'Rumsfeld must go'

Will Rumsfeld and the Whitehouse ignore this request from the "boots on the ground"? Of course they will just like every other request. Will Rumsfeld and this Administration stay they course (even though they say they aren't)? Of course they will. Will this Administration continue to have a deaf ear to the voice of the people and ignore them too? Without a doubt.

The world is crumbling around Rummy. The blame game is getting worse. There is talk of putting the blame on the generals on the ground because it is getting to hot in the kitchen for Rummy.
These would be the same generals that were chosen for being yes men. Just what Rummy wanted.
Now your going to blame them?

Once again the brave men and women of the armed forces have stepped up to serve our nation in its time of need.

Now the nuttiest of the Neo Nuts,Richard Pearle,says Iraq has been a failure.Very interesting article,should be required reading for all Neo Nuts.

What say you Neo Cons.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/iraq.critics.ap/index.html

Polls: Majorities in Britain, Mexico think Bush more dangerous than leaders of Iran, North Korea

Taken from AP news Nov. 4 2006.

YES! That is exactly what I and every other poster on this blog has been saying for a long time now. With the exception of the few Rove moles here (we all know who they are).

Kerry, who is not running for anything, makes a comment that is siezed upon as being anti-military and the hot-heads burst into flame, saying it is proof that the dems hate the troops.

Here is a sobering assessment of the failure in Iraq by people who have more knowledge than Kerry. Wanna bet that these same hot-heads are putting non-flammable wadding in their ears?

You can scream to high Heaven that the dems disrespect the troops, but it's the repubs that are killing them.

Where are you Bill , Paolo and Bruce? Huh? The so called "liberal media" has even gotten to the armed forces publications?

What are you wingnuts going to say about this?

"Rumsfeld Must Go!" However - before that can happen, many of the Bush backers that make up the GOP regime in Congress must go! We can rid our nation of Rumsfeld and begin investigating the real plannners and deciders that have turned an easy mission in Iraq into a debacle. With-in 3 months we can start making real progress in Iraq and the war on terror, but we're not going to do it with the incompetence currently at the helm. "Lord grant the majority of this nation the competence and the fortitude to get out and vote wisely this year."

The Military has shown itself to be the Islamo-fascists they really are.

It has long been known that the Military is incapable of seeing the wisdom of our President, who is making Iraq a bulwark for democracy throughout the middle east, as the Tribune so ably pointed out recently.

Our President's tools are Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. Is taking away his tools not sabotaging him?

Now has come the time to ruthlessly purge the islamo-fascists once and for all!

Then, our President can complete his holy mission, no matter how long it might take!

I believe this to be an historic document--the first time we have seen the voice of the US Armed Forces openly rebel against the Executive Branch of government. If this editorial is in fact published on Monday, November 6, we should all save a copy of this editorial, as generations to come will read it and see how courageous and unique this document is.

I predict more remarkable events will follow in the next 24 months.

As I have stated before I want all the individuals responsible for this
"bogus" war in a JAIL CELL.

The continuing MURDER by any supporters of such need JAILED as well.

Further, I understand that accomadations are available although FILLING up fast at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Alc...Alcatraz_Island

Most Sincerely
Concerned Mother

RRD---aka Rove, Rummy, Disciple. Feel free to jump in and defend old Donny Boy. Former true believer,George Packard, has some interesting things to say about Rummy's culpability in the Iraq disaster. Read up in "Assassin's Gate". Or, have you and your colleages at the RNC given up on defending Mr. Fungible? Love to stick around for the fray, but I'm off for my next "get out the vote" effort with fellow Dems (there's about ten of us in the whole state). But someone's got to provide a couple of speed bumps for our resident "defender of the flag", and Minister of Torture, Borrin Orrin Hatch. Chow.

We should be so lucky. These guys aren't giving up any power, regardless of who calls for this cranky old lames resignation. To admit being wrong is for these poor examples of leadership, an impossibility. True leadership is about adaption. Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Hastert, and Mr Bush have become a complete disappointment. Take me to Logic Prison and by all means stay the course. p.s. if it ain't broke don't fix it.. oh that's right it is broke!!!

Bush is far too stubborn to replace Rumsfeld, no matter how many generals think its necessary. Rumsfeld's incompetence has been obvious since well before the Iraq war, so its not like this is anything new.

"This is not about the mid-term elections" - and you filed it in mid-term elections.

Heh.

Gannett owns those 'military' papers - they aren't liberal bastions - says who? A liberal bastion. LOL.

Honesty in reporting would be nice. Sigh, but I know it's about as likely as a democrat being thrown out of office for corruption.

