Jim Wallis: From Bad to Worse
Tomorrow evening, President Bush will speak to the country about his plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq. The question is, where will they come from? The military is already overstretched. The Los Angeles Times reported this morning that men and women in the National Guard and Reserve who have already served in Iraq, and returned to civilian life, are likely to be sent back to Iraq.
"The nation's top military officials, expecting President Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army's National Guard and Reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq … Under Pentagon policy, Guard and Reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. That means most Reserve units that already have been sent to Iraq are ineligible to return. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant troop buildup would require the Pentagon to send Guard and Reserve units for additional yearlong tours."
More troops means more casualties, more suffering for families, more losses of beloved ones. And without a new political strategy, a new military buildup won't succeed.
And, in a very sad commentary on more incompetence and resulting insensitivity,
"The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action."
Who will have the courage to lead us out of this disaster?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I don't understand the relevance of the last item about the mistaken letters to the rest of Jim's piece. I agree that it is sad and insensitive, but that specific problem has been around since at least the Civil War. We've all heard stories about dead people receiving Social Security checks, cats being given summons for jury duty, and retirees being declared dead erroneously, etc. This should give us pause to reconsider our fervor for more and more bureacratic institutions in our society because it hardly is consigned to just the Army.
Yet I don't see Jim using such instances to demonstrate the folly of our Social Security "disaster.">
Posted by: timks | January 9, 2007 8:25 PM
We are the ones we have been waiting for! There have to be better alternatives out there and I'd like to invite people to take Jim's question as an opportunity to find and share them.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 9, 2007 8:33 PM
"This should give us pause to reconsider our fervor for more and more bureacratic institutions in our society because it hardly is consigned to just the Army."
I had exactly the same thought. However, to the point of the piece, it seems that even an effort to clean up the mess we left (as Wallis would have us do) will require more troops.
Opponents of the administration had argued (albeit disingenuously) that higher troop levels were needed. If anything, Bush is late to the party.
I have seen this addressed by the argument that we needed more troops from the beginning, but that it is now too late. I don't understand this reasoning. In a figurative sense, Iraq has blown up on us, but in a literal sense, it is the same geopolitical space it was after the initial invasion. It is no more or less manageable.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2007 8:35 PM
The best alternative I've heard so far is to engage other Islamic and/or Arabic nations and the UN and offer to help fund and field a rebuilding and law enforcement response from one or both of those groups.
.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 9, 2007 8:36 PM
kevin s,
I think it is less manageable, though. The divisions among factions there are growing into a civil war - they're fighting each other even more than us now. Iraqis are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea that Americans can establish peace and security there (I've seen surveys on this from a democracy promotion NGO founded by John McCain but am having trouble finding them again).
There's also the fundamental problem that military response is not what's required (that's what Jim argues in God's Politics). A policing response, a peacekeeping response, a humanitarian response - these would all look significantly different. If Jim is right then doing more of the wrong thing won't matter even if nothing has changed over time.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 9, 2007 8:47 PM
Yet I don't see Jim using such instances to demonstrate the folly of our Social Security "disaster."
timks | 01.09.07 - 3:30 pm | #
Would you care to comment on the Iraq disaster?
or:
Would you care to demonstrate the folly of our social security disaster?
.>
Posted by: anonymouse | January 9, 2007 11:01 PM
Daniel,
The UN has no interest in substantially intervening in the region. Even if you dub it a policeforce, you still need tremendous (armed and trained) manpower in order to secure the area.
I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the civil war. While I agree that sectarian violence is a greater threat to stability, I disagree that our previous troop shortage has made it an impossible situation.
In hindsight, the civil war was a guaranteed response, simply because so many Middle East interests are responsible for propgating it (for this reason, I am very skeptical about engaging the Syrias and Irans in this effort).
Certainly, the lack of troops had a tangible effect on past violence, but I don't see why more troops won't ameliorate the situation.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2007 11:04 PM
anonymouse aka justin said,Would you care to comment on the Iraq disaster?
or:
Would you care to demonstrate the folly of our social security disaster?
Do you disagree that the story of the mistaken letters doesn't add a scintilla of weight one way or the other to the argument that Iraq is a disaster?>
Posted by: timks | January 9, 2007 11:22 PM
General John Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a regional solution to the crisis in Iraq--one that inevitably requires some sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. "You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he told the Times. "You just can't apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad...and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism."
Commander Codpiece disagreed with General Abizaid and fired him.
General George Casey, "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq s problems, which are at base their problems. It s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term."
CDommander Codpiece disagreed with General Casey and fired him too.
Bush has only 12 Republican Senators supporting his decision to send more troops into Iraq.
Commander Codpiece ignores Congress.
80% of Americans disagree with Bush about sending more troops into Iraq.
Commander Codpiece ignores the American people, too.
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 9, 2007 11:28 PM
Do you disagree that the story of the mistaken letters doesn't add a scintilla of weight one way or the other to the argument that Iraq is a disaster?
The situation is so desperate they're hoping dead American troops will reenlist.
What a disaster!
.>
Posted by: anonymouse | January 9, 2007 11:33 PM
We are the ones we have been waiting for! There have to be better alternatives out there and I'd like to invite people to take Jim's question as an opportunity to find and share them.
Daniel
Iraq Study Group, "engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran."
PS/ Don't send Condi. Send Robert Holbrooke and General Abizaid.
.>
Posted by: obvious alternative | January 9, 2007 11:46 PM
Kevin S. I don't see why more troops won't ameliorate the situation.
How many troops would you recommend, General Kevin?
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 9, 2007 11:50 PM
Remove Bush/Cheney from office.
Put some grownups in there.
.]]> 2007-01-10T00:13:05-05:00 obvious alternative 66.233.50.54 .>
Posted by: alternative plan B | January 10, 2007 12:01 AM
Sun Tzu tells us that when the constellation of enemy forces is to our disadvantage, then only the maladroit would surge. Clausewitz adds that intensifying forces is tantamount to empty posturing.
Why does the president then follow the counsel of neoconservative folly?>
Posted by: Carl Copas | January 10, 2007 12:35 AM
PROTEST IRAQ ESCALATION!
If we want to stop Bush's warmongering,
we have to speak out,
loud and clear,
to everyone who listens,
everywhere.
If you're opposed to sending more American lives and our treasury down Bush's Iraq rathole
you can express your position by signing a petition.
Senator Ted Kennedy has offered a petition -
"It's not his decision, It's OUR decision" -
opposing the increase in troops to Iraq at:
http://www.tedkennedy.com/page/s/ourdecision
If you don't like Ted Kennedy, sign the petition offered by the
Physicians for Social Responsibility at:
https://secure2.convio.net/psr/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=161&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr012=3f0akcayf5.app5a
Does Sojourners have a petition?
