Only change I can think of making is to have people stop referring to the "war in Iraq". Start talking about the "occupation of Iraq". That's what it is, after all. We finished the war. We WON the war. Now we are occupying a nation.

We can't just leave. It's a naive position. We don't have the right to abandon innocent Iraqi men, women, and children to the bloody chaos that our government has unleashed in their country. I hate that we are there, too, but we can't just leave them to die. I realize this position is going to open me up to blistering criticism, but I stand by it: Democrats are better than this. We have been, and are, the champions of those who are in need, and the Iraqis need us. We can't just abandon them.

I am a Democrat. I am a veteran. My uncle is a colonel in the Army in Baghdad right now. I'm sorry to be off the reservation on this, but it's too important: we can't leave until Iraq is stable, no matter how much it costs in blood and treasure. We are there now. It's our fault. We can't just walk away.

Great job, as usual.

Has anyone seen this iRack video? Very clever.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/irack

to Michaeljc4:

I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that Bush kicked a hornets' nest by ever going there. Thinking people knew even then that to go there was a huge mistake, because you can't put the hornets back into the nest.

The only forgiveness those people there will ever find for Americans is for us to get the hell out of their country. Some will never forgive... those who had to pick up a dead child or relative.

Maybe a good idea is to refugee out those Iraqis who don't want to stay there... if they can't make Democracy happen (and we sure can't), then leave Iraq. That's what our forefathers did. They didn't like the overbearing rule of England and left it.

And when the English armies came here to attempt keeping us under their rule, what happened? Don't you see... now WE are the English armies in the minds of the Iraqis. We are trying to take rule of their country. Long before we invaded, long before 911, the Iraqis who didn't like being under the rule of Hussein could have just left. Many did.

I have a friend whose entire family left Iran when things changed there more than 20 years ago. They also left a huge fortune... all they could take with them was $100,000, but it was worth it to them because they would no longer have the freedom of their Baha'i religion. Now they live a prosperous life in Texas. They rebuilt themselves.

I, too, am very much a Democrat. And I am the first in line to try to help others who have fallen. I say, help those who want out of Iraq to come here or to another country of their preference. Here they can prosper if they are willing to work. At least here, there is a chance, because Iraq is going to be in turmoil for a very long time now whether we are there or not.

And if Iraqis still choose the same rigid thinking that got them a leader like Hussein, and they refuse to see life on other terms, then they have made a choice to continue with the same mentality of Hussein and will end up with the same kind of leader.

I guess when I read that paragraph again, I realize that's where we are here now. Many people with like thinking voted Bush in, and now they realize their error. So we have a similar leader like Hussein. He behaves like a dictator and refuses to listen to the American people. He is a spoiled child determined to have what he wants and to hell with us.

We need to impeach Bush and Chaney. Period.

michael, do you understand that that infighting going on, will go on whether we are there or whether we are not??? How many deaths have added up AND WE ARE THERE?

You don't think, given the chance of having to take the responsibility for their OWN security and safety and Peace, that the two sides (Shias and Sunnis) will be forced to come to the table?

You are wrong ! Getting out is the best thing that we could do. We are doing ABSOLUTELY nothing right now, except making targets of our US troops. There is no Victory. No mission, No winning there. Not for the US !

here's one for you to read.

Iraqis Finally Unite - Against the US

After a weekend in which 10 U.S. soldiers were killed - four more were killed on Monday, bringing the total to 45 already in April - and the citizens of once bustling Baghdad cowered in their homes under a U.S.-imposed round-the-clock curfew, President Bush had the good sense for once to say not a word about the glorious "liberation" of Iraq. Instead, as Dana Milbank noted in The Washington Post, the president never mentioned Iraq in a 24-minute speech he gave on the happier subject of illegal immigration, nor did any of his top aides touch on the topic. The White House website ignored Iraq entirely under the heading "LATEST NEWS," instead featuring Clifford the Big Red Dog's romp at the South Lawn's annual Easter egg hunt.

Meanwhile, back in liberated Iraq, the anniversary of Saddam Hussein's overthrow was marked by only one sign of public response: In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, hundreds of thousands gathered to burn American flags and otherwise denounce the United States. "Yes! Yes! Iraq. No! No! America," chanted demonstrators organized by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, reported the BBC. "We were liberated from Saddam. Now we need to be liberated again. Stop the suffering. Americans leave now."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041107H.shtml

Michaeljc4 -

To support your position you need to provide some level of assurance that our military presence in Iraq will bring stability and peace. After four years of death and deprivation, I'm afraid the evidence is quite the contrary. Like an infection caused by a sliver, the infection will not end until the sliver is removed. In Iraq, we are the sliver...perhaps not the only one, but the most easily removed sliver.

