be prudent to stop funding a private army -- even sooner than the end of the war. Chaos means money for them, and more bloodshed for the men and women of our military and the Iraqis we are supposed to set free.

If Bush wants to win, he needs to have a popular war and then bring back the draft. He needs way more troops to win.

I really don't know if adding a bunch more troops is going to solve anything ... it's like Vietnam, trying to fight a conventional war against an enemy fighting strictly with guerrilla warfare tactics. We don't know who the enemy IS, they have a VERY strong backing from locals and other interests outside of Iraq, and most of all they have an absolute resolve to see the United States of America completely eliminated off of the face of the earth. Adding more troops is throwing more gasoline on the fire - just giving them more fuel.

I agree with much of what you wrote, Littlesongs. However, not this statement:

"Did we really do anything more than win an incredibly expensive forty year long pie eating contest?"

The former Soviet Union held hundreds of millions hostage behind their notorious iron curtain for an entire generation. Today in our armchairs, it's very easy to dismiss how evil and pervasive their murderous regime actually was, but their orders were strictly 'shoot to kill.' Ever witness the East German border, replete with barbed wire, attack dogs and fully automatic weaponry...to keep their own citizens IN? Many have.

During the 1930's, the Soviet regime slaughtered 40 million of their own Kulach citizens during collectivisation, and imprisoned some of their finest minds, including Aleksandr Solzhenitsen.

I believe you have underestimated the communist, and specifically Soviet, threat.

Nikita Kruschev said they would bury us. Without firm hands at the presidential helm and save for the Grace of God, they would have.

Herb

No one believed the soviets would ever invade us? I spent a lot of time practicing repelling a soviet armored thrust up from Mexico, so at least someone thought it was possible.

And the Russians didnt try to take alaska back in WWII, but the japanese tried.

The demos have already folded, and said they will pass a funding measure without withdrawal timetables. You can always count on the dems folding.

Naw, the guy just has backbone and doesn't commission a poll to find out what he thinks, unlike prior office holders.

Herb, should a leader not listen to the majority of the country?

Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, ruled by decree and ignored the majority, just as does Bush.

History will not treat him well. Even Nixon had the common sense to finally listen to what the majority of the country wanted.

"Herb, should a leader not listen to the majority of the country?"

Sure he should listen.

But we have three branches of government, remember? If Mr. Bush is so wrong, then let's have the democrats over-ride his veto. And why haven't they? Because they don't have the VOTES.

It's not power at the barrel of a gun. This is democracy as our founding fathers set it up. The guy's a lame duck. Now the left knows how we felt being held hostage by Mr. Clinton. The pendulum swings both ways. That is democracy.

Herb

I admire the fact that he does not cave into what the poles favor and sticks to his convictions. I believe he would be doing the same even if he were up for re-election. But unfortuneately he is only delaying the inevateable as the next president will most likely favor popular opinion and remove the troops for the good of their own political career.

Actually, we've not seen if they have the votes or not.

From here it gets really ugly. It's is now Bush failing to support the troops. IMHO, this standoff will cost somebody. There is a very strong case for the GOP losing far more than anyone else will.

So, after the last election the GOP lost perhaps 25 percent of it's size. If that happens again, where will the party be and how will that impact the politics of the next 10 years?

That same line of thinking is happening right now on the GOP side of the aisle. The good people, in the GOP, have got to be wondering if this whole mess is worth it or not, and that's where Dem votes will come from, supported by a growing majority of Americans, wanting to change how this all goes down.

"From here it gets really ugly."

No. It got ugly the very day the defeatist Mr. Reid waved a white flag to terrorists declaring that we 'lost.' What a foolish thing to say.

"So, after the last election the GOP lost perhaps 25 percent of it's size."

Even YOU don't believe that, for if it were true, you'd be cheering and not hand wringing.

"It's is now Bush failing to support the troops."

Nice spin, but no one's buying it. Mr. Bush never said it would be easy and the troops who support Mr. Bush greatly outnumber those who don't. What the troops DON'T appreciate is an appeasement democrat party. You want an easy war? There's no such thing. That being the case, either:

1. LEAD for once, by having the guts to follow your convictions and (A) Vote on the record to cut funding or (B) Vote to over-ride the President's veto,
2. FOLLOW our Commander in Chief
or
3. GET OUT OF THE WAY.

Terrorists want to kill us and the left is playing politics.

Herb

"The demos have already folded, and said they will pass a funding measure without withdrawal timetables. You can always count on the dems folding."

May I remind you that it was a Democrat who steered our nation through World War II, and who possibly went against the Constitution to ready the United States for the upcoming conflict before it happened. May I remind you that it was a Democrat who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and probably saved a million US lives and countless millions of lives in Japan. May I remind you that it was a Democrat who stared down Khrushchev and the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and got Khrushchev to back down. May I remind you that it was a Democrat who fully escalated the conflict in Vietnam.