I predict Rumsfeld will retire to "spend more time with his family" shortly after this election.

If only he could spend more time at Gitmo...

When these papers talk Military Families and personal hear. They are not the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune they are what the military reads. This will affect the Military Vote by at least 64 percent. The Troops in the combat zones cannot vote but their families can and will vote.

...Chow.

Posted by: unlettered | Nov 4, 2006 10:15:18 AM

Unlettered,

That's "ciao".

I read several liberal leftists who probably could not answer yes or no (like squirming Dave Letterman) if they would like to see our military win the war in Iraq. I am ashamed for you all.

The Three Republican Stooges Present:

"Curly's Excellent Iraq Adventure"

Starring...Vice President Larry and Secretary of Defense Curly who have recieved a vote of confidence from President Moe while he is clearing brush at the Crawford ranch,and fighting terrorism on his Nintendo video gamebox.

I have long advocated impeaching W.,and throwing W.,Cheney,and Rove in prison for their crimes of lying,and stealing from the American people...but I have changed my mind.

Here's the new plan:

W. should be droped off in downtown Baghdad,where he will serve out his sentence as lifetime President of Iraq.
Stay the course W.

Cheney,and Rove are far to savvy for prison,they would fit in to well with the other crooks,and "cons".

Therefore, I think Cheney,and Rove should get death by firing squad.

We could make it a fun event,like holding a lottery where the lucky winners get to bring their own firearms,and participate in the shooting.
We could even make it a pay per view event promoted by Don King.,and televised on HBO.

I read several liberal leftists who probably could not answer yes or no (like squirming Dave Letterman) if they would like to see our military win the war in Iraq. I am ashamed for you all.

Posted by: Brad B | Nov 4, 2006 12:46:59 PM

Brad B....Thats kinda like asking do you still beat your wife. You speak the new republican think tank speak. How to twist everything to work to your advantage. I would love to see the military win. I would have loved to see us finish the war in Afganistan also. I really would have loved not being mislead into this blunder called Iraq. You can ask those questions
to make some feel like they are not patriotic..
but I am ashamed for you all.

Listening to the news, coming from Iraq,as told by Mr. Rumsfeld, gives me goosbumps all over.Beeing european and getting a more detailed press coverage from the war, makes me feel so sorry for the US families in the getting their sons back in a bodybag.
Remember 9/11: The taliban is in Afganistan not Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction !
The president wage war against the wrong country, from advice by Mr R. among others.
3000 dead kids so far and counting.......Good luck mr R

Norway

Except the NYT says Saddam was within one year of going nuclear.

Or did you miss that part while agreeing with the the NYT that they and they alone should release classified material.

Seconding Bill R.'s thoughts: Though I'm a Bush hater, I would have been delighted if the project in Iraq worked out well, for the sake of the Iraqi people, American troops, and the global struggle for democracy. I wouldn't have liked the political consequences at home at all, but that's another story. Seems to me the project has turned into a nightmare beyond our imagining. Can any supporter of the war give me a reason to expect the situation to get better in Iraq? The political bickering that went on for months after the last election in Iraq showed the level of leadership that we can expect in Iraq and showed that their leaders are taking American lives for granted, as well as supporting or tolerating torture/death squads. What a pretty picture.

Spotting Rumsfeld as a loathesome toad is kind of like being able to tell that Snidely Whiplash is a bad guy -- those of us who were conscious could see that years ago.

But getting rid of him, pleasant though that would be, would not rid us of larger problems. 1) An Administration that sincerely believes that "pre-emptive strikes" are both necessary and legal. 2) A military hierarchy that kow-towed to Rumsfeld, all the while knowing that his plans for restructuring the armed forces and fighting a war on the cheap were sure to fail. They all grabbed their ankles when he said bend over, and let the only people who openly opposed him (Shinseki) be dismissed in disgrace. How about that military honor, huh? 3) A morass that is euphemistically called a "front in the war on terror" which no seems to have the faintest idea how to salvage.

Even if he does leave office, who will replace Rumsfeld? Yeah -- I'm not optimistic.

We need a revolution, folks. We need a whole new set of people, from the shiny-butt clerks who occupy the Pentagon to the occupant of the Oval Office. And I don't mean a new set of Republicrats in Congress -- I mean a whole new bunch. Call it a new party, call it party-less, whatever you like. This smells so bad that nothing will do but starting again from scratch.

Bill R-Tell me what the democratic plan is. What are you for instead of everything you're against. Negotiate and play nice with islamist leaders? Let me know how that goes. Last I checked there has not been an attack on US soil since 9/11. Thank GOD for the military to see we can still pursue our freedoms here and keep us safe.

A must read for the left:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JeffEmanuel/2006/11/03/on_the_iraqi_nuclear_program_the_left_wants_to_have_their_cake_and_eat_it_too

If the service members "know something is very wrong", "the military publications know something is very wrong". and the "American people are beginning to sense something is very wrong" then what kind of leadership have we had for the past 6 years??? What have these people actually done?? Do you want to penetrate through the deceptions to illuminate "THE TRUTH"??? I can assure you "THE ONLY WAY" for any of you to even approach knowing "THE TRUTH" will be to overwhelmingly elect a DEMOCRATIC SENATE & CONGRESS (no matter if you are registered as a Republican or Democrat)because very very bad things have taken place the last 6 years; far far worse than you could even imagine and these criminal leaders need to be removed from office, held accountable, and go to Prison(if they are lucky); some of their TREASONOUS crimes are so severe they are Capital Offenses. If you want to see how "ARROGRANT" & "CRIMINAL" Richard Cheney is just watch ABC NEWS on Sunday in the interview he says he doesn't care what the American People think they are going to "STAY THE COURSE" in IRAQ. Unless I missed something in the last 30 years these people work for us, the Citizens of the United States of America and when they start publicly saying they don't care what the American people think then they should be "FIRED" and if they have committed crimes including TREASON then they should be "PROSECUTED" just as would occur to each & every Citizen of the United States of America. Maybee I am wrong but these people are acting like criminal dictators; sorry Richard Cheney I refuse to be represented by a liar, cheater, murderer, conspirer, and one who has committed HIGH TREASON. RICHARD CHENEY YOU ARE FIRED!!!!!!!!

How ironic that Rumsfeld is the only one of the Bushies who did serve in a war--the rest, including Bush, found varying ways to escape Vietnam. Rumsfeld, and Cheney, have carried out Bush's vanity war like it was some sort of think tank experiment wherein they could move chess pieces around while enriching their friends with no-bid contracts.

Tragically, their "chess pieces" are men and women, real flesh and blood, whose deaths and grievous wounds will signify nothing once this foolish war is over.

The harm is incalculable. It will take decades to restore our country's good name and moral standing.

The officials of this administration are no better than common criminals.

Brad it's guys like you that render the GOP propaganda completely devoid of logic. "There's an old...saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once...(3 second pause)... Shame on...(4 second pause)...Shame on you....(6 second pause)...Fool me...Can't get fooled again." George Bush —Nashville, Tennessee, Sept. 17, 2002.

Kathy says: "Gannett owns those 'military' papers - they aren't liberal bastions - says who? A liberal bastion. LOL."

Hey, Kathy's right about Gannett's ownership of these military publications. In addition to conventional civilian media, Gannett owns the following papers:

Air Force Times, Springfield, Virginia
Armed Forces Journal, McLean, Virginia
Army Times, Springfield, Virginia
Defense News, Springfield, Virginia
Federal Times, Springfield, Virginia
Marine Corps Times, Springfield, Virginia
Military City, Springfield, Virginia
Navy Times, Springfield, Virginia
Nursing Spectrum, Falls Church, Virginia

I found this information at http://www.gannett.com/about/map/propmap.htm.

Consequently, I have questions for Kathy:

1. So what?

2. Do you have any factual basis for concluding (or even asserting) that these military papers are tools of any left-wing/treasonous-dove conspiracy to subvert the war effort, or W, or Rumsfeld?

3. Have these publications supported or opposed the Iraq War or Rumsfeld in the past?

Drop some facts in the discussion, Kathy. Drive-by labeling is fun, but it's entirely unenlightening.

Kathy: "'This is not about the mid-term elections' - and you filed it in mid-term elections.

Nice catch, Kathy.

And no acknowledgement they are owned by Gannett nor even a sniff at all four coincidentally coming up with the same editorial with the same demand to be published the same day -- the day before the election.

Reporters with a nose for the news? It's either cold season or the folks at the Tribune think we are as stupid as Kerry thinks we are.

President Bush and his cohorts assumed that they had some god given right to impose, by war if needs be, their christian views and ways on people who don't have or want those views or ways imposed upon them. It's as simple as that and they are prepared to fight and die by any means available to them to protect that. Wouldn't America expect the same of their citizens if invaded by some foreign power? Of course they would. Were the Russian suicide bombers trying to defend Stalingrad during WWll terrorists I think not.
America made a big mistake and it will haunt them and come back to haunt them for mant years to come. Unfortunately it's dragging my country, Australia, along for the rough ride.

bill r. says,

"These would be the same generals that were chosen for being yes men. Just what Rummy wanted.
Now your going to blame them?
Posted by: bill r. | Nov 4, 2006 6:59:23 AM"

and

"Brad B....Thats kinda like asking do you still beat your wife. You speak the new republican think tank speak."

