Sweet: Cegelis endorses Duckworth for 6th CD House seat.
"I certainly endorse Tammy over Peter Roskam. I hope for a Democratic win in November, and I wish her all the luck in the world." -- Christine Cegelis
Illinois politics with a twist of the knife
"I certainly endorse Tammy over Peter Roskam. I hope for a Democratic win in November, and I wish her all the luck in the world." -- Christine Cegelis
© Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
59 comments:
you mean someone actually called her and asked???
the sad thing is that this is considered news. some people just never leave their baises behind...
Will this be enough to satify Duckworth lovers Skeeter and YDD????
"People, people -- why are we fighting?"
Let's not forget, there is nothing wrong with being a Duckworth lover -- and there never was.
It was the "let's kick the corpse of the Cegelis campaign 'till Roskam loses" strategy that drove me nuts.
But that is all water under the bridge.
Now, it's probably past time to stop entertaining the GOPers with our Springer-worthy intra-party squabbles.
Come on Dems, less Jerry -- more Oprah!
P.S. Yes, portions of this posting are tongue in cheek.
P.P.S. No, I am not certain which portions.
Anonymous said...
Will this be enough to satify Duckworth lovers Skeeter and YDD????
9:57 AM
1. I never viewed it as an issue.
2. I am happy that Major Duckworth received the endorsement. I would hope everyone would join and support Major Duckworth, who is a great leader and a vet, and we need that in Washington.
She's a great leader, based on what? Oh yeah, that's right, she gets a free pass in this election.
Based upon obtaining the rank of Major and fighting for America.
Some of us support our American vets. Then there are the Republicans, who refuse to provide body armor for our troops.
.... now their combined vote will bring the 6th Dist safely into Democratic Party hands.... what, their combined primary vote was still swamped by Roskam??...
ha, ha, ha
I guess it takes an election for Democrats to finally get behind a person who wears the uniform...better late then never I guess.
Nothing like putting power over policy.
But nothing is surprising coming from the Democrats anymore, talk about a party with no agenda or compass..God help us if Nancy Pelosi is Speaker.
Anonymous said...
I guess it takes an election for Democrats to finally get behind a person who wears the uniform...better late then never I guess.
My nameless friend, how did Republicans do at providing body armor for our troops in Iraq? How did they do at providing some armor for the vehicles?
What did Republicans say about Senator Kerry? Did they thank him for his service? What did they do in Ohio? What did they say about Congressman Murtha?
Republicans can talk all day about Patriotism, but when it comes down to it, we all know that they screw over and attack our vets every day, on purpose, and as a matter of policy.
I note you, my nameless friend, have failed to thank Major Duckworth for her service, or even to acknowledge the lasting debt that we will all have to her for her sacrifice for us. You may want to act like a real American and thank her rather than ripping her every chance you get.
"I guess it takes an election for Democrats to finally get behind a person who wears the uniform...better late then never I guess."
Normally, I would say that a statement like this is simply too foolish to bother addressing, but since it is so simple to check the record on Democrats and service in uniform:
* Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990.
* Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72
* Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72
* Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon.
* Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam
* Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two
* Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat
* Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea
* Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953.
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91
* Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal.
* Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit.
* Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V."
* Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
* Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - Retired General.
SOAM,
You left out one important detail from that list.
All (or at least most) of those on your list have been branded as cowards or as unpatriotic by Republicans who never served a day in uniform.
When it comes to attacking our troops, few do it as well as the Republican Party.
I like when Democrats support the troops and say to the world this war can't be won, that really helps things Skeeter...but hey, it's all about taking back the house, because you know Democrats care...and that'll solve the worlds problems.
I'll say it again though, it's refreshing to see you and the democrats getting behind our troops..there's a first for everything.
Oh......and exploiting her service and disability...that's a great Party you belong too!
the Austin Mayor is absolutely right, there are many honorable veterans in the Democratic Party. Every one of them deserves the to be thanked for their service.
As for skeeter:
“What did they say about Congressman Murtha?”
Well, I'm not sure who "they" are, but let’s see what your favorite person in whole-wide-world, Dick Cheney, had to say:
“He's a good man, a Marine, a patriot, and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion”
How dare he!! What an insult, it’s outrageous!!
Okay, let’s see what President Bush had to say:
“Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a United States congressman"
Boy, I tell you. The nerve of some people!! Saying such awful, insulting things about Veteran. He should be ashamed!
Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer my question earlier this afternoon on the other thread about the Swifties. How come Democrats spent so much time discrediting them, or painting them as tools of the RNC and conservative PACs? Weren’t they deserving of respect based on their service in uniform?
I didn't see your comment on the other thread.
Sure the swifties deserve respect for their service, despite their pathetic lies in 2004.
I thank them for their service but it is unfortunate what they became after they left the service.
And, not that facts matter to GOP, but the White House was pretty vicious to Rep. Murtha, accusing him of "surrendering" for daring to question the Bush leadership:
"In a broadside issued Thursday night, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said that it is "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
McClellan added, "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
Skeeter,
So I guess you’d be fine with me saying “Sure, Tammy Duckworth deserves respect for her service, despite her becoming a carpetbagging pawn for Rahm Emanuel”? I just want to make sure we’re on the same wavelength here.
In regards to Murtha: I still didn’t see the word ‘coward’ anywhere there. Please, either cite someone who said it, or retract it. Or does it not matter to you that no one actually said it….what was that about ‘facts?’
Incidentally, I don’t dispute what McLellan said. But, was any part of it untrue? Did Murtha NOT support a proposal for immediate and total withdrawal of our troops from the war-zone? I don’t know what you call that, but “surrender” sounds like a fair description. Maybe “retreat” would be more accurate, but now we’re just splitting hairs about synonyms and connotations. And are such proposals NOT supported by Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party? Where’s the problem here.
Now, I see nothing in those comments that detract from the respect Murtha deserves for his service as a vet. All I see is an accurate restatement of Murtha’s policy position. I think the statements by the President and Vice President (pretty important spokespersons for the White House themselves), demonstrate without a doubt that the policy differences do not reflect a lack of respect for Murtha's service.
I like Duckworth.
But what I would really want to know is her reaction to Hiatt's column in today's post on the Democrat's new National Security plan.
That and what her thoughts are on Feingold's censure proposal and impeachment.
The Hiatt piece is particularly devastating for Democrats especially when you look back on Clinton's second inaugural and see when the party was much more confident on intervention.
I voted for Gore in 2000 largely because I couldn't stand Bush's attack's on Clinton's now feeble looking Nation Building attempts.
I'd want to know Duckworth on the issues and I'm confident that's how voters in the 6th will decide for either Duckworth or Roskam.
btw, from what I can find, the ONLY GOP official or spokesperson who called Murtha a "coward" issues both public and private, sincere and unequivocal apologies. So I guess I was wrong….I should have said, ‘no one said it who has not since emphatically apologized.”
But, I suppose you are free to continue holding it against her if you really want to.
When somebody accuses a decorated United States Marine of cowardice or of surrender, I take it seriously.
But of course I'm not a Republican and you are, so I can see why you don't understand.
skeeter, aside from Rep. Schmidt (who, as I noted, apologized), no one has accused Murtha of "cowardice." If you want to continue claiming otherwise, you need to prove it. All of his critics have gone out of their way to praise his service record and bravery in combat.
As for the charge of "surrender," what do you call the complete and immediate withdrawl of our troops from a war-zone when their objective remains unfinished?* That is exactly what Murtha was proposing. I think "surrender" is an accurate description of that plan, and I'd like you to explain how it's not.
If Murtha is offended by being attacked for advocating surrender, then he should advocate it. Just as if the Swifties didn't want to be called liars, they should have said so many things that were provably untrue. The veteran status of either shouldn’t be a shield against fair and legitimate criticism. Nor should it be for Ms. Duckworth.
*btw, I’ve argued with you enough to predict that you might cite the “Mission Accomplished” banner from Bush’s aircraft carrier trip. You can bring it up if you want, but I’ll just remind you that the banner was meant to recognize that the long deployment (ie, mission) of that carrier’s crew was completed).
If you believe that the "Mission Accomplished" was for the crew, then you really are too dumb to argue with.
Are you serious? Do you really believe that was the intent of the banner? Do you have any self respect at all?
I hate to toss around names, but that statement of your is just so completely foolish that names are appropriate.
Ollie North took a few hits. I worked with some Marines who hated him. Mostly because he was political and had taken a job at the WH... they didn't like that much.
Bill,
Ollie North was convicted of criminal charges and got off on a technicality.
The man was a shame to that uniform. I have no problems in the slighest with criticism of people who disgrace the uniform, like North and the people at Abu Ghraib and their kid.
