Reid tells GOP Iraq defectors: 'Put words into action'

Until chickenhawks like Lugar , Coleman and Snowe actually vote against Shrub, they will remain Rubber Stamp Repubs. Let the voting commence.

What would Senator Reid and others advocating withdrawl from Iraq do if withdrawl precipitated a civil war that resulted in a failed state and the world price of oil (a fungible good) hit $150 per barrel? What would they do if the Sunni Arab world (Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc.) and Shiite Arabs (Iran) joined the fight - send Jimmy Carter? The loss in Vietnam had no lasting economic consequences. Losing Iraq would. If securing a reliable supply of oil was the only reason to be fighting in Iraq, it would be reason enough to stay and fight.

Something else to ponder:

I'll wager that with more of this from Reid and Pelosi, Congress' poll numbers will go up.

Out of Iraq Now! Stop the made up "War on Terror" bumpersticker campaign now!
The American people want decriminalization of marijuana, Gay Marriage and free medical care for undocumented Americans, now!

Charles Watts,

You are correct, that the 'loss in Vietnam had no lasting economic consequences'. However, at the time, no one could predict what the consequences would be. In fact, pessimists predicted that the 'dominoes' would fall. They did not.

In a similar vein, you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot predict with any certainty what may happen if we withdraw from Iraq.

One thing we all can predict though is that if we do withdraw, the number of body bags arriving home here will decline.

regards,

Lars Ewell

"The American people want decriminalization of marijuana, Gay Marriage and free medical care for undocumented Americans, now!"

I'm with ya 2 outta 3 little Johnny!

Out of Iraq Now! Stop the made up "War on Terror" bumpersticker campaign now!
The American people want decriminalization of marijuana, Gay Marriage and free medical care for undocumented Americans, now!

Posted by: John Lindh | July 9, 2007 6:11 PM

Why this sounds like the losing post under someother clowns name.

Posted by: John Lindh | July 9, 2007 6:11 PM

Do you have a different name for all of your drive-by posts? Care to stick around for a serious debate, or are you lacking substance as well as your posts?

At last someone is publically calling these heavily-armed and often unaccountable "security forces" what they really are- "mercenary forces!"

Bravo Senator Webb. Encore!!

Lets see now: the Iraqis are arguing about how to share the money we pay them for oil and our soldiers are dying at about 1200 a year, wounded 2-3 times and 1 billion dollars a month to give them time (18 months now) to do that. Makes sense. General Shinsecki was canned by Rumsfeld for saying we need 500K personnel for this Iraq war. Which the ineffective surge proves.

Posted by Charles Watts July 9, 2007 6:05 PM

Mr. Watts,(I Love The Stones!)

What are we supposed to do, stay in Iraq forever?
We need to move back into defensive positions for awhile and then gradually leave.
There will probably be a bloodbath but maybe we should have had plans from the beginning in case we weren't greeted with flowers and candy like we were told we would be by a certain Vice-President.

Stupid Neocons!

Uh, *Iraq has BEEN in a state of civil war for a long time*. Remember that "W" rendered the diagnosis that America has an "addiction to oil"? Basically, what you're saying, Watts, is that burglary, fencing, armed robbery and taking a kid's lunch money like a meth addict does is PERFECTLY FINE, because the meth addict needs his METH. I'd suggest that we put our American ingenuity (if it hasn't been outsourced overseas by the Republicans and the corporations) to work to find ways of powering ourselves that don't involve running around like obese cows with bendy-straws, sucking up every drop of OIL we can find.

Charles, you raise very good points.

I ask the Left these questions and please answer them:
1. Who do you want to prevail in Iraq: the U.S. and the young Iraqi democracy (and I'll admit the govt is troubled) or the terrorists and those elements who want failure in Iraq?
2. If we were to completely pull out within the next few months, what would happen and what would you folks want to happen in Iraq?
3. What is more important or what do you favor: Success in Iraq, which means a Bush victory OR failure in Iraq, which means a Bush loss?
4. Who do you folks side with: the U.S. or the terrorists?
5. Do you believe there is a war on terror?
6. Do you believe there is a dangerous radical Islamic element?
7. If there is a dangerous radical Islamic element, what do you think made them, caused them to be?

I'm facing the East as I type this....
Barack "Hussein" Obama should get more involved in trying to get Congress up over [14%] in their polling numbers...he is Magic,right?....
Speak out... B.Hussein Obama,we need more silly platitudes and jerkism.I want 18% from you libs by August!

Paulo

Charles Watts,

Which of your friends and loved ones will you be serving up to the oil alter?

And you?

Senator Webb is making a rational, humane statement about treating the troops with dignity. Unlike this unfortunate statement:
The loss in Vietnam had no lasting economic consequences. Losing Iraq would. If securing a reliable supply of oil was the only reason to be fighting in Iraq, it would be reason enough to stay and fight.

