Posted by: Jim | January 10, 2007


We’re sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. I have no idea where they will come from, but this is what the President is calling for.

Senator Joe Biden has this to say about it: “I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost,” Biden said. “They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy – literally, not figuratively.”

I agree with the Senator. History will not be kind to George Bush, and he will probably not read the news or read much after 2008, because he knows what it will say. History for him will be like a big, hairy, smelly cellmate who’s in prison for life and who thinks George is lookin’ mighty fine in those prison blues.


  1. In the Vietnam era, we called that an “escalation.” It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. We WILL pull out of there in disgrace eventually, it’s just a question of when: at 3,000 US deaths or 30,000? How many dead is enough for the hawks?

  2. Jim, you’ve always been one to call history before it happens. Sure, what you forsee is possible, but I’ll wait to read the history books, thank you. The only reason people attempt to determine the future before it is written is purely so they can be the first to say ‘I told you so.’

    There really isn’t a ‘popular’ wartime president, save FDR and maybe Truman. War is an unfortunate side-effect of global growth, and sometimes it needs to occur in order to make the world a better place. To this date, I have not seen a situation like global terror solved by diplomatic means. When two parties are in an argument, for a complete resolution to the issue, both parties must want a solution – it does not work with just one. Our enemy is hell-bent on destroying us, and they give us examples each and every day. Even if we go a day without a caqr bombing, terrorists are plotting and scheming for a larger strike, somewhere.

    I respect those making the ultimate sacrifice to facilitate that. Your notion of the need for a president being popular really means nothing to this president.

    I’d rather go down in history as a president who made decisions based on his own beliefs and available information than one who was known as a waffler and allowed public opinion to sway his decisions. Bush is not a two termer because a majority of the nation didn’t believe in him, and just because some of us voted for him does not mean we agree with everything he says or does. I happen to agree with our mission over in Iraq, and if you were anywhere near a military installation, you’d find 99.9% of the soldiers who volunteered for duty feel the same way.

    With regard to you speaking history before it is written, it must’ve been two months ago by now when you stated that gas prices were going up as the election concluded.

    $2.09 for two solid months here. I even found a place for $2.06 yesterday, and filled up.

    Remember, the more sure you are, the more wrong you can be 😉

  3. Touche’ on the gas prices! I called that one wrong. I’m glad that I was wrong though, in this case.

    However, you should not say that 99.9% of the soldiers agree with our mission. Did you read this in some poll somewhere, or was it hyperbole? Todd, there are a LOT of soldiers who do not agree with the mission, and in fact, I would say the majority of them would say that 20,000 troops is NOT ENOUGH to make a dent. It is a token gesture, and I heard this last night from the President of the Afghanistan and Iraqi War Veterans Association. He was there. Talk about honorable. They are following orders and serving their country even when they don’t agree.

    And you are right about Bush striking out on his own. On his side of the argument, you have Bush, and *maybe* Cheney, Rice, Rove, et al. On the other side you have all the Generals, the joint Chiefs of Staff, both sides of the House, both sides of the Senate, the media, the UN, bloggers, and a vast majority of Americans, the majority of Iraqis, and the entire Western World.

  4. Hey Todd, I have a question: How much is Bush paying you?

    I mean, c’mon, man. You don’t seem like a complete retard, so you must be getting some money here. That’s the only explanation I can think of.

    There are like 17 people in the entire world who think this so-called ‘surge’ is a good idea, and evidently you’re one of them.

    What does Bush have to do to earn your disfavor? Rape a baby?

    Here’s a guy with ZERO military experience, ignoring what all his MILITARY GENERALS have to say. Hello? Bueller?

    You claim that somehow Dubya is doing what he thinks is best, “based on his own beliefs and available information”, despite public criticism. You imply that somehow he is noble for that. Man, are you naive. The guy is a politician, period. He knows he screwed up, and he’s trying to forestall paying the piper for as long as he can. Right this very minute, they’re all in a backroom figuring out how to make all this the problem of the NEXT administration. And besides, in a so-called ‘Democracy’, public opinion is EVERYTHING. Have you read the Constitution lately? The part where only Congress has the power to declare war? I wouldn’t blame you for being unaware of that part; the President certainly seems to be.

    So I hope he’s paying you a lot, because he’s making you look like an idiot.

