Redstate

We're in the minority now. Let's unify under real conservatism, not 'fiscal,' 'compassionate,' or any of the other impostor forms of conservatism.

And yes, for those keeping score, I'm doing a complete 180 now that we have nothing more to lose.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I agree. I think there is a unifying framework.

But what is it?

Look to Kansas to see what happens when you "let 'em go." The Kansas City sububan congressional district went Dem, because non-evangelic conservatives now are voting with the Dems in Kansas. No way the Republicans make a comeback in the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic states with your "let 'em go" attitude.

As we saw with abortion Tuesday, there is a line that even most right to life people such as myself draw and until the party can come together on that it will divide. Also, remember that alot of us have no desire to see government legislating morality (see the online gambling ban) instead of tackling actual pressing issues. As long as Republicans attempt to be another party of big government, they will have difficulty winning back Congress.

You're spending too much time with the folks who are avocationally involved with this stuff. Talk to average folks who only engage in the month prior to an election, or when some momentous question is thrust upon them, and what you'll hear is that the war is going badly and that there was an atmosphere of corruption about the governing GOP. I'm weary of this sort of missing-the-forest-for-the-trees analysis. Between the latter two factors and a demoralized conservative base, we will find the causes of this debacle.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

Only quibble - this election wasn't decided by the people "who only engage in the month prior to an election". This election was decided by people in about 5-states who engage about 45-seconds before they get into their car to drive to their polling place.

It's more than a little silly to suggest that The Evangelical Agenda™ is anywhere near the top-50 of any issue list for these particular voters - to say nothing of their near-majority non-voting bretheren.

Feh, indeed.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Only quibble - this election wasn't decided by the people "who only engage in the month prior to an election". This election was decided by people in about 5-states who engage about 45-seconds before they get into their car to drive to their polling place.

absentee

Ultimately the mathematics says united we stand, divided we fall. Any voter who cannot tolerate disagreement within his party will end up being a one man party.

We have primary elections to decide issues and choose candidates. I can't imagine quitting the Republican Party just because some people disagree with me on some issues, because that is inevitable. If I can't stand a Republican candidate, then I won't vote for them or contribute to their campaign.

I don't agree with the summary of evangelicals. There is no reason that a religious conservative can't also want a smaller government for example.

The Economic Conservatives always blame the Evangelicals but that argument does not wash. The Moderate country club republicans remained in the minority for 40 years until newt came along with the backing of evangelicals and mainstream conservatives to win. But we as a party turned into the lets get along Rodney King principles not Conservative principles. The Country club republican can win nothing; Conservatism has a chance to really triumph now. I look for the house minority leadership to change and become true conservative opposition. Who has suppressed medical research? They want it to be government funded because the free market has rejected it.

Without the evangelicals we are done. If the Dems became a prolife party they will be unstoppable. We lost because remote control Americans do not have enough delayed gratification to hang in there in a long war.

Today we have the opportunity to reap the results of the party standing for nothing. Nothing, that is, different from the Democrats. The Republican majority was nothing more than a shade to the right of Pelosi, etal.

When the Party stands for life, stands for national security, stands for fiscal responsibility and stands for limiting the spread of government by eliminating programs and departments instead of just reducing the growth rate of spending we will win. Until then, American deserves Pelosi & Conyers.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

n/t

The Republicans in Congress stand for all those things you quoted, made progress on them, and the Democrats don't, so your posting doesn't make any sense.

The reality is that no one who believes in the things you mentioned would let the Democrats take over. No one who believed in "life" would turn their backs on all the pro-life judges which Bush put on the bench, and has now ended because the Democrats are in control.

n/t

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Fiscal conservativism and social conservativism are not mutually exclusive, and your referring to the “evangelical agenda” as if it was a cancer on the party in need of excision is sorely misguided.

Let’s look at your examples.

Suppressing medical research: Withholding federal tax dollars does not equal “suppressing.” Sure, Evangelicals may not want mad scientists growing human torsos in jars for the purpose of harvesting their juicy organs, but that kind of suppression is not a concern of only Evangelicals.

Running stealth candidates for school boards to push creationism: Really? I can’t recall hearing the words evolution or creationism once during the election. Are independents in New Jersey or Delaware really sitting in their homes thinking of how fed up they are over school board races in the Bible Belt?

Complete disregard for the fiscal responsibility that our party once stood for: On this point, I have a major bone to pick with you. Evangelicals love and value their families. They care greatly about the kind of world they are leaving to their children. Do you think Evangelicals are indifferent to the prospect of their children being saddled with an unbearable debt? Do you think they don’t care that their children may be stuck with such enormous tax bills that they may have to postpone having families of their own? Evangelicals care deeply about the fiscal responsibility of their government. I’d venture to guess they care much more about it than the general population of Americans. If the “Wall Street Journal” republicans are going to be honest about the problems they have with Evangelicals, it is that Evangelicals are willing to put their faith, communities, and social values ahead of the cold, hard desires of the captains of industry.

Furthermore, you can’t just write off Evangelicals. The National Association of Evangelicals represents 30 million members, or about 10 percent of the inhabitants of this country. The “Wall Street Journal” has a circulation of about 2.1 million copies per day. So, I’m going to guess there are a lot more votes to be had by keeping Evangelicals happy than by keeping the angry, anti-Evangelical faction of the party happy. I doubt you'd ever dream of asking republicans to give up the gun-owner vote (c'mon, democrats are always teasing republicans about the gun-loving rednecks from flyover states), but the NRA only enjoys a member base of four million.