Bill r,

You are getting it done.

"Unlettered,

That's "ciao".

Posted by: Juanito | Nov 4, 2006 12:17:37 "

Juanito!

You ARE niggling again!
And! I think you believe in God.

Who you crappin. All four military newspapers calling for Rumsfeld's resignation are owned by the Gannett Corp. Publishers of USA TODAY, not liberal. HA,HA. Take another sip of kool-aid.

Bill R-Tell me what the democratic plan is.
Posted by: Brad B | Nov 4, 2006 4:34:04 PM

1st for comparison, lets see what the republican plan is:
Invade Iraq for WMD's (if none found go to}
Invade Iraq for regime change and free the Iraqi people (if none free go to)
Invade Iraq to fight all the terrorists (if none there create some)
OK now that we're there...(land on carrier and say mission accomplished)
Stay the course (oops...I forgot that that was
never a plan)
Call anyone who disapproves unpatriotic
Disband the Iraqi army and police (put 300,000
armed men on the street)
As far as winning the war? I got no Idea how they plan to do that...do you?

Now...the democrats plan...
I'll just say..The democrats will try to do a better job running the country. Because if you believe in the republicans after all that has happened, you probably still beieve in the easter bunny, and nothing I could tell you would change your mind.

C. Morris--I nuuuuuuuuu that. I just didn't want to disappoint my lettered friend RRD. But I was shocked that Juanito noticed. It belies his post, which suggest he's not paying attention what soever to the Republican snow-job all about him. O.K., I sense some scepticism out there. Well, if you must know the truth. I really am unlettered and I didn't get the nucular joke and I'm a former truck driver, and I graduated in Geography, not English and certainly not Italian. So there, Happy! And for relavancy(is that a ligit adverb?), sake, Rummy really must go! (See RDD, I don't want to prolong the war for polital gain).Hasta la vista! or whatever.

"Donald Rumsfeld must go."

....and Bush, Cheney, Rove, Snow, ...........etc, etc, etc, etc...........

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Your GOP Puppet—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

" I read several liberal leftists who probably could not answer yes or no (like squirming Dave Letterman) if they would like to see our military win the war in Iraq. I am ashamed for you all."

Posted by: Brad B | Nov 4, 2006 12:46:59 PM

Tell me what it would mean to win in Iraq, then I'll tell you whether I'm for it or against it.

Our President and his team have twisted, bruised, tortured, and disgraced the Constitutional freedom they swore to defend. And now once again the women and men of the Armed Forces are defending our freedoms...who would have guessed their greatest victory come while using a pen and not a sword.

Kathy, they say they aren't playing politics which I don't necessarily believe either but maybe they're motivated by the mess we all see over there and the fact that our defense secretary has not done anything to make it any better and continues to get praise for a good job, just like "Brownie" did after Katrina and then 3 weeks later was used as the scapegoat for the entire mess.

And here's a good question for all you double speak neonuts, if Saddam was only a year away from proliferation, why would we post how he's doing it for the entire world to read? Why fly in the face of your own arguments about "giving terrorists information" by actually putting this crap on the web for only people who can read arabic to understand?? Again, you wingnuts go back to crying about the liberal media when it was own gov't who had this online for past 7 months.

Winning the war in Iraq: what exactly is that?

No longer finding the WMDs...

Democracy there? Gimme a break.

Just plain getting rid of Sadam? Sheesh. How come we didn't 'get rid of' Pol Pot? Or Antonio Somoza? Or Augusto Pinochet? Or the Shah or Iran? Or Papa Doc Duvalier? Or Efrain Rios Montt? Or Rafael Trujillo? Muammar Qaddafi? Or the countless Cold War African despots, that I can't even name, we helped to put in place, and then prop up?

Perhaps if those guys had been the dictators of countries that sat atop the world's third largest oil reserve, we might have been more indignant about their crimes. With a few notable exceptions, we've always been better at creating dictators than removing them. So this reason has to be the flimsiest, most hypocritical of all. I think they call it a "lie".

Keeping the mess we created from spreading into a region-wide meltdown. Okay. Maybe. But that's gonna take years more. Years. That hollow, utterly needless 'victory' - if it ever comes at all - may come in 2015. Or 2020.

Such an incredible tragedy that so many American lives, not to mention Iraqi lives (the people we're trying to 'save'), have already been consumed by this unavoidable catastrophe.