I love people like Skeeter who become pro-military when it suits their power grab...that takes real leadership my friend, keep up the good work.
Anonymous said...
I love people like Skeeter who become pro-military when it suits their power grab...that takes real leadership my friend, keep up the good work.
Actually, I've been pro-military all my life. I believe in supporting our vets and making sure our troops get necessary body armor.
My nameless friend, do you think that our troops have a right to decent body armor?
Well, done skeeter. Well, done. You took the bait. I can see the thought process now:
“Hey, no need to answer the legitimate questions necessary to defend my unsubstantiated attacks about who said what regarding Murtha’s plan when I could just latch on to this other, unrelated point and dismiss him entirely out of hand based on that……”
Very well done, indeed.
I don’t know skeeter. Despite your belief that I am too stupid to be argued with, can you still find it you to explain what the difference is between the withdrawal policy that Murtha proposed and “surrender,” beside semantics? Or cite a Republican (who did not later apologize) that accused Murtha of “cowardice.”
If you think I’m dumb so be it. But right now, right here, in regards to those two points, that doesn’t mean that I’m not right and you’re not wrong.
Seems that an intellectually honest person would either provide that explanation and reference or concede the argument. Or you could just ignore it altogether and call me dumb. Do whichever you need to do to preserve YOUR self respect.
GOP,
You accuse Cong. Murtha of surrender.
Is Saddam still in power?
It seems our job is done in Iraq, according to the original "mission", doesn't it?
In the alternative, what was the mission in Iraq?
With regard to the "stupid" comment: If you are going to argue that the "Mission Accomplished" was not put there with the intent of showing the American public that the mission in Iraq was accomplished, then the label fits.
skeeter,
I don’t believe that simply removing Saddam was the purpose of the mission. As I understood it, our mission was to protect America’s security by removing a hostile, aggressive, brutally violent regime and replacing it with a stable, peaceful democracy. You’d be hard pressed to honestly say that we’ve accomplished that mission at this point, despite whatever admittedly regrettable banners the White House put up during a publicity event/visit by the Commander and Chief.*
The immediate and complete withdrawal of US troop before Iraq becomes a fully functioning, stable, peaceful democracy would be “surrender.” Plain and simple. Now, that doesn’t mean Murtha is a coward for proposing that, as Bush and Cheney explicitly pointed out. Likewise, I don’t think that the Japanese were cowards for surrendering in 1945. I don’t think the Confederates were cowards for surrendering at Appomattox. They know that the game was over, that they had been bested, and it was time to honorably accept defeat. Now, I don’t think that the game is over in Iraq, or that we have been bested, and it is certainly not necessary to accept defeat. So why would we immediately and completely withdraw all of our forces? I’m sorry if you find the word offensive, but that would be the definition of “surrender” at this point. And it doesn’t matter if Audie Murphy proposed that plan; it would still be accurate to describe it as such.
BTW, I am still waiting for you to cite the Republican who accused Murtha of “cowardice.” Thanks to cut and paste, it’s not too hard for me to continually add this at the end of every comment directed at you…..which I plan to do until you either provide the reference or retract that accusation.
*yes, it was a “publicity stunt,” if you want to call it that, but hasn’t every President (including Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton) gotten traction out of posing with ‘they boys,’ ‘over there’? I don’t remember a lot of Democrats complaining about Clinton doing photo shoots with Marines in Kuwait in 1994.
"The immediate and complete withdrawal of US troop before Iraq becomes a fully functioning, stable, peaceful democracy would be “surrender.”"
That's the mission?
So your answer is, Never.
Thanks for the good laugh.
Incidently, according to the White House, the following is The Mission:
THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD
Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]
AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED
Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]
Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE
Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” [5/3/03]
BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN
Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ
Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]
Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”
[5/4/04]
AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS
Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]
NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR
Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]
Regarding the "coward" accusation:
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) on the House floor, speaking about Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated former Marine:
Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through
Skeeter,
When has the mission of a war ever stayed the same throughout? The purpose of the Civil War originally had nothing to do with freeing the slaves, that was a unilateral mission-change by Lincoln three years after it started. And after being attacked at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt immediately adopted a policy of ‘Europe First’. And wouldn’t we have all been a lot better off (I know the Kurds would have) if we had ignored the limits of the UN mandate in the first Gulf War and dealt with Saddam then and there, when he was battered and bruised from 10 years of war with Iran?