If you want to talk to a group that has had abuse heaped upon it at republican gatherings, try the social conservatives who want to preserve their communities and their childrens' inheritance by cracking down on the illegal immigrants who provide cheap labor for your business conservatives.

"How long can a party absent of intellect or acceptable populace ideas govern?" If its like last time I'd say 40 years should cover it.

Those seats in the Northeast and Pennyslvania are going to be tough to take back. I think we'll have to wait until the re-districting at the earliest to take the House back.

Redistricting is going to kill us.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

However, if we start to tank economically or are attacked again I don't think it will be that long.

Living in the Northeast, I can tell you people think this economy will keep rolling along under it's own weight. If the Dem's start tax hikes and other pocketbook magic, the act will be exposed. Hence, the end of a short lived era.

Here is the differentiation, they are now in control and that contrasts greatly against the President, especially on economics. What have they done which benefitted us economically in years....umm nothing.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Like when Speaker Hastert spent political capital defending a crooked Democratic Congressman with money in his freezer

Folks, in his freezer...

That is all.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

if Bush pushes amnesty without structural guarantees of border security, I will not make a sound against the Democrat machine bearing down on him.

A comprehansive solution is fine, but its not comprehensive unless it includes structural incentives for border security.

Reagan once said that to say Congress spends like drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. At least they have the good sense to spend their own money.

Aside from the obvious point that you're a democrat pretending to be an independent, your faux post vastly overestimates the electoral significane of so-called independents.

Also, your talking points are silly. It's as if you deliberately chose the lamest of all. Maybe you're a double-reverse moby: A conservative masquerading as a liberal masquerading as an independent in order to make mobies look bad? Too confusing. I vote you're just addled.

absentee

I am an independent, and just because I'm an independent doesn't mean I pretend to be a Democrat.

I voted Republican until 2004. There are many reasons why I didn't cast my vote as a Republican in 2004, or this election. They have been debated on this forum and others OVER and OVER, and it would be a waste of time to list them here. But the GOP cannot keep dismissing the fact that it is badly losing the battle for the middle-ground votes. To advocate that only REAL LIVE CONSERVATIVES matter and everyone else does not merit inclusion is hogwash.

I am a fiscal conservative, and I strongly support the second amendment. I believe in being tough on defense and national security. But guess what? I also believe there is nothing wrong with gay marriage (my wife and I have gay friends who I believe have every right to be married, just like we were), and that stem cell research is something that should be embraced by our government, as it has been embraced by the medical community. I also believe Intelligent Design does not belong anywhere in academia.

So where do I, and many others like me, fit in? The reality is that the social landscape of this country is not what it was 40 years ago. With every generation, we are becoming less and less "Conservative" in the traditional sense. More and more people are beginning to shun the one-party label and vote with the party they view as being more accomodating to moderate political viewpoints. If the GOP does not embrace this fact, they will remain the minority and eventually become a political relic.

"I am an independent, and just because I'm an independent doesn't mean I pretend to be a Democrat"

There's a rebuttal seeking a point to rebut. Never said you were. You must not have noticed that you didn't originate the post above.

"To advocate that only REAL LIVE CONSERVATIVES matter and everyone else does not merit inclusion is hogwash."

Hmm, well then it's a good thing no one is "advocating" that.

"I am a fiscal conservative, and I strongly support the second amendment. I believe in being tough on defense and national security. But guess what? I also believe there is nothing wrong with gay marriage (my wife and I have gay friends who I believe have every right to be married, just like we were), and that stem cell research is something that should be embraced by our government, as it has been embraced by the medical community. I also believe Intelligent Design does not belong anywhere in academia."

Yes. Well. At least you are making your decisions based on big ideas that matter. Fiscal conservativism and defending our country are all well and good, apparently, up until they cross over with intelligent design issues. Good move there. Better to be dead and ID free than alive and infected eh?

"If the GOP does not embrace this fact, they will remain the minority and eventually become a political relic."

Yes well certainly I can see how liberals finally winning something might cloud their already poor judgement enough to give them fantasies of GOP marginalization, but a certified independent such as yourself should be immune to such euphoria, right?

May I please share this thought: Psh.

absentee

"There's a rebuttal seeking a point to rebut. Never said you were. You must not have noticed that you didn't originate the post above."

No, I didn't. Sometime ago, I did learn how to READ. That still does not invalidate my argument.

"Hmm, well then it's a good thing no one is "advocating" that."

See post # 36 by E Pluribus Unum. Please refer to my previous comment about learning how to READ.

"Yes. Well. At least you are making your decisions based on big ideas that matter. Fiscal conservativism and defending our country are all well and good, apparently, up until they cross over with intelligent design issues. Good move there. Better to be dead and ID free than alive and infected eh?"

Apparently, I'm not the only one that believes this. Refer to last night's elections if you need a reminder.

"Yes well certainly I can see how liberals finally winning something might cloud their already poor judgement enough to give them fantasies of GOP marginalization, but a certified independent such as yourself should be immune to such euphoria, right?"

It is not what the liberals won, it is what the conservatives lost: THE FAITH OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY. I am offering a window into why that might be, from the standpoint of someone who was once a Republican and still shares some of the values of the GOP. As far as the "certified independent" comment, that is simply childish.