If you don't think signing petitions does any good,
You're wrong!
They do make a difference.
And so does sending a letter to your Congressional Representatives.
There's not much optimism Bush will listen to anyone else except Cheney the puppet master.
But if they don't listen to Congress on the Constitution,
the people will have to explain to Bush/Cheney what the Constitution means.
Let's face it folks, our political leaders are short on courage and bravery.
They won't take a stand out there on their own.
They like to get out in front of a parade that's already going somewhere.
So let your leaders know there's a parade out here
and they should either get out in front of it,
Or get out of the way!
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 12:42 AM
No doubt, Carl, Bush/Cheney are maladroit and prone to empty posturing.
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 10, 2007 12:46 AM
Cheney shot his hunting partner in the face.
He was drinking.
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 10, 2007 12:54 AM
Kevin I'm taking this out of context but
"In a figurative sense, Iraq has blown up on us, but in a literal sense, it is the same geopolitical space it was after the initial invasion."
I've posted all of the insurgent wars (problems) that could not be solved. We (the US) can never fix this now that we broke it. Look at history and find the insurgent war that was won short of complete and brutal force.
There are bright people here, someone address this question?>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 12:57 AM
While American boys were dying in Vietnam,
George W. Bush was snorting cocaine.
He went AWOL from the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, AL
in April of 1972.
January 23, 1973 - President Nixon announces that an agreement has been reached which will "end the Vietnam war and bring peace with honor."
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 10, 2007 1:03 AM
this is just the beginning..........this will go on for years.................>
Posted by: carlos caciz | January 10, 2007 1:21 AM
It's already gone on longer than the Second World War, carlos.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 1:29 AM
Iraq is indeed Bush's Vietnam.
For those still drinking the far right kool-aid, who believe "we're not winnin' and we aren't losin'"...ENLIST.
Your ideology, your war, your President who is nuttier than a squirrel dump!>
Posted by: Pacific231 | January 10, 2007 1:42 AM
Well, Kevin S. would have enlisted if his strategic thinking weren't so valuable to us here at the American Enterprise Institute.
.>
Posted by: Frederick Kagan | January 10, 2007 1:56 AM
President Bush stated some time ago, on multiple occasions in fact, that the military on the ground would make the call as to when more ground troops were needed.
The military officers on the ground have indicated numerous times that they do not need this "surge".
Bush is sending more troops anyway because it is politically more palatable than admitting that he was wrong in the first place.
The gutless imbecile is going to send more of our soldiers to their death, and the gutless Congress will let him do it.
And the kool-aid drinkers like timks and kevin s. will stand there with their smarmy smiles and continue to beat the drums of war...as long as it isn't one of their loved ones standing in the gap.>
Posted by: Tom | January 10, 2007 2:08 AM
Sources inside the White House have signaled that Bush/Cheney is torn,
between talking to Syria and Iran
or bombing them.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/010807.html
Bush/Cheney is after oil.
This is why they don't want to talk to Syria or Iran.
They're in a bad bargaining position.
They'll probably bomb.
Unless we stop them.
Are you doing anything about this?
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 2:21 AM
Tom,And the kool-aid drinkers like timks and kevin s. will stand there with their smarmy smiles and continue to beat the drums of war
Find one post of mine where I have beaten the drums of war, Tom.
Imbeciles who live in glass houses shouldn't throw insults.>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 2:29 AM
Are you on the peace train, Tim?
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 2:31 AM
Kennedy's End the War Bill
Freezing the president's supplemental Iraq spending is an obvious administration trap set for the Democrats. But how else, under the Constitution, can Congress accomplish the goal of fulfilling its midterm mandate? Making further troop deployments impossible and illegal seems to be the only way, followed by, in turn, a total forced withdrawal due to spending cuts.
Enter Senator Kennedy's bill which accomplishes both, while placing the onus of funding the occupation on the sweat-stained shoulders of the president -- legally binding him to supply a real plan for ending our presence in Iraq. If the plan isn't good enough, then the law says no more brigades and no more money. In other words, if the commander-in-chief can't manage to squeeze a viable plan from his tiny noggin (he can't) and instead offers up the same vague crap on a stick (he will), then he's screwed himself, and the Democrats can force him to end the war without directly freezing expenditures.
Here's a key excerpt from Kennedy's bill designed to force Bush's hand on the escalation:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Further discussion of Kennedy's bill here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/kennedy-offers-a-slam-dun_b_38223.html
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 3:11 AM
In this war in Iraq, everyone knows what Bush did wrong. However, nobody can suggest to Bush what to do to make it right. ie. Now it seems that many people agree that a bigger number of troops is good long ago but not now. But I do not remember anyone saying America need more troops in Iraq long ago.>
Posted by: Sef Dudeo | January 10, 2007 3:31 AM
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
Sign the petition to impeach Bush/Cheney here:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88?ad=d5
.>
Posted by: Country Joe for Impeachment! | January 10, 2007 3:41 AM
" But I do not remember anyone saying America need more troops in Iraq long ago."
Seriously?>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 3:45 AM
"And the kool-aid drinkers like timks and kevin s. will stand there with their smarmy smiles and continue to beat the drums of war...as long as it isn't one of their loved ones standing in the gap."
Um, you're the one replicating insults from left-wing blogsites. You haven't engaged this argument in the slightest. That your understanding of foreign policy is utterly shallow does not make me a kool-aid drinker.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 3:49 AM
Noted Libertarian author and satarist PJ O'Rourke had a great line on Tucker Carlson today.
When asked what he thought the president should say in his speech tommorrow, O'Rourke replied "I resign".>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | January 10, 2007 3:51 AM
Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die Rag (Next Stop Iraqistan)
Country Joe & the Fish
Come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
he's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in Iraqistan so
put down your books and pick up a gun
we're gonna have a whole lotta fun
(CHORUS)
And it's one, two, three,
what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn,
next stop is Iraqistan.
And it's five, six, seven,
open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why,
whoopee we're all gonna die
Come on Cheney, let's move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go out and be Judge Dread
cos the only good Iraqi is the one that's dead
and you know that peace can only be won
when we've blown 'em all to kingdom come
Come on wall street don't be slow
why man this war is a go-go
there's plenty good money to be made
by supplying the army with the tools of its trade
let's hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
they drop it on an Iraqi throng.
Come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to Iraqistan
come on fathers don't hesitate
send your sons off before it's too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box>
Posted by: Philo | January 10, 2007 3:51 AM
"Commander Codpiece ignores the American people, too."