BTW, nice use of selective quotes. How does this one factor in?:
Form a prime-time, nationally televised speech in Cincinnati, 10/7/02 (before any of the quotes you referenced):
“That's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation. I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult.”
Now, wouldn’t “regime change” include BOTH removing the previous one AND replacing it with a new one? Looks like that was a stated goal from the very start of the war. And, in my opinion, until the new regime in fully functional and stable (a goal that can and will be achieved, despite your nay saying), a complete and immediate pullout of US troops would be surrender.
Skeeter, I thought I already address Schmidt in several previous comments. But, since I did forget to include the “who didn’t later apologize” qualifier this time, I suppose you are correct in bringing it up, and I’ll have to address it again.
From a press statement issued by her office:
“I sent him (Murtha) a personal note of apology on Friday evening moments after my words. “
From the Cinncinnati Post (11/22/05):
“Murtha's office said Monday that Schmidt sent him "a personal note of apology" and that "he was glad to accept it."
The Congresswoman also asked that her remarks be stricken from the record.
So, it looks like you can add another admirable personal trait to Congressman Murtha’s already extensive list: maturity and nobility….more than we can say for you.
There you have it. A single, immediately-apologize-for remark that the actual person who was insulted already forgave. Glad to see you’ve decided to be the bigger man and hang onto that.
GOP,
You left out the White House's use of the term "surrender."
Do you really think the term "regime change" is the same as "build a stable democracy"?
The regime has been changed, hasn't it? Under the B-Team's rules, the goal has been accomplished, right?
Incidently, how do we know that the mission won't change again? Are you claiming that any time that somebody suggests pulling troops out of an area it must be "surrender"?
“You left out the White House's use of the term "surrender."”
- um, yes, but what’s you point. I acknowledge that the White House referred to Murtha’s plan a “surrender.” And I'm fine with that, because that’s what I think it is. But, as I thought I demonstrated in my 11:05 post, I don’t think that saying someone is advocating surrender implies and accusation of “cowardice.” I thought we were over that hump already.
“Do you really think the term "regime change" is the same as "build a stable democracy"?”
- Yes, yes I do. Does that make me dumb? When you “change” something, you replace it. I think that the mission has always been to replace Saddam with something (not just leave the Iraqi people to their own devices after decades of brutal dictatorship) ...and I think that something has always been understood to be a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq.
As for the mission changing again, who knows. Maybe it will. It wouldn’t be the first time in either this war or any other war in history that the mission has changed. Before any change, I assume that there would be vigorous debate among our nation’s policymakers....as there should be, and the public would rightfully demand. But when that debate is over, and the new policy has been formed and the new mission committed to, it would be surrender to pull out the troops before it is completed.
Finally, for good measure:
“Are you claiming that any time that somebody suggests pulling troops out of an area it must be "surrender"?”
- no, it’s not surrender if their mission has been completed to the satisfaction of the policy makers and their military advisors. There’s nothing unprecedented or outrageous about that idea.
So the cut & run democrats are supporting our troops all of a sudden? That's great. I'll look forward to their next press conference when they talk about finishing the job, etc.
Let me know when that is Skeeter, I'll be sure to tune in!!
"- no, it’s not surrender if their mission has been completed to the satisfaction of the policy makers and their military advisors. There’s nothing unprecedented or outrageous about that idea."
Well put.
According to you, if anybody OUTSIDE the White House or Pentagon suggests pulling troops, then it is surrender.
Interesting. How about FORMER Pentagon or military officials. If Generals Zini or Clark call for pulling out, are they advocating "surrender"? Is it now the rule that the only American who can advocate pulling our troops is one with authority to do so?
That's a fine system you've got there. Did you learn it in Moscow? That's how they used to think in Moscow and Havana. "Don't question the goverment or you are advocating surrender." If that is your view of America, then shouldn't the rest of the world be teaching YOU about Democracy?
As I said, the Regime has been Changed.
Anybody with any sense of history would have seen the civil war coming. If the B Team had just read the old man's book, this matter could have been avoided.
Anonymous said...
"So the cut & run democrats are supporting our troops all of a sudden? That's great. I'll look forward to their next press conference when they talk about finishing the job, etc.
Let me know when that is Skeeter, I'll be sure to tune in!!"
What job are you speaking of my nameless friend? According to the B Team, the Mission has been Accomplished.
You have to respect a party, my alias friend, who constantly refuses to support the military action, but realizes they can't be seen as too dovish so they always say they "support the troops."
God help us if a weak-kneed democrat ever wins back the White House.
Anonymous said...
You have to respect a party, my alias friend, who constantly refuses to support the military action, but realizes they can't be seen as too dovish so they always say they "support the troops."
God help us if a weak-kneed democrat ever wins back the White House. "
You didn't really address the question.
What "job" remains undone?
“According to you, if anybody OUTSIDE the White House or Pentagon suggests pulling troops, then it is surrender.”
- Nice try, but nope. If Karl Rove came out tomorrow and said, ‘let’s pull all our troops out right now and just be done with it,’ he’d be advocating surrender, too.
”If Generals Zini or Clark call for pulling out, are they advocating "surrender"?
- I think you already know the answer to that. But, that DOESN’T make the cowards. It just means that they do not believe we can be successful in achieving our goals. Those Generals are brave men to whom our country owes much. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong to advocate pulling out.
“Is it now the rule that the only American who can advocate pulling our troops is one with authority to do so?”
- No, you can advocate whatever you want. Just be prepared to accept a frank and accurate description of what you are advocating.
”That's a fine system you've got there. Did you learn it in Moscow?”
- Nope. Regardless of how many bugs may be in our electoral process, at least we have one. President Bush received the votes of a majority of Americans while campaigning, in part, to complete the mission of helping Iraq become a stable and peaceful democracy that will not threaten his neighbors.
"Don't question the goverment or you are advocating surrender."
- No: don’t advocate surrender if you don’t want to be accused of advocating surrender. Why is that so hard to understand. I question the government all the time. In fact, I think a few of Kerry’s specific criticisms of military strategy (al-biet, in Afghanistan) were pretty much spot on.
”As I said, the Regime has been Changed.”
- no, it has been toppled. The replacement regime is still forming.
”If Generals Zini or Clark call for pulling out, are they advocating "surrender"?
- I think you already know the answer to that. But, that DOESN’T make the cowards. It just means that they do not believe we can be successful in achieving our goals. Those Generals are brave men to whom our country owes much. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong to advocate pulling out. "
Let me get this straight.
Retired Marine Murtha advocates pulling out: Call for surrender.
Retired Marine Zini advocates pulling out: Not a call for surrender.
Retired Army General Clark advocates pulling out: Not a call for surrender.
Is there some sort of statute of limitations here? You can call for a pull out but not be accused of advocating surrender if you've been retired less than five years?
”As I said, the Regime has been Changed.”
- no, it has been toppled. The replacement regime is still forming.
Let me get this right. All those elections we heard about did not install a new government?
Further, what you are advocating as official policy sounds a lot like nation building.
Do you think that nation building is a good idea?
I'm glad people like Skeeter weren't around in WWII when those high body counts and early military campaign disasters were happening with regularity.
skeeter, you don't have it straight. The Generals, honorable and brave men though they may be, have indeed called for "surrender" as well. Sorry for the confusion.
“Let me get this right. All those elections we heard about did not install a new government?”
- While certainly important and positive achievements (despite the fact that New York Times couldn’t hold off one more day on a story they had been working on for over a year in order to give the elections their due coverage), they have apparently not installed a stable, fully functional government capable of preserving order and national unity (after all, the sectarian stifle is so bad that you called it a civil war a moment ago). So I think it’s completely accurate to say that the regime is still forming, as I said. It’s a work in progress, which seems to an idea the President has trouble getting across to the media and his critics. It’s neither a failure, nor has it been completely achieved. But we’re on the way there, and we’ve taken important steps. Building a nation takes time and hard work.
Speaking of which: Yes, President Bush specifically campaigned against ‘nation building’ in 2000. He also didn’t have as much grey hair then. Can you call it flip-flopping? If you must. But before you do, consider that the Democratic Party’s position has apparently done a similar 180 on this same issue. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton’s prolific and far-reaching nation building endeavors (he ordered deployments of US troops on more different missions than any other President in history) of the 1990’s that Bush was responding to in 2000? To whatever extent Bush has flip-flopped, so have his opponents.
As to whether I personably think it’s a good idea, I say: it depends. Saddam needed to go. But we couldn’t just topple him and walk away. As Colin Powel famously said, “you break it, you buy it.” In my mind, we had to break it….so we had to buy it. But, to continue the metaphor, should we be in the business of buying things that we didn’t break? Generally speaking, no. That should be the responsibility of the UN.