Perhaps you'll use your vaunted reading skills to find the definitions of invalidate, argument, rebuttal, point and of course, were. You said it didn't make you a democrat. Since I didn't suggest you were an anything, I think I'll stand by my point.

I went to post 36. I'm afraid you're going to have to check that number again, or elaborate on how it proves your point.

"Apparently, I'm not the only one that believes this."

Well therefore it must be good. You not being the only one makes the value of this decision-making process apparent. Great point.

"As far as the "certified independent" comment, that is simply childish."

Mmm-hmm. Boogers.

absentee

"I went to post 36. I'm afraid you're going to have to check that number again, or elaborate on how it proves your point."

OK, so by the time my comments had been uploaded, the number was incremented and it became post # 37. Please check post #39 (that is what the post # should be after this comment is uploaded). I'll be happy to copy/paste the entire thing for you should I miss the number again.

"Well therefore it must be good. You not being the only one makes the value of this decision-making process apparent. Great point."

I believe elections are won by MAJORITY vote, no? Meaning more than one person have to agree to something. Political parties are formed under the same sort of premise, I think. We can, therefore deduce, that declining numbers is not a good thing for either of these scenarios.

You were trying to imply that the majority of americans voted based on those silly issues.

Yeah, can't agree with that. I said you voting based on intelligent design over fiscal conservativism and national security was silly. If you're suggesting that the majority of Americans are fiscal conservatives who believe conservatives are better on national security, but are more interested in intelligent design than surviving, I can only hope you are wrong. Because if you are right, we have much MUCH bigger problems than this election.

Reread the exchange if you don't follow what I'm saying. As for the chameleon post from whoever it was, just paste it. I can't find it. By can't, I mean am not trying.

absentee

I'll accept your premises. I have a question to answer your question...

Premise, you are strong on national security and gun rights and a fiscal con. You are for gay rights to marriage and stem cell funding by the feds and against ID.

First of all, all of the ID initiatives have surfaced at local levels. Those should be dealt with there.

My question, given the rest of your premise: What's more important to you, your security and a fiscally responsible government or going to your gay friend's wedding?

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Nice attack job. Very funny. I'm a democrat masquerading as an independent. Terrific powers of intuition you must have.

Independents went 60% for dems this election. You can't win without independents. End of story.

Keep living in your in republican fantasy world.

Yes, well. Democrats are clearly the experts on the matter of winning. After all, in twelve years they did win this time. That's something right?

absentee

With someone as intolerant as you, I would say Republicans are better off without you. Get your way or you take you football home.

Fine, good riddance!

at least as far as my self and my friends are concerned.
Our moral (religious) values are at our core and are most important- and we will vote that way all the time. If neither the Repubs or Dems have the guts to present an anti-abortion, anti-cloning etc platform - easy, we either won't vote or will vote for a third party candidate who shares our values.
I have reluctantly tolerated (and voted for) the Republican party of late, only because Bush got it right regarding Supreme Court nominees and the GWOT. Most of the Republican party platform has become too liberal for me. Newt in '08!

Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Fantastic post. Absolutely.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Please Harold, give me a break.

Bush trots out Harriet Myers as SCOTUS nominee & gets blasted for nominating a Souteresque woman. Who's his friend. Who's also a real lightweight.

Bush trots out an amnesty plan for illegal aliens with absolutely no regard to border security and gets blasted for the "plan".

Bush has utterly failed to convince the country that we are at war. That's his job. He's failed at that. It's his job to be responsible for the conduct of the war. IMO, he's sent in the police dressed up like Marines. We don't respond with overwhelming force because we're afraid of hurting a "civilian". Sorry, the ROE suck. If we had gone into Iraq, with no more forces than we used, and fought a "total war" (see Dresdin) we'd be out by now and terrorism would not be a big problem. All that and we've still supported his policies because they are marginally better than the D's. I guess we've kneecapped him on that one, huh?

Bush has presided over the biggest increase in government spending in my long lifetime. He's increase discretionary spending, the DOE is growing by leaps and bounds and entitlements will bankrupt my sons. Bush is an economic failure. I could care less about arguments that the tax cuts have brought more money into federal coffers or the overall strength of the economy. The size, the reach and the unhindered growth of government will kill us as surely as untreated colon cancer.

As for Liddy Dole, she is the most pathetic excuse for a NRSC chair I can think of. I don't recall seeing her ever receiving support at RS (and I know she's never been supported at my house), and she doesn't deserve support. She should be forced to resign her Senate seat for her part in yesterday.

Bottom line, Harold, the President has been broadly supported by conservatives who've been holding their nose because he's the best option we've had. He's taken heat from the right because of his stand on immigration and spending, but we've not cut and run from his side. We understand he's never been a conservative. He's not been kneecapped by the right.

Dole on the other hand should be on crutches.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Why am I not surprised?

Didn't you see the election returns? Immigration hard-liners like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf lost. They were beaten by people who favored the President's approach.

It's so much easier to blame Bush for his "heresy" when conservatives decided to listen to the likes of Buchanan, Ingraham, Malkin, and Tancredo instead of listening to President Bush.

It's so much easier to blame Bush for his "heresy" when conservatives decided to listen to the likes of Buchanan, Ingraham, Malkin, and Tancredo instead of listening to President Bush.

Let it sink in: Loyalty. Must. Be. Earned.

