Two Democratic experts: Stay the course in Iraq

Smart people can disagree, Democrats don't require everyone in the party to have the same opinion on every issue. So these Democrats are wrong, just like Lieberman was. Not very newsworthy.

After 4 1/2 years, where's the political solution?

Let's say we follow the authors' suggestion and stay until at least 2008. How does this bring about a political solution?

Everyone of any substance says there will be no lasting peace without a political solution - where is it? Who's bringing about any meaningful solutions worth talking about?

How is the mission being accomplished?

The Iraqi government is going on vacation and we're still occupying their country, why?

Occupation's don't work......period.

Since when do we let the generals (Petraeus) dictate our foreign policy? everywhere else that's called a "Dictatorship".
Petraeus is a Republican stooge who did re-elect George W Bush campaign commercials in 2004.

Pollack, incidentally, wrote "The Threatening Storm" the book in which he argued in the runup to the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein was a very real threat in part because he possessed weapons of mass destruction.

You can see why we don't agree with this guy, right? Even though he works for Brookings.

I still haven't heard what 'winning' means in this case.

Frank, kudos for running this piece.
They are right, unfortunately too many on the Left have too much invested in defeat that no matter what anyone says or does or proves, most of those on the Left will just ignore the facts.
Winning is imperative and it can be done. Fortunately Bush has the fortitude to stick it out for as long as he can. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not have the fortitude, strength or intelligence to stick it out and win this thing.
Doug, your nephew was there, his buddies were and are there, wouldn't you rather have it work in the end so all their hard work and sacrifice means something, wasn't for naught?
I agree with you there also needs to be a political solition and those yahoos taking a month off is pretty dumb and lame. Hopefully, in that month, when they come back in September, they will begin earnestly on that political solution.
I don't want success so much for Bush, Cheney, etc. I want this to work for the 3,600 who have lost thier lives, the 20,000+ who have lost limbs, the 3,000 who lost their lives in 9/11, and to develop hope for a part of the world that has seen little. It's in everyone's best interests.

What would happen if peace broke out without a treaty? Should everyone keep killing their neighbors just to keep the demo I mean diplomats talking?

Paul,

A democrat touting "Stay the Course" is definitly news, just as a Republican saying its time to get out.

This was also echoed on the liberal Chris Matthews show yesterday:

http://newsbusters.org/media-places/chris-matthews-show

Why is it the left is so objectionable to good news from Iraq? Could it be they want defeat to increase their odds of winning in 2008? NAhhhhh.

These two "harsh critics" have not provided a SHRED of evidence! Did they leave the Green Zone? With how big an escort? Did they wear flack jackets? Where is their Evidence? And Where IS the end? How long do our soldiers and our National Guardsmen have to be sitting ducks in a civil war??

Let our soldiers go on vacation when the Iraqi govt does.

War is a dirty business, always has been, always will be. The reasons why one gets into a war are almost always suspect, and never quite as real when it occurs, as much as history will correct it at some point in the future. Staying the course against a rising chorus is not an easy thing to do, and the steadfastness of this President to do just that is admirable. In time, history is probably going to show that this was the right thing to do and to see some from the left having an understanding of this is not at all bad.

Thinking back to our own Revoltlution, well, that didn't go very well at first either. In fact, the Union nearly broke apart years before the civil war, read some current books on the subject......

Given our own history, what makes anybody think this war, this fight against teror is something that will happen quickly?

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide.

Liberals now argue that
genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

They are right, unfortunately too many on the Left have too much invested in defeat that no matter what anyone says or does or proves, most of those on the Left will just ignore the facts.

Posted by: John D | July 30, 2007 5:25 PM

"Invested in defeat." Nice propaganda chickenhawk Johnny. You just don't get it. Democrats like republicans would love to see the situation in Iraq suddenly turn around. A Democratic Iraq is a pipe dream. One we all wish was reality but...

John D, stay off the crack!

Well, maybe they are trying to help out Hillary, who has been somewhat cagey about her plans for Iraq. After all, Pollack did work for Clinton at the NSC. And we know who's running Hillary's campaign strategy. As I've said before, Obama's characterization of her
as "Bush-Cheney light" may not be that far off. And we also know that in September Petraeus is almost certainly going to recommend that we stay in Iraq through mid-2009, and then who knows.

