Contact Us

.

« Dems singing blues over smaller role despite bigger numbers | Main | Morning buzz »

January 10, 2007

Comments

Ed Friedemann

The Degenerate had the nerve to make the King of the Zionists, Joe Lieberman as 'overseer' of our Middle East Foreign Policy?

And he is willing to gamble with America's sons and daughters but not his daughters, although he is so deranged that he'd probably throw them in the mix if given the chance.

The 'mass killing on an unimaginable scale' are the ones he's already killed, with the actual count of 3000+ American soldiers dead and over one million Iraqis dead. 28,000 soldiers have lost their arms and legs and eyesight and that list goes on and on and on.

Who the Hell does this Jerk think he is?

The 'Degenerate' has set us up for the biggest massacre of Iraqis yet, plus an invasion of Iran with nukes.

If this clown sets the Middle East Oil Field on fire, you can kiss our economy goodbye.

There is not one logical reason not to bring our troops home right now.

Not one.

Old Drum

What does this mean?

. . . in the end the American people will give him more time to turn around the war in Iraq. . .

I would love to know what we, the American people, could do to stop this insanity. Do we declare a national strike? Do we stop paying our taxes?

Of course, in November the American people changed the make up of both the House and Senate.

With people like Brownback not supporting this insanity, I would hope the Congress will vote on Kennedy's bill that the Congress must vote on any appropriations to add troops beyond the number that were there on January 7th.

and Congress will not have the political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war . . .

Of course, what will this mean if in 6 months (the standard measure over the last three years to turn things around in Iraq) our good journalist of the NY Times leaves unanswered.

platecohighschooler

Yet another fair and balanced look at the situation from the NYT. Why the hell do we look to the coasts for our news?


Anyways, this stuff isn't anything new, but there are some wise moves in the plan. First is the lift of restrictions on engagement. You shouldn't need 7 conditions to save your own life. Two, Bush says we need complete Iraqi control in November.

Too bad we didn't have this earlier.

platecohighschooler

Friedmann,

I am tired of your hate of Jews. You are incredibly ignorant. Go nail your cousin and join the KKK.

$hit.

Peace  Works

What do we do? Come to Nichols Fountain on the Plaza tomorrow (Thursday) at 6 pm to SAY NO TO THE SURGE. It is time for this madness to STOP!!

There will be petitions, candles for our fallen troops and speakers.

Come join us and help Kansas City SAY NO THE SURGE!!

AMERICA SAYS NO TO THE SURGE!!

High Schooler, sounds like you need to enlist and direct that hate at the 'terrists' in Iraq. Until you have more intelligent comments to post on the internet, the military is your best option.

platecohighschooler

Hey, jackass, my cousins in the military. In fact, he's in Iraq right now. He's got a son and a wife you could only dream of. And he's a hell of alot braver than you. So you better shut your mouth.

platecohighschooler

And I never said 'terrists'.

Your cousin's service does NOT excuse your ignorance and blind loyalty to a failed plan and an illegal war.

If he dies, his blood is on your hands!!

Now as soon as you get that high school diploma, head on south of the river and sign up. Your pResident needs YOU.

Mizzou82

"In a sense, it is a predictable path for Mr. Bush. This, after all, is the same president who lost the popular vote in 2000, was installed in the White House by a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court and then governed as if he had won by a landslide. And this is the same president who, after winning re-election in 2004, famously told reporters that he had 'earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.'”

He's spending not only our money but our lives.

SEN. NORM COLEMAN (R), MINNESOTA: A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It will put more American soldiers in the crosshairs of sectarian violence, create more targets. I just don't believe this makes sense.

SEN. NORMAN COLEMAN (R), MINNESOTA: If Iraq is to fulfill its role as a sovereign and democratic state, it must start acting like one. It is for this reason that I oppose the proposal for a troop surge. I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad, where violence can only be defined as sectarian.


*********************


hey, highschooler, don't worry, if Bush has his way we'll still be fighting in Iraq by the time you turn 18. No doubt that as a "patriotic" young man, you will enlist the day after you graduate high school.

political moderate

It seems Mizzou82 is correct by characterizing this move as "predictable".
Bush's plan smacks of the same plan that got us into the quagmire of this war...
We engaged Iraqi without a plan to win the peace and leave.
Today, we escalate the Iraqi war without a plan to win the peace and leave.
Bush ignores the advice of the best and determines his own path...created over the broken and dead of America.