Didn't you see the election returns? Immigration hard-liners like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf lost. They were beaten by people who favored the President's approach.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

on immigration. His district is in the most liberal and most actively Hispanic part of the state. JD lost because he's a jerk.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

for Bush. He's done a lousy job defining issues and leading on them. And the price for that is today.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

and Lampson won. Hmmmm.... Surely Graf wasn't helped by the stab-in-the-back from your ideological brethren in Washington. I know you're terribly offended by lèse majesté, but so far, by the grace of God, it is not illegal either in the the USA or the GOP, and your constant appeals to loyalty and the dignity of the sovereign strike most of us as rather slavish. Bush doesn't deserve our loyalty - he has shown us none. We'd all be better off if we'd voted for Kerry in 2004.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

discipline and the DNC runs circles around us on this issue.

I am hoping one thing we learned from the dems while they were the minority is that party discipline makes a huge difference. It may help in the senate at least that we have lost a few of our wishy washy members. McCain in the minority party doesn't worry me as much as the McCain of the last few years, I actually suspect McCain will like bucking the dems in this situation, and if he isn't stupid he may see it as the best way to rebuild some of those bridges he has burned after his 2000 run for the presidency and his hopes of '08.

The GOP needs to stick to the basic principals, and ask for the dems to produce their plans for whatever they intend to do.

is shallow and will be short lived.

Look dude or dudette, you've been here precisely 4 min 11 sec as I type this - so you have no cred whatsoever to speak for anyone but you and perhaps the mouse in your pocket. So kindly back-off on asserting whatever strategy "we" chose, "we" backed, and "we" were told, etc.

In other words, you might want to start espousing "your humble opinions" on a subject other than a gross mischaracterization of the Grand NeoCon Blunder of Iraq™.

So feel free to try again. But a word of advice before you do, the Angels of Death™ are out and about in force today, and they're a little cranky.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

If you give people's viewpoint "cred" based on how long they have an account registered on this website, well, I can't do much about that.

To your point - the "we" I'm talking about is the formerly republican-held congress which was elected by a majority two years ago. They failed us in oversight and in calling BS when BS badly needed to be called. Remember Shinseki? Congress sat on its hands and was judged for doing so.

I'm sorry you're feeling so cranky today.

what does Shinseki have to do with a congress that was elected in 2004?

It's about, as doc put it, "cred."

When your senior warfighters say they need more troops to do the job, and the standing invasion plan calls for 2-3x the troops deployed, you should pay attention.

At the very least, you should poke and prod see if there's merit to the argument..and be suspicious of someone preaching "grand transformation makes all our professional military planning so much outdated bunk."

Now, in obvious retrospect, it is ding-dong clear that the armed services' standing invasion plan was MUCH closer to reality than the vision run up the flagpole by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

I can't help but think that if we (the American people, and their agents -- congress) had asked the really tough questions we wouldn't find ourselves succumbing to so many of the potential problems highlighted in our standing invasion plan (sectarian violence, power vaccuum, outside meddling by Syria/Iran, et al).

But they (the congress) didn't, so we (the people) threw them out.

Shinseki was pretty much alone in that opinion. And, if you recall, this testimony was given at a Congressional hearing.

Your argument only makes sense if the invasion of Afghanistan had been carried out under the plan developed under Shinseki and Shelton which would have used something on the order of 400K troops. As those aren't the facts, then it wasn't "ding dong" clear on anything.

And even if an optimal solution did call for "several hundred thousand" troops there is no good reason to not proceed with a suboptimal solution if those troops are not available.

As Shinseki testified in January 2003, IIRC, the invasion took place in March 2003 and the elections took place in November 2004 and the issues were pretty clear by then, what does Shinseki have to do with anything?

If you think Shinseki was in a minority you're just misinformed.

And the reason for not going off half-cocked is demonstrated by the outcome today.

Don't mistake and attempt to pigeonhole: the issue is larger than Shinseki..it's about oversight.

And there has been no effective oversight from either house of congress....and now, hopefully, there will be.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

are judged generally by their content. Their intentions are judged in no small part by their longevity. Combine the two? You get "cred".

You start with zero.

As to "we" again, unless you are a member of the 108th congress then you are not using that particular pronoun correctly. They were also elected to a majority in 2002 after losing the senate briefly in 2001, but who's counting.

And while Shinseki is more than entitled to his opinion, it should be noted that his opinion was far from unanimous among the uniformed services, hardly Gospel as it ignores that we had plenty of bodies in SE Asia and still lost, nonsensical as the 400-thousand troops he was calling for simply did not exist (and do not today, either) in UN uniforms and our attempts to secure them from abroad were severly hampered when the US ran like little girls after getting poked in the nose once.

And I am not among the Angels of Death™ - though I can get them on the line for you if you want.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

... abroad were severly hampered when the US ran like little girls after getting poked in the nose once.

... should of course read ...

... abroad were severly hampered when the UN ran like little girls after getting poked in the nose once.

We now continue with our regularly scheduled pie-fight...

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Ugh. Part II.

...nonsensical as the 400-thousand troops he was calling for simply did not exist (and do not today, either) in US uniforms and our attempts to secure them from abroad were severly hampered when the UN ran like little girls after getting poked in the nose once.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

The "we" I'm talking about is the American people and their elected agents. We hire these folks to do the job. When they don't -- and in fact act (or appear to act) like a rubber stamp they are complicit in the outcome. It is tempting to want to change how you voted and disavow responsibility for the outcomes, but I for one will not do that.

I was a war hawk. Regardless, the management of the prosecution of the war was by any judgement a failure. Spin away, but there's only so much lipstick you can slather on this pig.