Whatever happens after we leave Iraq will happen whether we leave now or leave in thirty years. Why spend any more lives and money to get to that inevitable outcome?

Some people now point to what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia as evidence that we should have stayed there, and as support for the argument that we need now to stay in Iraq. I ask them what evidence they have that extending our military presence in that region of the world beyond the 12 or so years we had already been there would have made any difference in a post-U.S. influenced Southeast Asia.

They have no answer.

So what's yours? Do you think U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces will do anything to quell the civil turmoil in that country? At this very moment they are PARTICIPATING in the cycle of butchery and reprisals. Do you think a Sunni minority will accept a Shi'a dominated government any more than they did before Saddam took power, just because WE are in Iraq? Why? And do you think a Shi'a government will not take advantage of the power base our presence gives them to extract their measure of vengeance for what Saddam's rule did to them? They're doing it now.

Why do you think U.S. presence in Iraq is a positive influence for the fate of the Iraqi people? You need to provide good answers to that question. The blood of Americans and Iraqis from this time until the time we withdraw is on your hands, and the hands of anyone who supports our continued military presence in that country.

Get out of Iraq. Today.

Gee I wonder what it is!

You know, if you want to be "democratic" you would make your posts as "backwards compatible" as possible. Not everyone has access to the newest computers, and people who access from the library and other public access points can't install software.

I don't think one needs a 'newer computer' in order to download free flash player, windows media, Real Player ! My older version does it all just fine! Doesn't take any software at all, just download it from the place indicated above.
Could be done even at a Library.

I hear you all. Perhaps the bloodletting that will occur when we withdraw is inevitable. I simply cannot f*cking believe that we are in this position of choiceless choices: if we stay, we're damned, and if we leave, we're damned. I just keep thinking about all of the innocent people who will die, and I am fearful that the withdrawal of US troops will lead to a horrific, unchecked pogrom of ethnic cleansing that makes what's been happening over the past two years look like a square dance.

I need to know, from the Democratic candidates and our elected leaders in the congress: if we pull out, then what? What's the plan? Bring the troops home is a lovely rallying cry, and it's obviously resonating with people. But...then what?

Michael, I believe that many if not most of the Democrats, including Murtha, have called for RE DEPLOYMENT. This means withdrawing the troops, but taking them home, rather to Kuwait, and other surrounding countries in CASE they have to go back in for anything.

How much worse can it get?? Even Petraus has said, this cannot be settled militarily ! that means these various sects MUST come to the table and negotiate and compromise. If they end up splitting up the country, so be it. But they must be forced to do this themselves. Going into the 5th year is just too much trying to prove our presence is anything more than a hinderance.

PamB -

I have a sincere question about redeployment. Assuming we were to pull about 145,000 troops out of Iraq and managed to find a place to stuff...how many - 50,000?? of them into Iraq, what event would take place that would merit their being redeployed...again...into Iraq? Would it be an internal event? An overthrow of this sham government? Why would we want to intervene? Would it be an external event? Iranian troops marching into Baghdad? What national security interest of ours would "redeployment" protect that is not presumably protected by our current deployment in Iraq? What interests of the Iraqi people would be protected? I honestly don't get it. The cynic in me tells me that this is a way for politicians to take steps toward what they know to be the inevitable - our extraction from the affairs of a people we had no business being in in the first place - while maintaining political cover from those who want to label them "cut and runners."

How about "redeploying" them to, oh, I don't know... Kentucky? Would that work for Murtha and the others who argue for redeployment? If not, why not?

And you are absolutely right - four years is plenty enought to prove that we can't achieve "success" in Iraq. We're well into the "peace with honor" phase of this mess - we're just not using the same words. It makes me sick to see us going down that road again, when the last trip showed us full well the folly of that course.

Michaeljc4 - the ethnic strife you fear has started, and it will indeed be as ugly as your fear, and it will continue until it finds its own conclusion. Our presence only prolongs the process. That's the reality, and we can't change it. Four decades of Tito's iron hand in Yugoslavia did nothing to stop the inevitable atrocities in that part of the world once his authority was removed from the equation. They were powered by ethnic hatred cultivated over centuries. Why would you think our military presence and power would be more effective than communist rule in eliminating similar dynamics in Iraq? We couldn't do it even if that was genuinely our reason for us staying in Iraq.