What do you view as a reasonable time frame to end a civil war and put a stable democracy in place in a country and in a region that has never known either stability or democracy?
Ten years?
A hundred years?
A thousand?
If we leave in 500 years, are we surrendering?
That's a great idea...let's tell our enemy when we're leaving...why didn't we think of that sooner!
Skeeter,
Strictly speaking, yes. If we leave before our objective is complete, we will have surrendered. You can call it other things…..conceding, capitulating, admitting defeat , …..Nixon called it “peace with honor.” But it’s all the same thing. We will have given up. Is there a point at which that might be the best thing to do? Perhaps, at some point, if things don’t continue to progress in the right direction. But that point is not now. And if that point ever does come, it won’t be an act of cowardice……it would be, however embarrassing on whatever level, an act of responsible leadership. Murtha, Clark….yourself, et al, seem to think that point IS now. That doesn’t mean you are cowards. But you are wrong. And you are advocating a bad policy. If you don’t like the word “surrender,” that’s your problem. But at the end of the day, whoever supports it, for whatever reason, if we leave before the objective is completed, that is what it will be.
I note that you did not answer the question.
Given that Iraq and the region has no history of democracy and given that Sunnis and Shiites have been at war for over a thousand years, when do you expect the stable democracy to emerge?
Ten years?
One hundred years?
A thousand years?
Tell me more. What is the mission. You have studied the matter, I'm sure. What is your prediction of the time frame under which Sunnis and Shiites will live in democracy and without violence?
I also note that you have made the typical right wing extremist mistake of thinking that all Democrats think the same. That is not the case. We are not like the dittoheads. Actually, General Clark has written op-eds recently with the opinion that the situation has not stablized such that the U.S. can pull out. My remarks about Gen. Clark were hypothetical, seeking your opinion regarding a potential statement from an oustanding American general.
Skeeter said: "I also note that you have made the typical right wing extremist mistake of thinking that all Democrats think the same. That is not the case. We are not like the dittoheads."
That's priceless coming from you who lumps all Republicans together and has tried to tie Delay around Roskam's neck.
Please, post more, I need the laugh!
BTW, what the heck is a dittohead???
Skeeter,
The Kurds did very well under our protection during the 90s. I don't know if you can call that Democracy, but it was a lot better then further south.
We ourselves live in a Democracy with a fair amount of violence.
The real question though Duckworth and Roskam have to face besides this is whether we're willing to live with a nuclear Iran and if not, what are we prepared to do.
They both should be asked to discuss that.
Especially since an attack on Iran will almost certainly unleash terror attacks here at home.
Bill
Bill,
You raise an interesting issue.
Neither I nor most Democrats ever voiced objections to the Afghanistan invasion. We did raise questions about tactics, but that is a different matter.
Had the U.S. gone into Iran, I don't think you would have seen much outrage from Democrats, as it is clear that Iran has worked with terrorists and in fact has worked with Al Quaeda. The same cannot be said for Iraq.
I think most Americans are ready to pay the price when there is a real issue of American safety. Iraq did not meet that standard. Iraq was contained by Generals Zini and Clark. The sanctions were working. The same cannot be said about Iran.
Sorry, skeeter…..but when I’m at work, I can’t devote my full attention to blogging. I was mistaken to say that Clark advocated for the same thing Murtha did. But, hey, what do I know?….I’m dumb.
Anon 3:58….I couldn’t have said it better. Skeeter, I can’t figure out if that remark was more ignorant or arrogant. Possibly both in equal measure…..and a large measure at that. And that’s all I’ll say about that.
As for a time-frame. The answer is: I don’t know for sure. But, for the sake of argument, I would say less than 10 years. But, remember: there is a Presidential election in a few years. If the people elect a President that wants to retreat/surrender/bring peace with honor, what have you, then that’s the way it goes. Depending on that situation on the ground at the time, I might or might not be inclined to agree that the time has come for such a policy. All I know for sure is that that time is not now. And advocating surrender now is a irresponsible leadership, and I will continue to say so, regardless of how many medals the person advocating it has.
"The sanctions were working"
- read the Volcker report. How much longer before Saddam's "oil-for-food" kickbacks bribed enough French and Russian diplomats to end those sanctions.
