Brian Baird shifts gears and now supports not pulling troops out of Iraq. The man has been to that region what, about 5 times now. I don't see how anyone can judge what is right and wrong in this situation without visiting that region and viewing it firsthand. I have mixed feelings on this issue but applaud Baird for not being a public opinion politician. He knew this would not be met well but forged ahead with what he feels is the right course. I am not saying this is the right course mind you but for a politicain to go against the grain, especially in support of the other parties dude, shows the man has a spine! Right or Wrong on this he is doing what he feels best for America and Iraq and is willing to take the heat for it. Good job as far as i'm concerned.

Hey Herb.....what you think bout them Dem's now!

You used "Herb" and "Think" in the same sentence.

What were YOU thinking?

"Hey Herb.....what you think bout them Dem's now!"

I support some principled democrats and it appears that Brian Baird is perhaps one to watch. No one is correct 100% of the time and Mr. Baird is big enough to concede that his initial decisions on Iraq needed re-thinking. Let's watch how the democrat party machine tries to intimidate Mr. Baird whilst denying the essence of his first-hand observations.

Now here's some Brian Baird media trivia for you: Kelly Love, former weekend anchor at KGW TV-8, was, or still is, on Brian Baird's staff.

Herb

Herb, Brian Baird has been against Iraq from the very get go, and was quoted Sunday as saying, "The invasion itself and the post-invasion decisions are among the greatest policy mistakes in the history of this country." His point is that we must finish the job. I disagree that the job can be finished unless we have an open ended commitment, which I'm against. Therefore I'd like to see us redeployed immediately and let the Iraqis sort it out on their own. Continued involvement is just a waste of US troops lives and US tax dollars.

And, based on last night's town hall meeting, the voters of his district were not impressed.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/118828239117762 0.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

I was not agreeing or dis-agreeing with the mans agenda just that I thought it was very commendable that he has taken the less popular road to do what he believes needs to be done.
Part of me agrees with you that as long as the US stays there stirring up the Hornets in their nest, things will not settle down. Leave the Hornets alone and they may just calm down. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't at this point.

"The invasion itself and the post-invasion decisions are among the greatest policy mistakes in the history of this country."

worth posting again.

I tried to email Baird last night to tell him I support his decision on Iraq, even though Baird is not in my district...but since I don't live in WA there was no way to send him a message without using a (fake) WA address. Oh, well, I still applaud Baird's bold stance on Iraq - it's the right one. We can only hope things can finally improve there once "The Decider" is no longer in a position to "decide" wrong all the time.

Andrew

Vitalogy writes:
I disagree that the job can be finished unless we have an open ended commitment, which I'm against. Therefore I'd like to see us redeployed immediately and let the Iraqis sort it out on their own. Continued involvement is just a waste of US troops lives and US tax dollars.

I think you need to change your paradigm. First of all, stop thinking of it as a "job." That sounds too much like Bush's "victory or defeat" paradigm, which I completely reject. Instead, we need to think about what it takes to bring peace and stability to Iraq, not "victory," and do whatever it takes to make peace/stability happen, even if that means more than just American participation in a peaceful Iraq.

The solution in Iraq is not a military solution, although for now our military needs to stay to prevent a far worse catastrophe. We need to get Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia on board in helping. After all, this is THEIR NEIGHBOR, not ours. And we need to give other countries a reason to get involved in Iraq with us. This is of course an uphill battle after "The Decider's" "America-go-it-alone" stance that has pissed off so many of our allies, not to mention Syria and Iran who I think are crucial to any peaceful/stable Iraq.

Andrew

Andrew, I don't believe "peace and stability" in Iraq is possible. Now I'm not saying remove everyone pronto, but I think we need deadlines and Iraqi leadership needs consequences if they can't meet them, one of which is us leaving.

It may be oversimplifying to compare the Balkans to Iraq, but many people in the early 90s wondered if those people of a formerly united country could ever stop slaughtering each other? The answer is yes (although the price was severe ethnic cleansing). Ethnic cleansing - moving the Shi'ia and the Sunis to different regions, partitioning - would be an extreme solution for Iraq but it would be one solution. A lot of people would have to be uprooted from their homes and it wouldn't be a bloodless process. But it would be one solution. We don't really have the luxury for picking the most perfect solution anymore. It's also quite possible that if we just up and left Iraq the same thing would happen anyway, on its own, with a lot more blood.

The Shi'ia, Sunis, and Kurds managed to live in "peace" under the thumb of a brutal dictator. Is it possible that that's the ONLY way (dictatorship) that people who hate each other can ever live together without killing each other? It seems to have been in the case of the former Yugoslavia. Maybe in Iraq too. In any case, we need to start thinking about more possibilities like this instead of Bush's failed "Victory at any price/they're all al Qaeda terrorists/fight them over there not over here" policy which is so divorced from reality. We haven't TRIED anything else, because we have such a narrowminded, stubborn SOB as the Decider. It's silly to assume that if Bush's failed approach didn't work then NOTHING can work.

I also believe many people who think we should just up and leave Iraq tomorrow haven't thought through the consequences not just for them but for us. Like it or not our nation is addicted to oil, and even if ditch your car, you live in an oil-dependent economy. If Iraq, sitting on top of a huge oil reserve, is allowed to explode into a civil war that might bring in Saudi Arabia, the oil market could zip out of control and send the American economy into a serious depression. That's just one possible consequence. What about a new haven for terrorists in a failed state in Iraq if we leave? This isn't even considering the immense suffering the Iraqi people (now with all of about 4 hours of electricity a DAY) might have to endure, due to a mess we created.

Andrew

Now Moveon.org is going to run TV ads (presumably on Portland TV) urging people to call Baird's office and ask him to change his mind again.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics/2007/08/new_television_ad_targets_bair.html

I support Baird's change of position. I won't be donating to MoveOn.org in the future (haven't in the past).

Andrew