Hot topics in the news on Fox News is DNC Chairman Howard Dean's recent statement that the war in Iraq is unwinable.

This came or comes on the echo of Senator John Kerry's weekend interview where he related our soldiers to be terrorist, or instil terror in the people of Iraq as they perform anti terror missions in Iraqi homes looking for IED's and terror suspects.

Meanwhile Senator Joe Leiberman clearly supports the war effort and supports the Commander in Chief's plan for victory.

Fox News spokepersons have called Kerry's and Dean's statements basis for charges of treason. Just this evening on Fox Hannity and Combs a Democratic stratigist could not defend their statements...

Question for debate:

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?

Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?

Edited to add: The source for this post is Fox News on numerous programs this date. Hannity & Combs interviewed Bob Beckel, Democratic spokeperson who could not defend not charging treason. The program will be repeated later in the day for those who care to see the reference.

Are you kidding Sarge-- The republican news channel's talking points memo live Hannity and Combs trying to paint democrats and anyone opposing bush as traitors--I am stunned. Stunned i tell you.

You have any proof that Dean is incorrect? personally i would argue that bush's mishandling of Iraq has left us in a worse situation and the only aid and comfort to the enemy has been by this administration. Especially since the 9/11 hijackers were saudis.


When it becomes illegal to voice your opinion freely in this country because America is over anyways.

Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?
Because he doesn't agree with them--pretty simple reason.


Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?
Why would they?

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

Most definitely not. "Aid and comfort" is a phrase that was deliberately chosen with a specific meaning, such as providing logistical support, food, lodging, etc., to a foreign army. At minimum, to prove such a charge would require showing that the accused actually had some sort of contact with the enemy. Simply expressing a view of the war effort, however repugnant, does not fall in that category.

This isn't to say that I approve of what they had to say. I might even go so far as to say that it's morally treasonable. But "aid and comfort" is a phrase that specifically refers to the legal definition of treason, and it has not been met here.

There is a possibility that I may be wrong, but isn't this the same thing that George Bush said back in 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics...c9w0+vgVJg3qZ9g



It seems that Bush was saying almost the same thing as Howard Dean. I guess ole George is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

No!. Both Kerry and Dean offered their statements as part of the opposition party. I am a Constitutional purist. There has been no declaration of war, so technically there is no enemy.

Why do you think Senator Leiberman [sic] came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?

Just as all Republicans do not think alike, neither do Democrats.

Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman[sic] for his support for the war effort?

No, There seem to be three positions evolving in the Democratic party. 1. "Stay the course" in line with Bush and Cheney. 2. Begin planning for eventual withdrawal or redeployment. 3. Get out now.

My guess is that the American public will grow so weary of this war that they will punish the Bush administration and Democrats like Lieberman.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?
Sometimes I want a nail a metal plate over Dean's mouth. And sometimes I realize that no matter what he says and how he says it the 24/7 media will publish a sentence or less no matter how small that portion of a speech or how minor a passing comment it is.

Aid and comfort? May as well lump protesters into this law-breaking category. May as well lump a third of 's posters as treasonous. How un-American.

Why do you think Senator Lieberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?
Good question. Did Lieberman win the billion-dollar USAID grant to stabilize Iraq’s ten most dangerous cities? Granted, USAID’s offer was made public the same day Bush outlined his National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, but a Senator is an insider, right?

Will the DNC punish Senator Lieberman for his support for the war effort?
I think the DNC will just disagree with Lieberman. Republicans will milk the significance of this disagreement for all it’s worth.

The ludicrous comments of Dean and Kerry certainly will give aid to the enemy. They KNOW clearly that they cannot defeat us militarily so their only hope is to beat us mentally and Dean and Kerry have surely given them help in that area.

Lieberman seems to be a Democrat who is not just focused on any scrap of political gain that can be garnered by the stupid statements of not just Dean and Kerry but other Dems as well. Let’s hope he can, as he said today, put together a by-partisan group in congress to focus on victory in Iraq.

Certainly the left wing of the Democratic Party has no love for Lieberman and this will only increase their rancor. Bottom line though is if his constituents agree with him they will continue to re-elect him.

Question for debate:

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?
No, I don’t think so. The way I see their comments are not helpful. The comments by either person would not have been delivered had the spokesperson been in front of a military audience. While most soldiers acknowledge the position of both of these high positioned Democrats they also recognize stupid things fall out of their mouths from time to time. I’m more concerned how the enemy and foreign press receives their communication. I think in America the speech is helpful for the people to see where politicians stand on issues. I the war area and in the world view I fear their words could lead to encouragement to kill more Americans.
Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?
The only reason I asked this question is to come back at this time and say all three of these guys were running for the President or Vice President. Had Kerry and Leiberman been elected imagine the difference in comparison to the party in power.
Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?
I think Senator Leiberman’s political career is over if Howard Dean has anything to do with it. I have heard a former republican turned independent is being groomed to challenge him in upcoming election.

Before I answer the questions posed for debate...


I have read the transcript of this interview. John Kerry does not at any time call American troops terrorists. Even his reference to "terrorizing" is specific:



He's not even saying that these raids are unneccesary. He's just pointing out, and I agree, that when our soldiers do this, it feeds the general anti-American sentiment in Iraq. He wants Iraqi security to do it instead. I don't see anything remotely treasonous about this kind of statement. Using the verb "terrorize," particularly in this context, has no relation to the word "terrorist."

I have no doubt there are some 'wacky' liberals who would say that American soldiers are terrorists. Kerry is not one of them. There are also 'wacky' conservatives who spend all there time trying to prove liberals are evil and traitorous. Many of them seem to work for Fox News.

Here's what Dean said:


Wow, what a foaming-at-the-mouth crazy man! Or, not. Again, the idea that this is treason is ludicrous.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?


Not at all. Dean again, for emphasis: "We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops." How does that possibly even approach treason? And what possible Democrat did Hannity get who "couldn't defend" this? I am not a Democrat, but I could have certainly defended against the patently insane idea that Dean and Kerry are somehow giving aid and comfort to the "enemy" with these statements.

Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?

Believe it or not, different people come to different conclusions about many issues. Some soldiers who have fought in this war are very much opposed to it; some are still very supportive. Why do they come to different conclusions?

Will the DNC punish Senator Lieberman for his support for the war effort?

Probably. Lieberman should not represent the Democratic party in any national way. If that is "punishment" then so be it.

Now being I typically do not align myself with the republicans simply because of really their connections to religion in government and being anti environmental does not mean I dislike the party overall, but I do not like the current administration one bit. I like the natural law party overall, and basically feel my political views are independent/semi liberal. I thought I should just state that before the rest of my opinion.

I find John Kerry to be rather level headed, even if I think legal dealings with guns in American and laws around them are rather pointless, more akin to the drug war, I do overall agree with a great amount of what he says. I do not care so much for various other high ranking democrats though. More on the point, I find I agree with a majority of what Kerry is stating. Kuwait is a nation that accepts us because they were attacked by Iraq, they realized at that point how to look at things in terms of what’s right and wrong in the eyes of survival and a better world if you will for there people and there nation overall. Not to say Kuwait as a nation accepts what is going on in Iraq, but I do not think things will change for the better until people in Iraq want that change.

I think furthermore, we need to shift the responsibility for Iraq’s change more into that hands of the Iraqis. If what is said is true, that Iraqis do sign up and want to make the change, then we need to foster and support that, and let those Iraqis be the hand of change to a democratic Iraq, of course with support, but not the current strategy of support that is witnessed.

I have expressed In many posts my position that the current WOT strategy in Iraq is one that lacks any fitness in my eyes, I do agree that a different strategy needs to be tested if anything before some form of an all out pullout, for we are overall responsible for the current situation in Iraq, and turning our backs would be similar to Vietnam... I also do not care again to continue the same way as I am sure many others are basically voicing the same, for it seems very similar again to Vietnam...

ON the note of treason, I do not see how anyone that is not in a state of only thinking some politicians express the true patriotism could argue it. As I have noticed more and more, many conservatives see there line of thought as the true patriotism of America. I simply do not agree with that line of thinking at all, furthermore, I could not find anything on these reports by high ranking democrats that would be heard by anyone that cares which in turn could be dubbed such. I think its more or less insecurity really, or something akin to being in the fifth grade.

I do not think you can really dictate who will do what for the DNC currently, its all turbulence in relation to Iraq, who knows you could see a ticket with Hilary on it, its still to far away to really speak on. As far as Leiberman maybe being different to the situation, who knows ultimately, I have not heard much from him period in regards to the news really.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

To quote another poster in another thread…bull PUCKY. The above question has no basis in reality and the wording is inflammatory. quarkhead has eloquently debunked the whole silly notion.

According to Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, treason is defined as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It is also generally considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government.

“Aid and comfort” implies an overt act and intent. Somehow I don’t believe John Kerry or Howard Dean are attempting to or conspiring with someone to overthrow the US government. That’s delusional.

Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?

Um, because he has his own views? I know it’s a novel concept when the other party’s members tend to march in lockstep with the party-approved message, but hey, diff’rent strokes.

Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?

This is not even worth taking seriously enough to answer.

1. No more than George W. Bush's comment to "Bring 'em on" gave "aid and comfort to the enemy" and encouraged them to kill Americans. Certainly no more treasonous than the idea that the United States unilaterally invaded another country based on "evidence" that had been manufactured to meet the results desired by the neo-conservatives that had lusted for this war. DNC Chairman Dean has been opposed to the war in Iraq since he first became a national figure in the 2004 election. Senator Kerry has come around to the conclusion that this war the wrong war being fought at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. That's not treason.

"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.'' - Howard Dean

Whoa. What a wildly RADICAL thing to say.

But if it is, before Dean and Kerry go on trial for treason, start with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the entire Council for the New American Century and don't stop until George Bush takes the stand.

2. Uh, because Senator Lieberman (not Leiberman) is a neo-conservative Democrat? There are such political animals you know. It's still a free country (despite what the right-wingers in the audience might think) and even U.S. Senators are allowed to have their opinions. Occasionally they have decidedly wrong opinions. Such as Senator Lieberman.

That's L-I-B-E-R-M-A-N. If you're going to try and exploit the differences between one Democrat and another, Ol Sarge, you could take the time to learn how to spell the man's name right. http://lieberman.senate.gov/

3. How exactly could the DNC "punish" Lieberman? Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't ruthlessly enforce groupthink. Nobody tried to punish Representative John Murtha when he supported the war. And not every Democrat has embraced his call to withdraw since he came out against the war.

I know these kind of subtleties are lost upon some conservatives, but not everyone is frightened by independent, critical thinking. John Kerry and Howard Dean are entitled to oppose the war and Joe Lieberman is entitled to support it. I'm glad to see there are some political parties left where you can hold a different point of view and not be called a "traitor" or be accused of committing "treason" or something equally ludicrous.

That's the beautiful thing about this democracy of ours. You can be free to hold an opinion and express it. No matter how few or many others support it. No matter how right or wrong it is. No matter how smart or stupid it is.

Oh, and Ted?



Two words. Prove it.

QUARKHEAD I think it only fitting that I quote Lieberman (thanks to nighttimer I can now spell his name right) ending to the speech noted since you quoted Dean and Kerry. Actually, nighttimer it is an hour later here and the topic posting was the last thing I did before milk and cookies... It’s a tropical thing that makes you a little dyslectic in anticipation of transition of drinks. Also note that I replied to my post today with my position which, differs somewhat from the Fox News spokesperson. Did I ever tell you my best friend is black, with crooked teeth and buggy eyes... Yea, I think I did... nevermind...
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=249522


Edited to place Lieberman's words in quotes.

Oh well I think that since we control the country for the most part with an established Iraqi government and there will soon be another round of free elections that it is up to YOU to prove that we “cannot win”: as the idiot Dean has said.

Fire away.

Oh no, it would rude of me to attempt to answer your claim that Howard Dean has given aid and comfort to the insurgents and caused the death or injury to American troops.

It is incumbent upon you, Ted to provide the evidence that this is so. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Now on the other hand, I have no problem in demonstrating that thousands of American soliders have been killed and wounded since President Bush made his "idiot remark" to "bring it on."

If what determines victory is an active insurgency, murders, bombings rampant crime and show elections then you're welcome to it. What the president is trying to pass off as a wonderful example of democracy and nation-building looks more and more like chaos and disorder.

nighttimer allow me to state that much relation has been made between this conflict and Vietnam. When Vietnam ended the top general leadership have been quoted as stating something to the effect, that had it not been for the anti-war movement and the loss of will by the American people they would have surrendered during the bombing of the North.

I will also add that early in the Iraq War during the American Presidential election American Soldiers were the primary targets as America decided to follow the Dean-Kerry or Bush camp. Immediately after America selected Bush the insurgency suddenly moved their strategy to target Iraqi civilians primarily and target Americans much less.

nighttimer you keep track of the body counts at the bottom of your posts so you could probably prepare a graph that represents American casualties day by day. I will give you odds that American soldier death track exactly with the political will and sentiment of the American population’s support for the war.

To your first point Ol Sarge regarding if the North Vietnamese leadership would have surrendered had it not been for the anti-war demonstrations and the American people turning against the conflict, what of it? We lived then as we do now in a democracy where it's the bureaucrats and politicians who start the wars and the military that goes to fight them. However, it's the civilians who have the final say on the subject.

As long as the majority of the public supports a war that's one thing. However, in most wars there comes a point where the public weights the benefits vs the costs of a war and that's when they can turn off on it. That time came for the Vietnam War and it appears to be coming around for the War in Iraq.

Secondly, that's a neat and tidy theory you put forth as to why the insurgents are targeting Iraqi civilians and policemen, but since you don't provide anything to support the theory, I doubt the correctness of it.

A theory that has considerably more heft to it is put forth by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in the new book, The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right. The authors write:

The Iraqi insurgency puzzles many people. In May 2005, James Bennet of the New York Times observed, "The insurgents in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond expelling the Americans...This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long term strategy remains."

But the failure is one of American comprehension, not insurgent strategy. The jihadists have been clear about their simple goal: Kill Americans, kill any foreigners allied or supporting them, kill Iraqis working with the Americans, and ensure that the American project of reconstructing Iraq fails. Over time as U.S. forces became harder to hit, the militants have shifted their efforts from targeting Americans to targeting the new Iraqi forces---"cutting out the middleman," as Bennet puts it---but they were making startling headway just the same."

A tactical change from hard targets to soft targets by the militants cannot be credited to the election of Bush over Kerry. Nice try though.

Finally, I would certainly hope that the sentiment of the American people is directly linked to how many of their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands are coming back dead, maimed or wounded. It certainly seems to have had a negative pull on the president's poll standings. As well it should.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?
Dean and Kerry's comments do not offer aid and comfort to the Iraqi insurgents. Aid would be in the form of something tangible like weapons or tactical information. The possibility exists that these statements might have a positive effect on the moral of the Iraqi insurgents, but ultimately these statements will not have any effect. With all due respect to you and your opinions, this question is an example of a miopic perspective. Do you really think the Iraqi insurgents care what Howard Dean says? Americans don't even care. Do the Iraqi insurgents have FOX or CNN? They do not, though they might have a FOX Middle East if our troops are allowed to plant stories in their media.

Sen. Kerry's comments about comparing US troops is an unfair comparison. Because it gives credit to the terrorists for the creation of techniques such as torture and propoganda. Let us be fair to the American policy makers, those techniques are "Made in America." Our nations' President and Vice-President are trying to get a torture exception clause written into federal legislation. For someone to recommend charging these two men for treasons is not an attack on them, but an attack on free speech. Since when is a statement or thought subject to treason? That is a depressing thought.........that is, if FOX allows me to have thoughts.
Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?
It is easier to answer a question about Action/Reaction than a question about the thought processes of an individual. The simple answer is I don't know. This question is an obvious attempt to divide and conquer by presenting two different and opposing idealogies from members of the same political party.
Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?
Most likely, he will be forced to run with Al Gore again for President and when Al wins he will stab him in the back and appoint Howard Dean as VP. Who knows what the DNC will do?

Sadly you are correct, but I must respond to your conclusion of “what of it?” The what of it is this, America now has a wall of shame made of black granite. Every soldier on that wall, and those who come to rub the names of fallen warriors names with carbon are all victims to the anti war movement. The tens of thousands of wounded soldiers from that war also sacrificed for NOTHING because of the anti war movement. To the benefit of the anti-war movement and wet finger elected leaders over a million civilians were slaughtered after our rapid departure. As history has shown in the case of Vietnam the only consequence now is we have Vietnamese boat people communities and some great diversity in dining as a result.

The American public then, as now were swayed by a minority group of outspoken persons who find the war or any war reprehensible and immoral. Then as now weak politicians will flow like silly putty to mold themselves into the desired representative of their constituents.

You speak of the majority of the people weighing cost v. benefits as the deciding factor. Well, I see preservation of our nation as a “republic” part of our democratic republic government where true leaders don‘t use polls to decide what is best for the nation.

I am not much into conspiracy theories but I see politics based on the weakest of means at work. First tare down the administration’s basis for going to war while excusing yourself for voting to support such an administration and then submit the war is failing. One must look at the moving parts to appreciate this strange clock in action... The wet spitball of “lying us into war” didn’t stick and the left isn’t spinning that mainspring any longer... Yet, it had its affect and the 24/7 news has to talk about something... The immediate withdraw packaged by a Democratic war hero would have done the trick had the fruit been ripe. But, Nancy just can’t herd all the cats and neither can the hateful minority leader of the Senate. If they could only get their strategy together the Democratic Party could gain a majority in 06... impeach Bush while allowing another 2,000 solider deaths to occur until the fear hit the remaining of the Republicans to pull out with helicopters from tops of buildings so we could have another wall of shame.