Look for Hillary to start pushing a much more "nuanced" (ha) approach to Iraq once she gets through the primaries and gets nominated. She won't need the liberal antiwar crowd any more at that point.

Meanwhile, did anyone notice Pollack and O'Hanlon were sort of dissing Maliki and the Baghdad central govt.
Looks like Maliki will go when Bush does..if not before

You want to know how "vocal" these "critics" have been about the Iraq debacle?

Glenn Greenwald gives you chapter and verse:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html

Here is the full article from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html

The chaos that would result by cutting and running now would make Saigon and Phnom Pehn look like light warfare. The ensuing revenge killings would ensure that all nations everywhere would know that the USA should never be trusted. Maybe this is what the left wing of the Democrtic party really wants. So when a thoughtful piece like this is published, it is quickly dismissed by what many call the "defeat America" left. I think the piece shows that there is good reason to believe the surge may work.

I agree that people are entitled to have their own separate positions on Iraq, independent from the people running the party or any respective branches of government. This is a key part of critical independent thinking, something lockstep republitards seem incapable of. I also agree that we have to stay in Iraq, losing more precious American lives and limbs, throwing dollars and equipment at a terrible, awful, incredible mistake, one of the worst ever made in the history of the US. To leave now is to allow Iraq to turn into a huge taliban Afghanistan, albeit, one with potential oil revenue. My point is, and has always been, we should not have been there in the first place. If shrub wasn't a nation building, saber rattling, wannabe cowboy, we'd still be containing Iraq, and have more to show for the work in Afghanistan. History will not be kind to earboy and president mcshotgun.

John D.,

When it comes to war, I don't do wishes.

I want results. Tangible results. Like most Americans have been patient I think I've been pretty patient too. I don't want to spend a lot of time argueing about how we got where we are.

However, we have been at it for 4 1/2 years and the best I've heard on the Iraqi Government's attempt at a political solution is (to paraphrase): "They'll try again when they get back in September."

That's not good enough. Secretaries Rice and Gates should go to where al-Maliki and company are vacationing and lean on them to get their crap together. And I do mean LEAN. When al-Maliki opens his door for room service Gates should be standing there to remind him our troops are getting killed while he decides how he wants his eggs cooked. Bon appetit.

The military alliances we've been a part of in Iraq are temporary and of self-serving convenience. These Muslims only tolerate the presence of we infidels to the extent that we provide something they need/want.

So let's not delude ourselves. al-Maliki & company happy talk better produce a political solution yesterday or we will leave the day before yesterday.

Terry,
When are you going to put down your fat GOP wallet and sign up for this great "success story" that is Iraq?
Age shouldn't be a problem, these days the military will even take chickenhawks like you.

John E., weren't you suppose to have been in Iraq by now? Didn't you say last October that the Pentagon said you were going back into the military and be in Iraq by February? Or how is your son doing? You know, the one who you said was in Iraq.
Oh Johnny E., the Elgin Mental Health Center is still looking for you. I hear they are looking for Janet too.

Just a question - How long were we active in West Germany after WW2? How long till the civil situation was "acceptable"?

As an independent, I really find it strange that members of the Democratic party's left wing view the NYT piece in a negative way and seem to actually be pulling for America's defeat in Iraq. FDR and Harry Truman must be spinning in their graves. Regardless of politics, I do not think the majority of Americans want to see their country lose.

Pollack and O'Hanlon have been wrong about Iraq for years, and guess what...they're wrong again. Why does anyone pay any attention to people who are consistently wrong?

Athena is right. Go check out Greenwald if you want the real facts.

The NYT was wrong when they backed the initial invasion of Iraq, and they are wrong now.

These are the similar to the arguments that kept us in Vietnam for 58k American deaths, and 3Mb SE Asian deaths.

Sedona,

The left has been vocally critical of NYT's support of the Iraq war at it outset. This is not news.

" I do not think the majority of Americans want to see their country lose."

Easy to say as you shovel other peoples lives, American and Iraqi, into the furnace.

My God, Goebbels is being proved right. Never thought it would be America that proved it.

O'Hanlon and Pollack actively supported the invasion and occupation from the start. Only beltway insiders pay any attention to people like them anymore.

