Daily Kos

NC Republican wants US out of Iraq

by kos

Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:39:05 AM PDT

Damn GOP hippies.
U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, dean of the state's congressional delegation and an avowedly strong supporter of President Bush, says it's time for the United States to consider withdrawing from war-ravaged Iraq.

Coble, a Republican from Greensboro, is one of the first members of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- to say publicly that the United States should consider a pullout.

The 10-term congressman, head of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq." [...]

Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.

For the rest of those still supporting Bush's War, come on in, the water's fine!

We support our troops, and want them to alive and in one piece. Enough have suffered from the incompetence of Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons assholes who dragged us into this mess.

So how do these chickenhawks rationalize their support for an unecessary, elective war?

Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."
Ahh, all that was needed were a few questions, instead of the muzzling of war opponents who raised these very same issues. Extraordinary bad judgment from a president and a party that have shown nothing but extraordinary bad judgment.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 193 comments

  •  For want of a few questions (4.00 / 13)

    my brothers are dying, along with thousands of Iraqis, for no good reason at all.
    My heart is broken.

    "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a democrat."--Will Rogers

    by soonergrunt on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:03:02 AM PDT

    •  Damn bloody water... (none / 1)

      Ah, would that the water were indeed fine.

      I don't support this particular war, haven't since the first post-9/11 mention of Iraq as "eeeevil," but can't find consolation in a U.S. bug-out leaving a power vacuum that the allegedly upcoming election is supposed to fill, but likely can't.

      There are no good waters regarding this situation. Easier for me to admit than for one who initially was rah-rah for what would ultimately become this fiasco, I'd think. And with Coble's statment, we may hear more of the same from former war champions.

      Not that this administration is likely to listen...

      ~Robin

      "To live like a Republican, vote for the Democrat." ~Harry S Truman

      by Hell Upside Down on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:17:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (none / 0)

        There are no good choices, only choices that are slightly less bad.

        What we really should be doing is attempting to peacefully split the country into thirds (Kurdistan, Western Iran (Shiites), and Eastern Syria(Sunnis)).  Then, once this is accomplished, we should pull out.

        Of course, this would make too much sense for the Bush administration.

        by Geotpf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 09:50:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  True, but (none / 1)


      as you know, it was not quite that simple, soonergrunt.

      The questions were there, albeit half-hearted.

      The answers, if we'll all remember, were fabricated.  Right down to the interpretation of the satelite photos, and the dollar estimates of post-war plans that were supposedly in place.

      I say this not to object to your sentiment that MUCH more should have been done to prevent this... but simply to remind us how far this administration was prepared to go to thwart those who would question them.  

      by CTDem2 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:35:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many of (none / 0)

        the people who heard our answers and ignored them have even acknowleged them now? I can think of exactly NONE. They still act as if WE are the fringe.

        by Mike S on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:38:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (none / 1)


          I don't know.  Amongst my family and friends, there are a few who supported the war.  They don't anymore, and they give me some credit for seeing what they didn't.  People don't like to admit past mistakes in general, so they generally argue about how a situation changed on them, "no one could have predicted," but you have to understand that as a personal defense.  Otherwise, they have to take blame for endorsing a disaster where lives were destroyed for no reason.  Most people aren't strong enough to do that.

          As long as you try to meet them halfway, give them a little breathing room, avoid it-was-obvious-and-I-knew-it and talk about it strategically (bad policy, unnecessary deaths) rather than ideologically (more peace, less war), I think you'll find unity with a lot more people these days.

          by CTDem2 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:56:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some, but (none / 0)

            far too few.  I can't tell you how many people argued with me when the rant and rave started about WMD and how we had to get Saddam before he got us.  No amount of logic or fact would sway them, Powell would NEVER lie to the UN, so I was the one who had her facts wrong.

            Fast forward to today, and the very same people who once stated that the US should never nation build have convinced themselves that our actions in Iraq are justified and worse.  Again, fact and logic have no place in their world.

            Sadly, far too few are realizing the extent of the lies by this administration.  I fear the only thing that will really wake them up is when Bush tells them that we need their children to fight this war (draft).

            I have come to see that reality for some is personal, by that I mean that if there is NO personal connection to an issue, core ideology can be twisted to support things that have no basis in reality or truth.

            AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

            by SanJoseLady on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:27:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Rewriting history (none / 0)

          One of Bush's goons said:

          "No one had anticipated that the cost of Iraq would continue to grow like [this]," said Dov S. Zakheim, an original member of Rumsfeld's team who retired as Pentagon comptroller last year. Now, he said, "clearly they are concerned about the deficit on one hand and Iraq on the other."

          Remember Larry Lindsey, no friend of Democrats:

          Mr. Bush will shortly ask Congress for another emergency budget supplemental for Iraq of around $80 billion. That will take the total spending so far on the war and fighting the insurgency to well over $200 billion.

          That was a figure that Larry Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former economic aide, predicted that the war would cost, although he was forced to backtrack and was fired shortly afterwards.

          McCain: Less jobs, more war.

          by Unstable Isotope on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:36:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There were (none / 0)

            many others who stated the true cost of this war, and were shouted down, fired and stuffed into corners.