Keith Olbermann

President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary. Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',the enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Protractor

I challenge ANYONE to debate Keith Olberman's points as outlined above. I think he JUST about covers it.

Anyone?...Anyone?...Bueller?...Bueller?

Those of you aged 18-25...make sure now that you are registered with Selective Service.

Bush faces GOP doubters
Republicans not quiet about war plan worries

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican, would rather not be in the position of publicly disagreeing with President Bush.

But when it comes to Iraq, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are breaking away, leaving Bush to lay out his new plan without the usually reliable array of GOP support.

"I don't want to embarrass the president, but my position is clear," said Coleman, who visited Iraq last month. "I do not believe that a surge in troops is going to solve the fundamental problem we have."

Coleman and other Republicans are becoming increasingly public with their view that the ongoing violence in Baghdad requires a political solution, not a military one. "Iraqis have to decide they're going to stop killing themselves," he said.

That Democrats are aggressively opposing Bush's plan to boost the number of troops in Iraq is hardly surprising. The midterm elections that brought them to power this year turned, in large part, on voters' dissatisfaction with the war.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they are talking to their Republican colleagues, hoping to persuade many of them to support a non-binding resolution that would express disapproval about escalating the war.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that while those conversations are taking place, Republicans are arriving at their opinions independent of Democratic persuasion.

"I think you're seeing the Republicans respond to what is the overwhelming sentiment of the country, and to what is the reality of the military's observation that the proposals will not work," Hoyer said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the assistant Senate majority leader from Illinois, said there is no question that Democrats could pass some sort of resolution expressing disapproval of the war in Iraq and with Bush's handling of that war.

"But many of us believe the most effective message from Capitol Hill is a bipartisan message," said Durbin, who later gave the official Democratic response to Bush's speech. "If the president believes support from his own party is at risk, he may have second thoughts." Many Republicans say they have formed their opinions from traveling to Iraq and the surrounding region and talking to military officials there.

"Based on the trip I took to Iraq last month, I concluded it would be a mistake to increase the overall level of troops in Iraq," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0701110203jan11,1,4350597.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Republicans Brownback, Coleman, and Snowe are against the surge/escalation....all three have visited Iraq.....hmmmmmm?

political moderate

Anon @ 8:26.
Nice job of fleshing out the issues.
Please add to your list the diplomatic failure of not engaging neighboring countries in the effort to stabilize Southwest Asia in general and Iraq in particular.
Bush failed again last night to launch a "peace" overture to these nations.
Winston Churchill said it best 60 years ago when he said it was always better to "jaw-jaw than to war-war."

tsquare

Two out of three military folks I spoke with since the speech hang their hopes on this section of the speech:

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. AND THERE WERE TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE TROOPS we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.”

They say, that if we allow them to ‘take the gloves off’ and kill the bad guys, that yes, this plan will work.

If not, same old, same old.

Good speech, not a great speech, though 1000% better than the response given by Dick Durbin…

Durbin simply assumed credit for the Bush policy of deposing Saddam, fostering democracy, and then blamed the Iraqis and said enough was enough. Not a word followed about the effects of a rapid withdrawal. In other words, the Democratic policy is that anything good in Iraq they supported, anything bad they opposed. And they will now harp yet do nothing — except whine in fear the surge might actually work.

Now, what WILL HAPPEN?

I haven’t a clue…

What should happen is that every Iraqi out there should put all their ‘toys’ away, and run into the streets to greet these troops with flowers and dancing and when we leave, go back to killing folks as they like.

But that won’t happen…for like it or not, this has become an international battlefield…Iran is ‘fighting’ us, the US there. So, what should happen, likely will not happen.

So, another round of betting in this the ‘Great Game’ rather than fold, Bush raised. Will Iran? Will AQ? In a classic guerrilla war, you retreat in the face of strength, attack where he is weak. But AQ doesn’t seem to know that, or doesn’t care. And what of the other actors? What will the other players do?

We will see…

I feel the passion in each of your comments. I am impressed by the content of your knowledge and the awareness that drives you to make the statements that are on this blog.

Needless to say, you are beyond being influenced by what each other's stand is and where it comes from. Deep within your own lifetime of experiences you have become the total of what drives your beliefs. I am also.

I received a phone call from my 7 yr. old grand daughter last night, sobbing with an emptiness so deep for her father who has been in Iraq since this last summer. There is not enough space for my comments on the up close and personal sacrifices that my whole family has made and is making on a daily basis. Simply to keep life on a fairly normal keel, always aware of what the end of this odyssey might be for them. And we are but a pebble of sand among all of the other families here and on the other side of the world who are a part of this.

It is so easy in all areas of our daily lives to be armchair quarterbacks.

Right now, beyond this, I must say that the greatest pain that they face on a daily basis, beyond "Daddy's" absence is the carelessness and constant reminder of the atrocities and dangers that he lives daily. There is nothing that rubs there noses into it more vividly than our media...and the misfortune they had of driving by one of these protests and the visible crudeness presented to the public. I believe in the right to do this, but as with most things, it has gone beyond civility and puts us in an arena not so far removed from what we criticize others for in their protests. In some countries it is a human head on a bridge. It was my grand childs heart along Ward Parkway at 63rd.

From where I sit at this moment, I see as much harm being done in the guise of our rights to do this or that...with no "governor" on the lengths to which the human mind is capable...with the words and images that are being projected into the hearts and minds of us here burning the home fires.

Needless to say, we are all the walking wounded in one way or the other. I am just sad that there is not a concerted effort to protect our babies. They are the hope for the future and the only way that we will one day get beyond the human flaw of ego and the quest for power.

Please tell that little girl that we ALL want her father to come home to her. I was in DC last week to march against the escalation outlined last night as a means to that exact end. As a veteran, son of a veteran, brother of multiple veterans, grandson, great-grandson, etc., etc. of veterans, I want ALL of the fathers (mothers, brother, sisters, sons, daughters, etc., etc.) to come home before even one more is lost. They are all heroes and have accomplished the mission they were sent to achieve. It's time to bring them home.

As far as the method of some protestors, democracy isn't always pretty and I am convinced the types of protests to which you refer will become more common place. Alas, that is democracy.

political moderate

While I believe that it is imperative that Americans continue to evaluate and discuss the issues of the day, I do respect the pain this sometimes causes to the families.
It is important to teach the children this practice of debate and protest is what soldiers have fought to protect since our country was created.
Every time she hears commentary or sees a protest, she should be reminded that is why her father is so important an American.
He is doing his part to allow this to happen. And while we may disagree with the content of the protest we must take enormous pride in its practice.

How can we possibly expect to bring democracy to other nations if some choose to extinguish the expression of democracy here at home.


Another poster with a 7 year old granddaughter whose daddy is in Iraq and doesn't like protesters? Hmmmmm...a more thoughtful letter this time though.

Why hasn't Angela who worked in the pizza hut written in to say she lost her job because of the min wage hike? Or was that another person who worked in the pizza hut?

I just can't keep the stories straight anymore.

I am in awe of those next three comments. This is the exact discourse that I feel we as thoughtful, caring people can share and make our points.

Thank you, I needed that. I find I am overwhelmed by so much of what permeates our society today. What robs my grandchildren of what I lived. There were wars, there were parts of society that my parents feared for with me...but I see and feel a "degenerate" side of humanity that is new...I weep for our loss, for the coarseness of society.

Believe me, I do remind myself and my grandchildren of the valor of this man. They get the drill everyday, but it does not quell the ache in their hearts and spirit..that same spot deep inside that gives you this passion.

Yes, they all need to come home.

Jake

I am against the troop surge, but do you really think Kennedy's funding bill will do anything to change that? Bush isn't bringing the troops home anytime soon. He is stuborn. Everyone knows that. If Congress shuts off funding, we are leaving our boys there without anything. I think this will come back on the Dems and Congress.

jenniferm

I think that is the game that is now being played. Bush is sending these troops today or keeping the ones there that are scheduled to come home, so that preempts any discussion on funding/escalation. Once junior gets the troops there, the Dems can't cut off funding, because they can't unilaterally bring them home. It's all politics now.

Before the election funding bills would come before Congress and the lapdogs in the leadership used it as a way to paint the Dems as "not supporting the troops". Now just do it, ask for funding later, then paint the Dems as "not supporting the troops".

I thought we would be through with this chicken_sh!t stuff, but I guess not.

The comments to this entry are closed.