Get that? AFTER…

I’m not one to tell someone how to spend their money, but if Sam Fox is supposed to decide anything while in his new position, his judgement is very much in question… Fox’s payback is a signal to the other massive donors that they can still count on being rewarded…

Bush is a bully and an a__hole and he’ll destroy this counttry rather than leave office peacefully… ‘On to Iran’…

Now watch this drive…

I laughed out loud at that one. No, jwest, you sweet kid: we won’t leave until Cheney’s oil buddies have sucked every last bit of petroleum out of Iraq’s desert and belched loudly. THAT’s what those permanent bases are for (and the mercs).

You sweet kid. I’m still chuckling.

I love fly by the seat of your pants planning. This rationale has been used for every failed strategy for 5 years. Why because the motto is “defeat is not an option”. So when victory didn’t magically appear as promised after 3 months or 6 months or however many months it was always —-we just need another 3 or 6- we’re really making a lot of progress. Except they weren’t. I’d respect this plan a lot more if I didn’t get the feeling that our leaders are doing exactly what jwest said at the outset of his post.

The constitution names the president as commander-in-chief in time of war. When the congress places conditions on funding, it is attempting to usurp this power. They have the responsibility to either fund or not fund the war effort. Any “tinkering� with conditions is unconstitutional.

“…….money managers require benchmarks……�

This isn’t a parks budget, its war.

“winning or loosing is an outcome, not a decision or choice�

The decision to expend the resources necessary to win or to surrender is a choice.

“What if the President’s plan fails…..�

We elect a new president and try even harder.

“Every successful military leader in history has had to learn the lesson that sometimes retreat from the battle is the best move in order to win the war.�

“I don’t like to pay for the same real estate twiceâ€? – George S. Patton.

“If creating a stable Iraq magically made terrorism go away, or if loosing Iraq meant that the US would cease to exist, then I would be right along side you.�

A stable Iraq is the first step in the long battle to end terrorism. If we loose Iraq, the U.S. will not cease to exist, at least tomorrow, or the next year, or the year after that. But rest assured, if more generations of Muslim youth are raised in a culture of hate that focuses their anger on the “Great Satan�, at some point in the future the people who have vowed to kill us will make very serious attempts.

We can’t (at least I can’t) negotiate to let 1000 more soldiers die if the ultimate plan is to give up. The U.S. is either in this to win or lose, and the president has chosen to win.

winning or loosing is an outcome, not a decision or choice. What if the President’s plan fails AND lets 1000′s of more soldiers die? If you fail to acknowledge that possibility, I think your being dishonest with yourself.

Every successful military leader in history has had to learn the lessen that sometimes retreat from the battle is the best move in order to win the war. If creating a stable Iraq magically made terrorism go away, or if loosing Iraq meant that the US would cease to exist, then I would be right along side you. However there are much larger international trends to cope with, which will take a very large amount of resources. If our forces can’t even meet the reasonable benchmarks proposed in the house bill, then we are loosing this battle. Reality sucks, and that’s not a choice.

The surge has a chance of working, but if it doesn’t we will just have to figure something else out.

We will be in Iraq for at least the next 50 years, regardless how this surge works. We’ve spent billions on new bases, but the real reason we will stay is that the Iraqi people will insist on it. I know, everyone is scrambling for their Iraq poll numbers to show they want us to leave, but when it comes down to a vote (and there will be a vote soon), they will ask us to stay.

Iraqis aren’t crazy. They remember the 10 years and million deaths in their war with Iran. They have no strategic military, so they are vulnerable to attack by any number of their neighbors. We are about the only country on earth who doesn’t want to steal their oil.

The reason the U.S. didn’t use the surge tactics early on was a decision to approach this as a liberation, not an occupation. Because of Iraq’s educated population, experience with sectarian rule and oil wealth, Bush and Rumsfield felt that some Iraqi leader would step forward as a unifying figure after Saddam was removed. Unfortunately, that leader never materialized.

Using the “light footprint� strategy was a gamble, but that’s one of the choices you make in war. Anyone who believes war goes according to plan hasn’t read any history.

Bush is making the hard decisions in this war in an effort to “change the dynamic in the Mideast�. By succeeding in Iraq, he knows it will encourage others in the region to change for the better. He is thinking about what is best for this country in the long term, not just what is best for his party in the next election.

My biggest problem with the surge is that there is no real alternative plan if it doesn’t succeed. Gen Petraeus himself only gave it a 25% chance —so what is the contingency plan? I have no desire to see genocide in Iraq (which is why I think we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place) but can we really believe that if we leave now or in 10 years the end result will be any different? Sadr and his death squads are laying low- waiting us out, knowing that our military can only keep this up but so long. I actually think this policy is a much smarter one, but it should have been employed at the beginning-then it might have worked.

If the democrats in congress have a principled position that the war in Iraq is wrong, they should vote to cut off funds immediately.

War is not a “compromise�. This isn’t a debate over national parks budgets, we’re in a conflict with people dying. We can’t (at least I can’t) negotiate to let 1000 more soldiers die if the ultimate plan is to give up. The U.S. is either in this to win or lose, and the president has chosen to win.

The congress voted overwhelmingly to enter this war and now that the public opinion has swung these spineless political creatures are running for cover.

There is no compromise between right and wrong.