            This administration has lied, has their head in the sand and is so far removed from reality I think the WH should be called "Wonderland House"

            AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

            by SanJoseLady on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:28:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  resource of real pre-war intelligence? (none / 0)

              Is anyone out there keeping an archive of all of the voices that have resisted the war or offered better solutions?  It would be nice to have a central resource with names, dates, and references so that when the Bushies start saying "nobody could possibly have known" and "if only somebody had asked the right questions" we can point to specific documented examples of this.  I assume that there are bits and pieces of this all over the web, but I want a single comprehensive resource, something like www.pre-warintelligence.org

              This will be good to circulate among the MSM talking heads who aren't likely to get far past a sheet of talking points, but could also be very useful for those of us working at the grassroots level.  That way for example when my father in law says "you liberals never had any reasonable arguments, just peacenicking and resistance to anything the pResident supported," I can show him exactly how specific our resistance was.  It would also be good to include stats about the fates of the individuals who objected and the responses to their stories from MSM and the politicians.  This will document that there was in fact an organized effort to ignore anything that could slow the drive to war.

              by polychrome on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:04:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Ugh: Zakheim (none / 0)

            ONe of the original signatories to the New American Century bullshit.

            repulsive fellow.

            Torture is Wrong!

            by tom 47 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 09:04:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, answers were fabricated (none / 0)

        And, I confess I got taken in by them myself, to some extent.

        The thing is, a Congress and journalistic enterprise that won't exercise their critical judgement and opt for political expendiency is a very expensive luxury.

        I wasn't on DK until Oct 2004, and I really felt there was little I could do. I relied on those who were supposed to have access to more info than I. I won't do that again.

        Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

        by boadicea on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:24:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a great place (none / 0)


          don't know if you'll ever see this reply...

          but you'd be amazed how much info we had here on dKos that proved to be true,  that the media and the people in positions of power didn't discuss for many months later.

          This site was a treasure of information before the war.  It's really impressive how accurate much of the stuff was.

          In fact, it adds a lot of credibility to some of the "conspiracy theories" people are being acused of now.  That's what they called them back then, too.  Today, we know they were right, and that the evidence they sited to call the administration's bullshit was all real.

          by CTDem2 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:52:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't doubt it. (none / 0)

            This community pulls from a wide variety of experts in the reality based subjects. I really have felt much more empowered to know that I'm not the only one thinking what I'm thinking and trying to figure out the right actions.

            Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

            by boadicea on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:27:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, you OWN the place, so you're (none / 0)

    not hurtin' for 4s, I'm sure, but GOP hippies, that's just funny.

    Seriously, honest Republican and Democratic criticism of this war, '08 posturing aside, is just what the doctor ordered.  Bring it on!

    Small varmints, if you will.

    by 2lucky on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:07:29 AM PDT

    •  "Just what the doctor ordered" (none / 1)

      And when THE DOCTOR ordered it -- i.e., tried to make the case that authorizing this war was a mistake -- he got slammed down hard by his own party.

      Imagine if we had run someone for President who could have made the case -- the whole case -- against this war.  Maybe some of the things that are just now coming out would have been brought to the surface during the campaign, or at least those that did come out  then would not have been buried so quickly (Abu Ghraib).

      With even Republicans turning against the war its more important than ever that the Democrats be unified on the right side of this issue, NO EQUIVOCATING ALLOWED.

      I know just the doctor who can order and perform the necessary spine transplant....

      "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

      by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:06:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Coble is not one of the first (none / 1)

        members of Congress to state that we should consider a pullout. Rep. Kucinich made his stunning bring them home speech here in Maine, and probably other places as well, at the state Democratic convention.

        "The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add an useful plant to its culture" -- Thomas Jefferson

        by tommurphy on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:47:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The sad thing (none / 1)

          is that we probably have no choice but to leave at this point because we have bungled the occupation so badly that anyone associated with us is now a target.  

          Even though we were wrong to invade in the first place, Saddam was despised enough that if we had gotten the security situation under control, handed as much of the rebuilding money as possible to Iraqis rather than Halliburton, and made the restoration of Iraq a truly multi-lateral effort (including lots of Arab and other Muslim countries), there was a chance of success -- which would have required a long term U.S. presence (but not 150,000 troops worth). This is exactly what (supposedly ignorant on foreign policy) Dean had argued for.

          Our leaving will not be a panacea for Iraq, however.  The most likely outcomes at this point are an Iranian type theocracy, a Lebanon type civil war, or some hideous combination of the two (theocratic control in some areas, constant fighting in others).  And won't THAT have been worth the lives of over 1000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis!

          "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

          by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:16:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Paul also against Iraq war (none / 0)

          US Rep Ron Paul (R) Texas, has also been vehemently outspoken against the war from the get-go.  Of course, because he's considered a lone-wolf in libertarian clothing, his opinion probably doesn't matter to the rest of the GOP. And because he's homophobic racist and anti choice, his opinion probably doesn't matter to the Dems.  

          by jeebs on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:53:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Which party you talking about? (none / 0)

      You said:

      "Extraordinary bad judgment from a president and a party that have shown nothing but extraordinary bad judgment."

      --Well, as I remember, a whole lot of Democrats voted for the IWR along with the GOP, a whole lot of Dems never asked any questions, and whole lot of Dems did this even though many of their traditional supporters were out marchin in the streets and writing letters to them trying to get their attention and get them to stand up to Bush.

      --Why tar just the GOP with the "extraordinary bad judgment" label?

      by Progressive on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:17:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  conviction vs. cooption (none / 1)

        The Republicans (for the most part) really believed in Bush's Jihad, so they exercized bad judgment.  The Democrats (for the most part -- Kerry is a prime example) didn't believe we needed to go to war but voted with Republicans because, see, that's the way we win elections: by voting with the Republicans even when we know they're wrong.

        What's that?  We now have the fewest Democrats in the Senate in over 70 years?  Well I'm sure the Democrats' go along, get along electoral strategy will start working soon -- about as soon as our strategy in Iraq starts working!

        "We are the ones we have been waiting for" --Barack Obama reminding us we have to hold him accountable.

        by Jim in Chicago on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:40:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chickenhawk (none / 0)

    (n.) a person who is enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it.

    (Have a button that says that and has picture/charicature of dubya and dick.)

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

    by Street Kid on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:09:10 AM PDT

  •  A previous diary. (none / 0)

    2nd gop Congressman calls for Iraq pullout to be considered by dwb115 Coble represents a Dem-leaning district.  Let's get someone to run against him anyways.

    "The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November." -- Rahm Emanuel

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:09:45 AM PDT

  •  kos (none / 0)

    Didn't see your post, so I updated you to the top.

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:14:04 AM PDT

  •  Welcome to the party (4.00 / 6)

    Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."

    Welcome to the party, congressman -- but you certainly could have known there was no post-invasion strategy.  All you had to do was ask.  That "probing" and "planning" you're talking about?  You and everyone else on Capitol Hill who voted for the war-powers resolution could and should have done some of that yourselves.

    Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

    by MJB on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:14:53 AM PDT

    •  Right On!!! (3.66 / 3)

      I mean the concept of being "muzzled"?  As if it were Shrub's fault that the Congress refused to think for itself, refused to have a backbone, refused to do its constitutional duty by checking the power of the Executive Branch?

      Look, every single sonuvabitch who signed off on that bill, including our late presidential nominee, needs to answer for their lack of integrity on this issue.  Everyone knew that Bush was hellbent on going to war once he got his resolution, and no amount of bullshit will absolve those who had the responsibility to question their president of their failure to honor their oaths of office they took to serve the NATION, NOT the King.

      "Life is forever menaced by chaos and must restore balance with every intake of breath"-- Jean Gebser

      by rangemaster on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:38:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Latest trend (none / 1)

        Hyping up the President as a king is a disturbing trend that the Republicans have been pushing since Shrub took office.  There have certainly been Democratic stars who've earned their share of hype , but they've never been depicted as invulnerable or divinely inspired as far as I know.

        Things have been pushed so far outside of the bounds of normal that we all need a reality check from our founding principles.  Namely, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of our Constitution:

        [Congress shall have power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        Why do our legislators need to be reminded of the text of our Constitution?  Of course, I guess they don't -- what they needed was to have the constitution (no pun intended) to follow its instructions when the time came.  

        It's a little too late to be crying "but I thought you were leading me," Coble.  You had a sacred responsibility and you totally blew it, so you'd better own up to that.

        by jforman on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:38:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You just beat me to it ... (none / 1)

      Certified Incompetence by his own admission.

      Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government.

      Searching must have started after 1000th US casualty.
      Only one thing I despise more than a crook ...
      Is an ignorant crook!

      In 2005 - Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

      NEW DIARY - PROPAG - GOPUSA in Texas & UA Richard Powell Investigated

      by creve coeur on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:57:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a lot in this article... (none / 0)

        ...about how this particular congressman is good at seeing which way the wind is blowing, public opinion wise, and how constituent comments have gone from being pro-war to 50/50 (and are continuing to trend in an anti-war direction).

        I'll bet he changed his mind because the people who vote for him changed thier mind, and for no other reason.

        by Geotpf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:00:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which powder though? (none / 1)

      I'm thinking he really meant makeup powder for the TV cameras.

      </snark>

      Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

      by Scarce on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:04:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And how about this... (4.00 / 2)

      ...line?

      Nevertheless, Coble said a troop withdrawal should be an option if the Iraqi government is unable or unwilling to "shoulder more of the heavy lifting" for its own security.

      There has been little or no indication that the Iraqi government can do that, he said.

      Not only is Coble trying to cover his own ass, he's now going to blame the Iraqi "government"?  What a freaking joke!  We are the government there and he well knows it.  

      Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

      by BarbinMD on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:59:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ass covering (3.90 / 11)

    Sorry, I call bullshit. Since none of these assholes, Rep or Dem, asked ANY f***ing questions before the war this shit just pisses me off. I keep hearing the same shit over and over. "I think it was the right thing..." Well guess what morons? I told you this was going to be a disaster a long time ago and all you did was shit on me. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Your soul is permenantly stained no matter what platitudes you use now.

    If you had listened to us in the first place you wouldn't be "fed up" now. And at least 1513 coalition soldiers would not be dead today.

    by Mike S on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:15:35 AM PDT

    •  You don't expect you friends to lie to you... (none / 0)


      Let's be a little fair.  If, a year after 9/11, President Al Gore told the US Senate that Iraq had to be stopped immediately or we might pay severely for neglecting it... if he went further to show satellite photos and present costs of a supposed confidential plan and post-war plan...  how many Dems would question whether he was outright lying to them?

      While I agree that the Senate needs to start taking its responsibilities in war much more seriously, I think it says a lot that a Republican is saying this now.  Let's give credit where it's due.  These guys trusted the head of their party to lead the country and tell them the truth.  It's a fairly reasonable trust to place under the circumstances.  This guy's now saying, he was duped.

      by CTDem2 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:46:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hell, I'd give them (none / 0)

        that if just a few said they should have paid more attention to us. Instead we're still Murica hating peaceniks.

        by Mike S on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:04:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I deny the premise (4.00 / 7)

        UN Inspectors were on the ground. As we argued in real time the US could have fed its best evidence on the existence of WMD to the UN Inspectors if their real interest was in disarmament. You don't even have to agree with the premise that the Bush Administration knew that it was lying about WMDs, clearly they were afraid that the UN might find some way to avoid the war, whether that was by proving Saddam didn't have WMD or finding and isolating those he had. BushCo didn't want a disarmed Saddam, they wanted him out period.

