Is there anyone who honestly thinks that after everything you did, pulling out of Iraq is as simple as just putting everybody on a plane home?

There's a Dutch saying, if you burn your ass, you sit on the blisters. Create a titanic mess in Iraq, spend the next ten years fixing it.

The argument here seems to posit a kind of political vacuum - where every choice results in a specific outcome. And that just ain't so, regardless of public opinion. People hate the war, and "send" Democrats to end it. But I tell you, if the Democrats did NOT pass an appropriation bill - you'd see Dick Cheney in Iraq talking about rationing bullets, not having adequate hospital services, and bemoaning the lack of body armor. Regardless of what is *true,* that image would resonate - and the same people who are now up in arms about Democrats *not* ending the war would be pissed about *how* the Democrats ended the war (playing politics with soldiers lives, using the budget in a political way instead of real debate - I mean, these sounds bites write themselves).

The September deadline is a "fair" (in the "reasonable," not in the "truly just," sense of the word), if stupid, compromise on the surge. The assumption that Republicans have somehow outflanked Democrats on the withdrawal bill seems premature - there are plenty of Republicans who still like this war, on its own merits or as some linchpinsof the "war on terror." With the majority, and a stronger presidential candidate field, Democrats have ample opportunity to not only take back the Iraq issue, but also not look like pansies when it comes to international conflict (an image that continues, also dumbly, to haunt them).

No. Of course not. There are no misguided, mistaken, or unthinkingly partisan people in this country at all.

That's why we're the greatest country in the world. After Kazakhstan, anyway.

i'm terribly disappointed (but not at all surprised) that the democrats didn't use congress' arguably most badass power--cutting off the funding like an enraged father cancels his wayward teenage daughter's credit card.

i can see how they didn't want to get stuck with the "u hate r troops" label, but i think that wouldn't have lasted long once the troops started coming back home. doing exactly what you say you are going to do seems one of the most elusive attributes to find in a candidate these days.

"Pulling out" does not necessarily mean evacuating Iraq. It could involve a U.N. Peacekeeping Force, preferably from Arab nations. Of course, we'd still have to pay for it. And open the "reconstruction" efforts to non-US-based companies.

The "support our troops" crap only really works on the right-wingers anyways. Most people in left field are smart enough to know that line is a bullshit catch phrase. The Democrats have a political fear of people that wouldn't vote for them anyways.

The troops wouldn't have started coming back home, though.

The President can keep them deployed without funding - and he certainly would have. While the pointless and politically-motivated endangering of our soldiers would at that point have been solidly a Presidential crime (as it has been from the beginning), it would nevertheless be at least partially a Congressional responsibility.

This moral issue is more important to me, personally - as I think it is to many Democrats in Congress - but the political issue isn't to be disregarded, either. The White House would just create another American Dolchstoßlegende o go with Vietnam, and which would divide this country even more deeply than it already is.

well yes, but the democrats' success lies in appealing to the middle, not just the left. and after what the american people have allowed shoved up their asses during this administration, i wouldn't bank on the average person not buying the "support our troops" junk.

You know I think it was you FTR telling me I was crazy when I said that Bush had called the Dems bluff, and you went on and on about how it was not the case. There is no way the DOOMocrats will end this war or change anything at all in washington any time soon because now that they have the power they are going right back to business as usual, they don't care about the troops, they care only about the political power they can get from using the troops and the Iraq war as a tool, a sounbyte to get votes.

Oh an done more thing........

Told you so.

Oh, bloody hell.

I know the comfort of limited choices - that's I why I liked the Alien best in the AvP games, dammit - but isn't it about time America found a third political option?

And I also said the Dems would eventually cave, but you as usual only read what you wanted to. Also, if you use the term DOOMocrats, then no one should ever respond to you.

That's been true, but I think the post-9/11 nationalism is beginning to wear off with most Americans. But you're right, I don't think I'd bank on it at this point either.

We have them, but they have no political capital what-so-ever. I don't think they'll ever have any until our government implodes politically (at least, I hope it's an implosion).

Really, a UN peace force? I vaguely recall the UN having some pretty strong opinions about your little rampage at the start, and they were mocked and ignored.

But now that you want out it's time for the UN to step in?


That really would be the perfect ending for this gigantic fuck up. Unfortunately the Dutch (amongst others) are already stuck cleaning up your mess in Afghanistan, I seriously hope America doesn't get away with stiffing someone else with Iraq as well.

I responded to him, but it was deleted for being abusive.

Probably just as well, anyway, since his argument consists of nothing more than a string of unsupported accusations of cynical opportunism, and has no real significance at all - much less validity.