Our Troops Should Stay in Iraq Until...WHAT?

[mopaul]

if we should stay there, what for? and how do you know it's time to go, if ever? i still don't get it. the dems who supported the war of course were lied to by our president, but what's the reason for STILL supporting it? i still don't get it.

[Pharaoh]

1. we are there for the oil

they don't plan on leaving.....

[Swamp Rat]

2. "THEY" are there for the oil.

[Pharaoh]

7. yes, sorry THEY!

I want no part of it............

fascist bastards!

[not systems]

3. Until they give us the oil and admit Israel RAWWKKKKSS...

and embrace Jesus as lord the war must go on.

My best guess at the current plan.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Well, you got one out of three right...and that ain't bad.

:beer:

[not systems]

11. credit where credit is due.

:beer:

[Johnywolf]

4. Try never..as long as reps are in the White House!

We will never get out of Iraq as long as reps are in the White House! It is another Vietman. A lot of dems trusted Bush. I trusted him when he said that we have to invade Iraq and I trusted him when he anoounced mission accoumplished, but it took few months to realize that we have been lied to!

[madrchsod]

5. we should stay there until everyone is dead

makes sense to me!

[bush_is_wacko]

6. Read anything regarding Peak Oil...

Dem's are just as worried as bushitler is of running out. It seems they are willing to overlook a whole lot just for a few gazillion more barrels of oil. They ALL must realize by now Iraq itself is uninhabitable. The DU that has been dropped over there makes it a death trap for all.

At this point, I think it is pretty clear even Dem's will send people to their deaths to get their hands on the black gold. Very few of them are willing to stand up and demand action. Even less are willing to take action against the man that calls himself president.

I am not stupid and neither are most people here. Dem's damn well know that they can negotiate behind the scenes with several leaders to have these evil people simultaneously arrested for the good of this country. Either they are having difficulty getting participation from other leaders around the world or bushitler has aimed something at us that makes them all fear doing something.

I wonder every time there is a reference to this "top secret program" if that isn't EXACTLY what he is threatening them all with. Would bushitler be willing to blow up a major city for his cause? IMO, darn tooting he would? What's a few million less liberal whiners to him?

[Broadslidin]

8. Until The Last Drop........

of Oil is pumped out of the Middle East,

the corporate controlled u.s. empire
will occupy the area with its
heavily armed volunteer "Day Care Center" army.

And u.s. citizens will continue to 'could care less'
regarding the resulting Death and Misery,
as long as the price of gasoline remains
within their credit card grasp.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Our troops are coming home...in bodybags.

To be cried over by the politicians who sent them there to kill and die and protect our "vital national interest$$$.

[paulk]

12. well, I suppose by "support" you mean voting in favor of supplemental

military expenditure bills, which are political suicide to oppose when US troops are dying overseas. Especially when your "opposition" would mean exactly squat in light of the fact the other side has control of all three branches of the government.

That's one answer, providing, of course, you are actually looking for an answer rather than throwing out the usual rhetorical inanities.

[welshTerrier2]

13. support ...

well, i'm afraid it goes well beyond voting for ill-advised supplemental budgets ...

"support" in my view would include not speaking out against bush's real objectives in Iraq ... support would include being afraid, totally afraid, to utter the word PEACE ... that's a lefty word, you know ... it means we aren't serious about a strong defense ... and support would mean that we believe bush's policy will eventually lead to a stable Iraq instead of speaking out against a policy that clearly has made the situation in Iraq much, much worse ... support would mean that Democrats are not calling for a timetable as Senator Kennedy has done ...

the problem with the Senate Democrats is that they, like bush, offer no end point in Iraq ... they are not speaking out against the building of permanent military bases ... they are not speaking out about the total failure of the neo-cons to begin reconstruction in Iraq ... they are not speaking out against the bush puppets put in place to exploit Iraqi resources ... the bottom line is that they are just not speaking out at all ...

the truth of the matter is, Democrats support bush's occupation primarily by their silence ... when it comes to foreign policy, especially Iraq, Syria and Iran, Democrats have become the "go along" party ... and that may well be the saddest form of support of all ...

[paulk]

16. why is it the Democrats job

to get us out of Iraq? To offer an end point? This is Bush's war - he wanted it, he started it - let him figure out how to get us out of it. We just had an election and the American people not only affirmed his leadership, they gave him four more Senators to carry out his plans with. The ball is in Bush's court.

It's politically impossible for the Democrats, as a party, to oppose this war in the way you want. They're doing the business of politicians right now - trying to stop Bush from destroying social security, trying to stop Frist from destroying the Senate, trying to stop the Bolton nomination and it's attempt to destroy the advice and consent clause of our Constitution (through the executive branch witholding documents). Little things like that.

And besides, the Democrats are speaking out on many of the things you mention. You're just not listening. You've got an axe to grind - you need someone to blame for the helplessness we all feel over the situation in Iraq. You've chosen to blame the Democrats.

Blame Bush.