        If you had asked me when the War Resolution passed whether Saddam had chemical weapons, my best guess would have been "Yes, but they are no threat to the US". My opposition to that resolution was based on what is obvious to everyone now, Bush would use it to get his war on come what may. The fact that it actually served its alleged purpose, forcing Saddam to admit Inspectors, caught the Bush Administration flat-footed, but in the end would not have made a difference. They were streaming troops and equipment into the region and there was no realistic way to put the war on "hold". Once again as was noted right here, right then, it was not possible to launch the war in June, it needed to be launched in March or delayed until November, such is the reality of an Iraqi summer. And there was literally no possibility of waiting until November, there was simply no way of sustaining the level of troops and equipment in Kuwait for that period of time. Bush's only alternative would have been to call the whole thing off, and absent some evidence of threat (which wasn't eventuating) his chances of pulling Iraq off a second time would have been miniscule.

        The difference between Gore/Clinton and the PNAC whackos that now run BushCo is that the former saw Saddam's potential possession of WMD as a threat the latter saw that as an opportunity.

        Would Dems have trusted Gore? Probably. Would Gore have trusted Chalabi? Somehow I doubt it. Would Gore have concluded that two months of intensive weapons inspections that were turning up dry hole after dry hole were reasons to delay a deadly invasion even at the cost of losing some face? We'll never know. But I am not willing to grant equivalence here. By March we knew to a near certainty that Saddam did not have deployable WMD. Steve Gilliard and Scott Ritter had laid out an unassailable case. I listened, some didn't. Those that didn't don't get some free pass "Who would have thunk the President was lying?"

        The ones that were paying attention?

        Bush lied, soldiers died. I am sorry Rep Coble never got the memo.

        Pollkatz: Bush Approval

        by Bruce Webb on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:38:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But he did get the memo (none / 0)

          it said "the GOP's sick and robotic cronyism is more important than your oath to the country."

          by GN1927 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:38:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  OK (none / 1)


          I can't totally disagree... moreover, and what you didn't mention, Republicans were clearly aware of the political powerplay of war.  That's the worst part of this.

          But I will say that these people probably get much more biased, limited information than we do.  They don't sit on the computer and read the blogs (maybe they should... some indications are that their staff is starting to...)  It's plausible that they are as duped by Bush and FoxNews as the rest of the country, Senators or not.

          Does it excuse them?  No!  But as much as I hate these guys, I think SOME of them would have acted differently had they known the facts, or seriously doubted what they were told.  Not many, but some.

          by CTDem2 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! (none / 0)

      Hmm, so, war is growing increasingly unpopular...Iraq is sheer and utter chaos with no end in sight...those uppity liberals keep screaming about lies to the UN, failures to uphold oaths of office, Halliburton.  And low and behold, a GOP congressperson suddenly thinks the war was a bad idea.  This couldn't possibly have anything to do with a 2006 election where the populace might very well punish the GOP for its war?  This couldn't possibly be a plan in which GOP legislators give the White House a face-saving opportunity to pull out of Iraq?  The GOP is horrific in its entirety; this group has placed its cronyish party above the good of the country time and time again.  They own this war.  They broke it, and now are trying to return it to the store, just in time for a set of crucial US elections.  No quarter to the unconscionable cronies who led this nation to disaster.  No lifeboat to the rats trying to jump off of the sinking Iraq ship, because they sure didn't give the American public, Iraqi civilians, or the American military any quarter when it would have counted.  Let's not allow GOP legislators any opportunity to dance over the tens of thousands of corpses they created now that US election time fast approaches.

      by GN1927 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:37:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry (none / 1)

      You're pissed off about someone who has come to a point of no longer supporting a stupid war.

      How do you feel about the idiots who haven't come to realize this war is stupid?

      Seems to me like you are channeling your energy in a self-defeating manner if you are going to be pissed off because someone finally agrees with you.

      (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:37:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being pissed off (none / 0)

        at this guy and being glad he has seen the light are not mutually exclucive. I'm waiting for one person of significance at the very least acknowlege that the people against this war were, and srill are, treated abismally.

        by Mike S on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:37:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  the media's cheerleading (4.00 / 3)

      let's not forget all the commentators and journos who poured gasoline on the fire either..

      Or all the producers and graphics folks who dreamed up the fancy war graphics and treated the war like it was a video game.

      Like when Paula Zahn accuses Scott Ritter of "drinking Saddam's kool-aid

      Or when Judith Miller screamed that she was "proved right" about WMD's

      or Timmy and Tweety fawning over Powell's UN presentation.

      etc etc etc

      I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!

      by MarkinNC on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:22:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm still kicking myself... (3.83 / 6)

    Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."

    I shoulda' called him before the vote and told him what I knew: the neocons were a bunch of fucking idiots who were completely out of touch with reality, and a cursory reading of their writings from 1992-2002 would have proven that to him.

    On the other hand, this fella' could have asked Shinseki why his assessment of the situation was so at odds with Wolfowitz's reading of what we would need in Iraq.

    But, then, that would have required that he do some actual critical thinking.

    All in all, I'm glad he's come around.

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:16:11 AM PDT

    •  coble would just have told you (none / 0)

      that interning shinseki wouldn't have been such a bad idea.

      We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

      by yankeedoodler on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:23:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't Coble The Only (none / 0)

      one who is calling for US withdrawal -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Even Kucinic had a "UN in" caveat to the "US out" which he was proposing. Our guys need to figure out that this war-debacle is way past the ass-covering stage. At this point they're even being upstaged by R chicken hawks. What a sad state of affairs. What will it take?