Greg -

By the way...amen, brother. You are 100% right.

US forces to 'wall off Baghdad streets'

April 11, 2007 12:43pm

US FORCES in Baghdad are planning to seal off vast areas of the city with barricades, effectively imprisoning the inhabitants of neighbourhoods, according to The Independent.

"The campaign of 'gated communities' - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and would be the most ambitious counter-insurgency program yet mounted by the US in Iraq," wrote Robert Fisk.

The project to stop the movement of insurgents and weapons would involve joint US-Iraqi "support bases" in nine of the 30 districts to be "gated" off.

Militias would be cleared from civilian streets which would then be walled off and the occupants given ID cards.

Only the occupants would be allowed into these "gated communities" where there were likely to be pass systems, visitor registration and restrictions on movement outside.

"Civilians may find themselves inside a 'controlled population' prison, Fisk said.

He said the system, used in the past and a "spectacular" was as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3200 American troops...

The initial emphasis would be on securing Baghdad markets and predominantly Shi'ite areas, and arrests of men of military age would be substantial, Fisk said.

The ID card project was based on a system adopted in the city of Tal Afar in early 2005 when a wall was built around the town to prevent the movement of gunmen and weapons.

Gen Petraeus regarded the campaign as a success although Tal Afar has since fallen back into insurgent control.

But Fisk pointed out that insurgents in Iraq came from the same population centres that would be sealed and, if undiscovered, would be issued ID cards and enclosed with everyone else.

//www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21538570-5005961,00.html

Brilliant.

You know, you don't have to go back to the 70's to find a model for this approach. Our domestic prisons are today generally very orderly places, too.

Right, then. We've won. Can we go home now?

Far be it from me to be argumentative, BaronScarpia, but wasn't it NATO that ended the ethnic warfare in the former Yugoslavia after years of UN and Western European faliures to do so? (Hint: It was. I was there). That sounds like a military solution to me (but I do see your point).

So, if I'm reading what you all are saying, it's your belief that the Iraqis will not find a political resolution to their problems, and the US presence is only prolonging the inevitable bloodbath. Our presence just puts a band-aid over a severed limb, and whether we stay or leave, it's going to be a massacre eventually. Is that basically what you guys (and gals) are saying?

I want to point out how much I appreciate this conversation being civil and logical. There are a lot of websites and blogs where people who disagree are total jerks. Thanks for talking with me, everyone.

Michaeljc4,

What we saying is that it never was a war. It's a power grab of oil resources by an imperial power from half way across the globe. The world and the natives know it. We don't have the moral high ground. It's been a bloodbath ever since Rumsfeld allowed the situation to get out of hand.

And these Mesopotanians aren't the Yugoslavians...they have a variety of friends in the neighborhood, as well as two superpowers who want the oil, too. This is a regional challenge. It will not be solved with fences and ID cards that can be breached...just look at our own bordeer.

We are going to be held accountable for this hastily made, bungled action sooner not later. So why not take responsibility now instead of having it thrust upon us later? We must turn to diplomacy and adopt an orderly but finite withdrawal, while seeking a regional solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

But you are right about one thing. There is a military solution...the Iraqis eventually will win this thing and even you know it. Our supply lines are too long and our resources are strained.

Michaeljc4 -

I'd submit to you that before NATO's influence was asserted in the once-Yugoslavia, the kind of bloodshed which we can expect to see in Iraq had already occurred. The toll had already been considerable, had it not? And, while there was certainly a military presence asserted there by NATO, it was truly multi-national, which is not the case in Iraq. Our "coalition" is an obvious sham, and we are seen as occupiers rather than peacekeepers (i.e., the enemy). And, there was also a significant political element to the "force" that was brought to bear upon the problem in Europe that I do not see extant in Iraq. Finally, as SandyH I think implies, the theater in which NATO played its part was much more of a traditional military scenario than what we now see in Iraq. How can a traditional military force of 150,000 possibly be effective against loosely organized, disparate bands of civilians who fight amongst themselves and against us in groups rarely bigger than 30 and as small as two?

We broke it, but we can't fix it. That's folly.

But to clarify my position - I don't believe that it is impossible for the Iraqis to find political solutions to their problems. Quite the contrary. However I do think it will be nearly impossible for them to do so as long as the US remains an occupying force. Also, I don't think we can be the arbiters of what measures up as a successful political resolution (a secular government, for instance). In this regard, I think the aftermath of our occupation of South Vietnam provides a perfect example of what we can expect in Iraq. There will be horrible turmoil, but eventually some balance, however precarious, will be found. What that balance proves to be may displease our neo-con friends, but nothing they and we can do with our military might will make a difference, except add to the ultimate toll in human and financial cost.

But I'm listening...perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

I have to be honest: I'm flummoxed. Staying is bad and leaving is worse (or visa versa, if you like: leaving is bad, and staying is worse). I keep hoping that things will improve, but they aren't, at least not in any sustained way. This is a deep, dark hole.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Baron,

I'm not sure what I meant about Yugoslavia, but I agree with your analysis. There were military targets and polticial entities that could be dealt with in the Balkans. There was also a coalition of Europeans and the Russians that wanted the situation stablized.

I'm hoping the Iranians, Saudis, and Turks will join together to help stablize the situtation if we signal a willingness again to settle the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. But they won't do anything as long as our troops are in Iraq imposing the will of the western oil concerns. The new Saudis rulers in particular are fed up with the incompetence (aren't we all?).

And I think we have long overlooked and totally underestimated Russia's influence in this region. They are probably the key to making any solution stick and Bush is alienating them.

We need to leave in an orderly, predictably way so the various factions can face the reality of what comes next when there is no one left to referee the violence. Our leaving will create a sobering effect on those in Iraq who have been free to act irresponsibly without any repercussions. (The Rumsfeld effect?).

Let's give the people of this region the opportunity to regain their honor. We can buy oil on the open market...at a cost.

But it will be a small cost in the long run, if we can consolidate our resources and put them toward developing new technologies and energy sources...not wasting them in foreign entanglements (Washington really was brillant).

This is a very good ad. We should get out of Iraq now, immediately. Let their country do whatever it must do. And, it will be ugly. The longer we stay there, the longer the people who live there have to wait in order to finally explode, once we leave, whenever that may be. Best to let them do it sooner rather than later.

I did find a site that shows the Republicans in their glory -- http://www.visenda.com. There is a link there to their RNC web cam. If you like this ad, you should see them in action!

I love it.
This is a great stand up type of action that deflates the toadies, felons, drug offenders and sex criminals of right-wing radio.

New anthem for OUR COUNTRY: Mr. Bush bring our troops home

I read a book called "Black Water." The book was supposed to be about the rise of "private security forces" or "paramilitaries" in the age of the brave new American militarism wave.

Jeremy Scahill, the author, tries to assert that the aforementioned topic was the topic he wanted to address. Through-out the book, these paramilitary forces' story kept interjecting itself with US policy decisions. Witholding the fact that the book goes well beyond the inner-working of the private security forces, it was a great read if all of his sitations are accurate.

If Scahill's assertions about what was done out there is true (Paul Bremer's orders anyway), I would like to say that all of these ideas about the administration not having a plan going in seems to be unfounded. They had a plan about what they WANTED to do, but not that they had a plan about WHAT to do.

I would love to sit back and compare this war to Vietnam or Yugoslavia, but their is one simple truth, its neither.

This is a war full of bad and inappropriate ideas. It seems the plan was to bring "Democracy" (or capitalism) to Iraq, allow foreign entities to control resources, and to have a bunch of new military bases in the middle east.

So how's this for Irony, the Iraqis got Democracy literally, and they haven't taken to mutinational capitalism too much.

Oddly enough, we have our own problems with Democracy, namely, no publicly funded elections with stringent fundraising rules. This is very unfortunate for Iraq.

Pretend for a moment that our leadership was not corrupt. We could be in better situation to give advice on how to mend a country back together, or would we have broke it in the first place?

I guess what I am saying is that elections lead to fundraising, being elected with the right (or wrong) fundraising could foreseeably lead to war with any country anywhere. A war with a sponsorship will almost always prove trivial, and peace (which is doesn't have to be a priority) will not be achieved until it agrees with the sponsor's bottom line.

I will not be a "cut and run" liberal though in that I will offer a solution. Let's call it the "Jimmy Carter solution." We sit down with Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shia, and Sunni and we send in Jimmy Carter, and pray for the best (I hope the conservatives don't get too appauled because I know they were going to pray anyway). It's a long shot, but Nobels' prize winning presidents aren't a dime a dozen.

So the next step in "The Jimmy Carter" solution, in my opinion, would be to set a time table. And W better hurry up and get a change of heart because Jimmy Carter isn't getting any younger!

How can wanting our troops to come home from war that was based on lies and deceit be unpatriotic, as opposed to seeing soldiers getting killed and maimed for the president's hidden agenda the right action to support? The rich and powerful have always used the American spirit and loyality for their own gain, we are pawn to them and easily expendable as in a chess game. We must take our country back from these people. To lead is one thing, but a good leader shows the world there are better ways to accomplish goals without war and bloodshed. We could direct the war funds into research for an oil dependent free world. Or to educate our children to be the best in the world thereby coming up with new technology for a better place.

How can wanting our troops to come home from war that was based on lies and deceit be unpatriotic, as opposed to seeing soldiers getting killed and maimed for the president's hidden agenda the right action to support? The rich and powerful have always used the American spirit and loyality for their own gain, we are pawn to them and easily expendable as in a chess game. We must take our country back from these people. To lead is one thing, but a good leader shows the world there are better ways to accomplish goals without war and bloodshed. We could direct the war funds into research for an oil dependent free world. Or to educate our children to be the best in the world thereby coming up with new technology for a better place.

How can wanting our troops to come home from war that was based on lies and deceit be unpatriotic, as opposed to seeing soldiers getting killed and maimed for the president's hidden agenda the right action to support? The rich and powerful have always used the American spirit and loyality for their own gain, we are pawn to them and easily expendable as in a chess game. We must take our country back from these people. To lead is one thing, but a good leader shows the world there are better ways to accomplish goals without war and bloodshed. We could direct the war funds into research for an oil dependent free world. Or to educate our children to be the best in the world thereby coming up with new technology for a better place.

I remember that a while back I posted something on one of the democrats.org blogs that I used as my own campaign slogan against the Republican Party. It was back when the former Republican Congressional majority was fighting the Democratic Congressional minority at the time about debating the Iraq war believe it or not. Senator Harry Reid said to the Republican majority, “ You can run but you can’t hide.”

I then said, ‘Yeah, like Republicans can run as Presidential and Congressional Candidates but they can’t hide the Iraq war’.

Then Harry Reid said to the Republican elect, “One way or another we are going to debate this war.”

Just think where America would be now if the Democratic Majority had not won the House and Senate in 2006? The Republican elect would still not be debating the Iraq war; they would only be debating a Presidential and Congressional Election that suits their public interest.

However you know the competition for the best campaign slogans has started. It’s exciting, isn’t it?

I think the Democratic Party could sum up the Republican National Committees campaign for the Iraq war, their sensationalized failing but not failing economy and courting businesses votes with the same two words: Got Money?

Where as the Democratic National Committee could sum up their campaign for the Iraq war, U.S. Soldiers and our American Citizens ready to be heard with the two words: Got Pride?

Thank you Democratic National Committee Members, Supporters, Volunteers and Bloggers for spending the time, energy and money.

Its time to end the war. This war is about the oil companies looking to increase their strangle hold on the consumers, instead of creating alternate sources of energy. VP Cheney, Pres Bush are both culpable and should be Impeached for leading us to war while fabricating lies. Its time for a change.

Listen folks, lets get it straight, Only Chicken-Hawks send your loved ones off to war. These Chicken-Hawks never served a day in their life in active service. Lets Reveal to you who they are: Chicken Hawk #1 - George W. Bush, #2- Dick Cheney, #3 - Paul Wolfowicz, #4 - Don Rumsfeld, #5 - Carl Rove, #6 - Richard Perle, #7 - Doug Fife, SHALL I Continue? Ladies and Gentleman, until our leaders LEAD by example, pull the troops out now! By the way, I served 4years active duty United States Marine Corps.

If you could only remember, the Vietnam War was started on the fabrication in the Gulf of Tonkin. Our leaders took us off to war, sacrificing 58,000 american lives for the military/industrial complex. The profiteers rode off mightily into the sunset with shares in their pockets. The corporate media/political leaders SCARED the HELL out of us with the work COMMUNISM. Does anyone hear a familiar tone today........come on folks..........think....TERRORISM. Oh my, another reason to support the military/industrial complex.