The occupation of Iraq isn't the solution to the problem, it IS the problem.

These two guys illustrate why Kerry would have also been a disaster in Iraq after campaigning that he would conduct the war better than Bush.

For C. Morris, making comparisons to Nazi Germany are often off-base. In my case, the monument to victims of Bergen-Belsen carries the names of relatives of mine: a mother, father and their young daughter. Please do not talk to me about shoveling people into ovens. National Socialism was a horrible example of a minority of extremists who took over a country and the devastation and murder they inflicted affects us all today...some of us a little more directly than others.

Sedona,

The comparison is regarding the effectiveness of propaganda and a peoples willingness to believe anything.
It's fair to invoke Dr. G.

I won't be cowed into not seeing the compare with the past to our present situation. What's to point of never forgetting if we ignore the lessons??

Let's take the example of not admitting to mistakes, political or military.

Hitler refused to allow tactical retreats at Stalingrad in spite of his generals wishes to retreat far enough to wait out the Russian winter with sustainable supply lines. Dolphy wouldn't listen and lost 300k troops.

Similar to GWB and his refusal to admit mistakes in Iraq strategy, and just about everything else.

This doesn't mean GWB is anything like Hitler, it just means he may be as stupid.

I note you seem to have missed my point re. The NYT. You are the one doing the Orwellian rewrite regarding the left and the NYTs support of the war in Iraq.

Lots of us had people killed in wars past, BTW.

Posted by John D July 30, 2007 7:53 PM

Little Sweaty Johnny,
I'm still waiting for you to provide some proof that I'm wrong.

I've stated all along that the only way out of Iraq is to replace our old strongman (S. Hussein) with a new strongman.

The current reports of rampant corruption in Iraq - in which Iraqi officials estimate that billions of dollars are "missing" - only goes to show that this war is about one thing and one thing only - $$$.

If "winning" means replacing our old strongman with a new one, then these two dopes may be on to something. But President Bush promised democracy, not another dictatorship.

John E,

What no t-ball game tonight?

CM,

The NYT article was an editorial by O'Hanlon and Pollack, not the NYT editorial board. Don't worry, the Ol' Gray Lady hasn't turned conservative on you.

Markg8,

From Mr., Pollack - you know the guy that has been behiind the invasion from the start:

"Iraq is rapidly descending into all-out civil war. Unfortunately, the United States probably will not be able to just walk away from the chaos. Even setting aside the humanitarian nightmare that will ensue, a full-scale civil war would likely consume more than Iraq: historically, such massive conflicts have often had highly deleterious effects on neighboring countries and other outside states. Spillover from an Iraq civil war could be disastrous."

" When al-Maliki opens his door for room service Gates should be standing there to remind him our troops are getting killed while he decides how he wants his eggs cooked. Bon appetit."

Zook's got a good idea here. (The bunch of half stepping slackers. (Theirs and ours.)

So when a thoughtful piece like this is published, it is quickly dismissed by what many call the "defeat America" left. I think the piece shows that there is good reason to believe the surge may work.

Posted by: John K | July 30, 2007 6:29 PM

What a Hallmark moment. All the experts who tell you this is a failure, don't know what they're talking about. You found 2 Dems trying to sell a poorly realized concept as a book. Pollack and O'Hanlon's comments sound creepily like BushChenyCo. propaganda. Ann Coulter has made a fortune from this kind of hack commentary.

Seems like every month since the invasion somebody has gotten a dog and pony show in Iraq and and written a fairy tale op-ed. These guys have done it before. They've always been wrong. Always.

Without a political solution there is no solution. And all the evidence indicates there will not be a political solution as long as we are occupying Iraq. Hard case fantasies aside.

The Iraqi government is going on vacation and we're still occupying their country, why?

Occupation's don't work......period.

Posted by: John E | July 30, 2007 5:12 PM

You mean like when we occupied Japan and Germany after world war two -

You are wrong John E. Everyone gets a chance to see it right here. You have no credibility!

You mean like when we occupied Japan and Germany after world war two -

You are wrong John E. Everyone gets a chance to see it right here.

You have no credibility!

America is doing a noble and just job in Iraq and we are doing it well considering the nature of the radical Islamic enemy and their supporters on the loony left.

John E- YOU ARE JUST WRONG, PERIOD.

"The ensuing revenge killings would ensure that all nations everywhere would know that the USA should never be trusted."

Posted by: John K

Right, because we're soooooo trusted right now.

The "trust" that this administration has shown the world, is that we are allowed to attack anywhere, anytime, premptively and without evidence or provocation.

The "Good War" (as the great Studs Terkel might call it) would have been to completely destroy Alqueda and catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones who actually attacked us. Heck, we didn't get involved in WW II until we were attacked by Japan. That's the way a just nation should handle war. You only attack after you have been attacked.

You don't make up evidence and claim its o.k. to attacak because at some, possible point in the distant future it may be possible that someone will develop weapons that might harm us.

Instead, Bush's personal, private "revenge war" has opened the door to Alqueda in Iraq, so now we don't even really now where they are.

2 dems say "stay the course." Suddenly THAT proves Satancheney right? How about the 6 Republican who say "time to get out?" That seems like a 3/4 majority saying get out. It seems so easy for Satancheney's minnons to forget to think. Has he locked up all their brains in a secure, undiscosed location?

VP, Terry and all the other common sense folk: You should know by now that when dealing the the demented, deranged, defest America at all costs Loony Left, that by brining facts, history, perspective into the equation has all the effectiveness of trying to convince the alligator not to eat the deer.

Just a question - How long were we active in West Germany after WW2? How long till the civil situation was "acceptable"?

Posted by: Dave Baker | July 30, 2007 8:02 PM

Dave,
Since you like history so much. Tell us Swampsters how well the occupation of Germany after the first World War went. We will await your analysis.

vp,
Tell us Swampsters how well the American occupation of Germany after World War One went. Yes thats right World War I. Pick up a history book and tell us how successful that occupation was.

"Little Sweaty Johnny,
I'm still waiting for you to provide some proof that I'm wrong.

Posted by: John E | July 30, 2007 10:24 PM"

And we're all still waiting for John D to provide ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Dubya does. Just saying that "all rich people pay a lot for their custom made suits" DOES NOT provide evidence to back up the allegation.

You would think that John D, the self-proclaimed newsman, would know a thing or two about fact-checking before submitting a story for publication. He needs a good editor to clean up his posts before releasing them to the public.

I read Pollack's book. He was one hundred percent wrong. Why did he sell Bush's position so strongly in his book. You could not buy that kind of support at such a critical time. Or could you?

John K, mindlessly parroting Sean Hannity says, "The chaos that would result by cutting and running now would make Saigon and Phnom Pehn look like light warfare. The ensuing revenge killings would ensure that all nations everywhere would know that the USA should never be trusted."

John K., you must be right. All of the Cheneybush regime's predictions for all things Iraqi have been so compeltely accurate. How could we possibly question them? If Satancheney and his minnions say it, by golly that's good enough for me! I believe. I believe. I believe .....

"
The NYT article was an editorial by O'Hanlon and Pollack, not the NYT editorial board. Don't worry, the Ol' Gray Lady hasn't turned conservative on you."

T,

An important distinction, I agree..

Well Johnny E., what exactly are you asking me to prove you wrong about?

BC, I'll tell you what - prove me wrong! Prove me wrong in my contention that John Edwards pays a couple thousand or so for his suits.
Prove me wrong that a man who flies his hairdresser country to cut his hair at over $1,200 a pop, would buy suits for just a few hundreds dollars. Prove me wrong that a man who's net worth is estimated at $60 million and who's home is worth about $10 million would wear suits that only cost a few hundred dollars.
And, to finish this off, prove me wrong that you are nothing but a Grade AAA dingbat!

Since BC is so determined for info about John Edwards and his suits, here is an item from an article on the Breck Girl that appears in Men's Vogue magazine (by the way, the article is a glowing piece of "journalism"):
Edwards has a decidedly New South profile, a peculiar blend of country flavor and newly minted wealth. He prefers white wine with his NCAA March Madness, imported suits with his GMC truck.

The Breck Girl buys "imported suits."

And "white wine" while watching college basketball??? Yeah, John Edwards buys cheap suits.

The wacky, weird, make-believe world of the Loony Left!

John D. and others, why is it important how much anyone's clothes cost? I think this whole discussion is getting off track. Edwards, Bush, Clinton, Guiliani, Obama, Satancheney ... they ALL have expensive clothing. So what?! They are wealthy people and act like wealthy people. Being and acting wealthy doesn't make you good or bad - it makes you well dressed and / or well coiffed. It's their policies we should be evaluating, not their clothing budget. I'd rather hear how 3,600+ dead Americans and 20,000+ wounded Americans will benefit by any of these folks dressing below their means. Before you launch into a tirade about the evils of the Democrats and how you're just setting the record straight, remember that very wealthy Bush "claims" to be a compassionate conservative wanting to unite us, not divide us, and sees an America with equal opportunity for all. Should he start buying and wearing cheaper suits, too? Satancheney, of course, is beyond questioning and doesn't care about anyone else anyway. I'm sure his cothing and haircut information is classified and held safe in either one of the man-sized vaults in his office or a secure, undisclosed location.

BTW: the $1,200 haircut included airfare, lodging and the loss of business from the rest the barber's clients that day. Still, chump change for any of these folks.

Now, what about that $8 billion in a lost "payroll error" in Baghdad? I feel like the Cheneybush regime clipped us all, shaved us all far too close on that one. Don't you?

America is doing a noble and just job in Iraq and we are doing it well considering the nature of the radical Islamic enemy and their supporters on the loony left.

Posted by: vp | July 31, 2007 6:14 AM

Stay off the crack pipe vp, or you'll end up a mindless, word drooling simpleton. Kinda like John D. A dope. A halfwit. A NUMSKULL!!! p.s. John dressing well is not a crime. Just like dressing badly is not a badge of honor. Freak.

Illogic Man, such an adult commentary from you. But I would never expect anything but sheer, perpetual stupidity from the likes of you.
Face it, you folks will lose next year. The U.S. will ultimately succeed in Iraq and history will look at Bush in glowing terms.

And snalg, I really could care less how much John Edwards pays for his suits, where he gets them, etc. He made his money and is entitled to spend it as he sees fit. BC is the one who keeps harping about Edwards' and Bush's suits. Harp at him for continuing to keep it up post after post and after post.

Face it, you folks will lose next year. The U.S. will ultimately succeed in Iraq and history will look at Bush in glowing terms.

Posted by: John D | July 31, 2007 2:39 PM

I'll save this to repost in Nov 2008!!! You are one dim little misanthrope. I bet if George Bush took you on a glass bottom boat ride you'd still worship him!!!

Terry our soldiers are fighting to protect a government that is going to be a Shiite theocracy allied with Iran. Many in Maliki's government are still on our terrorist watch list. They're more Hezbollah than they are John Adams or Thomas Jefferson.

No matter which president gives the order, when we leave Iraq there will dancing in the streets of Baghdad. They will all celebrate their "victory" over the occupier. Maliki or whatever bunch of Iranian stooges are in office will immediately make anti American declarations to keep from losing all cred if not their lives.

You can't blame them. If another country invaded, occupied and destroyed our country most of us (though evidently not the likes of you) would fight them too.

Bush knows that and that's
the reason he'll do anything to run out the clock and blame his fiasco on his successor.

Markg8

Sometimes history doesn't give you the best options. Remember who we had to allie with in WW2 to defeat Hitler? Stalin and the Communists.

Sometime the none of the options are any good.

As far as our country be invaded and the like of me not fighting, you have that wrong! It would be the liberals in this country that would worry about the rights of the invaders before defending ourselves. The left would be worried about the body count instead of securing our freedom.

[quote]
And snalg, I really could care less how much John Edwards pays for his suits, where he gets them, etc. He made his money and is entitled to spend it as he sees fit. BC is the one who keeps harping about Edwards' and Bush's suits. Harp at him for continuing to keep it up post after post and after post.

Posted by: John D | July 31, 2007 2:39 PM
[/quote]

And I'll keep "harping" about it until you do one of two things:

1. Post PROOF that Edwards spends as much on his suits as Bush does, as you said in a Swamp post

- or -

2. Post an admission that you made that "fact" up.

Your choice John D. You can run from the challenge, but I'll never let you hide from it.

The left would be worried about the body count instead of securing our freedom.

Posted by: Terry | July 31, 2007 8:11 PM

Vile comment!

FBR,

Sometimes the truth hurts.