      "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

      by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FOIA (none / 0)

      This raises an interesting possibility.  Is it possible to request all of the correspondences Coble had with constituents before the warpowers vote under FOIA?  I can well imagine why those might not be available or would have to be redacted, but surely his aides at least keep tables of how many people are calling in favor of and against such a big vote, and those should be FOIA-able.  

      Sadly of course, this does nothing to remedy the situation we're in now, but if it can be demonstrated that at least some of Coble's constituents were trying to warn him about the pre-war problems, maybe he can be held accountable in the midterm elections.  

      Imagine an ad where a pile of mail sits on a table unopened while a voice over reads lines from letters saying "Dear Mr. Coble, this war is a seriously bad idea" then a clip of him saying "if I had only known, but there was no way to know, nobody had any idea."  Then the voice over says something to the effect of "It's time to hold Rep Coble accountable" or "This time lets vote for someone who will listen to her constituents."

      by polychrome on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:24:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lets Guess???? (none / 0)

    Which ones gonna be next? How many? Will the Dems just sit back and watch them line up?

    It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Chamonix on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:17:13 AM PDT

  •  Sully seems to think the war is lost too, (none / 0)

    although I'm convinced the only reason I care what Sully thinks is that he long ago cast a voodoo mind control spell on me and every other one of his readers.

    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." Hunter S Thompson

    by spot on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:17:42 AM PDT

    •  Sully says it's cause we're not brutal enough (none / 0)

      While he doesn't approve of torture, Sully is saying today that if we had put in more troops and they had locked down tighter, earlier, there wouldn't be an insurgency.

      The problem is the way US troops behave toward Iraqis.  Their racist and abusive behavior was going to create an insurgency no matter what else happened, and more troops would have just meant more abuse of more Iraqi civilians.

      I read today that one passtime of our glorious troops was driving around in their Humvees and breaking beer bottles over the heads of any pedestrian within reach.  Nice.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:44:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Come On. (none / 0)

        "I read today that one passtime of our glorious troops was driving around in their Humvees and breaking beer bottles over the heads of any pedestrian within reach.  Nice."

        Where'd you read that shit. It sounds stupid, impossible, and totally made up.

        Enough with trashing our GI-girls. There's plenty to complain about without gratuitously slimming our guys.

        "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

        by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:18:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Truth hurts (none / 1)

          In Good Conscience
          By Scott Fleming,  

          A soldier who served with the 320th Military Police Company at Abu Ghraib speaks out about the atrocities he witnessed.

          I think racism is a key motivating factor in the war. We witnessed a Marine kick a six-year-old child in the chest for bothering him about food and water. People in my unit used to break bottles over Iraqi civilians' heads as they drove by in their Humvees. A senior enlisted man in my unit lashed Iraqi children with a steel antenna because they were bothering him.

          I don't enjoy reading this any more than you do.  But it fits with everything I know about US troop behaviour toward Iraqis over the past 20 months.  I could cite a lot more and a lot worse.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Fuck Sully (1.55 / 9)

      The guy's a fucking brit.  

      I don't understand why we allow Sullivan to comment on American politics when he doesn't understand what it really means to be an American.  The only reason he's even here is he used to be a reporter for the London Torygraph.

      (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:43:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fuck you: anyone can comment on US politics! (3.66 / 6)

        Oh, America graciously 'allows' Sullivan to comment on American politics.

        Are only US citizens allowed to comment on US politics? Should this 'fucking brit' desert Kos and stick to European and British politics? For one thing, Iraq is not just a US affair: last time I looked there was still British involvement. For another, US politics affects the world and that entitles anyone, anywhere, to comment on it. I was in my local (Parisian) book shop a month or two before the election and overheard an elderly American couple saying that people in Europe should not be 'allowed' to read political books critical of America (they were reacting to the huge Michael Moore display, as it goes.) I'm sure you don't endorse this attitude: and believe, like me, that all politics are world politics and that everything that happens in the world is everyone's business. This guy may be a twat, but ignore him because he's a twat, not because he's a foreigner.

        (Sorry if that was a bit ranty. You get my drift)

        by Galloise Blonde on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:06:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's Still A Brit. (none / 1)

          Why don't they kick-his ass out of our country for inspiring war-fever -- mother fucker. He's much more dangereous to the Republic than the immigrants picking crops.

          I know, I know, anyone can comment on US policy. But this right-wing reactionary Brit is in our midst and bringing out the worst in Americans -- all because it's his meal ticket. Screw the legal niceties. I say pull his fucking green-card and send him back to the land of ox-tail soup. If we can do it to Cat Stevens we can do it to this slime-ball.

          "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

          by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:27:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Fuck you (1.00 / 4)

          You troll rating abuser.

          Andrew Sullivan does more than just comment on the Iraq war.  He goes around as a pundit for the Republican party, when he can't even vote here.

          (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

          by Steve4Clark on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:48:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want to start a flame war (none / 1)

            But I think it's ironic that you troll-rated some of my old posts from months ago because I troll-rated you when you accused Galloise Blonde for abusing the troll-rating... which she didn't (she rated your comment a 2).

            I'm weird that way.

            by MadEye on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:50:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmm (none / 0)

              I was trying to figure out exactly why I was gang-banged on that post.

              I figured it was because I swore, which was inappropriate but I really really don't like Andrew Sullivan because of his anti-Democrat cheerleading even though he's a brit.

              But Galloise Blonde used considerable foul language in her responding post and was quite disrespectful in presenting her opinion, and you choose to uprate that a 4.