It isn't a Republican or Democrat thing here. Bush is hellbent on keeping troops in harms way in retribution for a price on his papa's head, wasting billions of dollars in the process and bankrupting the future of our children, and the Democratic-controlled Congress is trying to end that nonsense. I would feel the same if it were Clinton in the White House pulling such Tom Foolery and a GOP-led Congress checking it.

It isn't about conservatives and liberals. It's about common sense and doing what's right and what's wrong.

Fair enough, Brianl.

Then let's at least agree not to declare defeat while our troops are fighting, and also avoid rewarding terrorists with Iraq's vast oil reserves.

If you think it's bad now, imagine terrorist groups like Al-Queda with Iraq's oil wealth.

Herb

If you want to use ancient history, it was a democrat who ordered the rebels to fire on Ft Sumter.

I see that side of things Herb. So, how come we don't just really commit then?

That means acceptance that our current path is not working, a new one requires significant man power and dollars, but will bring returns to us.

This isn't hard. --unless you are wanting to avoid having to account for the impact of your decisions. That's my big beef.

If this war is about oil (and you can bet that it is), then having that be a part of the discussion would make this current standoff a more realistic discussion, would it not?

If this war is not about oil, and so far that's what we have been told, then the Democratic party position is not a bad one all things considered, in that "winning" requires we have some goals in place, metrics by which to measure, etc...

None of that is in place, therefore we cannot "win".

I personally think we should just force the issue and hand him money 3 months at a time. No yearly alottment, just a quarter. Then, each time more money is needed, all the President has to do is tell us why and what we are getting in return for that investment. Having done that, he can continue on right?

A bunch of people here have said running government like a business makes sense, so let's just do that then.

The war is not about oil, its about the free flow of trade, which in this case is oil, but thats sematics.

Wake up. Our whole interest in the Middle East is about oil. It runs America and the world. If it were disrupted there would be a major economic upheaval.

I resent these shallow assertions that somehow we shouldn't be interested in the oil. I'll repeat, wake up.

I'm there, and large segments of our government are there, but it's not being discussed openly.

It should be. It's ugly, but it's real.

By hiding that fact, it makes making progress on what to do, how to do it, etc... difficult.

Either oil is the primary driver or it isn't. Right now, all indications are that it just isn't, or we would see that being part of the greater discussion right?

If the GOP just comes right out and says it's about oil and risk of losing access to it, then the standoff we are seeing right now changes a lot! That's ugly, an admission of having lied way back when, and of the mess we are in because of that lie, but it is also a realistic statement of worth and risk that can be dealt with.

If those statements were made, the majority public opinion would change, IMHO. We either would say do what it takes to get the oil, or get out and deal. Much clearer than the current discussion is.

Missing, you're displaying a simple mind, and I know that's not what you have.

The Middle East situation, which involves oil, terrorists, allies, Israel and on and on is far too complicated for the statements some Democrats want made. The Democrat leaders certainly know this, it's the rank and file simpletons that don't.

Bush is an "image" president - always has been, always will be. When Reid says the war is lost, it may not look good in the newspapers and may stick in the President's (and Herb's) craw, but it is essentially what is happening. And the terrorists don't need to hear it from us to know it is the truth - they are fully aware that they own the streets of Baghdad, and that the American occupying force makes great training/target practice for future terrorists.

As for oil being an issue, it's important to Bush because 1) a pullout will reduce/eliminate flow of Iraqi oil, limiting profits for his oil cronies, 2) the price spike in such a situation ($5,$6,? per gallon) will hurt his legacy. I don't think that Bush cares if gas prices go up - he's never filled a tank in his life and never will - as long as they don't go up on his watch. The Middle East and America can go to hell in a handbasket as far as he is concerned, as long as he doesn't get blamed for it.

Because this is the president that Never Makes Mistakes.

Yeah whatever.

I want them to step up, like real men with balls, and flat out say it's about the oil, was always about the oil, and will end about the oil, because we need the freaking oil.

They lied about this war, because oil would not be the hot seller, WMDs would be. They've prolonged the occupation phase because it's been difficult to get the right people in there to write the right oil contracts.

Those are not yet signed and ratified, BTW!

And they are asking for lots of dollars, over what would be required to clean up, let the Iraqis sort out their issues and go home, BECAUSE UNTIL WE GET THOSE OIL ASSETS INTO THE HANDS OF OUR MULTINATIONAL FRIENDS, there is absolutely no way we can leave, now is there?

I don't see the word 'oil' in any of the discussions that matter, despite it being a primary motivating force for all this crap. So say it, own up to it, live by it and deal with it.

Then we can talk rationally about returns on troop investment, etc...

It is about the oil.

But it's about more than that as well, because without oil money, these terrorists couldn't wreak the havoc they have on innocent civilians like 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

It's oil and more.

Herb

Yeah, but it's about the oil first.

Sure. Fine.

This is Burger King. Have it your way.

It is about the oil first in this specific situation.

But riddle me this, Batman.

If we're only concerned about oil, then how come the US sends more aid abroad to needy countries than any other nation on the planet...and a great number of those needy countries have no oil?