Kritter,

As you are also a big fan of compromise, the answer to Kevin (above) can act as my reply to the first part of your comment.

The one point you do make is that Iraq cannot be won (solely) militarily. This is absolutely correct. But, to achieve a position where negotiation on terms acceptable to the U.S. and the people in Iraq who don’t want to face genocide is possible, the military must bring about a degree of order. Once that is attained, the political and economic compromises can be negotiated for a lasting peace.

And while I agree that many Americans don’t follow or don’t understand foriegn policy, there is no assurance that if they did they wouldn’t agree with most foreign policy experts from the Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41 and Carter administrations, who all feel that we should be dealing with our enemies and not isolating them, and that mistakes made early on in the war are ensuring our defeat. Those are the voices I listen to. Even Henry Kissenger declared recently that Iraq cannot be won militarily.

Don’t you realize what a tiny minority you and I belong to?

Although we have some fundamental disagreements, at least we have some idea of what is going on. From what you write, I can tell that you read about issues from a number of sources and apply some logic to your conclusions. How those conclusions come up so wrong so often is a subject for another discussion.

The point is you and I, at a minimum, have the basic information. The public at large is a vast wasteland of uninformed (at best) or misinformed (at worst) political buffoons. Stop the next ten people you meet on the street and ask them who the Vice President or Secretary of State is. Have them explain the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. See if they know Iraq is not located next to Okinawa.

So when you cite that 2/3 of the people want some change in foreign policy, you can see why I don’t take that as in my best interest to go along with their wishes.

Luckily again, we have a leader in the White House as opposed to a poll watcher.

When we put them in office, we rely on their judgment to make laws, treaties and to manage the business of government as outlined in the Constitution.

And look what has happened, our legally elected member of congress are using their power of the purse to manage the business of government. If the POTUS doesn’t agree with that he can compromise. That would seem to require Bush to modify his strategy for Iraq, unless dictionary.com has a left wing bias….

But thanks for the correction… “Damn notions of representative government getting in the way of the Bush Administration’s grand plans…”

Luckily, we don’t live in a democracy. The chaos that would ensue from a ridiculous form of government like that would make conversations like this impossible.

The U.S. is a governed as a representative republic. We vote for people to represent our interests in local, state and federal matters. When we put them in office, we rely on their judgment to make laws, treaties and to manage the business of government as outlined in the Constitution.

Governing by pure democracy (or by opinion polls) is tantamount to mob rule.

JimS,

I’m not the one who referenced Hormel, but I’ll defend the objections to him if you like.

Blind approval of Bush is not my agenda. Had he succumbed to popular opinion during Hurricane Katrina and sent in federal troops over the objection of Blanco, I would have led the call for impeachment.

As long as he continues to do what is best for this country, he’s got my support.

Hormel, an heir to the meat-packing family and a San Francisco-area philanthropist, is openly homosexual and a large contributor to the Democratic party (over $200,000 in the ’95-’96 election cycle). Conservative religious groups have complained that he has refused to condemn the Catholic-spoofing performance group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. (Luxembourg is 99 percent Catholic.) His 1997 nomination passed the Judiciary Committee, but Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott deferred to the objections of several conservative senators, including Inhofe, by refusing to bring the nomination to a vote on the floor. Hormel’s appointment will last until December 2000, several weeks before Clinton steps down.

Clinton has used the recess appointment relatively sparingly; his average of nine per year is far lower than Reagan’s 30 and Bush’s 20. And the GOP Congress has consented to at least one unconfirmed Clinton appointment: When Drew Days stepped down as solicitor general in July 1996, the Senate let Clinton appoint Walter Dellinger–already confirmed as an asssistant attorney general–as “acting” solicitor general after Dellinger promised to serve only one year.

As far as considering jwest a troll as being a sign of this blog being a liberal outpost, I consider those who blindly attack Bush with over the top rhetoric just as wearying as those who blindly approve of everything he does while attacking his opposition.

The DoD supplemental funding bill is in no way a compromise.

Your right, it is in fact almost exactly what the majority of Americans want. Damn notions of ‘rule by the people’ (aka Democracy) getting in the way of the Bush Administration’s grand plans…

The leaders of foreign governments need to have an emissary that they know will relate the words and intent of the President of the United States accurately.

This statement is proven false by the fact that congress gets to confirm appointments. This shows that ambassadors should attempt to accurately convey the ‘words and intent’ of the American People, not just the POTUS.

Jim S Says:

April 5th, 2007 at 7:53 am
It’s not as though Fox had some outstanding qualifications for the job that made a recess appointment of him vital to the interests of the country. This is, after all, just another political reward.

OK, Jim, sounds just like this one…….Hormel, an heir to the meat-packing family and a San Francisco-area philanthropist, is…….. a large contributor to the Democratic party (over $200,000 in the ’95-’96 election cycle). …………………….http://slate.msn.com/id/1002994/

Could the Moderate Voice take some kind of poll on how many readers think jwest is just a troll?

So, Jim, I guess you are indeed confirming for me that TMV is just a clone of Daily Kos or HuffPo. Since when is either side of the political divide a “troll” when purportedly the blog is neutral ground?

I repeat, let’s just declare this another liberal/Democrat/left policy supporting blog and those of us not inclined to see things as always “Democrat is good, Republican is bad” will join the discussion elsewhere.