Another Democratic ploy
This letter has not been edited.
No but I do wonder why you write so many letters. Why don't you sign up and go fight by stupid chickenhawk?
Posted by Cathy on March 30, 2007 07:20 AMWhat is the "mission"? Who is the "enemy"? Brian, why don't you come up with something different and original. All you do is spout the same "old" Bush propaganda.
Posted by Chalker on March 30, 2007 07:53 AMIt continues to amaze me that Bush supporters always leave out the fact that we are in Iraq because of a LIE. We were lied to, continue to be lied to and then rebuked because we don't see this war as legitimate. I want us to make this right before we leave because we have caused a hugh mess--based on lies, remember-- that will have serious consequences for years to come. However, I am torn because continuing to send men and women to this war, some of whom will die, makes me sick to my stomack. Not because I don't support or military, but because this war was predicated on the lies of an administration and president who have done more to destroy this country than anyone.
Posted by alex on March 30, 2007 08:24 AMThe Bush haters club needs to quit whining and pretending they are victims that were lied to. Your dems in congress had the same intelligence to look at as Bush. If all your congressmen are good for nodding their heads and later blaming others for their incompitence, they don't belong in office to begin with.
Posted by KW on March 30, 2007 08:52 AMI just want to agree with KW. Believe me, when I say that I hold the congress, dems and repubs accountable for doing what was politically expedient and not doing what they knew to be morally and legally right. Unfortunately, there is more than enough blood to cover all the hands involved.
Posted by alex on March 30, 2007 08:57 AMBrian Stuckey and KW writing the same exact letters they've written 300 times before. Yawn.
Do you guys have jobs? What line of work allows you to dick around here all day every day?
Wait, scratch that. That almost sounded like I care about you.
Posted by Brian Stuckey Fan Club President on March 30, 2007 09:07 AMI'd rather have seen a resolution that criticizes the rest of the world for not supporting a reasonable resolution in the region. Whether we are the bad guys or not, whether you hate Bush and Cheney or not, it is now a world problem, with world consequences. And don't just criticize your own country when the solution lies elsewhere. It looks bad and gives the criminal UN a pass.
Posted by Bob on March 30, 2007 09:58 AMBrian Stuckey Fan Club President , interesting you would bring up work, what kind of job allows you to read KW's writings and bitch in the forum about them all day?
Posted by on March 30, 2007 10:35 AMBrain Stuckey states: "The Senate resolution, S.J. Res. 9, is just another Democratic ploy to undermine our mission in Iraq."
The person who has most undermined our mission in Iraq is President Bush.
The problem of whether to go forward with the surge is a most difficult one, made that way by the ineptness of President Bush.
The wide breadth of the opinion that the surge would not work, not from the politicians but from military people and people who seem to have a good deal of expertise about the Middle East has impressed me considerably. While I hope that the surge will work, nonetheless, based on the foregoing opinions, I have the feeling that the surge indeed will not work in the sense of creating a lasting change in the environment in Iraq. What I fear is that it is the intent of our president to prolong the war until the end of his term. What I also fear is that the president will continue to misinform the American people about how the war is going. I also trouble that what we are doing in Iraq will significantly hamper our efforts elsewhere, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and there are other potential or existing hotspots such as Somalia, and even Pakistan.
And what I resent is the constant claim that those who try to look at the situation realistically rather than through rose colored glasses are accused of being unpatriotic or cowards, as though cowardice is refusing to send someone else to fight.
While I admit to being troubled by the way the Democratically controlled Congress is attempting to deal with the matter, I don't know how else someone whose conviction is that we are doing the wrong thing can support that conviction. However, I must say that I disagree with the addition of pork to the bill regarding the continued funding issue. I don't like the idea of a congressperson voting on such a critical matter because of pork rather than principle.
I also wonder what standing the American people have in whether we should continue to send our troops and our money to fight a war. Certainly, they have no business trying to control the military tactics. But can a president really go to, or continue, a war indefinitely with the American people having no say so? There is something totalitarian about that. Does the president's opinion regaring war always have veto power over the opinion of the American people?
Posted by Truth on March 30, 2007 10:52 AMWow, Cathy and Chalker are just too persuasive to argue with. I’ll just have to address some of the other comments…
Alex: We don’t “leave out” the idea that Bush lied. We DISAGREE.
KW: What do you mean, “the Bush haters club needs to stop whining”? We just had a thorough discussion on this and PROVED that Dems don’t whine, REPUBLICANS whine! I know you were there for that discussion. What Dems do is called ACTION! They are having protests, and vigils, and making signs about Bush to carry around- man, it’s only a matter of time until these tactics defeat terrorism! Dude, there’s even pretty girls walking around topless carrying those signs! What do you call that if not ACTION? So, forget all this military crap. That’s just the “cycle of violence,” buddy. Get with the program! Get with topless girls walking around protesting and carrying signs. Gee-wiz… you should know this by now. ; )
Brian Stuckey Fan Club President: I just want to remind you that, when you read Brian’s letters and respond in the forum discussing his letters, you’re not just the president of the Brian Stuckey Fan Club- you’re also a member.
Truth- The Dem controlled congress IS the people having a say-so. But they have to say-so in enough numbers that provide congress the means to over-rule a veto, or the previous say-so of the presidential election still carries the day. One reason our system works well is because the tendency is for power to shift slowly rather than rapidly, in most instances. I couldn’t agree more about your observation on how the Dems are handling it, though. They really shouldn’t play politics with this stuff, but I suppose the temptation to pork is irresistible, and just as much so to Repubs, too often for my taste. I would respect Dems in congress more if they just kept arguing and voting to de-fund the war and pull out, instead of passing non-binding resolutions, making “time-tables” and padding the budget. I would respect Republicans in congress more if they would if they would stand firm and take the heat for what they think is right, instead of trying to duck and dodge around the issues.
Michael - I forgot about the whiney argument. Your right, those libby's beat us everytime we try and argue a point, they're just too smart for us... what do they call us again? Oh yeah, foot soldiers who only listen to Rush, OReilly and Hannity.
I may consider becoming a dem, if only to hang out with the topless girls. Are they cute or more like Hillary?
But what do you mean "defeat terrorism?" There is no terrorism. The libby's here keep telling me it's all a bunch of scare tactics from the evil Bush & Co so they can control all the oil in the world. And Rosie, well, she's already got the whole Iran hostage thing figured out because it never really happened. She also tells me suicide bombers are mothers and fathers just like us sweet Americans so we shouldn't rush (there's that word again) to judgement but rather sit down and chat with them over a gyro or something.
I sure do learn a lot chatting with these libbys. They're pretty sweet too, never resorting to name calling or profanity or anything that might offend me because they're on the side of tolerence, not hate speech.
Can we have a group hug now?
Posted by KW on March 30, 2007 02:26 PMBirds of a feather, flock together. In the case of Michael and KW that would be Chickenhawks.
Posted by Obvious on March 30, 2007 03:15 PMNo obvious, we're foot soldiers. Remember?
Posted by KW on March 30, 2007 03:31 PMFirst Point: we didn't go to war based on a lie. After the first Gulf War the UN placed certain rules that Iraq was required to follow including getting rid of WMD and proving to the UN and the IAEA that they had gotten rid of WMD. For 12 years they continued to defy the UN and IAEA by saying that they had ridded themselves of WMD but never once proved it including denying acces to inspectors. In 12 years of defiance they racked up 17 UN resolutions condemning Iraqi defiance sometimes very harshly implying that military retaliation would ensue without cooperation. Also, you must account for the numerous times that American forces were fired upon while patroling the "no fly zone". Whether the NFZ was sanctioned by the UN or not does not give Iraq the right to fire at our military. Also, you must account for Saddam Hussein supporting terrorists by paying the families of suicide bombers. The bombers may not have been Al-Qaeda nor specifically bombing american targets but terrorism is terrorism and can not be allowed.
After 9-11 we no longer had the option to play these silly games with Iraq. In fact we can't play these silly games with anyone. If Iraq had complied as it was told to do from the beginning we would not be there today. Like it or not we had every right to invade.
In an effort to avoid this post being any longer, I will save points 2 and 3 until I return from running a few errands.
Posted by Dleef23 on March 30, 2007 04:13 PMKW, no, it's "ditto heads", "foot soldiers" is a term that implies actual military service, something you seem to have in common with Cheney as absentees
Posted by on March 30, 2007 04:20 PMdleef - Don't waste your time with the libbys here. They don't want to hear about the facts. For them it makes more sense that Bush lied, the senate was tricked into voting for invasion, and the real reason for the was is because Bush and Cheney want all the worlds oil.
I even get people saying that Iran was in the right to take the hostages and we need to apologize for being there in the first place.
How can you argue with libby logic like that?
Posted by KW on March 30, 2007 04:28 PMKW, how close were those troops to the UK territorial waters compared to those of Iran?
um, duh.
If Iran had patrol boats within a few miles of Portsmouth, do you think the Brits would nab them, if they had patrol boats 2 miles from any US port, you think we would let them by?
The degree of hypocrisy is stunning. It's ok for the brits to put boats right inside Iranian waters, but if they react to that , oh my, they are so aggressive!
Hogwash.
The brits are trying to antagonize the Iranians into reacting. that's all!
Author - http://www.iava.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=270&Itemid=147
Republicans in congress and the president support the troops? Really! What planet are you living on.
Posted by a vet on March 30, 2007 11:26 PMTruth,
The war will not go on indefinelty. It's probably true, and the polls tell us, that most Americans wish we were not in Iraq. But is not true that most Americans want us to simply pull out.
If that were true then the Democrats in Congress would likely vote to defund the war. Instead all we have is this politcal theater of legislating non-binding resolutions to withdraw in March 2008.
The Petraeus strategy will be fought out on the ground and within the next few months we will have a clearer understanding of whether we, or more accurately the Iraqi's, are making progress.
It's not the answer we want but, there times for waiting and this is one.
Posted by Jim J on March 31, 2007 06:33 AMJim J: 'all we have is this politcal theater of legislating non-binding resolutions to withdraw in March 2008."
No one would deny an American citizen the right to express his dissatisfaction with the President's policy, even though that opinion would be nonbinding.
But Congress has no business expressing its dissatisfaction? Come on. It would be remiss if it did not express its opinion.
Some Republicans, such as Michael Trimble, who want the surge to continue nevertheless say that, well, if the Democrats want to put a stop to the war then they should have the courage to stop the funding. Clearly, those who say this do not want the funding stopped. So, what is their motive? I say it is a purely political motive; they think that the Republicans can gain political ground if the Democrats vote to stop the funding.
I presume that those I am referring to are different from those Republicans who argue just the opposite and say that stopping the funding would be an micromanagement. How about a debate between those Republicans who think that the Democrats should vote to stop the funding, and those Republicans who say that would be micromanaging?
It is quite appropriate for a Congressman to think that Congress should express its opinion about the war without trying to force that opinion on the President. Whether Congress should go further and stop the funding is a real conundrum on which I am conflcted.
The conundrum that Congress faces is the work of President Bush. I'm reminded of that story about the left fielder who kept dropping fly balls, so the manager replaced him. His successor continued to drop fly balls and the manager asked him what was going on. He said the the first outfielder had screwed left field up so bad that no one could play it.
That's what President Bush has done. Screwed Iraq up so bad that no one can play it.
Truth- it’s a fair question, why do we say “don’t vote non-binding resolutions” but we also say, “hey you want out, de-fund the war.” And I appreciate you saying “I say it’s because…” instead of some, who say “Obviously, they do this because…” and then throwing out some insult.
Here’s the deal: I don’t like congress passing resolutions showing the enemy that they should hold out and see who gets in on the next presidential election. Right now, they have a 2-year window to wait out, because they know any Dem who gets in (of those running) will bail out of Iraq in the “right now” way, and a Dem congress will support that move. It’s no mystery in congress who supports what, but we should leave it a mystery if we would pull out right away or not, and on what schedule. If the bill won’t become law, it’s just grandstanding anyway, and each congressmen can tell their voters what their position is anyway. I say Dems should vote on withdrawing immediately because they would expose their real sentiments to the voters, and then we would not wind up with a congress and president who want to pull-out (my opinion only). I don’t believe a “pull-out now” vote would pass anyway, for exactly that reason- which might discourage the enemy, not encourage him to hold out “just a few more months.”
A vet- Earth. Thanks for asking. Which planet do you think you are on?
(thanks for your service, buddy- for real)
4:53- boats outside our territorial waters would not be molested unless we had cause to believe they were an immediate danger. We might surround them with gunships and make our thoughts known real clearly, though. If you think Iran is doing anything other than provoking, testing, and flexing, you must be on the same planet as “a vet.”
Obvious- That’s really terrific. Can you say the one about “a stitch in time saves nine” too? Way to go, buddy!
KW- don’t ever forget that Bill picked Hilary up in college, dude. Even though Bill is not known for his discriminating taste (can you say “Monica”?) Hillary couldn’t have been THAT bad in g-string and body paint- at age 19! Here’s a tip, though: If you see Rosie out there carrying a sign, don’t look too close to see if she’s wearing body paint. It’s just not worth the risk of trauma, bud. In fact, it’s kind of a bad-news, bad-news scenario…
And dude, you don’t have to REALLY join the Dem party- those girls aren’t that bright (obviously). Just trade a small bag of dope to somebody for showing you the “secret liberal handshake” and those girls are going to be all about you! Just don't screw up and order a hamburger in from of one of them or something. Talk about channeling some energy or something, and tell them you can show them how it works with a little back massage...
Point 2:
Beruit, Lebanon 1983 and 1984 three full scale attacks on U.S. embassy and Marine barracks. U.S. response was to leave Lebanon.
Tehran, Iran 1979 to 1981 U.S. hostage crisis. U.S. response was to sign the Algiers Accords effectively telling Iran we would avoid interfering in any affairs involving Iran government interest.
Vietnam war. U.S. response was to eventually leave based on poor war results and overwhelming citizen response.
World Trade Center 1993 bombing. U.S. response was to arrest and convict 10 men while indictments for 23 others never served.
Mogadishu Somolia 1993. 18 U.S. soldiers die in the battle of Mogadishu. U.S. response was to leave Somolia due to negative media coverage and disagreements with UN. Civil war and mass starvation continues to this day.
I could go on but the point is that our enemies in the war on terror understand a couple of things that Americans seem to ignore. A.)the U.S. has the most powerful military on the planet, and B.) the U.S. is far too weak to sustain any real attempt at fighting terrorism (our history proves this).
To talk about withdrawl is not good for this fight. But we do have the 1st amendment so go on with it if you feel you must. To actually withdraw however would trump all of the other items listed here (and more) and just prove point B. We are weak. The weaker we are, the stronger the terrorists are and the more likely they are to attack again. Do not be weak any longer
Posted by Dleef23 on March 31, 2007 05:44 PM"We might surround them with gunships and make our thoughts known real clearly"
Yep, that's exactly what Iran did.
They surrounded them and picked them up for violating Iranian waters.
The brits claim they didn't but then brits are such a trustworthy bunch that the Iranians don't believe them.
Considering the brits are a bit of a way from Portsmouth, they don't have much of a claim to be anywhere near Iranian waters.
I say they should pay a fine and be given a stern warning to stay closer to home.