Since Jim Wallis reads these comments, what does he think of this? Jim, do you say "yeah, that's darn right... Heh, heh, Commander Codpiece... Alliteration... Brilliant."
I mean, what do you really think about the garbage that represents liberal thought these days? Are you impressed that "Commander Codpiece" and other such insipid insults represent your worldview?
I mean, Daniel and Amazon Creek seem to defend your principles with integrity. Are you with them, or are you with the "Commander Codpiece" types? Since you read these comments, I expect that you have an opinion one way or the other, yes?>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 3:56 AM
Commander Codpiece?
Makes me think of when Bush dropped in on the aircraft carrier, in full flight regalia, declaring,
"Mission Accomplished"
Codpieces were quite stylish at one point.
But now you only find them in a locker room.
Or on a showoff president.
.>
Posted by: Stephen Colbert | January 10, 2007 4:10 AM
Thank you for those lyrics, Philo.
All together now...
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 5:43 AM
justin said, Are you on the peace train, Tim?
I'm for Peace and its Prince, but if Yusuf Islam is the conductor of the train, I'll walk.>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 6:29 AM
Let's got out now -
We can't win this war.
The war on terror is a hoax.
Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Weather we stay or leave - the outcome is the same.
We should let the UN handle it. (right?)
Let's get out - we don't care about 'those' people anyway.
So - in the future we are not going to do anything about Darfur or any other place that people are being repressed. NO - IT WAS NOT JUST A>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 1:45 PM
Get out now!
We can win this war.
Bush lied people died.
Weather we stay of leave the outcome is the same.
It is an illegal war
We should have let the UN handle it. (right?)
Impeach Bush and Cheney.
So - let us got the US out now.
We don't care about repressed people
We don't care that they had the right to vote in the last free election in Iraq. (it will be the last after we leave)
NO - IT WAS NOT JUST ABOUT OIL!
Look at all the rhetoric over the last 15 years about Iraq and the vote for regime change during the Clinton Adm.
So - let get out and leave them to their demise. radical moderate was right - most of you have good ideas why we should not have gone in to Iraq - I even agree with some. But I have not read about what should be done when we leave.
Love what Teddy (burp) Kennedy is purposing in his bill for the Senate. Looks a lot like what he did to the US after we left South Viet Nam.
So - go ahead and talk about Darfur - appease your egos with how merciful you would be by letting the UN Blue Helmets go in there and make things right - they did such a good job in Rwanda. Talk about the aid that needs to be sent there for the starving people - so that the War Lords in the area can still it for their use and the blue helmets can do nothing because they are 'peace keepers'.
We will not go into military action ever again. Let's just destroy our military weapons and make plows and pruning hocks and study war no more.
Then we will be an oppressed and dominated people in short order because the very people that have attacked us before will be over here in a heart beat.
Suzanne I believe that you are a nice person your intentions are honorable. I also know that while you do what you do so well people will still be dying and tyrants will still be in power. (alright Bush is your tyrant whatever) In the cause of world peace sometimes the tyrants have to be removed and unfortunately both good and bad innocent people will die in the process. I would be willing to die fighting for your freedom both here and overseas would you be willing to do the same for me?
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 2:18 PM
Sadly, I believe the short term solution involves more troops, both from the US and other involved countries. We need to stop the violence on the ground, and the only way to do that is to control (or kill) the people committing the violence. It's unfortunate, but true.
The long term solution will obviously be a regional solution. Neighboring countries are, at the moment, feeding the sectarian battles going on in Iraq. We need to convince Iran, Syria, et al that a peaceful Iraq is good for everyone in the region and enlist their help in bringing it about. Anything short of that will just postpone greater violence until after the US pulls out.>
Posted by: RadicalModerate | January 10, 2007 2:38 PM
Are you on the peace train, Tim?
I'm for Peace and its Prince, but if Yusuf Islam is the conductor of the train, I'll walk.
timks
Pathetic response from Tim.
This is just Tim's snide way of branding peacemakers as traitors.
Tim will be sitting on the sidelines watching Bush throw more American lives and treasure down his Iraq rathole, while we work to stop Bush's futile war.
After the war is over, Tim will blame the peacemakers for losing it.
When will conservatives start to take responsibility for putting these warmongering criminals in power?
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 4:28 PM
Robster,
Would you please put your previous comments into a format we can understand?
I can't tell whether this is you or Rush Limbaugh talking.
It might help if you would talk about one thing at a time.
.>
Posted by: confused | January 10, 2007 4:33 PM
Radical Moderate,
Would you support this proposal?
Congress demands Bush start talking to Iran and Syria before they approve any more funds for Iraq.
.>
Posted by: confused | January 10, 2007 4:54 PM
US failure to talk to Iran is a key contributor to the region's instability
Financial Times, January 3 2007 02:00
What is Tehran's price for helping the United States in Iraq? This question has dominated the debate in Washington after the Iraq Study Group recommended opening unconditional talks with Iran. While stay-the-course hawks argue that Tehran's price is too high, few have cared to ask the real question at hand: What is the price of not talking to Iran?
Iraq is not on the verge of a civil war; it is already in a civil war, and it may now slide into a regional war unless Washington grants all regional states a stake in the process of stabilising the country. Unfortunately, elements in Saudi Arabia seem to prefer war to an Iraqi democracy with Shiites at its helm. According to Iraqi officials, Saudi Arabia is one of the main financial sources for the Sunni insurgents who have sought to throw Iraq into a sectarian civil war. As long ago as January 2004, Washington obtained a 17-page document detailing the Sunni insurgency's strategy of killing Shiites in order to initiate a sectarian civil war. Ironically, the straw that broke the US camel's back in Iraq may have been delivered through the help of Washington's own ally, the Saudis.
While the US is currently trapped in the crossfire of a civil war, it will be infinitely worse to be caught in the middle of the regional war. Under those circumstances, Washington will have no other option but to cut and run and see its failure in Iraq translate into an irreversible decline in US global power.
Talking to Iran may not be the silver bullet that stabilises Iraq in and of itself, but it is an absolute necessity in order to prevent the chaos in Iraq from deteriorating into a regional proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Only by heeding the Iraq Study Group's recommendation of setting up an Iraq International Support Group comprising Iraq and all its neighbours (including Iran) can such a war be avoided.
Washington's lack of communication with Iran is a key contributing factor to the instability in the region - and to the risk of further instability. At the end of the day, the Bush administration must recognise that the price of failing in Iraq is far greater than the price of talking to Iran.
Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council
.>
Posted by: the diplomat | January 10, 2007 5:03 PM
confused wrote -
I can't tell whether this is you or Rush Limbaugh talking.
It might help if you would talk about one thing at a time.
