Meanwhile, leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore, who have merely been right about all of the consequences of invading Iraq, should be dismissed because they’re not centrists.

I’m enjoying your weird revisionist history. Only moderates can save us!

People who ridicule others are rarely part of the solution.

I can only conclude that you’re more concerned with politesse and a desperate need for “centrism” than the fact that Americans and Iraqis continue to die and there aren’t any workable solutions.

Something that is opposed by 89% of the public in not centrist. Escalation of the war in Iraq is not moderate. Expanding the war to Iran is extremist.

not taking the bait of some of these jerks

Kim, I wouldn’t consider you one of the folks who makes these discussions personal.

Some do. For many folks the acceptance of their opinion is tied up in their own validation. This makes political discussions so lively.

It also highlights my recurring focus on Centrist and moderate candidates. We can see on this blog how ridiculing the point of view of another can easily overshadow the merits to an argument. It is a rare public servant who can stay centered in mutual respect while getting bashed as ignorant or mean spirited.

I remember crying with my buddies as we watched in disbelief while the helicopters of the USA departed Saigon as thousands of people tried to escape certain death to them and their families.

Shameful

The calls for a “specific plan” are also disingenuous. The Democratic Party just won an election by deliberately refusing to propose any plans of their own. And none of the smug far-left commentators on this thread have offered any suggestions of their own except to just keep bashing Bush.

Maybe, just maybe, it is time for some of the lefties to sit down, take a deep breath and consider that it might be barely possible for someone to disagree with them without automatically being assumed to be a liar or a dupe.

But then again, that would take all the fun out of it, right?

Paul, you should be commended for not taking the bait of some of these jerks. You’re a better man than I am.

Also, Greendreams point is well taken. There is always some wonderful rhetoric about how we are helping the Iraqis stand up after years of oppression. But if the Iraqi army is ill-equipped, how can we expect any other results?

The NYT today had an article about 100 severely tortured men destined for execution that the US army freed in Basra. They weren’t prisoners of Saddam, they were prisoners of the lawful, Shiite government. But no one can even tell the difference.

It is at least an interesting irony that the people who have had their faces deepest in Iraq and Afghanistan the longest, as soldiers or volunteers like these, are the ones inclined to stick it out; while many here whose experience comes off the bloody front page every day are the ones looking for a way to–there is no other phrase–cut and run.

The quote squarely places all of the hardship, burden, and pain on the soldiers and their family. The WSJ is using the soldiers as the vehicle to get their point across – granted there will be folks in the military who will support come hell or high water to stick it out. But it is not the editorial staff or 98% of the population in the US going to be spending more frequent and for longer deployments than our soldiers and marines. This basically ‘blue falcons’ the people who will spend more and more time away from their families so public can go out and follow the POTUS recommendation to be more materialistic (spend money).

I agree with Kim that Sen. Joe Lieberman is a classic neo-con, but I do so because I believe he suffers from the ailment called GFI. He uses universals to discuss strategy, but lacks the ability to show how exactly one is to get from point ‘A’ (chaos) to point ‘B’ (justice, virtue, etc).

The desire to ‘stick it out longer’ and ‘try harder’, as envisioned by Lieberman and others is a fantasy. Due to causality, we lost the initiatives over the past three years because of strategic blunders; and the answer currently being thrown out to be solution is too little, too late. I want to correct the mess that our nation has made in Iraq, but we need to look outside the box on identifying and applying the solution. The military has shown one such solution is to get the civil side of the house to step up to help alleviate the pressures caused by the insurgents, but everyone wants to go the easy route and send in more troops.

As a business owner and investor I am less skeptical of the WSJ than some.

I have a lot of respect for the news side of the Wall Street Journal, and I too am a business owner.

But the editorial page is and always has been purely partisan, and as a bidness owner surely you recognize this fact?

For my informal poll of 4 returned Iraq war vets, the WSJ Editorial page is as wrong as always.

It is one of the frustrations of this larger debate to figure out the facts and put opinion and polls in perspective.

I am sure most people would prefer the end of violence.
But what sacrifice are people willing to make to this end? The Zogby poll was asking when they would like to go home. It didn’t seem to be asking if they prefer to go before stablizing security.

As a business owner and investor I am less skeptical of the WSJ than some. They are looking at the ME in terms of what would it take to promote commerce. Security and the rule of secular law are high on the list.

It is at least an interesting irony that the people who have had their faces deepest in Iraq and Afghanistan the longest, as soldiers or volunteers like these, are the ones inclined to stick it out

Because polling shows that this just isn’t the case.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Then again, this is the Wall Street Journal’s editorial fantasy page.

I must admit I find it unusual to read such views here on TMV. Liberals generally don’t care how many wogs have to die for their freedoms.

I’m sympathetic. We made a promise to the Iraqis.

But as events have unfolded, I wonder if it’s possible to fix the problems. I wonder if our presence there is just postponing the inevitable slaughter. I wonder if our presence there isn’t making things worse. And I’m very dubious of the ability of our leaders to do anything useful.

And I have to add, Joe Lieberman is not credible, in my opinion, on any of these topics.

You “would be” willing.

That means, you’re not doing this already?

Go sign up and get back to us.

I’m giving it 1000:1 odds that he doesn’t do any of this for any length of time, even in the future.

How old are you, Paul? You know they’ve bumped the maximum enlistment age into the 40s, right?

Geez, maybe that’s unfair. I mean, someone has to do the critically important work of forming centrist PACs and forging non-partisan pragmatic solutions to chronic issues.

Millions of civilized Iraqi will suffer because of our failure to secure Bagdad. Hundreds of millions more will suffer because of the encouragement we give to radicals.