Herb

Steady there Herb, don't burst the fairytale bubble a liberal wants to live in.

Sending aid is just a small bit different than invading, is it not?

It's Iraq we are discussing. Stay, go, change up right?

So, deciding which really is the right thing to do involves coming clean as to the motives and goals, doesn't it?

That's where I'm at in this process.

???????

And democrats make fun of me for liking Mr. Nixon?

Herb

Well, is it or isn't it about oil first?

like clinton's lie, many people can't get over Bush's lie about wmds.

surely deane, nwokie and the troll can understand this.

mr bush, admit to your lie on national TV first, then make your case.

In the Middle East and other oil producing nations, it's about oil first.

In Israel, it's about alliances and access to strategic bases first.

In China, it's about access to huge markets and cheap labor first (and loans).

In Thailand, it's about those little paper umbrellas you find in your drink first.

BTW Herb - *everyone* makes fun of you for liking Nixon. It's totally nonpartisan.

Touche'.
Sometimes I make fun of myself liking Nixon.
I sure miss him.

Herb

I acknowledged the oppression of Europe, etc. -- however, the skimmers called me out, so I will explain.

"I believe you have underestimated the communist, and specifically Soviet, threat.

Nikita Kruschev said they would bury us. Without firm hands at the presidential helm and save for the Grace of God, they would have."

Herb, in your weak scary America, perhaps, but not in mine. My America is filled with difficult geography and millions and millions and millions and millions of patriots. It is a land full of folks who might disagree, but would die for each other. As we have been for generations, we are a heavily armed, resourceful, individualistic, multi-cultural, vastly diverse people who live in a huge sprawling place. The only way to lose our freedom in America is to give it to other Americans. Period.

By the late 1970s, we were way out in front of the Soviets. I believe I still have my copy of the infamous cooked analysis of the Soviets by Team B. They handed it to all of us in Civil Air Patrol and made us read it instead of continuing intensive search and rescue training. This was utter poppycock trumped up to keep us all stirred up and to make America willing to shell out the bucks for big contracts like MX, Star Wars and the B-1 program.

No country, big or small has ever made a solid or successful attempt to try to enslave or oppress the citizens of the United States. By and large, folks have only shot their mouths off, not their cannons. It has been a secure land since we booted out the British. No country would ever be successful in such an attempt, and isolated attacks and battles have only strengthened our resolve.

This may surprise the shivering bomb shelter diggers, but there is no force from outside this country that could rule this country without a rebellion to the last man and woman. Fear by perception is no reason to give our enemies past and present any more power than they actually possess.

It is also a poor reason to endorse a current power base that has eroded the very foundations of our freedom to salve their own cowardice and paranoia. They are rewriting our Bill of Rights and doing far more damage to our country than the bogeymen of terror could ever imagine in their wildest dreams. In the big picture, they have shown a great deal of contempt and fear of us, we the people of the United States of America.

Littlesongs, you've encapulated the position I have had for a long time about America's strengths and resolve. It is the best and truest response to those that hand-wring about terrorist, Muslim and/or communist domination of America. Thanks.

I'll second that.

My thoughts exactly.

No surprise that the fellow travelers agree with one another.

"Herb, in your weak scary America, perhaps, but not in mine."

It was a tiny minority of bolsheviks that overtook Russia. With enough terror and group think, it could indeed happen here.

The moment you think it can't, it can.

Herb

If you accept that a small group could take over, with group think, terror, etc...

(and I think it could too)

Then isn't there a case for that happening right now, given how this administration is behaving?

Read my last post on the energy thread. The big question is there and I'm seriously interested in your answer --anyones answer.

(Maybe I'll just start another thread...) I did do just that.

"Then isn't there a case for that happening right now, given how this administration is behaving?"

Sure. And having survived the Clinton administration, I seriously could understand how the other side of the aisle might think about it.
It's a fair question.

Herb

No one has tried enslave or oppress the citizens of the US, how about the war of 1812?

How about WWII

"No surprise that the fellow travelers agree with one another."

Herb, why do you continually state something innocuous and obvious, and then do your darndest to spin it into something that sounds like a put-down? Yes, I agree with Little - that's what I said! What's your point in repeating it?

Are those who agree with one another now to be referred to as fellow travelers? Okay...I'll keep that in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

Wiki is so doggone handy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_b
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_papers

and if that aint enough, this is for the bookworms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_Internet

and a curtain call...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_accomplished

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riposte

Little sez: "The only way to lose our freedom in America is to give it to other Americans."

Amen!

Herb spewed forth>>>>>>
Name-calling doesn't change the fact that we'd all be talking German, Japanese or Russian if leaders like Churchill and FDR didn't exhibit backbone like Mr. Bush.

This isn't 1945 and DUHbya IS NO Churchill or FDR! Hell, he isn't even in the same class as his father!

If I'd only known it was that easy!

I've been trying to learn Japanese for a couple of years now.