              So that indicates you downrated my post because you disagreed with the opinion, which is an abuse of the ratings system.

              I'd certainly be willing to re-rate your posts, if you re-rate mine.

              (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

              by Steve4Clark on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 07:27:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, this was the reasoning: (none / 0)


                I thought that your initial post about Sullivan presented a legitimate point of view, but did it in a somewhat offensive manner. That's why I chose to rate it a 2.

                As for Galloise Blonde's responding post: while it was quite blunt, I thought it was an appropriate response to your post, pointing out (correctly, to my mind) that your stated reason for disliking Sullivan - that he's a "fucking Brit" - is hardly sufficient reason, and that it would be far more productive to dislike him for being a fool, which he is. I also thought that her anecdote from Paris about the American couple added content to her post and illustrated the shortcomings of your approach quite well. All in all, I rated her post a 4 for those reasons.

                As for your responding post, I found it offensively personal, but then I have thin skin sometimes, too... :-)

                You don't have to change your ratings of my posts, because I don't care that much as long as I'm still able to post occasionally. As for my ratings of your posts, I hope I've been able to make clear that while I stand by them, they're not to be taken personally. In fact I was surprised to feel that way about your posts, as I have seen many thoughtful posts from you before and since.

                by MadEye on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:50:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This is important (3.90 / 11)

    Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."

    Talking about the MAJOR, OBVIOUS problems that most Democrats and most policy analysts pointed out BEFORE the war could have broken down its rationale.  Clear and forceful debate could have swayed people like Coble before the war, and could have seriously weakened the WH's case.  At the very least, they might have had to propose an invasion plan that made sense, had provisions for supplying the troops, and had an exit plan.

    But Democrats chose NOT to voice those objections, not to fight for their core beliefs-- or even for simple competent planning, and to simply fold on the issue due to idiotic and poorly implemented "pragmatism".  And we see the tragic result today.

    Let there be no mistake about exactly what I mean.  The Democratic party has the death of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians on its hands.  I blame the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans because, as a party that is generally anti-war and a party whose mission is to basically oppose the policies of a Republican President, we clearly failed in our responsibility.  We are an opposition party, but we were too scared to actually oppose.  And human beings have died as a result.  I wonder if that weighs on Al From's mind as he tries to sleep at night...

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:18:01 AM PDT

    •  I hate to waste time looking backward... (4.00 / 6)

      ... but imagine if Kerry had actually stood up for what he had beleieved and fought for his whole life (no senseless wars) instead of opting for the politically-expedient (with a looming presidential run) vote in favor of authorization.

      How different a situation we might be facing today.

      But that, of course, would have requires moral certitude.

      [NOTE: I liked Kerry and worked hard for him in two swing states, but that vote ended up being his Achilles Heel.)

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:36:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes! (none / 1)

        Kerry (and Gore in 2000) compromised their core beliefs and values because it supposedly would help them attract centrist voters in the presidential elections. Instead those "compromises" made Gore and Kerry look flip-floppy and weak and that cost them a lot of voters.

        I hope this will encourage Democrats to stand up for their ideals in the coming elections. Pleeease no more "I was against the war before I was in favour of the war and then turned against it again"-messages!

        by Zagatzz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:56:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not finding WMD (none / 0)

        hurt Kerry more than Bush.

        But the fear that we WOULD find WMD is what prevented Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards from being against the war.

        Read Kerry's speech on the floor.  He believed they had WMD and he believed it was worth putting in inspectors.

        He never brought up that speech, which vindicated him from waffling, because it undermined the "no WMD" meme.

        And Bush barely used Kerry's speech for the converse reasons.

        It's almost like he never made the speech.

        Booman Tribune

        by BooMan23 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:04:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, what hurt Kerry was bigger. (none / 0)

          When the Rove machine insisted that he had voted for it, he knew that there were many more than one vote.  There were years of votes.  There were years of sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee and failing to challenge the DoD program for redeployement.
          I always wondered why the initial antagonism to placing some fancy new missiles in Germany went away.  They must have been promised that everything would be withdrawn within a certain amount of time and if no new antagonism with the former communists arose.

          How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

          by hannah on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:31:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Convictions denied (none / 0)

        ... but imagine if Kerry had actually stood up for what he had beleieved and fought for his whole life (no senseless wars) instead of opting for the politically-expedient (with a looming presidential run) vote in favor of authorization.

        GIVEN KERRY'S VIETNAM EXPERIENCE, HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER, NEVER VOTED TO REPEAT THAT CRAP!  NEVER!  Kerry violated his own vietnam warnings, as if he had a complete reversal of his great convictions as shown by his speech to the Senate subcommittee in 1971.  Did he actually have this complete conviction reversal, or was he too much of a wimp to stand up for what his ideals in his younger days taught him because of some missplaced and faulty political barometer reading?  

        Most voters sensed the latter, and so did I.  I believe the Bush campaign then turned this on him but good in the political adds before the election.  That may have cost him enough votes to lose.

        by truthbetold on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:35:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Rs Took Kerry's Biggest Asset, (none / 0)

          his principled opposition to immoral wars, and made him eat it because of his unprincipled Iraq War votes. Even I had to hold my nose when I voted for him -- I was so disgusted with his political posturing in the run-up to the war.

          I'm convinced that's why we lost. Are any D politicians fucking noticing AND doing something about standing up for our core anti-war, anti-empire, values?