BTW, just to bring our debate full circle, please explain Congressman Murtha's proposal, in your own words. Then, define "surrender," in your own words. Finally, explain the difference.
Looking back for a moment, your question about a time frame is really irrelevant to the point I though we were debating. Surrender is still surrender regardless of how long you've been trying to accomplish your goal. Surrender is still surrender, regardless of the military experience of the person advocating it. Those two factors don't affect whether it is an appropriate and accurate description. You disagree, but you can't seem to articulate why. So you keep popping up with new stuff and shooting off on tangents, or lashing out at Republicans as unthinking, ditto-head sheep. Go back and read what I have written today. Does this look like RNC talking points, or a Fox News Script. Sure, there are some points that they and I share, but the same could be said of your comments and the DNC and Al Franken. Does that mean you're any less of an independant intellectual? I don't think so. I'm sorry you can't give anyone who disagrees with you the same respect.
"BTW, just to bring our debate full circle, please explain Congressman Murtha's proposal, in your own words. Then, define "surrender," in your own words. Finally, explain the difference."
How about this:
Our mission has ended, so we are going home. Saddam is out of power. A democratically elected government is in place. They don't want us there, and we have no mission, so we are leaving. Let Iraqis build Iraq.
That work for you? Or do you thonk letting a country dictate its own destiny is "surrender"?
Skeeter,
No that doesn't work for me, because I don't accept the premise that our mission is ended, or that the mission was simply to topple Saddam, or that the majority of Iraqis want us gone. In fact, the only point you made that was true is that they do have a democratically elected government in place - one that has asked us NOT to leave because they are not yet confident in their own ability to maintain the peace. But that's an unimportant detail, right?
We still have a mission there. And while, yes, Iraqis need to be responsible for their own destiny, our military still has an important role to play in assisting them.
I suppose that if I did accept your premise, then I'd have to say you are right that leaving now would not be surrender. But since I don't, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Now, to try and wrap things up again, let me summarize:
If you reject the idea that the mission is not over (like the White House does), then it is perfectly reasonable to say that anyone who advocates leaving now is advocating surrender. That does not imply a personal accusation of cowardice, just a serious policy difference on a serious issue. Can you live with that? Can you accept Congresswoman Schmidt's apology, as Congressman Murtha has, and admit that there are no Republicans (at least serious or influencial ones) who actually called Murtha a coward without later apologizing personally to him. Perhaps a proper retraction of that unsubstantiated assertion is in order?
Or how about retracting your ridiculously ignorant notion that all Republicans are brainwashed dittoheads. I know I get carried away in the heat of the moment sometimes too, but I usually try to set the record straight. If you can't do that in regards to this notion, then I don't see why anyone should every take you seriously again....since you will have demonstrated a partisanship more bitter, stubborn and arrogant than has ever been posted on this blog. There is great variety and depth in conservative thought, just as there is with liberal thought. (Conversely, are there some extremists and crazies on the right? Yes, but no more so than on the left.) Now, I am perfectly willing to admit that while my opponents are often wrong, they are not necessarily bad people. Can you go out on the same limb, and stop assuming the worst about everyone who doesn't agree with you?
Skeeter wrote,
Had the U.S. gone into Iran, I don't think you would have seen much outrage from Democrats, as it is clear that Iran has worked with terrorists and in fact has worked with Al Quaeda. The same cannot be said for Iraq.
The question to Duckworth (and Roskam) should be will they express outrage if the US has to attack Iran soon. Or can we tolerate a nuclear Iran as we tolerate a nuclear Communist Korea.
I post on SoapBlog Chicago about Iranian dissendents and people respond I'm beating the drum for invasion.
I don't think invasion is a very good option in Iran. A limited tactical strike to maybe take out sites and assure ourselves of vicious terror attacks her at home in response... our really powerful attacks on Iran devastating enough to convince the whole county further terror attacks would resk the anniliation of the country.
This is really Kerry's War of Last resort strategy. A Democratic revolution on the heels of an American invasion like Iraq is a poor option in Iran because it's huge with huge population.
Anyways, that's what confronts use... if Democrats buy off onto the War for Oil or War for Haliburton rhetoric again (as expressed now on SoapBlog Chicago), they will have sealed there fate as irrelevant party on the National scene.
Quick correction, that should have been "reject the premise that our mission is over" in the 4th paragraph of my 11:28 PM comment.
Looks like Skeeter surrendered the debate...figures.
Post a Comment