Posted by: Charles Watts | July 9, 2007 6:05 PM

Get a bicycle, Charles. This elitist sense of entitlement is exactly what feeds the global hatred of American foreign policy.

OK, Johnny D. - here we go:

1) The "young" Iraqi government has no standing with the people of Iraq. Why? Because most of it was hand picked by the Bushies to run the country. Why are we there running that country? Even the Iraqis want us out - the only ones who don't are the ones whose jobs depend on us staying there.

2) If we were to pull out, what would happen? Exactly what is going on now, until all sides decide to work together on a common cause. The only difference is our soldiers would not be targets anymore.

3) I favor getting the hell out of Iraq, which is somewhere we should not have been in the first place.

4) A stupid, idiotic question that does not deserve an answer.

5) There is a war on terror - unfortunately, that war was in Afghanistan, which we were winning until our President pulled our forces out to go to Iraq. Remember Osama Bin-Laden or Mullah Omar? They are the guys that we should have gone after. Instead, they are still around to incite their brand of hatred.

6) Yes there is a dangerous element. There is also a dangerous right wing Christian element that wants to wipe out all Muslims. Who is correct??

7) The growth of the dangerous Islamic terroists has been laid directly at the feet of GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Their invasion of Iraq has been the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda ever. Remember, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded - Saddam had them under control.

And Paolo - that Barack Hussein Obama thing is getting old. Try something more clever.

Giraffe, oil is not "an elist entitlement," and last I saw the whole world (including "Third World" nations like China and India) was gobbling up oil.

You know, maybe we should pull out of Iraq and maybe we should just stop using any oil-based product today. No oil used in plastics, no oil used in ANY manufacturing. Stop ALL manufacturing this very instant. Ban the use of all cars, planes, trucks, what have you beginning at 12 a.m. eastern time, July 11.
No more oils used in the development of circuit boards, in fact any electrical product, and of course all hvacr products, everything. No more heating your home, no more air conditioning your home. No more using a refrigetor and freezer.
And, of course, ALL troops leave the whole Middle East by July 14.
Then, maybe your clueless morons on the Loony Left will for once keep quiet!

What's the matter Paulo "Racist" Cheney? Why are you so intimidated by Obama? Because he has a strong chance of becoming our next president? You keep claiming, in your bigoted ways, that America won't vote for someone with a middle name of Hussein. Then why does he already have a record number of donors to his campaign? He probably has more donors then all the GOP candidates combined. Keep spewing your racist hatred. You're a pathetic individual.

Marko, cut the racist crap. You folks on the left love to pull the racist card, but the real racists in this world are the folks on the Left.

You are very wise, John D. Very wise indeed. In fact you stand as a mountain of wisdom among the others in this Swamp. You are my most cherished. Perhaps one day they will understand you.

Hmm. I posted a reply to Charles Watts yesterday, that somehow missed this post.

Too controversial?

7) The growth of the dangerous Islamic terroists has been laid directly at the feet of GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Their invasion of Iraq has been the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda ever. Remember, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded - Saddam had them under control.

Posted by: BobinATL | July 10, 2007 8:42 AM

OK, Bob. I've heard this a lot. But just as it cannot be argued that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, likewise it cannot be argued that if we had simply not invaded Iraq, al Qaeda would have gone away. I can see very clearly that you said "the growth of the dangerous Islamic terrorists can be traced to GWB, etc." But the question you were answering was: "If there is a dangerous radical Islamic element, what do you think made them, caused them to be?" NOT what caused them to grow. Many who use your line of reasoning tread dangerously close to asserting that al Qaeda did not begin its global war on America and the West until the US invaded Iraq – which would be patently absurd, of course.
Incidentally, I, too, believe the US and NATO should reassert itself against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But once casualties begin climbing there, like in Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before the cry begins to withdraw from there, as well.
And, I have a brother in the military who is nearing deployment. And I am very proud of his decision to serve in this time of tumult.

JB:

I know that Al-Qaeda existed before our invasion - it is just that thanks to GWB, they have gotten stronger since it, instead of weaker.

The problem is still that there was no Al-Qaeda problem in Iraq before we invaded it. We had Bin-Laden cornered in Tora Bora, but Bush and company let him go. Remember, the country was behind the war in Afghanistan, where we were fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. If we would have stayed there, instead of pulling out and going to Iraq, we may have finished the job.

But Iraq and Afghanistan are two different deals. I would support a war in Afghanistan as long as we were weakening the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Most of us liberals would. The world was behind us in Afghanistan. But going into Iraq for no reason was just plain stupid.

My prayers go out for your brother and his tour of duty there.

(Yes Johnny D. - we loony lefties believe in God too).