And so many more are yet to die. For an uncertain outcome that has nothing to do with why we began in the first place.

Yet the rigid, narrow-minded fools on here continue to blather on about 'victory'. Because their Great Leader tells them to. We could use a little more democracy here. Or at least free-thinking.

Or would that be un-patriotic?

C.Morris,

I can't stop niggling, God made me that way.

Rummy is history, so there isn't much more that I can add to this conversation other than how to spell "chow"...

Umm... well except for this:

Every Democratic Pol has a different idea about how to exit Iraq, and most of the ideas are more or less crappy. Now is the time for Democrats to unify and focus on one or two GOOD ones. Hopefully the bipartisan Baker commission will come up with something useful.

Unlettered,

Let me express my sincere condolences to you. Living in Utah must be unbearably painful.

Clearly the only way to deflect such dambing commentary against the administration is to discredit the source. We have seen that before, time and again.

Personally, I think Rumsfeld failed in so many ways it's not funny. The same goes for the Bush administration in general.

Now it's up to the democrats to clean up this mess.

President Bush thinks that if he gives up Rumsfeld he somehow loses Cheney also. False, unless Cheney hurls himself on the pyre. Congress must cut off funding for the Secretary of Defense and make lending him any aid to perform his office a high misdemeanor. Cut off funding for his phones, fax, computers, desks, chairs, cars, helicoptors, use of Pentagon offices; and criminalize giving the Secretary any support by any deputy secretary, assistant secretary, under secretary, executive secretary, or Pentagon employee. The draft law cannot specify Rumsfeld by name. The backup Constitutional Amendment can and should name Rumsfeld and specifically exclude him from any exercise of authority. There is time to do it. It won't take long for two thirds of both houses to act, and three fourths of the states to ratify.
Don't decry the precedent. If these extremely unusual circumstances recur, we will need a way out.

Juanito,

I agree the Dems need to put forth 3 or 4 BIG plans and stick to them.

1. Socialized med.
2. strong social sec.
3. strong private pensions (make the bast%$# companies meet their promises)
4. clean up the enviro.
5. get out of the mess in the Fertile Crescent!!

For 5 there may be no good way out. We may have to just leave, then post guards All Along the Watchtower, keep on the lookout from our perimeter in W. Europe and Canada/Mexico. (We need our friends for this endeavor)

We stepped out of bounds in Iraq, now we pay. Too bad Bush was too stupid to see it. He couldn't figger it out in advance. His dad did.

******

Utah is politically and social conservative, but the physical beauty of the place in freaking unreal. The Red Rock country is beyond your wildest dreams of what can happen to rock.
The Colorado plateau is, perhaps, the most beautiful environment on Earth. Advise; carry lots of water and don't get lost, or you may find Ed Abbey's grave.

C.Morris,

Great 5 points. Numbers 1 and 4 are going to be a tough sell. Socialized medicine scares people and cleaning up the environment is just too inconvenient. Unfortunately people love their giant vehicles and disposable diapers.

Never been to Utah. My brother was there in the Army (manuevers in the dessert) and an old girlfriend grew up there. They both told me that the physical beauty of the place is otherworldly, beyond description. Socially speaking if you're not a Mormon you're a second class citizen. This was back in the early 70s, so I don't know if it's still like that.

Juanito,

Re the Mormons.

Well, they run the place. (Utah) There are, however, voices in the wilderness. So far, they seem tolerant. (I don't live in Utah, but there are lots of Mormons in our area.)

And, the Mormons have a lot of good characteristics, as I am sure you (everyone) know.

They are good neighbors, and kind people, industrious, (The Bee Hive State!!) but their dogma is just too unbelievable.

It's also irritating when two young men (18?) come to your front door with 'Elder' badges on their shirts and try to tell you your business.

Hey! Live a life buddy, then come talk to me!

Hey, I believe 'chow' (however it would be spelled phonetically in English) means 'food' in Mandarin Chinese.

Juanito....Is it possible that there really is no good exit strategy? Even "if" democracy takes hold, we have seen already that they still support Hezbolla, are trying to become chumy with Iran, will have totally different views that still may go against ours. The longer we're there, the more they will dislike us. I believe we had an opportunity early but blundered it. I know I harp on this but I truely believe that disbanding the army and police was a major mistake. If we went with a light army, who did we think would provide security?

C Morris and Juanito,

I hope you will not mind that I join in on this. As the furthest right of the three of us, it strikes me that very little editing would make the five points work for me too.

1. Make universal health care affordable and sensible.
2. strong social sec.
3. strong private pensions (make the bast%$# companies meet their promises)
4. clean up the enviro.
5. Clean up the mess in the Fertile Crescent!!

Socialized medicine scares us because its not working very well in the two countries most like ours in the world (England and Canada) and would become less viable the day the USA socialized its service. Despite our failure to spread the benefits of our system to the general population (and some of that is the general population’s fault – we love our Big Mac’s and TV watching as much as we love our giant vehicles and disposable diapers), the rest of the world really does depend on high end and cutting edge advancements from our country, made possible by our unbalanced but ultimately investment worthy healthcare system.

We may differ on details with 2-4 but we do not differ on the principles, leaving only number 5. Getting out is still a good objective, just not until the mess is cleaned up. Something I see constantly in this blog and in the media is a repeated refrain that this is not a “winnable” situation. Two main reasons why I differ:

1) Westerners have lost their sense of patience. We expect immediate gratification and have an unrealistic sense of how long it takes things to happen that involve human nature (vs. say, the physical universe). While I am not satisfied with everything that has happened in Iraq (the construction issues and the infiltration of the police forces come to mind) my perspective is that actually some very important matters are moving faster and more effectively than people realize.

For example, I do not know what the timetable is for establishing a constitutional government is except to say that it would not have surprised me if Iraq had taken even longer (and actually maybe is taking longer – recall our original attempt at confederation lasted about 16 years before we regrouped with a better idea). That said, realistically, recruitment for the military could not begin to be effective until a government was approved (would you enlist before the form and purpose of the government was known to you?). Since then, recruitment and training has escalated dramatically and reports indicate that our “boots on the ground” are beginning to trust and respect the forces that are developing there. How long does it take to build a reliable military? I do not know except it is more than the few months that have passed since the government was established.

So, I do not accept the notion that Iraq is a “fiasco” or a “disaster.” Instead, I see it as a better than average military action, subject to the same SNAFUs experienced by every military action in history, most of which will be resolved in time. Given how unlikely a veto proof Dem majority is tomorrow, I think we will see if I am right in 2 years.

2) Polling has multiple problems with reliability and polling in an unfamiliar culture (one that was under despotic rule in particular) has got to be worse. Nonetheless, I find the following poll result to be interesting. Buried in the same polls that show Iraqi’s approve of attacks on US military (that is a subject for a different post) is this: QUESTION TO IRAQIS: THINKING ABOUT ANY HARDSHIPS YOU MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE US-BRITAIN INVASION, DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUSTING SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS WORTH IT OR NOT? 77% overall say it was worth it, 91% of Kurds agree, 98% of Shia agree. (Obviously, Saddam’s Sunnis disagree in large numbers). In the long run, when the bloodshed has lessened, I believe the Iraqis will end up favoring our actions. They are justifiably unhappy with the current situation and do not have a lot of history that would teach them to have faith in any government (let alone a foreign one) but when push comes to shove, the situation is better than it was and improving.

So lets make any necessary changes and finish the clean up – then come home.

RRD

RRD,

Demands of employment preclude a lengthy comment, but I largely agree with you anyway. And glad to find somebody else who thinks that the status quo for healthcare is unacceptable.

Ciao

RRD --
The techno wizards have been unusually inept on this site lately, so I didn't see your response to my response to your comment (got that?) about liberalism's fundamentalists until this afternoon. You gave me something to mull over -- a sincere "thanks" for that. But as that's unrelated to what's being said in this string, we'll have to pick it up another time.

But maybe it's not so unrelated...

C Morris and Juanito -- we can likely agree that the Democrats aren't standing for much these days, other than "At least we're not THEM!" Oh, if they would really stand for just... oh, I don't know... say, three of your five points, C, I would be delighted. But they show no sign of standing for anything. Maybe RRD is on to something -- you can't really sell something if you don't understand or believe in it. Maybe the public sees through that, and that's why a John McCain is so attractive.

To he** with all of them. Perhaps health care is an issue around which my pet NEW party could begin to coalesce. I don't agree, RRD, that universal health care can't work. One of the reasons it doesn't work so well in Britain, for instance, is that Britain allows private and national health to co-exist. Three guesses where the big money and the stars go, and your first two don't count.

I think we could do national health, and do it well, if we put a little thought into it. Even Adam Smith said that unfettered markets are dangerous and unfair. (Hardline free-marketers, business school graduates all, always fail to mention that Smith was all for some oversight and control of capital -- probably because most of them never actually read "Wealth of Nations".) We see that unfairness in health care all the time. If we devised sensible controls of the health care market, there's no reason people can't provide care AND make fair profits. The key there is the word "fair" -- the pharmaceuticals will be unhappy without their cash-cow erectile dysfunction drugs with 100 percent+ mark-ups, but they can learn to live with it.