    * * *

  5. I don’t believe Todd will ever turn against Bush — or at least admit to it. He’s part of the gang who was crowing four years ago about how Bush was going to go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever (talk about pre-writing history!). To criticize Bush — and I mean *real* criticism, not namby-pamby poseur criticism-lite like “just because some of us voted for him does not mean we agree with everything he says or does” — would be to admit error. That’s a pill that sticks in the conservative craw.

    So I don’t think Todd will ever have anything but warm fuzzies for Bush. Any baby he rapes obviously had it coming.

  6. The part of the Presidents speech last night that had the most relevance but has been largely over-looked by the MSM was his comments on Iran. I have been saying for years that the US can not leave Iraq without first castrating Iran’s military. Mahmoud Ackamadimajad-whatever is inadvertently (maybe, he is a shi’a twelver after all) helping the US to achieve its end-game by supplying the pretext for a US war with Iran.

    Bush I limited the first Gulf War to the liberation of Kuwait to avoid the very situation that we now face; two equally unattractive alternatives:

    1: Pull out, and this is what will happen; the Shi’a Iraqi government will “request” that Iran bring in troops to combat the Sunni and Kurd insurgents. After a few years, you would end up with an Iraq-Iran Islamic regional superpower, controlling 25% of the world’s oil, containing the vast majority of the population in the Gulf, not to mention alliances with Sudan and Hezbollah/Lebanon. You don’t need to be a genius to figure out how Israel would figure in to that mess, and how they might respond.

    2: The US Army stays in Iraq, and policy continues to be hamstrung by liberals in the US and abroad, trying to create another “Vietnam” like war of attrition for their own political ends. We will be forced politically to pull out, just like in ‘Nam… So now refer to scenario 1.

    If the United States can summon the will to do so, the only way for the US to safely leave the Gulf is to annihilate Iran’s military and nuclear weapons facilities first. This is the only way I can see out of this debacle.


  7. If we’re going to mince words, then let’s begin.

    I said I agree with the mission in Iraq. How that is done is a matter of policy (change) and accomplishment.

    Bush’s military experience here is moot – the president relies on advisors – even five star general, Dwight Eisenhower relied on advisors. I would love nothing more than to plop you here on Fort Carson, the Air Force Academy, Peterson Field, or any other military base, and have you question the purpose of those who have volunteered. Until you do that, you will never understand from your cozy, liberal, coastal digs.

    I just love how, in this particular forum, that the minute someone disagrees with the author, it becomes a feeding frenzy. At least I sleep well at night 🙂

  8. “If the United States can summon the will to do so, the only way for the US to safely leave the Gulf is to annihilate Iran’s military and nuclear weapons facilities first. This is the only way I can see out of this debacle.”

    What shall be the tools for this task? Venjanz, let me ask you honestly, is the nuclear option on the table for you? (Requires one word answer).

    Since 9/11, at least, the US has been engaged in a double-think operation of presenting itself simultaneously as the most powerful/vulnerable nation in the world (along with being a moral force, bringing both freedom (and anarchy provides much freedom), democracy (a partisan government that looks the other way to it’s own side’s atrocities) and the thrill of being smeared in your own feces to Iraq).

    Now, it seems, the Iraq engagement can’t be ended because Iran stands to benefit from the chaos there (hardly something that required a crystal ball). So, the answer is a BIGGER war! Given that the US cannot control events in Iraq, how is a bigger war going to prove any easier to manage?

    The only reason your conclusion makes ‘sense’ is because it fundamentally buys into the security argument advanced by US/Israel and Western media, concerning the threat of Iran’s nuclear program and the notion that diplomacy cannot work. Just as the American people were instructed that the military solution was the only answer to Iraq’s WMDs (that didn’t exist), that Iraq had been a player in 9/11 (not true). If the whole thing has been a con, and Iran was always the final target (highly possible), then you have been fully sucked in.

    Problem. Reaction. Solution.

    The US/Israel simply refuses to allow other states in the region to prosper and accumulate power (your blase use of ‘castrate’ shows you possess this mindset, a fear of other’s potency). That is why Lebanon has been returned to it’s 1980s state by Israeli bombs. This is why no other nation in the region is allowed to become a nuclear power (while it was fine for Israel to secretly develop their nuclear weapons). Their game does not allow for new players.

    This writer offers a view I concur with:

    “But the events of the past two years — most notably with what’s happening in Iraq, along with last year’s presidential election and other unfortunate events in the region — has left no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of lots of secular Iranians, that the U.S. is behaving more and more like a reckless imperial force in search of new sources of energy and new markets to expand to economically. Therefore, even if Iran becomes the most peaceful, secular and progressive, yet still independent state on the planet, the U.S. would be unable to tolerate it. The U.S. would seek new excuses to topple Iran’s government and install their favorite instead.”

    This is why I believe Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, to forestall the acquisition of its energy reserves. And this, of course, is why Iran cannot be allowed to have them.

    It’s called precedent:

    On a last point. Just because you happen to be an American, and I am European, and these actions may benefit our societies economically (although I am not sure massive expansion of corporate profits DOES benefit citizens), I do not believe that, in good conscience, I can support actions that flout internation law and place such huge financial demands on generations to come, as well as having a significant blood price.

  9. , middle-of-the-roader, John McCain, supports the Bush plan for Iraq.

    Bri, I’m not the only one who favors the mission there. I did not see the presidential address, and will read up more on the Bush plan, however I would also ask that you look outside of your own circle, as Jim tries to do, to learn the nuances of moving forward, be it pulling out or ‘surging.’ Your immediate reaction is typically not dialogue, but criticism.

    Ditto, Chuck.

  10. My immediate reaction, Todd, is typically out-of-control laughter that often threatens my ability to breathe for several critical minutes afterwards. That is usually followed by a deep and profound sense of sorrow and regret that indeed there are Neanderthals walking among us still. This, of course, brings me back to the splendid irony that, while neocons generally reject the theory of evolution, their very existence proves the theory. Then the laughter begins anew, and the cycle continues, until I am compelled to offer, at last, my viewpoint, which you refer to as ‘criticism’ — in the same way that so-called ‘intelligent design’ is referred to as a ‘theory’ by those who do not know the meaning of the word and who are largely unable to distinguish their anus from a hat.

    But I digress.


    * * *

  11. Kingfelix, maybe I’m too drunk (I love my Chivas, after all) and I don’t see it right now, but I do not see where you have offered a realistic alternative end-game. I have a few questions for you.

    Do you think that if the US pulls out Iraq, Iran will soon take over the majority of Iraq? Why or why not?

    You seem to support Iran, country run by Muslim extremists, developing nuclear weapons; when almost nobody in the rest of the world wants this to happen. Why?

    You sound like a 9/11 “truther”, and a member of the left tin-foil hat brigade. Maybe you would be better suited to commenting on the Huffington Post.

    -Tommy Masterson

  12. Oh and BTW king, my answer to you first question is…


  13. Todd, I don’t know if you can hear my puny little voice from way up there on top of your mountain of superior knowledge, but you should know that just because I don’t share your beliefs doesn’t mean I haven’t exposed myself to a variety of opinions before forming my own. Also, I find it laughably ironic that a Bush booster is arguing for nuance. And I find it hysterical that you only consider it “dialogue” when the opinion matches your own. And the fact that you “did not see the presidential address, and will read up more on the Bush plan” even as you defend it pretty much puts you on STFU status with me until you actually know what you’re talking about.

    This really is a black-and-white issue. More troops is more troops is more troops, no matter how you say it.

  14. Honestly, how can anyone seriously think the US could invade Iran?
    We’re barely keeping our heads above water in Iraq.
    We don’t have the manpower and even if we implement the draft, that’s still not enough bodies to win…..not against country/countries that will stop fighting each other in order to fight the US.
    Unlike what’s happening over there, we wouldn’t have people from other countries blowing themselves up in our defense.
    We would have a finite number of soldiers.
    Let’s say we start the draft and send all available bodies to fight. Who’s left to guard home?
    I just don’t see a way a war can be won on foreign soil that’s surrounded by other countries.
    Nuclear is not an option. If we set off one, they set off one….when does it end?
    War is not always the best option.
    It’s like fighting at school.
    Yeah, if someone comes up and bitchslaps (9/11) you then it’s ok to defend yourself.
    BUT if all you have are rumors that someone is thinking about possibly slapping you after school (Iraq/WMD) then you need to handle it like a responsible adult and not jump into it with both fist blazing only to find out later the rumors were false.
    We’re not invincible. We need to pick our battles better.

  15. The last post crossed the line into personal attacks, and the previous post came close. In interest of fairness, I am deleting both and closing comments on this thread.

    Keep the criticism on the facts and ideas guys, not on each other.


%d bloggers like this: