The Iraq Debacle: There Is No Real Argument

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:31:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Josh Marshall writes:

We're so far deep into this mess that sometimes I believe we're past the point of argument. You look at the evidence and you either see it or you don't.

Well, let's face it. It is not about seeing anymore. It is about admitting your grievous mistakes. And this applies not only to President Bush, Republicans and Iraq war supporters. It applies to pundits, the Media, bloggers, well everyone.

Because once the mistakes are admitted, the recriminations will REALLY start to fly on all levels. Think Vietnam.

But this has a deeper significance in my mind. The American People know what they think about this Messopotamia. Poll questions that rig results against not funding plans are beside the point.

The American People want this over. As soon as possible. No one likes to say, don't fund the troops, which is why Debacle supporters cling to this last straw to defend the Bush policy. But the fact is that poll result means nothing too.

Americans by large margins want the troops out. To try and pinpoint exactly how they want the troops out is silly. What if Americans were asked this question?

"In order to end the Iraq War, and bring the troops home, Congress will have to set a date certain when it will no longer support the war. Do you support Congress doing this?

What would the response be? How different would it be to the response to this question?

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?"

Because 63% of Americans say we should.

< Faith vs. Science | Most Absurd Comparison of All Time >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Iraq Debacle: There Is No Real Argument | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What is It Really? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:09:45 AM EST

Is it that President Bush, Republicans, Iraq war supporters, pundits, the Media, bloggers, don't want to take the heat for being wrong?

Or is it that most Americans are so removed from the war that they care so and are willing to let the 'experts' take care of it?

Is it that people really feel that the war is so good for the economy and feel no negatives here that they should leave well enough alone?

Or is it that many have bought the line that fighting over there prevents a terror attack here?

While arguing with a friend last night it became clear to me that the last statement is most likely true. More bang for the buck over in Iraq for our enemies. It is easier than attacking us here and bleeding America's treasure is a stated al-Qaida desire.

They want us fighting in Iraq, Bush wants us fighting in Iraq. Obviously they are allies and the American people are dupes.

Very frustrating, especially the Congress. Could it be that they are reflecting the true feelings of most Americans and the polls are misleading?

It's partly the first two statements, but (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Chincoteague on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:15:26 AM EST

by far, I think it's that no one wants to admit we've created another Vietnam, with the resultant diminishing of our national image and interests.

Anybody who buys the third statement is a fool.

Bush just wants to hang on till Jan 21, 2009, and after that, the necons will claim the war is lost, due to the Democrats.


Reid has already declared the war lost. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:35:42 AM EST

: He then (none / 0) (#11)
by Chincoteague on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:48:53 AM EST

backtracked.

I imagine a good part of the denial, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:30:42 AM EST

if not all of it, is that the human suffering they have caused (equal to if not exceeding anything domne by the most heinous mass murderers in history) has created such unbearable guilt in the segment of people who started the mess and their supporters who are not psychopaths that hanging on by their fingernails in the hope that some justifying and offsetting good will eventually come of it is their only protection from the mirror, or from Hunter Thompsons' solution.

Sympathy they can find in the dictionary.......


Guilt? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:20:53 PM EST

That would assume that these pigs are somewhat human and capable of such feelings...which is a massive leap of faith that has no basis in the observed reality.


: No, responsibility. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by manys on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:49:13 PM EST

Once people start admitting mistakes, I imagine the war crimes charges will start flying. At least, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the thinking.
There are reasons we wanted exemptions from the Hague tribunal process.

Halliburton's argument (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Dadler on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:35:10 AM EST

Halliburton stock chart.

More enlightening charts.

Their ends justify their means argument. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:41:36 AM EST

carrying water (none / 0) (#19)
by manys on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:52:31 PM EST

Halliburton and other multinational conglomerates have more power in their various governmental negotiations than the government themselves do. Why would the Government restrict Halliburton in any way when the company can just threaten to take their business elsewhere. It's been like this for a while now: there are companies that can pick and choose the laws they follow merely by moving their business and jobs around to the places that let them behave how they like.


: In many senses (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:58:15 PM EST

they are the government.

The apes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:44:56 AM EST

don't have anything to understand with.

Big Tent (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:28:26 PM EST

My advice to you is to immediately give up on any and all debate about how to get Congress to end the war. History shows they only act as accomplices in starting and maintaining wars. I have been saying all along that the Big Debate should never have been on how to get Congress to end the war. It should always have been (since March 20, 2003) on where to hold the trials for crimes against humanity for those who started the war and their accomplices. That is the only debate that matters. The rest is just noise.

I can't do that (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:32:18 PM EST

You are probably right but I can't.


: No probably.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by kdog on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:03:35 PM EST

Ernesto is definitely right.
The Democratic Party supports occupation and empire...there is no other logical conclusion to draw from their actions. Ignore their words as they are hollow and empty.

: Then get smart about it. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Lora on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:15:51 PM EST

It's not about admitting mistakes; it's about realizing we've been brainwashed to support rationalizations for greed.

As James Wolcott recently stated: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by mentaldebris on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:59:45 PM EST

No, we're going to drag it out, just as we did in Vietnam, pretending our national pride and stature are at stake because too many fools in high places can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong and that history will not absolve them.

History will not be kind to any of them if/when the dust settles.

JHFarr (1.00 / 2) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:39:09 AM EST

cradle of our OWN damn civilization, and the apes don't understand.

I bet Saddam even created the Internet..

Wait... that was Gore.

The Means are Important (none / 0) (#7)
by Stewieeeee on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:38:27 AM EST

It's a fundamental thing that Bush himself fails to consider.

But as I've pointed out in numerous comments before, it's not just the voters who respond to polls that are the obstacle. lets concede those polls are rigged and only reflect something that the people regard as secondary to the primary purpose which is getting out of iraq.

it's democratic party politicians themselves who have decided that a cessation of funding is not a method they will use to bring about an end to the war.

and i've shown that these politicians have never been inclined to bend with political winds.

when the verdict of history comes in, if these politicians are convicted as war supporters, then in my opinion that will be just yet one more tragedy of this war.

The 2009-2013 Iraq Occupation (none / 0) (#15)
by fairleft on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:28:51 PM EST

This is what we should be talking about and trying to prevent. I believe all three major Dem candidates support a substantial (60-80,000) troop presence from 2009 on.

The battle over the occupation during the Bush presidency is over. Whenever Bush plays chicken with the troops the Democrats immediately cave, unwilling to play.

Full Disclosure (none / 0) (#17)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:42:18 PM EST

What if Americans were asked this question?

"In order to end the Iraq War, and bring the troops home, Congress will have to set a date certain when it will no longer support the war. Do you support Congress doing this?

That would be a fair question if it stated that it would probably be done WITHOUT any vote whatsoever in congress; Without any bill being passed; Without any further debate in both chambers of congress; Without public debate.

Then it would be a Fair Question to ask.

Full Disclosure is what people want. Not decisions being made in the dark of night by a very small handful of individuals - the same as we have been getting from Bush.

Poll questions that rig results against not funding plans are beside the point.

I would remind everyone here that everyone is entitled to their opinion. And as I posted the other day Glen Greenwald said:

"Yet polls are equally uniform in showing that a solid majority of Americans oppose de-funding".

He mentions nothing about "rigged polls". Nor does anyone else that I have seen except for Armando. Like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when ones opinion stands alone in a forest full of rational people then other people should reflect on that and not take it lightly.

Glen Greenwald also says... (none / 0) (#20)
by Dadler on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:02:21 PM EST

...that what Americans believe about defunding is a complete myth. They were sold a line by the right and the compliant media that defunding meant they would be left there without food or water or anything, and the weak and entirely unimaginative Democratic party did nothing to counter that perpetuated falsehood. So starting your post by saying such and such would be the right way to phrase a question, then completely misstating Greenwald's actual opinion, that doesn't cut the rhetorical mustard. Do you think it's good, then, that what the American people believe is a myth?


He's a Capitulator (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:11:10 PM EST

Just ignore him.


Heh (none / 0) (#25)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:38:08 PM EST

You can't debate what I said about asking your question in a Fair Manner because you know it would be the right thing to do.

So instead you resort to name calling. It is amazing how people who refuse to be rational about everything having to do with the vote are quick to adopt the tactics of the Right...

Attack, Distort and Smear.

Those are the very things you reject from the Right but you readily use them yourself.

Just ignore him.

Yeah because "Big Tents" have no place for additional opinions. To accept differing or additional opinions would not be in line with being a DEMOCRAT!

Democrat are known for quashing the opinions of others - Don't You Know?

*Note: Notice how it is OK for you to personally attack?


For the record (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:41:14 PM EST

On the "attack," you mean the Capitulator comment?

As I understand it, you support what has commonly been referred to as the Capitulation Bill.

Did I get that wrong?


And Don't (none / 0) (#27)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:58:39 PM EST

forget "ignore him" too.

As that is an attack on my right to post and on my Free Speech. You are trying to quiet me and marginalize me. Again tactics of the Right.

Commonly known by those who wish to attack, distort, and smear anyone who does not think like them.

Again there is no room in the Big Tent of those who think their way is the only way.

To act like that is not being a Democrat. I don't know what you consider yourself these days but I hope you don't think you are a Democrat. Because not only do you not act like one you even attack the Party itself.


Attack on your free speech? (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:18:11 PM EST

Okaaay.

I suggest that you be ignored. I can not mandate it.

I suggest to you directly that you find more inviting blogging climes. I have before.


Whats The Matter? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:44:18 PM EST

Are you afraid that people can't read, weigh, and then think for themselves?


Your disruption (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:50:24 PM EST

is immense. your contributions less than meager.

I would prefer you leave.

But I can't force you.


: I Speak (none / 0) (#41)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:48:56 PM EST

another view of what is the truth is all. In fact the majority of Real Democrats agree with what I say or I agree with them - same same. The polls are clear on that.

your contributions less than meager.
Should I say that makes us even?
Actually one can see a shifting of many issue positions at dkos. And if I have had a small roll in that then my contributions have been more than meager. I can't change minds nor do I want to. People can think and decide for themselves as it should be. But if I can say something that makes them think then that is keeping with what blogs are all about - Sharing ideas and discussing them - All comers welcome.
A poster here on this site made a comment that they noticed that many people remain silent on certain issues at dkos until I 'break the ice' and talk about it and then they feel free to voice themselves.
I guess that is where the old saying...
The Truth Will Set You Free...
Comes from.

Whats The Matter, talex? (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:49:18 PM EST

He's expressing his opinion of the lack of value he sees in your comments. What are you afraid of?


And Remember (none / 0) (#28)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:04:08 PM EST

I have no problem with the question that you posed to be asked in a poll. I just added that it should be asked with Full Disclosure as I wrote.


That Is True (none / 0) (#24)
by talex on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:25:35 PM EST

Greenwald did say that. I didn't hide that as I provided the link to that page also.

But the fact remains is that the public still believes it and it is that which is important here - not how they were lead to believe it. It is important what they believe because that is what shapes their opinion on the subject.

So starting your post by saying such and such would be the right way to phrase a question, then completely misstating Greenwald's actual opinion, that doesn't cut the rhetorical mustard.

I didn't misstate what Greenwald said at all. I provided a "direct quote" of what he wrote.

It is possible you know for Greenwald or myself to recognize what the public actually believes and then to also comment on how they were led to believe it. They are two separate issues. One being the 'perception' itself - the other being the back story of what led to the perception.

It is kind of like talking about support for the war in 2003. You have the actual public support which made the war possible - and then you have the back story of how the public was manipulated into supporting the war.

It was the publics perception that supported the war which was important. The back story really didn't take hold until years later.


Be serious (none / 0) (#29)
by Dadler on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:12:23 PM EST

The American people bought into a myth with defunding that was fed to them like sheep meal. And the democratic party, as unimaginative a lot as exists, did nothing to counter it. Even if the party didn't WANT to defund, allowing the right to control and alter reality on the subject served only the purposes of those who support the war. It's called thinking ahead of the game. The Dems don't know how to do it. You think they do, that's fine. I heartily disagree. They are a frightened party, scared of the political thuggery the right engages in. And the thuggery has won.

I won't micromanage Dems: (none / 0) (#31)
by Compound F on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:03:00 PM EST

I will vote a straight Republican ticket in 2008, should they fail to mitigate the damage. Good luck, Democrats! The clock is ticking.

Front page photo in today's (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:04:01 PM EST

New York Times pretty much says it all. A U.S. military man in desert camouflage is walking with gun at the ready. An Iraqi boy of maybe 10 years old is hovering behind him. An IED explosion has just occurred. Chaos--many people walking many directions. What possible use is the U.S. military in this situation?

I've got a few ideas.... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by kdog on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:10:49 PM EST

One is that our soldiers are a human sacrifice offering to those who wish us harm...so those that wish us harm don't come here and kill somebody important, like a CEO.

Or just simple profit generation.

Or glorified gas-station security guards.


: Here's another one, maybe on (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:48:24 PM EST

NPR this a.m., U.S. military in Iraq manages to kill a man who planted an IED. In the man's pocket is his id as Iraqi police.

: Pre-Baited Flypaper (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:48:20 PM EST

Fodder

What possible use? (none / 0) (#33)
by Dadler on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:40:55 PM EST

Hell, without us, there'd be no REASON for IEDs. Now, I ask you, what kind of Iraq is it without IEDs? No fun, you party-pooper.