[welshTerrier2]

17. glad you asked ...

the truly saddest part of your post was your effort at justifying why the Democrats aren't opposing bush's war by saying "It's politically impossible" ... leadership is not about sitting around waiting to see what will sell ... leadership is about speaking out on the values that will lead the nation and the world in a better direction ... the "it's bush's war" argument sounds like a schoolboy who gets into trouble for fighting and blurts out "well he started it!!" ... the point is that this fucking occupation is a catastrophy and setting the nation, and the world, on a better path should rise above politics ... oh, and one other point on this ... if the Democratic Party is unwilling to lead, at least they could do better at following ... i believe the last poll i saw said that something like 57% of Americans (that's not just Democrats !!) think the war in Iraq is a failure ... surely the Democratic Party can see a political viable position given numbers like that ...

which brings me to the question you raised ... "why is it the Democrats job?" ... well, that's kind of sad as well ... perhaps a good question to ask is "why is anything anybody's job?" ... i guess the answer, my friend is blowing in the wind ... and the answer comes right from the song lyric: "how many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?" ... it seems to me that the occupation in Iraq is being prosecuted in all of our names ... it seems to me that each and every one of us has a responsibility to put an end to the madness ... and if the Democratic Party wants to earn the right to lead this country, then lead they must ... the "bush screwed it up so let's just stay out of his way and let him suffer the political consequences" fails the good citizenship test ... the Party should stand up and "do the right thing" about bush's occupation ... it has failed to do that ... our military has been sent abroad to totally destroy Iraq's infrastructure and allow the exploitation of Iraq and Democrats have not stood up as a party to object ... it's the Democrats job to that because it's everybody's job to do that ... and i'm afraid their silence is leading us right into Syria and then Iran ... and when those "wars" become international catastrophies, we can feel oh so good knowing that they are "bush's wars" even though we did not speak out against them ...

and finally, you suggested "And besides, the Democrats are speaking out on many of the things you mention. You're just not listening."

to recap, here's a list of some (all?) of the things i criticized the Democratic Party for in my earlier post:

1. not speaking out against bush's real objectives in Iraq ...
2. being afraid, totally afraid, to utter the word PEACE ...
3. believing bush's policy will eventually lead to a stable Iraq instead of speaking out against a policy that clearly has made the situation in Iraq much, much worse ...
4. not calling for a timetable as Senator Kennedy has done ...
5. not speaking out against the building of permanent military bases 6. not speaking out about the total failure of the neo-cons to begin reconstruction in Iraq ...
7. not speaking out against the bush puppets put in place to exploit Iraqi resources ...

i'm a regular reader of democrats.org ... i recently heard Howard Dean speak at my state convention ... i listened to hours of testimony over the recent $82 billion supplemental ... and i spend way too much time watching C-Span and reading the internet ... to say "i'm not listening" is, of course, merely conjecture on your part ... the problem isn't that i'm not listening; the problem is i'm not hearing because the Democratic Party is not saying ... and if they are saying and you can show me that they are speaking out on the issues listed above, i would be most grateful, and comforted, if you could provide some links ... unfortunately, as a party, i'm afraid the criticisms i've made are all true ... i participate here and as an elected Democrat on my town's Democratic Committee to try to change that ...

you closed by saying i should blame bush instead of the Democrats ... it's not an "either or" situation ... when both parties sponsor the export of American imperialism, there's plenty of blame to go around ...

[Karenina]

18. Glad you answered!

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

19. Boa tarde

:hug: Wie geht's? :)

Check out Conyers's blog:

More on the Downing Street Memo
And What's up with Dick Cheney?

Several excellent pieces out on the Dowing Street Memo. For those who have not seen the Memorial Day editorial in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune (registration required) on the Downing Street Memo and the questionable path to war brought on by the Bush Administration, it is worth a full read. I spoke with their reporter several weeks ago, which led to a weak article discussed in my blog previously. However, I am delighted that their editorial board is willing to take such a strong and necessary stand at this moment in our history.

Second, I had been meaning to post for several days, but the always excellent New York Review of Books has a superb and lengthy piece on the Downing Street Memo and the lead up to war. This puts much of the "flesh on the bones" that has been missing from the public record, and lays down a very strong marker for anyone who doubts the import or veracity of the Downing Street Memo. I am submitting this article in full in the Congressional Record.

Finally, where does Dick Cheney come off saying he was "offended" by Amnesty International's recent report on U.S. human rights abuses (see CNN story)? If he is that concerned, he ought to do something about our record, and the Administration's unwillingess to tell the full story in public. The Vice President has an open invitation from me to come before the Members of Congress to testify about what he knows. The only way to truly restore our nation's good name is to permit a a real, independent and credible entity to investigate our nation's record in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as I have repeatedly called for. That hasn't happened yet, and I doubt it will until we get a new Congress, or a new Administration -- or both.

http://www.conyersblog.us/
***
Here's the article Conyers was talking about:

Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
May 30, 2005

(snip)

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse...

(snip)

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

(more)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html

[Karenina]

20. Ich kann mich nicht beklagen

Guck mal!!! Nun hab' ich ein sig line!!! ICH BIN DRIN!!! :D

[Jose Diablo]

14. Until the is "Peace with Honor"

or something like that.

[mopaul]

15. like bush war 1, the gulf war, jr's war will be called a glorious victory

sort of like when he said mission accomplished