The cold and simple truth of the matter is Rumsfeld CHOSE to prosecute the war this way. He discarded the TIPFDL, he discarded the standing invasion plan, he whittled Franks and the other senior leadership down, down, and down in their call for forces. He micromanaged every aspect in his arrogant quest to "transform" the military and fight this was "differently." Perhaps they are laudable goals, but his gamble DID NOT PAY OFF. And a lot of people warned about it, but their voices were ignored...and congress did nothing to make them heard or to even to actively listen to them.

If your argument is "we didn't have the 400K troops required" then my response is THEN YOU CAN'T DO IT. I don't know about your household, but when the bank balance says I don't have enough dough, I don't go on a spending spree. It's simple economics. Going in fast and cheap did not work. Period.

Above,

...the "we" I'm talking about is the formerly republican-held congress which was elected by a majority two years ago.

Here,

The "we" I'm talking about is the American people and their elected agents.

The mind boggles.

But let's move on to the main event...

If your argument is "we didn't have the 400K troops required" then my response is THEN YOU CAN'T DO IT. I don't know about your household, but when the bank balance says I don't have enough dough, I don't go on a spending spree. It's simple economics. Going in fast and cheap did not work. Period.

So, when a robber breaks into your house and wants to steal your TV, rape your daughter and kill your dog, you should chose to not fight back with the baseball bat at your side because your pistol is in the shop getting tuned-up. Does that about sum-up this POV of yours?

Reason I ask, you're W - you've just been told by your Director of Central Intel that it's a "SLAM DUNK" Saddam has WMD and will either use them directly against our interests in the region or pass them off to Osama or his ilk. You have two choices - take him out, or wait for the cloud, and the clock is ticking.

Seems to me your choice is wait. Mine is not. So there we are.

Either that or you buy-in to the whole War of Choice™ meme - in which case I suggest you beat a hasty retreat with all deliberate speed.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

You don't get it. I'm sorry.

The PROSECUTION is what is being judged here, not the KICKOFF.

These guys (specifically Rumsfled) failed. Period! Why do you refuse to see this?

Christ -- President Bush just said as much today..

what we get is someone with no credibility making a lot of unsubstantiated claims and obviously without a real good grasp of where we are or how we got there.

Crack a book. Or don't. Either way, we are where we are. This leadership betrayed the conservative principals I voted for the first time, and the mindbogglingly crappy execution of this war belies the supposed prescense and brilliance of Rumsfeld.

Bush failed in his role as Rumsfeld's boss by not fixing this earlier, and now he pays the price politically as this thing boils over.

You actually think the armed forces (who rummy denegrated as being rife with "old think" and outmoded strategies) supported this approach to invading Iraq when their own planning showed it to be folly?

Outrageous.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Saddam is out of power and in jail. Iraq is now a democracy. We won. If they want to fight a civil war for a couple of more years before settling down, that's their decision. The Shiites and Sunnis were fighting for decades before we got over there.

What if there was perfect peace in Iraq, but then a civil war broke out two years after we left? Would that mean we "lost Iraq"? If not, why is it any different now?

Our goal was to stand up the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds as equals in a democracy. The Shiites are strong enough that the Sunnis / Saddam's clan won't be able to win by force. We did it. We won.

That's quite a victory we've achieved.

This "success" bears no resemblace to the previous definitions, but I suppose we can forgive that.

Now then -- what have we actually won? Is the region more stable? Do you see the tender shoots of democracy springing up now? Please do shed some light on the nature -- and fruits -- of our success (aside from having locked up that dirtbag Saddam)

"stability" as a goal.

Well, that has worked real well in the past hasn't it? Vietnam. Lots of places in Latin America. The Shah. Sadat. The house of Saud.

I suppose in some kind of left-is-right-up-is-down bizarro world leaving Saddam in power would have been a swell idea. It just wasn't in the world most of us live in.

At what price?

on "stability" on 9/11. It is a strategy that has failed each and every time that it has been tried.

Failed past strategies is hardly an excuse to pick ruinous new ones.

And anyhow -- even if we all agree the strategy was gold-plated, the execution was terrible.

Keeping a failed past strategy is a sign of abject stupidity. We know stability as a goal does not work. It has never worked.

The new strategy hasn't failed it has barely been tried. We have three years of experimentation on this strategy where we've experimented with "stability" since we went into Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the 1920s.

The execution has not been terrible.

Sorry this hasn't been a 90-minute made-for-TV docudrama and you've lost interest but real life doesn't move that fast. We're still in Bosnia and Kosovo ten years later and they aren't much different than they were when we arrived either.

I cannot believe that you actually think the execution of this fight in Iraq has been anything less than a total disaster.

We CONTINUE to lack the forces required to do the job properly and the country slides sideways towards true civil war...and if you thought Saddam was bad, just wait for Iran++

Let's take a moment to remember the neocon architects who predicted this would be an in-and-out war with us being received as heros.

Frankly, I think it could have been, had we had ENOUGH FORCES to maintain security and prevent people from thinking they need to rely on tribal and sectarian militias to keep them secure.

However, due to our lack of forces, we could not stop the looting, the squables-cum-bloodbaths, and the general deterioration of the security situation.

I'm sorry too this is the way it is. The worst part is our loss here was caused needlessly by failure of leadership at the top.

Do we have to listen to this stuff today?

Just a suggestion, but disabling new users for a while might be useful.

I'm sorry you don't like hearing an different view than "it's all good and Rumsfeld is a winner."