But both parties refuse to stand up for a controlled market. I'm sure for some pols that's done out of conviction. (Joseph Lieberman and Arlen Spector come to mind.) But I'm convinced that most do it out of reflex action (how would THAT look to the consituents? like being against apple pie and the flag!), and out of owing a debt to the assorted health care lobbies. Do you really think that, say, Kay Bailey Hutchison or Evan Baygh have the slightest idea about the principles of free market capitalism? I doubt they could even spell it.

So what are we doing typing here? Put on your hats, light up your stogies, and come over to the new party!

One more thing. An all-volunteer army is the most efficient use of resources, according to free-market economists.

This from explanation from Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton:
" ...the central idea underlying this theorem of what economists call "social welfare economics" is that if a nation must use human bodies to stop bullets and shrapnel, it ought to use relatively "low-cost" bodies -- that is, predominantly those who would otherwise not have produced much gross domestic product, the main component of what economists call "social opportunity costs." On this rationale, economists certify the all-volunteer army as efficient and thus good."

In short, if you're going to have cannon-fodder, don't have let be Harvard graduates. Hence their fondness for today's volunteer army. While the officer ranks are very well educated, most enlisted men are not ivy-league grads.

Golly, I just LOVE capitalism!

Ms Bennet,

The "Free Market" explanation of the efficient use of military personel flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that I'm familiar with. (Besides being utterly reptilian in it's cold heartedness!)

Far be it from me to speak for the Defense Department, but I'm sure that they would tell you in no uncertain terms that the modern military doesn't want "canon fodder". I'm sure they would tell the economists to go **** themselves.

Look for example at all of the US wars in my lifetime, from Vietnam till today. I don't mean to make light of the casualties (and I KNOW the usual suspects are going to rip into me for this) but they're relatively low. In seven years in Vietnam we lost as many troops as in some single battles of the Civil War. In Gulf War 1 we lost more troops to friendly fire and accidents than to enemy fire. This bespeaks a different kind military, one that isn't interested in merely using bodies to stop bullets. They may not need harvard graduate students, but given a choice they do want creative, thinking people in the ranks.

And far be it from me to speak for RRD, but even if he doesn't embrace "socialized" medicine (give him a break, he's a Conservative) he does recognize that healthcare as it is is broken. If the Left and the Right can find some common ground and forge a compromise that improves the situation, I say let's do it!

And I also agree with him about Iraq inasmuch as we have to do whatever we can to make it work before we leave.

bill r, I understand your concerns (especially since you're a vet) but I still believe we have to leave the place as stable as we possibly can. Some change of strategy seems to be called for. Let's see what the Baker Commission comes up with.

And I don't think C.Morris is ready to cut and run from the Democratic ranks, but I do hear him saying that the Dems had better get their poop together!

Ms. Liz,

A chilling affirmation of Kerry's bad joke. I am not being sarcastic.

RRD,

Once again, a long detailed response on your part.

Re; the 'Sunni disagreement'; That may be all the disagreement needed to plunge the region, or at least Iraq, into hell. I hope it's all a bad memory in two years, also, but,,, it looks shaky.

Re; Socialized medicine; It may be the only medicine we get.

* * * *
Pardon the short responses, but I am working a lot this week.

Juanito,
If I cut and run from the Dems, it's to the left. I'm a socialist at heart.

Re; the cannon fodder.

I think the war planners calculations are the same as they always were, but the nature of post modern war tactics and technology mitigate huge losses. I am not ripping you here, but a casualty of one, may as well be a million to that guy. I am sure you know this.

"I know I harp on this but I truely believe that disbanding the army and police was a major mistake. If we went with a light army, who did we think would provide security?

Posted by: bill r. | Nov 6, 2006 8:21:48 AM"

To me this statement is clarity, and it was apparent at the time.

Juanito,
Check out the hilarious 'ten worst rock acts' we have posted in 'Sweet Home Chicago'.

My favorite posters,

Excellent dialog going on here - wouldn’t it be nice to think our elected officials had conversations like this once in awhile?

Socialized and universal healthcare are not the same thing. In fact, I will make the claim that there is universal healthcare in our country. It is just ridiculously inefficient and ill conceived. The poorest souls in this country have access to the finest and even the most expensive treatments and procedures in the world. The problem is that they must allow their medical problems to get so bad that they can present in an emergency room.