The difference is the fruit isn’t ripe...and a majority of American people want victory... not saying with encouragement form the left finding unanimity in cut and run the terrorist wouldn’t make it bloody enough to change their minds. Already Senator Clinton has positioned herself for such a sweeping change?

My analogy explains why James Bennet, your reference, find the insurgency puzzling. Because my comments earlier of relating the American soldier deaths to current news make more common sence than James... Do the math...

Iraq is not Vietnam and if we cut and run, impeach Bush and elect all Democrats the terrorist will replace our soliders in Iraq and before the six year democrat rule is passed America will be attacked and democrats will once again have proven they cannot be trusted on defense. Do the math and see when the left talks negative soldiers die in large numbers. The death chart looks like a cheap penny stock chart to match a weak party willing to kill soldiers with words for power.

They died for nothing, because we were fighting for nothing. Come to a logical conclusion, why were we in Vietnam? To stop the spread of communism. Why are we opposed to communism? Because it is economically opposite of our system capitalism. So we were fighting for money.... like I said, they died for nothing, because they fought for nothing.


Weak politicians had better mold to their constituents. They wouldn't be representatives if they weren't REPRESENTING. It's plain English, not hard to understand. You are playing with words when you speak of a Republic and Leadership in the same sentence. Either that or you don't know what a Republic is, in the most applicable definition to how you describe it, the President is still accountable to the people.


How has victory been defined? By oil profits? By subjugating the majority of Iraqis into believing that there is no alternative but our alternative. We'll stay the course, and thousands, maybe even millions of Iraqis will die, until eventually they get tired of seeing their country destroyed and their neighbors harrassed and murdered, then they'll acquiesce, we'll claim victory, and Bush's head will go onto Mt. Rushmore right between Reagan and Jesus.


You're right, Iraq has oil.


The terrorists are our soldiers.


I would like to trust a party not for defense, but for peace. I would like to know I elect a representative who isn't going to drag us into war for vengeance and profit.

That is a truly spectacular piece of revisionism there Ol'Sarge. So the only reason the US lost in Vietnam was because of the anti-war movement?

Firstly, your quote in a previous post, about the North surrendering if it were not for the anti-war movemnt is complete fiction. I have no doubt a few of the US commanders may have claimed such, (though this might have something to do with them trying to justify how they lost the first war for the US since 1812) but there is no evidence to back up that claim, and masses to oppose it. The North Vietnamese were never 'about to surrender' in that war, they were fighting with a very similar fanticism to what we are starting to see in some elements of the Iraqi insurgency, fanaticism not about religion or matyrdom, but about fierce nationalism. The Vietnamese had not surrendered under the Chinese, the Japanese or the French, it is foolishnes to assume based on the comment of a couple self-vindicating US generals that they would have against the US.

Secondly, lets get the facts right. The oppositiong to Vietnam by 1971 was not a 'small vocal minority', it ws the majority of the Country. Secondly, the war in Vietnam as it was being fought was not winnable. Casualty percentages at the end of the war were on the increase, not the decrease. Drugs and poor morale had crippled US combat power, by 1971 an estimated 60% of US forces in Vietnam were using drugs regularily.

The reality is that the US pulled out of Vietnam because the military could not give them a victory, and because losses in Vietnam were achieving nothing. If you dispute that, perhaps you could explain how, given the situation in 1971, the US could possibly have won that war?



See that does not make any sense. Why do you have so little faith in the American people that you asume that the vast body of the population was 'so easily swayed' by this 'small vocal minority'? Do you really think the US population is so weak minded that they overwhelmingly turned against the war, not because of the reality of the war, not because of the pain of loss over 10 years with no gain, not because of the mounting casualties in this faraway war, but because they blindly followed this 'small vocal minority'?



Really? Thats odd, because over in the 'gay marriage' threads most people on the right are arguing exactly the opposite, that the 'democratic will' of the people should trump what the courts and the government thing is right.... Odd...

Besides, with this point you seem to be implying that if all these weak-minded americans you say were so easily swayed HAD looked at a cost-benefit analysis, they would have changed their minds. Really?

Because a cost-benefit analysis of Vietnam at the time seems to CLEARLY indicate that pullout is the only option. If you disagree, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what benefit was 'just around the corner' that could be worth the cost of all that money and all those casualties?



This is staggering even for you. Firstly, the polls clearly show that it is not just 'the left' that is tired of the war or is unsatisfied with Bush Jr.'s handling of it, it is quite a few on the 'right' as well. Secondly, the deaths and the chaos in Iraq are, for good or for ill, entirely the fault of Bush Jr. for getting into the war in the first place. Nobody can deny that, those on the right just claim that the 17,000 US casualties and the $400 billion dollar price tag are all for some 'greater good'. The problem is that this greater good does not seem to be forthcoming, and the government cannot give any indication of when this might come about, nor are they willing to discuss the obvious problems that are occuring on the ground.

Rather than your vitriolic anti-leftist rant above, it seems just as likely that the right will insist on the war continuing, insist on more money and more lives vanishing while constantly pushing back and dissembling about any posible end to the cost to the American people. Keep throwing lives and money into the pot because to do otherwise would be to admit that (gasp!) Bush Jr. is capable of making mistakes, and that the hawk just might have been wrong! Surely a few more hundred billion dollars and a couple more thousand lives is worth the price of avoiding that embarassment...

Perhaps that is why the majority no longer think the war was a good idea in the first place.



Blah, blah, democrats kill americans, pure evil, hate US, all traitors, blah, blah...

Forgive me, but your arguments would be more viable if you did not feel the need to fill them with this horrendous far-rightist propaganda all the time...


Backing onto the original topic, the far right (actually to be fair, this applies to both sides, though the right is guilty of this far more often) needs to learn that it is possible to not agree with hawks and warmongerers and NOT be a traitor. Treason is not a waord that should be thorwn around lightly, certainly not when somebody says something that you personally disagree with.

I wasn’t speaking of American Generals claiming victory possible in Vietnam... I was saying N. Vietnamese generals explained the North would have surrendered ...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=13121


Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.


I will not answer debate on Vietnam other than to point out the above thoughts of the influence of the anti-war folks has on the mission.

When I speak of our democratic republic and address the “republic” as it pertains to war I’m saying the executive and legislative branch sometimes MUST take actions unpopular to the citizens if we are talking about Rail Roads, NASA, funding of Art or war. Since the institution of the All Volunteer Army, AVA there is NO way to accidentally enter into a major conflict.

Allow me to prove those who voted for war supported the war at the time of their vote. The AVA cannot enter into a major hostility without activation of Reserve Components of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. These soldiers are in EVERY State in the US and are activated, or mobilized BEFORE a major hostility. Congress is asked for authority or confidence AFTER mobilization. The Executive Branch sells the war to the entire country. The state Representatives and Senators are forced to take a position of either support or against the hostility. This is important to note, a very small portion of a state’s “possible voters” elect a representative or senator but when leading into war the entire state voting population is either convinced by the Executive Branch or a large majority. The representative or senator must clearly state a position of support or non-support for the hostility through his or her vote. Let’s take MA and Senator Kerry for example, he argued for an hour or two on the floor of the senate of why he should vote no. This argument was for the people who elected him, but when the president of the Senate said “the question is on the words on the document lying on the table he voted YES. Why, because he was answerable to all possible voters in his state should he vote NO and feared he could not defend a NO vote. Please note that the President did not get 100% support for war, but he wasn’t far off. The nation’s “possible voters” were in overwhelming support of the action because of the mobilization. The soldiers mobilized along with the Active Component are still in support of the mission. The far left is using the Vietnam era thinking to sway the country to thinking nothing worse than what happened in Vietnam will happen. Wrong thinking!

In Vietnam the will of the American people was diminished because the war was over communism and the people didn’t see the South’s desire to capture freedom. I was drafted for the Vietnam War and I thought it was stupid also, we could have done Cuba if we wanted to fight communism. On the other hand Iraq is totally different...regardless of why we went to war the terrorist that struck America on 9-11 are fighting us there and have stated if they remove us they will establish a base there to attack us again with even greater force. What is hard to understand about that? I we leave and quit angering the terrorist by merely existing they will stop trying to remove us from existence. Again I reflect back to the “republic” strong leader that continues to say YES we need to kill the terrorist and destroy their will to win and not the other way around.

Howard Dean's brother is trying to change Senator Lieberman's mind on his stance or will assist in replacing him.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?
When thrust into the spotlight of the public eye, words often straddle a thin line between being simply deleterious and constituting treason. I don't think that either Dean nor Kerry's statements are treasonous in this day and age. Strangely however, if spoken during 1941-1945, the public at large might have taken a different stance than mine.
Their words did not constitute treason, but they also added absolutely no value in terms of logic or reason. Dean's statement is an opinion at best and a fallacy at worst. Using every imaginable measuring stick, we have made progress in all areas concerning standing up a democracy in Iraq. When you strip away the spin and political rhetoric of doom and gloom, of quagmire and of comparisons to Vietnam......phase lines of success have been crossed. This is evident by the tactics of the insurgents themselves. The fact that they have been reduced to targeting civilians, police recruit center lines, markets, teaching hospitals, and the base thuggery of hostage taking, indicates that they are on the wane....no matter how many IED's are detonated.
So by stating that the war is unwinnable, it is not treason, but simply falling back on the barely whispered fact, that in order to ensure a Democratic victory in 06/08, the war must go badly during Bush's tenure in the White House. They will never state it openly, and if I give them benefit of the doubt, they may not even consciously think it, but it's the nature of politics.

Why do you think Senator Leiberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?
To start with, one is more moderate and hawkish than the other, but ultimately they have differing opinions.......and there is nothing in inherently wrong with that.

Will the DNC punish Senator Leiberman for his support for the war effort?
It's a strange question. I don't think the the DNC or DLC will attempt to punish Lieberman. But rank and file Democrats certainly will. When a Republican comes out against Bush or the war, they are courageous and speaking truth to power, or some such nonsense. But when it is one of their own, they are castigated endlessly. And Republicans do the same.

BTW, am I the only one who sees this as ironic?

Dang it. Foiled by a sharper eye than my own.

Ya got me DTOM. If I could blush I would but I can't so I won't.

First of all, I'd like to thank quarkhead for the clarification he brought to the statements made by these politicians.

Do you think Dean and Kerry's recent comments were given in such a manner that they offer "aid and comfort to the enemy?" If so why and if not why?

I don't. I think they neither provide comfort to the enemy, nor do they discourage the soldiers stationed in Iraq. Dean might not be very diplomatic, and at times he is outrageous, but it seems to me that he is not saying things that aren't already being said elsewhere; his bully pulpit makes the difference. And Dean was right about this war in Iraq becoming a quagmire.

As far as Kerry goes, I would say that he pretty much plays it safe when making pronouncements about the war. That, in my not-so-well-educated opinion, was partly why he lost the Presidential election. Of course, his going along with the President to get this Iraq debacle started did not serve him well in the first place.

(I also challenge your assertion, Ol Sarge, that the Vietnam conflict was lost largely due to the anti-war movement. Perhaps the Pentagon Papers might have shed some light on the situation. You know, it's really ironic to assert that the war was lost due to the naysayers when the government and particularly the Rand Corporation had nothing but good to say about conditions in Vietnam that were anything but good for the United States and South Vietnamese side.)

Besides, since when have we only engaged in "happy talk" when it came to a war where lives are being lost on such a consistent basis? Are we supposed to just grin and bear it while this war continues? I for one am tired of seeing American flags flying at half staff more often than full staff these days. But they are at least an acknowledgment of what is going on when the power in the government doesn't want photographs of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base.

Why do you think Senator Lieberman came to such a different conclusion than either Dean or Kerry on the stance towards the war?

I believe Lieberman is more conservative and more pro-war than Dean and Kerry. I also believe that he has stronger ties to Israel, which is the country that was threatened far more than the United States by the Saddam Hussein regime.

Islamic extremists want to see the demise of Israel. Senator Lieberman is an orthodox Jew. Obviously he takes the Islamic terrorist threat very seriously.

Will the DNC punish Senator Lieberman for his support for the war effort?

What constitutes punishing a Senator? He might not get a plum job in the cabinet of the next Democratic President, but beyond that, I don't see the Democrats going out of their way to castigate him. The Democrats, as one pundit said today, have a "big tent...perhaps too big."

Define what ‘Giving Aid And Comfort” means. It would appear that some Generals have a different view than some on what it entails. And didn’t General Odom (Ret.) just come out last week and say the same?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...-home-headlines
The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East. . .


As for Winning, this little tidbit of Defeatism may remind some of you who said what and when.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57832
NBC, "The Today Show", 8/30/04

MATT LAUER: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war of ter--on terror? For example, in the next four years?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I have never said we can win it in four years.

MATT LAUER: No, I'm just saying, can we win it? Do you say that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't--I don't think we can win it.

New York Times Headline: "Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War on Terror." "President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail." (New York Times, 8/31/04)

Hmmm. This makes me think about the whole neo-con approach to the so-called "War on Terror." It strikes me that by provoking terrorists with their idiotic rhetoric, the Bush administration may unconsciously want another 9/11 - something that would assure victory in 2006/2008. You want a Republican victory, then some terrorist stashing a nuke in Shea stadium sometime soon would be a huge boost for the party of endless war.

Back to reality. DTOM, no offense, and I know you are a qualified military observer, but there are plenty of people, both in the military and in the military science and political science field, who would agree more with Kennedy or Kerry, than than with you. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but we can certainly ascribe something other than devious machinations to the voices of Kerry and Kennedy.

I think politicians are opportunists. If the war went badly, of course they would use that. But that doesn't mean they want it to go badly, and it doesn't mean they are just making it up when they criticize it. Likewise, the Bush administration very blatantly took advantage of 9/11 - but that doesn't mean they enjoyed it, or secretly wished for it, or are really wishing for another one.

Unconsciously???

GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7639.shtml
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”

The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. . .

I don't mind being in the minority when I believe I am correct, though I question the speculation that I am indeed in the minority.
I'll say again, Dean's words were not treasonous, but they were reckless. A leading politician and chairman of one of the two major parties in American politics cannot make such a statement, one that defies some amount of logic, and not expect to be called on it. If you look at the history of guerrilla or 'insurgent' warfare, when they are reduced to attacking their own countrymen instead of the 'occupiers', it is indicative of the strength of their cause. That coupled with the political climate in Iraq, in my mind, spells a short history for the insurgents, as they may be losing their base of support.
Reuters

I don't really see the point in calling the Republican party the 'party of endless war'. I didn't refer to the Democrats as the 'party of endless surrender'. And as you opine that the Bush adminstration may unconsciously wish for another terror attack, the theory that more bad news and setbacks in Iraq helping a Democratic victory in 06 or 08 doesn't seem silly to me.
I didn't support the timing, and in many cases, the methods of the war with Iraq, but to state that the crisis is not winnable is farcical in my opinion. There have been a multitude of setbacks and political defeats, but every benchmark and phase line of success has been crossed, just later than we would have wished, and not without casualties.

Hmmmm. “provoking Terrorists” ???? How do you “provoke” people who have said (decades ago) they want to kill all of us? And based on the attacks to the mainland Clinton “provoked” them a lot more than Bush. In fact IMO the “War on Terror” has specifically prevented the kinds of attacks we saw in the 90’s. Countries that would feel comfortable sponsoring these killers are less likely to knowing that the consequences could be dire. I am sure they considered Clinton a weakling.

Who agrees in the ‘military” with idiot Kennedy or Kerry??? This weekend the generals were lining up to stay that the latest statement by AQ exhorting it’s followers to stay in the movement showed weakness not strength.

Yes politicians are opportunists (on both sides) but I find the latest Dem statements to be ludicrous.

I watched the President’s speech this afternoon and the Congressman’s chosen to rebut representing the Democratic Party and I see pure politics.

Because of the polarized parties and vast differences there is no way Bush could consider open debate with Representative Murtha with expectations of convincing him to slightly modifying his position. Likewise, the same is true is vice versa.

Ironically, they are both correct but the Left IMO is using Murtha. The insurgency will last for probably a decade. American soldiers will continue to die until the insurgency is over and therefore to save American lives Murtha is correct to indicate removing them would save American lives. On the other hand Bush is correct with all he stated today and previously about democracy in the Islamic world as a transition choice between perverted Islam or dictator, or both. Added to the problem would be an image of weakness if we should depart early.

We will have problems with the urges to enter into Civil War on a full scale basis as the majorities inflict reprisal on the minority Sunni’s as has been demonstrated by recent POW camps brutal torture of Sunni captors.

If I were a betting person I would bet the Democrats will cause defeat by their continued talk of defeatism and all of the soldiers who died will have died for nothing... maybe not in 06 but maybe in 08 or 10... I just wouldn’t want to bet on victory with the division in our country as it views the war desiring instant results. The humane thing to do would for the sake of our soldiers and our populations unwillingness to be patient would be to just kill all the Sunni’s and let the other parties divide the spoils because when the left finally ends the war early and terror is established we have to end it with nukes.

Like they say in the commercial, “but I have good news!” ... Israel will not wait for the dysfunctional UN to stop Iran’s nukes so regardless which side, Murtha or Bush you choose I see mushroom clouds and a rush to punch holes in Alaska and develop hydrogen.

The 28% anti war will rule the debate with the help of time and Murtha thinking with unwillingness to “stay the course”. And, as a result we won’t have to worry about Mid East oil much longer.... We will ONLY have the option of mushroom clouds as an exit strategy if we don’t referee this mess to the end.

Or perhaps they are just stating the obvious DTOM. The war might have been winnable if we had a commander in chief with half a brain and some foresight to realize that we wouldn't be marching into Baghdad with roses being thrown at our feet. Even his father realized that and it was one of the reasons we didn't invade Baghdad in the 90's.