Maybe that's part of your problem, eh ?

I've heard your "different viewpoint" everyday for the last few years. Do you really imagine you are the first person to say the things you are saying? You're saying the same old same old, so pardon me if I roll my eyes.

You do yourself a disservice when you lump people into two groups. Perhaps if you slow down and listen you may yet learn something.

Closing your ears guarantees you won't, however.

I badly want victory in Iraq. I, for one, am willing to PAY for it.

Are you?

to understand or comprehend is not my concern.

I cannot believe that you actually think the execution of this fight in Iraq has been anything less than a total disaster.

It hasn't. Saddam overthown in three weeks. 14 of 18 provinces secure. Oil production above pre-war rates. Constitution and government chosen by the people.

Bad things still happening? Sure. A failure? No.

We CONTINUE to lack the forces required to do the job properly and the country slides sideways towards true civil war...and if you thought Saddam was bad, just wait for Iran++

Funny, the military doesn't think so. But I guess their opinion doesn't count... unless it was that of a single peeved general three years ago.

Let's take a moment to remember the neocon architects who predicted this would be an in-and-out war with us being received as heros.

Fine. They were wrong. MacArthur said the Chinese wouldn't intervene in the Korean War. It has been known to happen. None of this means it should not have been done or should not be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.

Frankly, I think it could have been, had we had ENOUGH FORCES to maintain security and prevent people from thinking they need to rely on tribal and sectarian militias to keep them secure.

Nice trotting out of an overused canard but it overlooks the fact that you have to rotate troops out of theater eventually. The more you had at the beginning the fewer you have later on. And the dominant point of view in the special operations community is that we went in with too many troops. But what do they know, right?

However, due to our lack of forces, we could not stop the looting, the squables-cum-bloodbaths, and the general deterioration of the security situation.

Sure. There weren't enough troops anywhere, even when we had a draft, to guard all the government buildings in Iraq and we weren't going to gun down Iraqis looting them anyway. How many troops do you think we'd need to suppress tribal grudges? 25 million? 30 million?

Your arrogant dismissal of the views of the general officers is disheartening. Again, if you think Shinseki was in the minority you're just factually wrong. What happened in reality is Franks was whittled and ground and haranged down by Rumsfeld's micromanaging. He didn't stand up for the plan they had, and allowed Rumsfeld to run over him. Period.

Why you continue to dismiss our professional war-fighters' hard-reasoned plans and construct weak and disengenuous strawmen such as "We couldn't have come up with enough forces, so we might as well go in with far fewer than plan" is beyond me. Throwing good money after bad is a good and well in Vegas, if it's your money. Unfortunately, it's America's money and America's young warriors we're needlessly burning in the fire.

I know "cred" is a big deal to you. You lose whatever credability you think you have when you make wild assertions like "25m to 30m troops would be required to maintain security in Iraq."

ps: nice formatting! :D

with your assinine bs.

I know a lot of the guys involved in those decisions so I know you are just blowing smoke out your fourth point of contact. I served under some of them and I served with some of them a contemporary. I even communicate with some of them. Some I have a beer with occasionally.

Actually I don't dismiss their opinions because I actually was one.

You lose the credibility you never had by attributing a quote to me that I never said.

Go bother someone else.

It's all very well that you hobnob with the decision makers, but, respectfully, so what? Do you want to refute what I'm saying -- that the general officers in the Marines and Army were aghast (but valiently solidered on despite that fact and obeyed Rumsfeld, as good officers do) at Rumsfeld's decision to discard the TPFDL and insit on a whittled down version of the "running start" plan?

I wasn't trying to attribute a quote to you that you didn't make, I was trying to fairly paraphrase you. Where did I get the nuance of your message wrong?

is that I really know about some of the things here having doee them and not just read about them in TIME or NEWSWEEK. What it means is that I really, truly, know some of the people involved and how some of the decisions were made.

I really don't think you know what a TPFDL is or how it is used. If you did, you wouldn't be making a patently silly claim. TPFDLs are always changed. We thoroughly changed the TPFDL for DESERT STORM because the facts on the ground did not match the OPLAN. Yes, it was whittled down but the objection to whittling it was not for security after the war but the conduct of the war. The smaller force package proved more than sufficient. Running start is probably the way we'll fight in the future because it worked better than a slow, massive build up.

I don't, as they say, do nuance. I do sarcasm

You were making a silly claim that we needed enough troops to stop tribal fighting. I was estimating you'd need one soldier per Iraqi to prevent that. What would be your guess? One for every two? Three? One per street corner?

The fact is you haven't even thought about the problem and you are just, as I observed earlier, blowing smoke out your fourth point of contact. Thin smoke to be sure, but smoke nonetheless.

Interesting mixture of personal attacks and valid points.

I'll ignore the personal attacks.

Regarding the TPFDL -- first, sure, you can draft a back-of-a-napkin TPFDL and call that an "evolution." What I'm talking about (as I think you know full well) is the DISCARDING of the ALREADY-IN-PLACE TPFDL which was a component of the standing plan for invading and securing Iraq.

Now, you're correct in saying that one camp's view of the one dangers of abandoning the TPFDL was fear of insufficient force. Had the Iraqi military actually been not pretty much out of the fight by the time we rolled across the border, that may well have come true. Who knows, now, however.