Once there, they are not turned away and they get exceptional treatment (even in our bad hospitals). However, the poor and uninsured do not have access to basic care for non-emergencies, check ups, wellness programs, et cetera. Thus we have a system that uses $100,000 (and up) solutions to solve a $100 problem which is why my “edit” of the original five points had to do with making universal coverage make sense.

I have been punching in various searches today, trying to find something/anything on a universal private/pubic healthcare proposal that had a great deal of bipartisan support back between 89 and 91. I could have sworn it was called the Black Hills Plan – does anyone else remember this? I worked for a healthcare system at the time and our government relations people were absolutely certain it would go into effect after the 92 election regardless of the party in power. Regardless, the point is that it was an alternative to socialized medicine but was designed to achieve universal coverage at the most basic level.

Regarding Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton’s interpretation of the US military, I cannot imagine a set of assumptions that are more off base than his. (On the other hand, I looked up his credentials and I would love to ask him if he remembers that healthcare plan). The basic error thinking we have any use for cannon fodder – our military operates on the Patton principle (“Now I want you to remember that no b*****d ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*****d die for his country.)

Note that it is the OTHER side that is identified as poor and dumb. Our current military is absolutely unparalleled (the UK excepted) in terms of its ability to combine technology with a western philosophy of war (see Victor David Hanson on this topic) to achieve overwhelming battlefield power and that requires skills that are taught by a combination of our high schools, colleges, and the services themselves. The cost of recruiting and training this force is HIGH – probably about $40,000 to $50,000 for a “basic” rifleman – first year.

Add to that training in special weapons, armored vehicles, artillery, aircraft (including omnipresent helicopters), field medicine, extensive cross-training of skills etc, etc, etc and I am pretty certain that the “cost” of replacing a typical, experienced American in uniform (say a 27 year old, which I think is the average age of the enlisted ranks) is equal to or greater than the cost of most bachelors degrees (maybe even from the Ivy League).

PS to C Morris - "Once again, a long detailed response on your part" I truly appreciate that you left out the word "-winded" in this quote.

RRD

Some brief notes (I'm busy at work these days too -- damn capitalism!)

RRD, I like your expansion of what's wrong with American Healthcare. Of course it's not just a matter of the crazy inefficiency of spending $100k to fix a $100 problem, but also that that approach often is dertrimental to the longterm well being of the patient.

I vaguely recall the term "Black Hills Plan" but nothing specific about it.

C.Morris, It always sounds callous to talk about casualty numbers, and this always makes me uncomfortable. I know that for the soldiers and his or her loved ones, yes, one is too many.

However, military planners today do not look at the troops as "canon fodder", as a plentiful resource that can be freely spent. I KNOW this. When generals can lecture us on economics, then I'll listen to what economists have to say about military strategy.

RRD, Juanito, C.Morris -- I'd love to believe that some pols have conversations like we do. But that would be a blind act of faith.

I didn't quote Reinhardt as proof of the stupidity of the military. Rather, I did that to demonstrate the "reptilian coldness", as Juanie put it, of mainstream free-market capitalists and their Republicrat adherents.

Justice does not occur to them, nor compassion (despite Dubya's campaign slogan), nor kindness, nor fairness. In their worldview, those are the province of religion or art or some such touchy-feely thing. The market's job is to be efficient. A volunteer military will be more efficient. Loss is measured by replacement costs, and losses can be minimized by high training levels. (Not, as you put it, by having "creative" recruits -- puh-lease! Nobody wants creative, including my private sector employer. Does yours?!?)

My point is that starting with this sort of free-market principle is a dead-end if what we're after is fairness and justice. True, "universal" and "national" health programs are two different things. I tend to lean toward nationally backed coverage, but I can certainly be persuaded otherwise as long as we keep justice as a principle. That negates letting capital have its way.

Uwe Reinhardt, actually, is a big deal in health policy. At one time he backed national health, too, but he might have changed his mind by now. I recall the Black Hills thing, but only vaguely. Wasn't it a plan that came out of one of those health care think tanks? Maybe searching Reinhardt's work I'll find it -- even if he wasn't in on writing it, he was sure to have an opinion.

Thank you, as always, for thoughful conversation.

Juanito,
If I cut and run from the Dems, it's to the left. I'm a socialist at heart.

Posted by: C.Morris | Nov 6, 2006 8:35:20 PM

BINGO!

That's one reason why I've been saying for months here that we need new parties. Leftists have no party in America today to call "Home".

The military does in fact want "creative" people -- puh-lease! -- meaning people who can think on their feet and and solve problems when the chain of command is disrupted. So does my private sector employer.

That aside, I see what you're driving at about the "Free Market" mindset.