On September 22, 2003 Richard Perle said:

Coming from one of the men behind our "plan" in Iraq and the larger middle east this statement perfectly describes the attitude and lack of planning for creating a new government after Saddam on behalf of the Bush administration.

It is underscored by the fact that we have spend hundreds of billions more on this war than we planned to and there is $50 billion more confirmed for next year and according to Murtha a request for another $100 billion. It is underscored by the fact that we still do not have anything remotely resembling a strategy to win.

Dean, Kerry and other Democrats aren't the only ones saying this, there are more than a few Republicans saying it too as well as plenty of very senior retired and current generals. I suppose Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is a traitor too:


There is no need for anyone to hope things will continue to go badly in Iraq, as long as the man currently in charge is calling the shots it is a virtual certainty things will continue to go bad. This has nothing to do with morale, it has nothing to do with the competence of our fighting men and women - it has to do with the lack of a strategy.

There was a South Park skit done a while back about little gnomes that steal underpants. They laid out their reasons for doing so and it went something like underpants + ???? = profit! That is a pretty good summary of our strategy in Iraq.

Let's say I concede, purely for the sake of discussion, that Bush is as incompetent as you say he is. Does that excuse the way the Democrats have been acting? I don't think it does at all. The simple fact is, their behavior throughout this entire operation has shown very clearly that they've wanted this war to fail. If that was not the case, then they would have offered constructive suggestions at least somewhere along the line. But they never did. In fact, other than Murtha, they could never bring themselves to even advocate pulling out. All they ever did was take potshot after potshot.

No, that doesn't meet the legal definition of treason. But morally, it comes very close. If they want to be against the war, fine, let them be against it. That at least presents a question for debate. But to just sit there and snipe, without so much as actually taking a clear stand against the war, is recklessly irresponsible. To insist that it's unwinnable, after having shown no sign at all of ever wanting to see it succeed in the first place, is nauseatingly disingenuous. Whatever transgressions the President may or may not be guilty of, it doesn't diminish what the Democrats have done.

Oh sure deflect this and blame it on the Democrats, that's a new one!

The vast majority of the Democrats in Congress voted to fund this war and if it were up to me each and every one that did would be out on their tails for doing so among other things. I don't know how you can make any sort of valid case on how they are in any way responsible for the failures over there - they helped to give Bush the war he wanted and they've voted to increase the funding each time. You see, Bush doesn't consult anyone but his trusted confidants and those in his party. If he isn't going to heed the advice of his own father you really think he is going to listen to Democrats? History reminder:



You are also ignoring the political reality and the facts. The democrats have been speaking out against this for a while but the rhetoric coming out of the White House would have you believe that they are un-american for doing so. Anyone that dissents is basically helping the terrorists - the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves over that one. The political reality is that when you are the minority party you don't get to set the agenda, you don't get to make decisions and you don't get to influence policy, period. The best you can hope to do is play defense. That is the reality of our political system and it is even more true in the Bush White House because of his personality.

Oh and almost every potential candidate from the Democratic party in 2008 has advocated reducing troops over the coming months, creating an exit strategy and getting completely out as the eventual goal. Many of them have been saying this for months, where have you been?

Stating the obvious? Has Dean finally learned how to resurrect Nostradamus? Has he made a pact with Satan? You and I could trade quotes from politicians and current and former military brass all day, but we would end up where we started. This boils down to opinion and educated guesses. You and others have yours......myself and others have mine. But for Dean to come out and state with certainty that we will not win in Iraq, is either plainly reckless or a calculated gamble. I'm sure he is by now working on an excuse if he turns out to be wrong. For the chairman of the DNC to come forward and make such a claim places his party in an awkward situation, and virtually guarantees that for the party to remain viable in the next election, things have either not improve or get worse in Iraq. That's not treasonous, but I don't believe it to be politically savvy either.


Yawn......you may not agree with it, and I have my issues with how this whole event has been carried out; but comparing the effort to build up a reliable indigenous police and military, to foster individual suffrage and the ability to chart their own destiny for the first time in most of their lives and the infusion of Civil Affairs and PRT's across the countryside and to build an economy unburdened by the previous cloud of sanctions and tyrannical corruption....comparing that oversimplified course of action to not have anything remotely resembling a strategy to win, is a bit theatrical on your part. To be sure, we seriously underexploited the tribal and clan culture of the Iraqi people, but there is every indication that they are warming to the idea of a stable and peaceful parliamentary style democracy.
Dean's words have placed your party in more of an untenable position should he be wrong than Bush does with his victory tour speeches.

Did I miss the part where I stated anyone was a traitor?

I'm not "deflecting" anything. This thread is about the Democrats. If you want to talk about Bush, go ahead and start another topic. But I'm not going to get dragged into a discussion about him on this one.

I already told you that I was willing to assume for the sake of this argument that Bush is as bad as you say. That's all you need in order to establish the context of the present discussion about the Democrats. Your problem is that because you've decided that Bush has screwed up, the Democrats therefore get a free pass. Reality doesn't work that way.


If you can't possibly see how constant sniping against the administration, without showing the slightest signs of wanting to work constructively to help the operation succeed, might possibly have the effect of emboldening the terrorists in Iraq, then there's hardly any point in continuing this discussion further. It's one thing to say that we have freedom of speech and should respect that. It's something completely different to pretend that words don't have consequences in the real world. That's just wishful thinking through and through, and it can not form the basis for any kind of rational discussion of the subject.

Gee, I don't think that is what I said at all. In fact here is exactly what I said:


What I did say is that they are not in any way responsible for the problems over there because they were not involved in the planning or execution of the mission, we have one civilian commander and his name is Bush.


This thread is talking points from the O'Reilly factor masquerading as serious debate.

Much as you apparently don't wish to acknowledge this, constant negative remarks from opposition politicians, carried far and wide by the media, can have a substantial effect on the morale of the enemy. It's just part of the way of the world.



edited to remove material better suited for a PM or post report

Cube Jockey I think you are being a little dismissive of some Democratic spokespersons on the war being a failure or using terms like failing strategy... Your claim that it has no affect-effect(?) on our soldiers or the thinking of the enemy is simply hogwash!

I watched the presidential press conference today and it was explained a couple times... I think the below link along with the quote below point out the different messages.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20051213-1.html


If you take time to read the entire briefing or watch it on CSPAN later this evening you will see the American people don’t see the president’s plan as a plan because as Scott McCLELLAN clearly pointed out the other plans are plans for failure or defeat that contain an exit strategy with a date be it tomorrow or on a timed timeframe. A plan for victory cannot have a time or date as the basis of exit, it may only have the statement of accomplishment of the stated goals. When someone in a position of power or influence sells defeat or failure through leaving early they help the enemy and make soldiers think I don’t want to be the last one to die before the date the maker of the plan decided when we have failed.

This is actually better than a time table? -- "We won't place a time table on when to leave, we'll just let you know when we feel its time?

I find it much more disturbing that some people actually believe that we should all remain silent while our soldiers die for a cause that has no clear end and no clear victory. That's Supporting the Troops?

1) Aid and comfort. Again, Bui Tin:

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-sto...etnam/north.asp

"Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.

Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

Bui would have been thrilled had Howard then been alive and said that we'd already lost.

And re Joe, he knows that he'll never be President and he is otherwise simply not willing to risk the health, safety, and welfare of his fellow Americans just to win an election for the Dems. And he also understands that there is a time and place for everything and that one should not undermine one's commander in chief in time of war.

Will the DNC punish him? Seems that it has already started. He's now being called "delusional." All that's left is for Ms. McKinney to say something about how he's Jewish and it's all about the Jews. Maybe Jesse could make a cameo and provide us with a new and improved version of his "Hymietown."

But to the credit of at least one soul, Joe is not alone, as Rep. Pomeroy of N.D. had this to say on the radio recently:

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up."

Lastly, I suppose that the words of that other Paul are rather fitting in this context, to wit, Joe to Howard, Nancy, Ted, etc.,.....so, then, did I become your enemy speaking truth to you?

christopher no, actually I don’t think it is necessary for all to remain silent... today Senator Joe Bidden spoke on the issue intelligently and caused me to think about his position. I would like to see he and President Bush answer each other’s questions in a debate on the information he put out today.

Senator Bidden actually sees some specific things that could cause our policy to end in failure while others simply state irresponsible assumptions as a challenge as to why we shouldn’t have already admitted defeat and bail out.

Do you want victory in Iraq? If so how would you define it differently than the president has? The parliament being elected could be a disaster and refuse to incorporate the Sunni concerns. Or it could be rejected by major populations in certain districts... so should we say bye? Or, should we invest a few more months at current troop levels or even increase troop levels until the politics could be resolved to the people’s satisfaction. Does X-number of troops have to listed on certain dates to indicate success? If things are going badly after the election do we cut our losses and admit the soldiers that have died were a mistake or do we continue to invest to assure their deaths were for a stated victory that will come after a temporary challenge is overcome? If your son had paid a price, be it his legs or his life would you want to see failure? How would you feel about your nation following a defeatist politician after your son’s sacrifice? And, if the terrorist took over Iraq upon our departure and then while you are still alive they visited our land to kill the population of an entire major US city how would you value the defeatist politician?

Debate by persons in power or influence needs to be constructive and in support of our nation, our mission and hundreds of thousands of parents and loved ones of those who have paid the debt for the mission. To do any less is just plain not helpful and being not helpful is being helpful to the enemy.

Just to follow up on Ol Sarge's response to christopher, my own way of looking at it is that I can respect (though not necessarily agree with) those who think the war is unjust. I can respect (though not necessarily agree with) those think Iraq is not worth fighting for. I can certainly respect those who might have some constructive suggestions as to how to better run this show. I can even respect the opinions of those who might have concluded that the war's unwinnable - IF it's clear that they first made an exhaustive, good-faith effort to try to see a way it could be won, but were genuinely unable to.

But what I don't respect are efforts by people who've never demonstrated any desire at all to see it succeed, to try to convince people that it can't be won. That's particularly reprehensible when it comes from those who've paid lip service to wanting to see it succeed, but do everything they can to make it fail. A lot of Democratic politicians have been guilty of that.

First of all, a war does not have to be won or lost, as the U.S has won and lost wars, so its not some issue that is air tight. Second, I do not think the dems are the first political group to just say something that may sound good to those that want to support such, I think this is a basic aspect of politics, some twisted form of lip service.

IF this is an issue of simply honoring the troops, one would say how both sides are stupid. On one side you got the pro war speeches, that seem more like pro high school prep rallies, boom some little American flags and back in the box for another year. On the other side you have those that would have you think that the U.S military is incapable of switching a light bulb in tone overall. You don’t have to support the war in Iraq to be American, or maybe even patriotic. Political leaderships are a temporary entity, and I guess because they do not agree with or do that which the predecessor did to a exact match, they must then be treasonous.

Overall I guess what I am trying to spew forth here is how can you really say that these statements are treasonous, or that somehow they will cause us to lose the war. If it was that simple, we would not deploy troops, we would deploy domesticated rants of politicians, it should make democracy take root in Iraq overnight.

So with the guesses all tallied on how the war will turn out, it should not even be a debate anymore, as both sides of the issue claim to hold the truth. Which I find funny, being the situation is currently where its at in the meantime, you think some form of change might occur there, or that none of the bad stuff would have occurred in the first place, and or keep occurring at a rate of constant occurrence. To make head or tails of the war in Iraq currently requires the material of assumption and speculation, or B.S as in a degree you may obtain via higher education. Maybe the ultimate finger to point in the one of siding on subjectivity rather then its opposition in regards to the war, not the lip service of politicians on either side of it, simply because no side in light of winning some goal is going to admit anything that could hamper that, its corruption and a fallacy, I think its called political representation, or what’s currently popular.

Its basically come down to we have to stay forever or at least another ten years and we will win, because my magic eight ball told me so, or the other option is that god contacted the dems, and dropped a line on how the future will turn out, so we should just leave now as it was a bad fortune cookie, its just like animism, stuffs only possible via ignorance.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involv