          "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

          by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Democratic Party isn't anti-war (none / 0)

      it's anti-stupidnonsensicalwarwhichonlyserveswellplacedcronies war

      by bostonmass on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:48:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait A Minute (none / 0)

        before you start splattering all of us with your blabber. Don't fucking tar ALL the Democratic Party with this bull. I know a lot of Democrats who are anti-war.

        "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

        by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:40:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The blame goes even further (none / 0)

      Real journalism was astonishingly poor in the lead up to the invasion. No. It was worse than poor. Corporate media was complicit in this debacle because they saw ratings and dollars signs. Operation Shock and Awe was a video game to them. Why did media not ask and report on the tough questions, the risks, the true human toll?

      And finally, the American people are to blame. We have brains. We can think critically. The information is there if ones seeks it. But a majority blindly went along without protest, and those of us who did protest were told in no uncertain terms to mind our own business.

      So there's plenty of blame to go around. Now, what's the solution to Bush's debacle? I got nothin'

      by Rp on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:40:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Armando(who never sleeps) (none / 0)

    How do I vote for Blog award? I went to the site and couldn't figure it out. My Bad? Just scroll down and write comment?

    It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Chamonix on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:19:01 AM PDT

  •  This just makes me sick. (none / 0)

    Why were these questions NOT asked in the first place?

    Shorter Coble: "If I'd known it was going to get fubar'd I wouldn't have rubberstamped it."

    That goes for every Congresscritter and journalist/editor who didn't ask those questions.

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

    by boadicea on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:23:53 AM PDT

  •  Has anybody (none / 0)

    put together a list of the things we knew befor the war that asses like this claim they didn't know? Just a handy catalogue of the things like aluminium tubes that could "only" been used for nucular devices.

    by Mike S on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:25:10 AM PDT

  •  For the record (4.00 / 3)

    The front page of daily kos is currently graced with a post from a former soldier  and a soldier who both oppose the Iraq Debacle.

    Hell of a Lefty peacenik site kos is running here.

    Everybody dies alone.

    by Armando on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:39:54 AM PDT

  •  Let's Protest the War on Inauguration Day... (4.00 / 2)

    Somebody just forwarded the best idea I've seen for January 20th: "Not One Damn Dime Day":

    Friday, January 7, 2005
    GREGG HERRINGTON Columbian staff writer [Vancouver, Washington]

    An unusual, "anyone-can-join" protest of the Iraq war is in the works, more or less, for President Bush's inauguration day, Jan. 20. It isn't getting much press, but it's being talked up on Internet Web pages. It is, I believe, a sign not just of frustration with the military morass but also of the helplessness Americans not already part of Bush's political base feel about influencing this administration, on anything.

    Here's a link to the editorial that promotes the concept:

    http://tinyurl.com/6ltwh

    Pass it on!

    "It's hard to think straight when you have a crooked mind." ~ Snidely Whiplash

    by Bugsby on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:40:06 AM PDT

    •  Shoot, I Wouldn't Be Caught Within 100 Miles (none / 0)

      of Washington during inauguration. Does the Iraqi Insurgency have the capability of bringing this war home, or allies that can do it? Would they hit us here if they could? Have our leaders done much of anything to protect us?

      As many would say. But then if I was in the area I wouldn't miss it.

      "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

      by chuco35 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:48:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't have to go to Washington to protest... (none / 0)

        Chuco35--

        Indeed, you don't even have to leave home!

        The idea is to spend Inauguration Day without spending one damn dime. The name of the editorial is: "Can the Silence of Cash Registers Make a Sound?"

        Check it out!  

        http://tinyurl.com/6ltwh

        "It's hard to think straight when you have a crooked mind." ~ Snidely Whiplash

        by Bugsby on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 04:18:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  CYA - October 2002 (none / 0)

    Fear mongoring and UN bashing had priority in the WH and Congress in the run-up to mid-term elections 2002. Iraq IF was not the issue, only WHEN as the forlong planned attack decision was accepted on the Hill. Positioning by members of Congress was to get re-elected, not the legitimacy of war on Iraq.

    Only that damned Tony Blair needed for his constituency the route through the UN-SC. Bush&Co never wanted to waste this time, preferring to make UN irrelevant, and ultimately didn't wait for its outcome. Rumsfeld didn't care either way, he was gung ho to go.

    MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 8, 2003 (UPI) -- Rumsfeld
    had warned Germany and France -- the most vociferous critics of the U.S. hard-line toward Iraq -- they risk isolating themselves rather than the United States if they continue their resistance to forcing Iraq to disarm.

    Rumsfeld remark sparks Whitehall panic
    The Guardian March 12, 2003 -- The idea that Washington might be contemplating a military assault on Iraq without British troops provoked a mixture of panic and fury in Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence last night. Officials in London were caught off guard by briefing of US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. But military experts said that US war plans, though they would be severely hindered by the withdrawal of UK forces, could, if necessary, accommodate such an eventuality.

    In 2005 - Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

    NEW DIARY - PROPAG - GOPUSA in Texas & UA Richard Powell Investigated

    by creve coeur on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:51:29 AM PDT

  •  At least he's finally come out of the closet... (none / 0)

    The more people who speak the truth, the louder it becomes.

    Stop trying to frame the issues. Paint pictures instead.

    by Toto on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:52:03 AM PDT

    •  This is not entirely true. (none / 1)

      Who is doing the speaking, and where, and what are they saying?  It all depends.

      Hundreds of people in Ohio have been speaking the truth about the election shenanigans and corruption there, and only some people have heard their loud cry.  And when those blessed, courageous people-- members of the House and Senate-- took the cry to the House, and to the newspapers, and challenged the electoral vote, there was only a trickle of news coverage.  There was effectively a muffling of the cry.  

      A woman from Ohio was arrested and given six months in prison for shouting out, during the certification of the electoral vote in Congress, that George Voinovich was a liar about the Ohio election.  She was given six months in prison for a short, simple sentence that spoke the truth.  And her truth is being muzzled too.

      So it all depends.

      by concernedamerican on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 07:48:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Flashbacks (none / 0)

    I remember my husband watching the Fox early morning show when the cause for war was being made and how they were damn near in an orgiastic frenzy about hit and awe. Too bad we didn't record the shows where they were sneering at the protesters and make a greatest hits DVD.

    If you can't support the veterans you have, don't make any new ones.

    by slackjawedlackey on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:08:32 AM PDT

    •  Oh I hope (none / 0)

      that some did.  FOX is a network full of vile, blind, Armstrong Williams death squad apologists

      by erickh on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:26:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Flashbacks (none / 0)

      Too bad we didn't record the shows where they were sneering at the protesters and make a greatest hits DVD.

      It's interesting how, as kos points out, protesters pointed out many of these issues before the fact and were ignored or mocked. Whenever any admits that, gee, maybe this wasn't a good idea after all, I look for any sort of acknowledgement -- however grudging or backhanded -- that maybe the protesters were right after all. Ha! Dead silence.

      Fuck manners. People who spoke out before the war should be in-your-face about it. The cry should be: We told you so!

      [sigh] Not, of course, that anyone will listen to that, either. And next time Our Leaders crank the public up into another war, any resistance will probably be handled just as dismissively as it was last time.

      "All progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

      by Bearpaw on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:08:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's about time (none / 0)

    If Iraq has nothing to do with Vietnam, why does it feel like 1966

    Now it begins, the warlike American public finally starts to turn against the war as they realize that they believed a lie. That their military isn't invincible, and their pious president is a dangerous combination of naivete and arrogance.  Now the bloodlust fades and all we have to show for it a country that hates us, a world that has lost respect for us, several leveled cities and our own lost self-respect.

    It's a cliche, but we did not learn from Vietnam and now we've repeated it.

    A Liberal Primal Screen

    by erickh on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:23:26 AM PDT

  •  Hold Bushco accountable (none / 0)

    The NYT has a front page story today on the growing  chorus of Bush officials and congresspeople back from break who are ready to get out by having the Iraqis ask us to leave.

    The majority of voters have already refusted to hold Bush accountable at election time.  Some Democratic leader has to stand up NOW and chain this debacle to Bushco before they get around to defining this as a victory.  I'm not counting on voters to remember much of anything without some leadership.

    It's indicative of their cluelessness that some Bushco voices are calling for 2 decades of an American presence while others are casting about for a withdrawal immediately after the election.  Can't any Democrat stand up and call attention to this utter lack of knowing where to go?

    by Pellice on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:32:18 AM PDT

    •  Allawi won't ask US to leave (none / 0)

      as the US is the only thing keeping him and the other criminal exiles in power.  Real Iraqis, who hate the people installed by Bremer in 2003, will sweep the palaces clean of these kleptocrats the moment the marines take the last flight home.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:49:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've already been there two decades. (none / 0)

      Reagan plus Bush I and II.  The mistake Clinton made was that he went along with the game plan.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:19:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Rep Coble (none / 0)

    if you had known there was no post invasion strategy, no you didn't want to know the truth because like all in the GOP you can't handle the truth, thats what makes you wingnuts, you react from agenda and emotion, logic and common sense be dammed.
    Now its time for you and your ilk to demand the DEMs fix this mess because its all Clintons fault, sounds familiar huh!
    Sounds like GOPs leaving the sinking ship is beginning, I'd say rats but I have more respect for that creature then to link them to the GOP.
    PS - I'll bet the heat is getting very uncomfortable at home, RIGHT Mr Coble!
    PEACE!

    by PC on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:43:02 AM PDT

  •  Red State Democrat here (4.00 / 2)

    Wish I could figure the motivation for this:

    1. Epiphany and legitimate reality check
    2. Other career plans

                        or

        1. Act One, Scene One of "We've Won, the War is Over!" from DubCo productions.

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:09:04 AM PDT

  •  Fire somebody already (none / 0)

    Okay . . . pro-Bush Republicans are now speaking out against the occupation and its planning or lack thereof.

    Now . . . I want to see some heads roll.

    I think that if there is one universal irritant that strikes across the political spectrum, it is that Bushies are above the law.  The only people to get fired seem to be naysayers within the administration, not the incompetents and not the criminals.

    I doubt that head will roll soon . . . so let's make noise about the brazen Bush administration's lack of accountability.

    Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.

    by rhubarb on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:27:29 AM PDT

  •  The rhetoric needs fine-tuning (none / 0)

    Kos writes about "Extraordinary bad judgment from a president". But since he does not have an intellect, Bush is incapable of judgment of any kind, even bad judgment. "Going with your gut" does not amount to making a judgment.

    Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

    by Alexander on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:44:18 AM PDT

  •  On Meet the Press (none / 0)

    ...yesterday, Albert Hunt emphasized that in the end, we are likely to usher in an somewhat democraticallly elected Islamist theocracy that leans towards Iran.

    Given that a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to become the focus of Mideast tensions in the coming months, what the hell are we getting into?

    by baldandy on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:10:32 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't a matter of a few questions. (none / 1)

    If the neocons weren't such lousy businessmen they would have adhered to the principle of "sunk costs" which is a fancy term for "don't throw good money after bad."
    The problem was and is that the U.S. had been "investing" in Iraq for decades in the expectation that eventually we would b