What is clear is that in the absence of sufficient force to maintain security, we blew past entire cities (and in the process stretched our supply lines and exposed our rear). Once we took the capital, we did not have enough forces on the ground to establish security...and Rumsfeld even sought to " offramp" the troops not yet deployed. No doubt in preparation for that "hasty withdrawal incident to victory parades" he and his staff gambled on.

You DO realize that Saddam himself kept a TIGHT lid on Iraq for decades, right? He, from the minority, keep the Kurds and Shia mostly powerless. He didn't need 25m or 30m troops.

As to the precise numbering -- I will leave that to the professionals who do this stuff for a living. Rumsfeld would have done well to take that approach as well.

For what it's worth, I have read 400-500K troops to ensure security; once again your crazy "1:1 ratio" is just fantasty and an attempt to buttress your previousloy constructed (and tattered) strawman about our inability to raise enough troops, period.

Your sarcasm is noted. :)

if you are going to condescend to someone, do it someone who can't pull the plug on you when they are annoyed.

What I'm talking about (as I think you know full well) is the DISCARDING of the ALREADY-IN-PLACE TPFDL which was a component of the standing plan for invading and securing Iraq.

It is done all the time.

What is clear is that in the absence of sufficient force to maintain security, we blew past entire cities (and in the process stretched our supply lines and exposed our rear).

And what impact did that have? Easy answer: none.

He didn't need 25m or 30m troops.

He used methods we shy away from.

For what it's worth, I have read 400-500K troops to ensure security;

I'm sure if you read it, it must be true. There are nearly 500K troops in Iraq right now, any idea on why that isn't enough?

I'm done here. I've wasted too much time and I don't intend to waste any more. Bye.

Nice, especially the threat to end dialog the old fashioned way and "pull the plug on [me]." Do you always throw such tantrums when you're challanged, or is this a special case?

Anyhow, I enjoy the discussion, and your cherrypicking points you thought you could rebutt. I would love to continue it with you; I'm sorry you're so busted up about the loss of Rumsfeld's storied and visionary leadership that you can't carry on.

If I may ask one favor: the next time you have a beer with all your high-level war decision-making friends, would you please convey the displeasure that some of their formerly-biggest supporters have in their "do it on the cheap" approach to warmaking? I'd much rather have 50K US troops dead and victory firmly achieved than a festering terrorism pit leading to decades of terrorism and civilian deaths in the US as a result of failure to have the stones to secure the peace with adequate forces.

Thanks; it was good talking to you.

Why on earth would we have the goal to prevent the Iraqis from shooting each other? We made them a democracy, so if they choose to fight, let them fight.

Iraq is NOT VietNam, where our goal was to wipe out one side. Our goal is that all three groups survive, the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. So if we can't destroy them, how will force solve the problem?

This simply isn't a military mission any more. It is police work, or if the Iraqis so choose, a local civil war.

Wait, did I just hear you say "cut and run"?!

Surely not, right??

No, I absolutely don't believe in cut and run.

First of all it isn't cut and run because we already achieved the mission of giving Iraq a democracy, having elections, and knocking the Sunnis down to the point where they and Saddam can't rule the country by force. Leaving BEFORE then, before we achieved the mission, would have been cut and run.

Second, there are other choices besides (1) be the police force for Iraq and (2) cut and run by just pulling every troop out on the first ship available.

We could make a defense treaty with Iraq, such that if a neighboring country invades Iraq, we will defend them. We can base troops there as in Japan and other countries.

The point is that we have no mission there which I can see, we aren't the police force of Iraq, so the primary responsibility needs to shift back to the Iraqis. If the Sunnis and Shiites want to fight a civil war for a couple of years, then our troops can stay there or in neighboring countries in hardened bases, and respond when needed.

But first we need to define our goals. I honestly don't understand what my fellow conservatives mean by "winning" in Iraq besides what we have already done. Our goal from the very beginning was to NOT totally destroy any of the three groups, Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd. So what more can we do to "win"? If we totally destroy the Sunnis (genocide), we have lost by our own rules. If we take sides in the civil war, we have lost the war according to the goals we set out. Our goal should not be to try and stop the civil war by force.

Iran
N Kor
Somalia
Sudan
Afghanistan
Iraq
China

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Its about preventing future 911s in the short and long term and at a basic level it was establishing the word of the US a credible deterrence even absent 911. And when America removes regimes, we give them a chance for freedom, naturally.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I'm pretty sure you're talking to a ghost, here. Just saying.

Best -

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

First it was Foghorn Leghorn, now it's the Ghost and Mrs. Muir, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

"Hey Bullwinkle, who are those strange people" - Rocky

"Liberals, Rocky. Liberals." bemoans the melancholy Moose as Boris and Natasha scurry away.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Laudable goal, but that's a strange approach to take (and now champion!) -- perform regime change with insufficient forces to enforce the required martial law (and keep the lid on the country), especially in a bitterly divided islamic nation.

Huh.

I think it's all well and good to do regime change, but it's a terribly dangerous thing to do it on the cheap. That is my main problem with this.

Some of you guys want to tar and feather anybody who disagreed with Rumsfeld's prosecution of the war, and the fact that Bush let him get away with it. Well, accountability is the name of the game. You make a risky gamble and lose -- guess what, your bear responsibility.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

no regime change, 17 resolutions, paper tiger signal, Indictments against Yasim of the 1993 WTC bombing that Saddam was harbouring and Hans blix? Or the USSR approach of 300,000 troops that failed? Heck man, you're worried about enforcing martial law in Iraq when the murder rate in Cally screams for more troops there or a US withdrawal to Nevada. Never has so much security been gained, so many in tyranny set free at so low a cost than in Iraq. You seem to forget the blood that flowed in WWII, the Civil War and the Revolution when you pronounce Iraq a failure. You know, maybe if FDR had had a different strategy...