I am sorry - it was me talking - did you see the Rush name on the posting? I am able to draw my own conclussions from reading and listing to FOX - CNN - etc. I even have friends in the millitary that I talk to so that I can get the info first hand.
just me - robstur
- should I use little words in the future? (tee hee)>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 5:24 PM
Robster,
Can you summarize your conclusions in 25 words or less?
.>
Posted by: confused | January 10, 2007 5:28 PM
I'm as upset with the Bush adminstration as anyone who is against the war, BIG BUT the problem was and is Congress. They must do their job of advice, the war was not properly investigated prior to voting to go and we will probably do the same getting out.>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 5:29 PM
Rob, you're going to be upset with me again but I said the same thing confused is saying.
You jump around and bring in to many ideas.>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 5:37 PM
Butch,
In the Republican majority rubberstamp Congress there was no advise and consent, nor was there any oversight.
Bush got everything he wanted and corruption ruled.
Now with a Democratic Congress, there can be some oversight.
But the American public must hold the Democratic Congress' feet to the fire.
We must demand oversight and investigations.
We must demand that Corporate campaign cash be completely cut off from our political leaders.
We have to put a stop to the legalized bribery that has been rampant in Congress for decades.
.>
Posted by: honest government | January 10, 2007 5:39 PM
"Commander Codpiece"
I didn't notice this comment until kevin s pointed it out, but I think he's got an irrefutable point.>
Posted by: Daniel | January 10, 2007 5:48 PM
I didn't notice this comment until kevin s pointed it out, but I think he's got an irrefutable point.
Which is?
.>
Posted by: military intelligence | January 10, 2007 5:53 PM
Honest, my point exactly, we didn't hold Republicans to account until things got so out of hand, then we did it in an election, not a bad thing.
The problem with this method is so much can go wrong before we get it and act. We must act now.
We have a committee in our local political organization to watch our congressman NOW and advise the NOW. (not the other party, our party)>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 5:55 PM
That's a good idea doing this in an organized way.
I've written tons of letters to my representatives, as an individual citizen, trying to get them to do things for honesty in government.
But most of the time I get an automated form letter back proving that they haven't even bothered to read my letters.
We need to get more people behind the message and turn up the volume.
.>
Posted by: honest government | January 10, 2007 6:03 PM
Confused asked if I would support this proposal:
Congress demands Bush start talking to Iran and Syria before they approve any more funds for Iraq.
I am loathe to support any conditional demands. This is what leads to gridlock rather than progress. I would support congress proposing both/and, although congress really has little to no authority in directing foreign policy. It's not as though congress can send an ambassador to Iran or Syria. Purse strings are their only real leverage here, but it would endanger the lives of our troops already in Iraq to withhold funding based on policies they don't like.
Like it or not they have to work with Bush for two more years. Handcuffing him will not solve anything. They need to start proposing solutions rather than pointing fingers. And I don't mean the kind of proposal that is designed to get them re-elected in two years. I mean the kind of proposal that can make a difference now.>
Posted by: RadicalModerate | January 10, 2007 6:29 PM
Legislative Assistants scan letters and parse them into different categories, providing summary reports to communications directors. General letters calling for accountability are difficult to quantify. It's better to be specific.
As for the Democrat controlled keeping the administration in check (on the warand other issues), they will balance their need to exploit Bush for political gain with their desire to seem moderate.
Expect 18 more months of random recriminations of the Bush administration, folowed by a call for withdrawal in time for the 2008 elections cycle.
If I am an anti-war liberal (or, at least, an intellectually honest one) I am furious with the actions of congressional Democrats since 9/11. But it has gotten them where they want to be, and mutual victory seems to have placated the activist movement within the party, so there you go.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 6:29 PM
Our local congressman ignored us so we backed a different candidate in the primary, guess what? Suddenly he wanted our counsel!
I do think joining organizations you agree with and writing your congressman about the issues you feel strong about are good but I suggest the best place is within your favorite party.
Understand that some want us to just get in line and follow whatever the party line is but we are listened to and I've found better results within than outside.
You may like the other thing I m doing, when I joined I found that they griped about the other party and raised money or raised money and griped about the other party. Wasn t enough for me so I m forming committees to work on other things:
Scholarships for local schools
An after school reading program
Adopted a highway to clean
Helping at a half way house
Volunteered to work with the local VA
Working with the local animal rescue league
Working with challenged children
All of this is new to this old party organization and SOME have asked why?>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 6:30 PM
If I am an anti-war liberal (or, at least, an intellectually honest one) I am furious with the actions of congressional Democrats since 9/11. But it has gotten them where they want to be, and mutual victory seems to have placated the activist movement within the party, so there you go.
So are you an intellectually honest antiwar liberal or are you just play acting?
Yes, we're furious about the inactivity of Congressional Democrats and they know we're pushing them to act now that they have marginal control of Congress.
We're also furious with armchair libertarians who sat on the sidelines while Bush cancelled our civil liberties and usurped unconstitutional powers in the name of security.
From where I stand, the activist movement hasn't been placated at all by victory.
Victory has energized the activist movement.
.>
Posted by: anti war liberal | January 10, 2007 6:47 PM
I agree with David Sirota - author of "Hostile Takeover".
Sirota describes the two real political parties: the Money Party and the People Party.
The nominal Republican Party is all Money Party.
The Democratic Party is half Money Party and half People Party.
The Money Party component of the Democratic Party has been posturing as "Republican Lite" and losing elections for over a decade.
The People Party component of the Dems has caught on to this losing game and is gaining more power within the Democratic Party.
The Clintons are Money Party Democrats.
Money Party Dem Joe Lieberman has dropped all pretenses and now sits on the fence, playing both parties against each other.>
Posted by: honest government | January 10, 2007 6:59 PM
"So are you an intellectually honest antiwar liberal or are you just play acting?"
I am just play acting, obviously. The problem for me, and it should be for you, is that Jim Wallis seems to be playacting as well.
"Yes, we're furious about the inactivity of Congressional Democrats and they know we're pushing them to act now that they have marginal control of Congress."
What would you like them to do?
"We're also furious with armchair libertarians who sat on the sidelines while Bush cancelled our civil liberties and usurped unconstitutional powers in the name of security."
Which civil liberties have been cancelled? Perhaps the libertarians remained in their armchairs because they did not see serious violations of civil liberty, or at least not moreso that those violations inherent in the policies of the political left.
I will cede your point that, given his populist bent, Bush is not quite as unpopular with libertarians as one might expect. That said, his disfavor with liberals is similarly curious. The same could have been said of Clinton and Republicans though.
"Victory has energized the activist movement."
I disagree. Time will tell.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 7:01 PM
Pathetic response from Tim.
No kidding. I gave that response the time your question deserved.
What do you have against the Prince of Peace?
Do you also support Yusuf Islam's endorsement of and volunteering to participate in the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 7:11 PM
I am just play acting, obviously. The problem for me, and it should be for you, is that Jim Wallis seems to be playacting as well.
I suspect that's about all you do, Kevin, is play act.
Do you ever act out of a moral commitment to change the world?
I have no problem with Jim Wallis doing whatever he thinks is best.
And you shouldn't either.
After all this is Jim's website, isn't it?
What would you like them to do?
This is where someone who is play acting an intellectually honest anti war liberal is at a disadvantage.
You don't understand, do you?
And you haven't been listening either.
Which civil liberties have been cancelled? Perhaps the libertarians remained in their armchairs because they did not see serious violations of civil liberty, or at least not moreso that those violations inherent in the policies of the political left.
What planet have you been living on?
I will cede your point that, given his populist bent, Bush is not quite as unpopular with libertarians as one might expect. That said, his disfavor with liberals is similarly curious. The same could have been said of Clinton and Republicans though.
Bush is a populist?
Give us a break.
Bush is a fascist warmongerer.
Libertarians were too stupid to recognize Bush for what he really is.
You obviously know nothing about the anti war liberal mind.
Please, Kevin, no more BS.
.>
Posted by: anti war liberal | January 10, 2007 7:22 PM
alternative plan B wrote -
Remove Bush/Cheney from office.
Put some grownups in there.
Like the animal house adm that was in the white house prior to this one?
We are still in the Bulkins thanks for Clinton and it is no better -
His failures of Rwanda and Mogadishu -
His lack of direction on the Iraq issue is the main reason we are there - in my opinion. OH - let us wait to see what Sandi Burger had wedged between his buns in his BVD's?
Might that have something to do with Iraq? Something that Bill does not want the american people to know?
Sorry folks - I'm hangin around to see what is written in the future.
So while we argue about who did what - how do we... - we shouldn't have - they die.
I wish the big four (ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN) would also report how many of the enemy the US and Iraqi forces kill each day so the people would know that it just isn t civilians. But that doesn't fit into the agenda...does it?
Have a super-fantastic day!
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 7:24 PM
Great points, robster.
All of them.>
Posted by: Rush Limbaugh | January 10, 2007 7:28 PM
Robster,
We're sending you a dittohead sticker.
You can attach this to your forehead.
That way other dittoheads will be able to recognize you in a crowd.
.>
Posted by: Rush Limbaugh | January 10, 2007 7:36 PM
Sounds to me like you all need to grow up. Wallis should be embarrassed by the behavior of most so-called "liberals" here. (Conservatives, of course, should just be embarrassed that they are conservatives.) Cut the insults, answer each others questions, stop questioning each other's motives.
And don't think that just electing Democrats is going to solve the problem. As Wallis pointed out so well in God's Politics, if we don't change the direction of the wind we will just elect another bunch of finger wavers (read the book if you don't get the allusion).
Of course, actually making a difference is much harder than lobbing snide insults at the other side on a blog.>
Posted by: RadicalModerate | January 10, 2007 7:43 PM
What do you have against the Prince of Peace?
Do you also support Yusuf Islam's endorsement of and volunteering to participate in the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?
Nothing against the Prince of Peace, Tim.
It's just that the Prince of Peace is not likely to stop Bush's warmongering.
We are responsible for Bush's insane warmongering.
We put Bush in there.
So don't expect the Prince of Peace to save you from your own mistakes.
Who is Yusuf Islam?
And tell us,
Are you doing anything for peace?
I mean you personally.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 7:43 PM
Radical Moderate,
Is Robster really your cousin?
Do you have any influence with him?>
Posted by: anonymouse | January 10, 2007 7:46 PM
So don't expect the Prince of Peace to save you from your own mistakes.
So you've pretty much written off that whole redemption thing, then?
Who is Yusuf Islam?
The artist formerly known as Cat Stevens.
Are you doing anything for peace?
I mean you personally.
I contribute time and money to ministries which help spread the Gospel, which in my opinion is the only way to achieve lasting, real peace.>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 7:52 PM
Just for the record - I don't listen to Rush - my radio does not get the station as I am in the center of tons of steel.
I do have a mind of my own. I have watched the movies Hotel Rwanda and Something in April. I even watched Moore s F-911.
I have read It Takes a Village Shut Up and Sing etc.
I supported Clinton when he first went into the Bulkins and did now agree with some that said he did it to keep Monica off the front page.
R-M, let try to tip one soon.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 7:54 PM
I repeat a previous post.
I was curious about Kevin so I went to his site, I quote;
"While I have said before that the tar and feathering of Pat Robertson has been less than fair (he is no more absurd or political than Jim Wallis or Al Sharpton) and while I don't think the petition is going to change his mind, I do think it serves a certain purpose."
What he says makes more sense now that I know he lumps Robertson and Sharpton with Wallis. It was clear he is here to disrupt!
If Kevin feels that Wallis and Robertson are equal then Kevin should interfere with this site!
To respond to Kevin gives him power his words haven t earned.>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 7:58 PM
Tim,
Redemption works on an individual personal level.
But redemption will not save America from its leader's mistakes.
We can save America from our leader's mistakes.
But only if we try.
And time is running out.
If you're waiting for Gospel ministries to stop Bush, you're basically on the sidelines in the effort to save America.
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was called off a few years ago.
Did you notice?
And Cat Stevens means squat to the present disaster in Iraq.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 8:04 PM
Are we just in rhetorical purgatory?
Kevin's indictment about the bile and vitriol hoisted upon our "enemies" is horrifyingly accurate. It's not the purview of any one group - conservatives give at least as good as they get in my experience - but it's tough to see how we could offer a prophetic vision of a Christ of love and compassion, trot out Matthew 25 and the Golden Rule, embrace a pluralistic and tolerant worldview, and then spit venom at those who disagree.
I fear this is Pride. It's definitely not Humility....>
Posted by: Daniel | January 10, 2007 8:34 PM
"I suspect that's about all you do, Kevin, is play act."
What is this supposed to mean, exactly?
"I have no problem with Jim Wallis doing whatever he thinks is best. And you shouldn't either.
After all this is Jim's website, isn't it?"
So I am not allowed to disagree with him because it his website? That's ridiculous.
"You don't understand, do you?"
That's why I asked.
At any rate, you go on and on without saying anything. Since you are a self-proclaimed member of the activist left, perhaps you can explain why your ilk has exhibited such a tremendous difficulty in discussing the issues with any measure of self control?
Cussing, repasting the same post over and over, calling people idiots. If this is the message, why would anyone want to embrace the messengers. This is absolutely insipid.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 8:34 PM
Yes, Robstur is really my cousin. My son is named after his dad (my uncle). He's a rather strong willed person, so I really don't hold much influence with him, although I think he respects my opinions, as I respect his.
We don't always agree, but we can still like each other. That's something I see missing from the dialog here. It seems like demonizing your opponent is the MO of most posters. That's too bad. It's better to find out why your opponent believes the way he does and try to find common goals. That might actually get you a solution.
Robstur, you're right, we should get together for that beer sooner than March. I'll have my better half check the schedule and call your better half and we'll set something up.
And I believe the Cat Stevens remark originally came up as a joke (referring to his song "Peace Train") which I actually enjoyed (the joke, not the song).>
Posted by: RadicalModerate | January 10, 2007 8:37 PM
I suspect that's about all you do, Kevin, is play act.
What is this supposed to mean, exactly?
Do you ever act out of a moral commitment to change the world?
.>
Posted by: anti war liberal | January 10, 2007 8:50 PM
"???Do you ever act out of a moral commitment to change the world?"
Yes. My disagreement with your political beliefs calls this into question?
Radicalmoderate,
It has been suggested that Robster and I are the same person. If that is true, you are my cousin. We should grab a beer sometime.>
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2007 9:04 PM
Yes - RadicalModerate - is my cousin!
I have the utmost respect for his ideas and convictions - and we even have a great time lampooning each other once in a while. My oldest son was the ring bearer in their wedding and I love my cousins wife and how she has added so much to our family.
I would defend his remarks even if I did not agree with them - because he has the right to think for himself and he is good. He can chase you around the rabbit trail on most issues and not ever break a sweat.
Lord help the blogger that comes between me and my cousin...(alright - I am no Irving Berlin)
Have a great day
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 9:04 PM
So I am not allowed to disagree with him because it his website? That's ridiculous.
Of course you can disagree with Jim Wallis.
But you have only one disagreement with Jim Wallis and we've already heard it.
You disagree with the basic premise of Sojourners and the God's Politics blog.
You think this is a liberal plot to take over the evangelicals.
You repeat these charges with every guest post.
It's nothing for you to insult the guest posters with your condescending rhetoric.
You will lurk around for the next post so you can be the first one to put up your insulting response.
And when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine,
you whine like a baby.
Blogs are a two way street, Kevin.
You get what you give.
.>
Posted by: mightymouse | January 10, 2007 9:13 PM
"???Do you ever act out of a moral commitment to change the world?"
Yes. My disagreement with your political beliefs calls this into question?
Then you basically have nothing else to do?
You should find another hobby, Kevin.
.>
Posted by: anti war liberal | January 10, 2007 9:17 PM
Redemption works on an individual personal level.
Your post said "save you from your mistakes", so I responded to what you wrote.
If you're waiting for Gospel ministries to stop Bush, you're basically on the sidelines in the effort to save America. I'm not waiting for Gospel ministries to do anything other than spread the Gospel and provide help to the vulnerable. If that means he is stopped, so be it. If that means Bush's influence grows, so be it.
The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was called off a few years ago.
Did you notice?
And Cat Stevens means squat to the present disaster in Iraq. But your fatwa aginst George Bush is still active, it seems. You're the one who mentioned Cat's insipid song, I was only going along with your cultural reference.>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 9:18 PM
Yes, Tim, the fatwa against Bush/Cheney is still active.
We just want them removed from office, prosecuted for their crimes and humanely punished.
Tim, you ignore the real danger to America.
Just stay on the sideline, relax and enjoy life.
Let others deal with it.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe for Impeachment! | January 10, 2007 9:31 PM
You're the one who mentioned Cat's insipid song, I was only going along with your cultural reference.
Sorry to have distracted you with an insipid cultural reference, Tim.
Let's put it another way.
Do you support the Bush/Cheney escalation of the war in Iraq?
Or do you oppose the escalation?
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 10, 2007 9:36 PM
Of course you can disagree with Jim Wallis. I've just had an epiphany. Justin (and all his sock puppets) is in love with Jim Wallis. Like an infatuated teenager, he takes personally the slightest hint that his beloved, the apple of his eye, is anything other than the most beautiful person in the world and perfect in all respects. Justin gets all bowed up and chivalrously comes to the defense of his beloved if anyone is less than fervent in their appreciation of Jim's attributes.
The very thought of another essay by Jim gives justin a case of the vapors.
When will justin grow up and realize that Jim is an adult and can certainly take the mild criticisms he gets here?
When will justin start abiding by the Rules of Conduct on Jim's blog?>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 9:38 PM
You are projecting your shadow onto Kevin S and then attacking it
Why are we setting standards for Kevin that noone else here meets?
Post after post on Iraq is different from response after response to those posts how?
Participating in a conversation online with someone who thinks differently prevent moral action in the world how? In what way are we not guilty of too often being argumentative, assertive, hard-headed, and inactive?
When Saddam is executed we reject "eye for an eye" justice but when Kevin claims we're being rude we justify our rudeness by saying he started it and therefore deserves equal retaliation? Is the Sermon on the Mount something we only talk about when when we need something to hide behind? What happened to all the talk about Micah and beating swords into plowshares?
Hello? Is this thing on?>
Posted by: Daniel | January 10, 2007 9:41 PM
Tim,
We're not worried about Jim Wallis.
He can take care of himself.
It's just that you conservatives are boring us with your litany of charges about whether or not this blog is biased.
It is biased.
Get over it.
This is a progressive site.
If you're a conservative and you don't believe in progress, it's unlikely you'll ever be happy here.
But if you think your function here is to offer a critique of progressive ideas, fine.
Then offer your critique in the spirit of honest constructive dialogue.
Stop disrupting the flow of discourse with your monotonous charges of bias.
Stop hijacking the discussion with irrelevant distractions.
Stop defending the indefensible.
And stop insulting our guests.
We've heard more than enough of this.
Unless you can offer a constructive critique, you're not an asset to the blog.
We'd be better off without you.
We wish you could find a conservative happy home to take you in.
.>
Posted by: mightymouse | January 10, 2007 10:01 PM
1. War is destructive and causes the deaths of many people.
2. Since war is destructive and causes the deaths of many people, it should be avoided at all costs.
3. We have not avoided "war" with Iraq.
4. "War" is in quotation marks because this is not a "war" this is a military occupation.
5. Although the causes for this military occupation are vague at the present and may be fully realized for some time to come, if ever, we have already occuped Iraq and it is now our duty to carry out our job there to the fullest.
5. Since we have already CAUSED civil uprising my occupying Iraq by stationing ourselves there (we are not trying to create war, in fact we dethroned a "our S.O.B" from power) it is now our job to "clean up our mess" so to speak.
6. On "our S.O.B." - yes, that may have been a bad move, but if we had known the full implications of making nice nice with him before, I like to think that any nation has the good senses not to go to tea parties with someone who is supporting furture terrorist acts against them. I personally think it is a strong move of us to overlook our public respect and press history and instead focus on the issue of Iraq.
And, "our S.O.B." was the dictator of Iraq, was just executed, and was supported by groups in Iraq now threatening the peace and stability of the nation.
7. In conclusion, nothing is ever as simple as "do this" or "do that." This is not about "war," (what has been hyped up as "the war on terror), this is not about politics, this is not about public respect, this is about owning up to our actions and doing the best thing to resolve the situation in a peaceful (creating and sustaining peace in Iraq so they can then create and maintain peace themselves) and timely manner - if it's "about" anything. In other words - "do this in the best way possible.">
Posted by: College student | January 10, 2007 10:08 PM
jeez, this place has gotten ridiculous. does anyone want to actually respond in a meaningful way to what the original poster says anymore? or just use these comments as a forum to argue?
...
i think that most of those arguing for more troops in the past would say that we're way past that point now. things have escalated well past the point of a military solution (if there ever was one from the beginning, which is questionable at best).
the cynic in me would say that the surge is a plot to shift some of the blame for the iraq mess on the democrats. if the democrats keep the surge plan from going forward, the republicans can say, a year from now, "look - we called for more troops, the democrats fought us, and look at the disaster that iraq has become." on the other hand, if the dems let the surge happen, john mccain's gotta be a little concerned. sadly, i believe disaster is ahead either way. i simply don't see ANY way out of disaster, whether we withdraw immediately, or add more troops. talking to iran and syria are nice in theory, and would at least call the iranians bluff, but i don't see anything terribly productive coming from there either. the iranians have played this thing perfectly from the beginning.>
Posted by: mingus | January 10, 2007 10:12 PM
College student wrote -
6. On "our S.O.B." - yes, that may have been a bad move, but if we had known the full implications of making nice nice with him before, I like to think that any nation has the good senses not to go to tea parties with someone who is supporting furture terrorist acts against them. I personally think it is a strong move of us to overlook our public respect and press history and instead focus on the issue of Iraq.
I like this one and in many was agree with your thinking. But what do you say about the previous adm. 'having tea' when M. Albright was in North Korea talking with the little guy there who had already made threats on the US...that wasn't all bright. (sorry - just couldn't pass it up - tee hee) I believe that Saddam was more on our page in the begining and then turned on us.
Just a thought...
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 10, 2007 10:15 PM
mingus, Daniel and other folks of good will: Thanks for your interesting ideas offered in the spirit of civil discussion.
justin and his sockpuppets: your last post as "mightymouse" shows that you really are confused. There is not a single post of mine on this or any other thread that is applicable to even the least of your allegations.
I think you have let your hatred for whatever it is you hate affect you.
Might I suggest you spend some time in the Psalms, and in prayer?>
Posted by: timks | January 10, 2007 10:29 PM
"this is about owning up to our actions"
This is a big problem, we have to find someone to blame?
Kevin, others lets work on it.
I say Clinton is the best choice?>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 10:50 PM
Kevin you probably know that Pat Robertson has split with Wallis since Wallis started the war in Iraq!>
Posted by: Butch | January 10, 2007 10:59 PM
I think Jim (http://blog.myspace.com/140570422) summed it up best a few days ago with this simple statement:
"Bush is asking for nails to fix a barn that burned down three years ago."
After watching all the pundits on cable news the past few nights as they hash over the subject of a "surge," I notice that the more honest ones always come to the same conclusion ... there just isn't any good way to get out of this. It was misguided and unwinnable from the start, and remains so.
I notice there are still a few arrogant and misguided newspeople who seem angry and upset that the Iraqi forces aren't eagerly jumping to take the lead. I can only compare it to breaking into someone's private backyard pool, tossing the owners into the water and then growing impatient with them because they can't swim well enough to save themselves.>
Posted by: S. Heriger | January 10, 2007 11:31 PM
listening to this morning's news saddened me deeply, anticipating Bush's speech tonight. They interviewed one of the retiring Generals--General Russell, I believe. He explained why it is so not-workable to send more troops. He said some of them have been home one year or less and that is just not enough time--not enough to get all the equipment they repaired, not enough time for them to get mentally rested and then trained and prepared all over again, etc. one wonders why all the generals who disagreed with this tactic have "retired" and Bush found some who would fall into line. It's really scary. A president will this much power to act--all alone--making tactical, military decisions based on ???? (saving his own face!!). We have to get busy writing letters and making our voices heard in Washington. Thank God for Jim Wallis1>
Posted by: genie | January 11, 2007 1:23 AM
one other thought--to compare confusing cats and jury duty mistakes with the horribly insensitive letters sent to those who are grieving the loss of the loved ones in a senseless war, is unbelievable! In this day of the best technology in communication, mistakes like that should never happen!>
Posted by: genie | January 11, 2007 1:27 AM
I missed a lot of back and forth on this thread, I've been out oftown and quite busy, but there's one assertion that Wallis makes in his original post that needs to discussed:
More troops means more casualties, more suffering for families, more losses of beloved ones. And without a new political strategy, a new military buildup won't succeed.
Now there's no question that the buildup is risky. There's no guarantee it will risk and if it does there could be more casualties. As I see it this is Bush's last card -- if it fails it will be nearly impossible for him to prevent Congress from taking over large chunks of foreign and even military policy.
But it might work. In particular, a larger force might allow American generals to keep direct control over territory longer, allowing us to actually hold territory longer after we've cleared it before turning it over to Iraqi forces (who remain a disappointment militarily). In turn, the result would actually be fewer casualties because US forces won't need to "pay for the same real estate twice" (in the words of General Patton.
I don't really know what will happen, I'm not a military expert. But neither is Jim Wallis. I think his warning is worth considering, but he could afford to be a bit more humble.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 11, 2007 1:57 AM
genie, one other thought--to compare confusing cats and jury duty mistakes with the horribly insensitive letters sent to those who are grieving the loss of the loved ones in a senseless war, is unbelievable! In this day of the best technology in communication, mistakes like that should never happen!
genie, I agree with your conclusion, but how does mistakes that have been happening for over 150 years prove Bush's incompetence, as Jim said?
I believe that these types of mistakes are typical of big, bureacratic organizations and happen regardless of who's in the White House.>
Posted by: timks | January 11, 2007 2:33 AM
Frankly - I pray that the situation is Iraq will come to a conclusion sooner rather than later and that the people of Iraq will step up to the plate and take over their security etc.
I am less hopefull that this will happen as Teddy (son of a bootlegger) Kennedy has already starting with the 'unfunding' for our troops. More or less the same thing he did after the Paris Accords in the 70's only he is doing it prior to it having a chance.
I would really like to try to come to some type of solution but the 'Bush lied people died' group seem to satisified with blaming them and hoping (praying) for failure - my assessment and I could be wrong.
Well have a great evening - going to spend a some time in the word.
Be blessed
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 11, 2007 4:04 AM
Sojourners is co sponsoring a petition opposing Bush's "surge" of additional troops into the Iraq rathole.
If you disagree with the "new" Bush strategy, sign it at:
www.AmericaSaysNo.org.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 4:22 AM
Baltimore Sun As a last-ditch effort, President Bush has announced the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.
Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.
According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.
"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata.
This is truly a desperate move.
Bush is abandoning Afghanistan to save his political reputation.
Virtually all military experts not beholden to Bush for their jobs are against Bush's last ditch effort.
Bush ignores everyone and gambles with American lives.
.>
Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 4:30 AM
timks said: "how does mistakes that have been happening for over 150 years prove Bush's incompetence, as Jim said?"
urr...
Jim said: "in a very sad commentary on more incompetence and resulting insensitivity"...
Doesn't mention Bush by name as far as I can see. Though bureaucratic blunders are obviously common, I don't see how this particular kind of one is excusable. They should simply be more careful. I agree with genie. And when there's an smell of incompetence about the whole Iraq war, it's hard to take this kind of occurrence in stride as a nation, if not as an individual affected family.
Several have said this has happened before. Some evidence would be nice, but beyond that, isn't that further support for tightening up the system so it doesn't happen again? 5000 odd names is not too many to double-check, even manually, to avoid this kind of terrible situation.>
Posted by: sangerinde | January 11, 2007 8:19 AM
Sangerinde,
If you're talking about this specific screwup, I'm not sure that we've even sent re-enlistment packages to the families of dead soldiers. But bureaucratic foul-ups are a universal constant. Just last week a cat got a voters registration card.
That certainly goes for the military bureacracy, which is the origin for S.N.A.F.U. and F.U.B.A.R.
As for Bush's role, look, if Jim didn't think W had something to do with it, why would he include it in the piece?
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | January 11, 2007 12:39 PM
robstur, i can respect your support for helping iraq overthrow a dictator - i really can.
what i can't respect is your continued demonization of the democrats and lionization of bush/cheney. being politically conservative is not an excuse for looking the other way when your guy screws up and blaming it on the "others". plenty of good conservatives have rightfully come out and declared bush's iraq policies an utter failure.
you're a smart guy - can't you look beyond party line and hold your elected representatives accountable, *regardless* of whether you voted for them?>
Posted by: mingus | January 11, 2007 2:16 PM
"Bush is asking for nails to fix a barn that burned down three years ago."
that absolutely says it all.>
Posted by: mingus | January 11, 2007 2:20 PM
Wolverine,
I am always in support of a call for more Humility. When it comes to Pride it is so true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
But I think the claim Jim is making is not technical but categorical. He believes, as I do, that violence breeds violence by its nature. So, using violence to stop violence is like fighting fire with fire literally - you can't be too surprised when you end up with more fire.
That said, Jim's ideas of the goal of the surge may be incorrect. If the goal is not to stop the violence but to provide the Iraqi government some breathing room to establish rule of law, like we just need a little more suppressive cover fire, then Jim's statement is debatable on a normative level and may be in need of information from military experts. Otherwise, it's just an applied expression that violence begets violence and really isn't inherently prideful (though it could be, depending on Jim's intentions.)>
Posted by: Daniel | January 11, 2007 2:24 PM
The Democratic Senate is drumming up something more serious than their Iraq policy. Senate bill S. 1 will regulate the freedom of speech of grassroots organizations like this one. I suggest you go to Focus on the Family website and read about the implications of this Democrat sponsored bill.>
Posted by: Paul | January 11, 2007 4:44 PM
if you do choose to follow paul's unsolicited and off-topic advice, i pray that you will not just limit your research on the democrats' ethics bill (S. 1) to the focus on the family website. there is a need for this legislation. there is a need to limit the access to *our* government of people like jack ambramoff, who want to use it simply for their own economic gain.
educate yourselves - don't rely on focus on the family to do your research for you. if you come to the same conclusion as them, fine. but don't be lazy.>
Posted by: mingus | January 11, 2007 5:59 PM
mingus wrote -
can't you look beyond party line and hold your elected representatives accountable, *regardless* of whether you voted for them?
I do and I can - just think that some of the logic and assessment by the other side is slightly flawed. I see a bigger picture and what I believe a greater good for the Iraqi people.
.>
Posted by: robstur | January 11, 2007 7:07 PM
i understand that robstur, but what i'm referring to is your choice of words everytime you mention democrats, nancy pelosi, ted kennedy, etc. - always negative. do you honestly believe that all democrats are bad and all republicans are good? i don't think that you really do, but that's how many of your posts come across. i can understand writing in the heat of the moment, but keep in mind that people here that are democrats are not going to take your comments seriously if they're sprinkled with unjustified anti-democrat sentiments. again, i don't think that's your intent, just how it comes across sometimes.
just constructive criticism, robstur, i'm glad that you're here and adding to the discussion.>
Posted by: mingus | January 11, 2007 10:45 PM
mingus -
i'm glad that you're here and adding to the discussion.
you are most likely one of two people. I had a lot of respect for Paul Wellstone - did not vote for him but respected him. I have no respect for Kennedy or Pelosi. I believe that Teddy has done more harm to this country that we will ever know. I know that there are hypocrites on both sides and I will deal with the ones on my side of the fence. But you think that my postings are a little off when I read about 'Impeaching Bush' from the majority of the other side. The Kennedy Pelosi crowd has wanted to impeach every Rep Pres. since Nixon - they can't all be that bad.
OK - we are there regardless of what we think as individuals about how we got there. SO - how do we bring this thing to a close for the good of all? (I know - impeach Bush)
What do we do to get the Iraqis' to step up to the plate and take over? (give them the keys and get out...whatever)
How do we make sure that Iran and Syria stay out and let the Iraqis determine their future themselves? (talk and tell them to say out and have the UN handle it) The same UN that share compounds in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah? The same UN that took care of things in Rwanda?
I am looking for middle ground but keep getting slapped with the Bush Haters and their rhetoric.>
Posted by: robstur | January 12, 2007 12:37 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?