You and your kind would have turned Lincoln and FDR out of office before their wars were won. Your view of war was formed looking a Star Trek from the vantage point of the bloodless bridge and logic bombs from Spock.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Don't change the subject when you're out of ammunition.

If your answer to "THIS STRATEGY (and its execution) SUCKS" is to say "yeah, well, suck too!" then I suggest you focus on a WINNING approach.

Your baseless attacks on me and "what I think" and "what my people" would do are testament to your inability to parse written english and refusal to abandon a "black/white" view of the world.

Here's a newsflash:
DRAFT
MASSIVE OVERWHELMING FORCE.

I bet you don't have the stones for that, eh?

have used more troops in WWII?

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

It's simple: you use enough troops to actually win.

We willfully did not, because Rumsfeld insisted in whittling down the TPFDL. As a direct result, so we have not won.

Yet we have people here declaring, in the obvious face of reality, that it's all good and we've in fact won.

You may fool yourself, but the rest of America ain't buying it (see: Nov 7 2006).

fall. I favor the smaller footprint approach. You favor the larger footprint approach and seem to think it would magically produce Connecticut in 13 weeks (the number of episodes filmed after the acceptance of a pilot sitcom). Liberals equate pictures of violence with failure of the US military abroad and violence in US cities with failure US society. Over here you want killers pardoned if they write poetry. But somehow in Iraq we must have prevent any Iraqi from stealing a painting. This is about preventing future 911s primarily and helping the free people of Iraq get up to speed. If we put 500,000 troops in, so what. We would still have to build an Iraqi army and police. In the meantime, the enemy has more US targets and the Iraqis have less incentive to do their duty.

You seem to be judging whats happened and is happening against an unrealistic ahistorical template.

Our war there is our finest hour.

Less than 2500 killed in combat to remove a dictator and three elections later with 25 million purple fingers and over 5000 dead baathists and 4000 al qaida. I think al qaida was linked to 911?

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Well, reasonable people can certainly disagree.

The thing that just endlessly gripes my ass is that Rumsfeld tossed a perfectly good (others may quibble) plan which called for a MUCH heavier footprint in favor of a "quick and nimble plan." He had an obvious hard-on to remake our armed forces in his own image of a "leaner, more lethal, special-forces heavy" force. When he got the chance to do Iraq (which many of us have been calling for for a DECADE, if not more) he did it "his way."

Forgive me for judging the outcome, but jeeze, let's be honest: there must be responsibility for gambles!

Now you are right to imply this will be judged in retrospect many years from now, and I will grant that it may well all come to be judged as a brilliant strategy....but from where we are now, and looking back over these past couple of years of war, however, it surely doesn't look like that to me.

Thanks for the reasoned response, and I can't say that you aren't right, but what gripes me is that we have one CINC at a time and given history and given the quick topplings, and even given the 2004 election referendum on the matter after 14 months of Bushlied (which was just as despicable before 11/2004), is that we have scores of daily critics in the gop and dems and msm everyday with 20/20 but no accountability. This hurts us as it emboldens enemies.

I remember when generals were all oer tv during Clinton's Kosovo bombing saying it wouldn't work. The thing is that no matter what these people say, they cant change the strategy, so we need to get behind whatever strategy we have and maximize its victory possibilities.

The fact is that if we have the will, we cant lose, and these discussions with critics could take place in private.

later fellow patriot
I just think that one aspect of patriotism is loving one's country enough during war to be quiet. To love the nation more than the sound of one's voice, like too many senators and retired brass.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

In the old days armies stood across from each other in lines and shot at each other. Carnage ensued!

With the advent of the machine gun and tanks during WWI we had cavalry charges on horseback against machine guns. Generals, fighting the previous wars, ordered the charge. Carnage ensued!

During WWII entire flights of airplanes dropped thousands of bombs to destroy a factory or military installation. Thousands of civilians were slaughtered, dozens or even hundreds of pilots died in the attempts. Carnage ensued!

Now, one lazer-guided bomb can do the job that took thousands of bombs in the last war. Too many of the generals complaining about THIS was are still fighting the LAST war.

Rummy dared to try to modernize the entrenched bureaucracy that IS the pentagon. THAT is the reason that the generals have castigated him. He dared to try to revolutionize their sand box!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

I don't know exactly what you are saying here, but I'm pretty sure that Iraqis would be quite happy with CA's 6.5/100,000 yearly murder rate.

The region would be exceptionally stable.

in the leadership means additional leverage for the passage of a superginormous permanent guest workers immigration "reform" package, I'll pass, thanks.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM??????????????????????????????

I don't know how to tell you this, but none of those guys were corrupted by anybody. Delay hasn't been convicted of anything and most likely won't be, his prosecution was a political event orchestrated by Ronnie Earle.

The other two, along with Dollar Bill Jefferson, were not corrupted by lobbyists. They were, are, simply corrupt men. It's power that corrupts, not money. It's power that convinces men that they deserve the fruit of their powerful existance and that they are so powerful they will never be questioned.

You will find a much more friendly crowd at MichiganForMcCain.com with stupid comments like this one.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

we got rid of a few Rinos, but there's plenty more where that came from.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle