We have seen that the US is extended troop tours in Iraq and even sending more troops to Iraq, but I believe that something else will happen in Iraq prior to the November elections. I predict a Fallujah-style crackdown will come soon to attempt to change the perception that the U.S. is losing the Iraq War by a process of attrition by the very group that brought down the towers in 9-11. Every day there are more dead Americans. We have the NIE report that Iraq is breeding terrorism, making us less safe.

You know that politics plays a large part of the Iraq War, and of all the issues that Bush and the Republicans are vulnerable on, there is no bigger issue than the Iraq War. The stakes are huge, with the possible loss of both houses of Congress to the Democrats in November. The status quo must be unbearable to the architects of this war, to see the whole thing getting worse day by day and more and more people realize its not going to work. Desperate people do desperate things, so I predict you will see something between now and November in Iraq. Or maybe they plan to bomb Iran before then. Either way, they cannot just let the current status quo continue. They must do something. It will come, sometime in October, and it will be a politically motivated event to help save the Republicans, regardless of how well it may be disguised. Watch and see.

Kind of like the way Olbermann chronicled the impeccable timing of all the terror alerts? I'm hoping everyone is starting to see through the charade and votes 'em all out.

This begs the question: How would the U.S. Policy in Iraq change if the Democrats did gain control of Congress?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I would hope they would not want to just "stay the course" as their Republican counterparts insist on doing. I also hope they don't try to "win" in Iraq. We cannot win in Iraq, and the harder we try to win, the bigger the effort will be on the opposing side to resist us.

The Connecticut primary election, and Lieberman's victory in the upcoming general election might be the wake up call Democrats need. There are issues bigger than the Iraq War. I don't think the Democrats should make the mistake of making it the main plank of their campaigns. Sure, Lamont won the Connecticut Democratic Primary based on his anti war stance but only Democrats voted. It is a different story in the general elections. Iraq is one of several important issues. Issues like education, health care, the economy, social security, and Iraq, in about that order IMO is about how they rank among the populace.

An attack on Iran for political advantage? I sure hope not, and if that does occur I rather think the Republicans will suffer even more than they are already going to in the midterms. Most polls indicate the same low approval rate for the Republican controlled congress today as they did when the Democrats were in control of Congress in the early 90 when the Democrats held a majority and were swept out whole sale.

The stage is set, I think the planets are aligned for the Democrats to make big gains. It is pretty much their compaign to lose. Not all Democrats can run their camaigns the same way Lamont ran his primary though, and thats going to be the key. To base your camaign solely on the war in Iraq would be a big mistake IMO.

That's just my .02

I believe if the Dems win control of both houses, there will be a timetable for redeployment,
and that this would not be tied to anything within Iraq.

Sorry about my previous post in this thread. I was falling asleep at the computer when I posted. No kidding, my head was dropping to my chest, I'd wake up and look at the monitor and my eyes would slowly close again. I didn't know where I was.....

Sheesh, I gotta get more sleep at night.

If the dems only take the house, the Republican Senate will still have a huge blocking effect.

What disturbs me about the Democrats is that they seem to have no real plans of their own that differ significantly from the Republicans. Instead they have chosen to sit back and stay silent, for the most part, letting the Republicans fuck it up for themselves without the Democrats having to do anything. Also the Democrats have chosen to criticize the way Republicans do things, but again, without offering real alternatives of their own. IMO, this makes the Democrats look like politically-conniving snakes who are just playing their cards safe to try to take control, but not taking any real risks by advocating policies that might be politically risky for them, even if they would be good for the country. This does not make anyone really like the Democrats for what they have done.

The 2006 elections will not be about rewarding the Democrats because they are the party people want to have in charge. It will be about punishing the Republicans and giving control to the only other party able to take control.

I am not at all proud of the conduct of the Democratic Party. I think they have been their own worst enemy, politically, for choosing the path they have instead of coming out full force in favor of the policies they should be advocating. They think they are being smart by doing what they are doing, but people would respect them so much more if they would just stand up and be the progressive party they have been in the past.

I hope Democrats do gain at least control of the house. But the confidence of the Republicans, the predictions of the political analysts that this will be a very close race for the Democrats does not fill me with hope and excitement.

If the Democrats do not gain at least the House in 2006, even after everything Bush and the Republicans have done, it will be a clear indication of the strategic failure of the Democratic Party itself. They will be to blame for their own failure, because they did not give the American people a clear choice. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the architects of this, and they have done such a huge disservice to the Democratic Party. If they do not take partial control, the Democratic Party needs to do some hard soul-searching to determine how it is fucking up so badly and how it can change itself so it is able to take control again in the future.

Why the Democratic leaders sit back and don't talk a whole lot about their plans has more to do with the realities of politics than it does about not having a plan.


If yer play a ball game, it won't do you much good to discuss your game plane with the other team before the game.





Just because you don't see it in the papers, doesn't mean it's not there.

I think that policy is a mistake on the part of the Democrats and is costing them hugely. The impression that the American people have, whether it is correct or incorrect, is that the Democrats have no plan, but instead are content to sit back and criticize and complain about everything the Republicans do while at the same time offering no strong alternatives of their own. Again, the impression is that the Democrats want control so they can do the same things the Republicans want to do (such as "Win in Iraq" and "fighting the GWOT"), but to do them better than the Republicans are. What does this leave the American people with? They do not like the Republicans, but they also do not feel good about letting this Democratic Party lead the country. So they may choose the Republicans because at least they know what they will get, in contrast to the wildcard Democrats who APPEAR TO BE just what the Republicans say they are. This is a huge fuck-up on the part of the Democrats and I think it has been costing them and will continue to cost them in elections. You can say you understand it, Sky, but in the end it is lunacy.

For example, if the Democratic Party would just come out and say, with one voice, that the Iraq War was a huge mistake, and that we oppose the Iraq War, and want to get US troops out of Iraq ASAP, that would be a great thing for the Democratic Party and would give the voters a clear choice between two significantly different policies. If the Democrats would do this, how much more support would they get? I think a lot. But they are afraid of making this choice because it is risky. You do not get large gains without taking risks. I know I could respect them 1000% more if they would stand up and stop sitting back like they are.

If the opposition reveals their intentions, do you think the Neo-con dominated Republican party is just gonna sit tight and let it play out?

Look at Rep Murtha. The man is very respected in of and about the military, and yet when he spoke out against the war, what did they do?

When ever a Democrat does anything to counter anything the Republicans do, the rubber stampers all swarm and make much further on this direction nearly impossible.

Case in point, discussion of impeachment. Some Democratic leaders have said they will not seek impeachment. Now why in gods name would they say something so stupid? Because if they, before they have any control, state that they intend to persue such actions, the Rubber stampers will swarm all over these actions, and it will die a quick silent death.


If yer gonna do battle with the enemy, and you know that at the moment doing battle means death and the decimation of your army, the smart thing then becomes to do what you can to increase your strength BEFORE you commence in hand to hand combat!



I have watched the changing of events all these past months. I have seen the democrats shifting and manouvering the whole time, and as the Republican position becomes more and more tenious, the more the Democrats position because of it, to the point that today there is real speculation that the Democrats may well retake the house and possibly the senate. 18 months ago this was virtually impossible.


The Democrats have some very smart people, every bit as smart as Turd blossum, and more.
But they are not gonna sit on national TV and reveal their entire game plan! You and I are just gonna have to sit in the dark until something happens to reveal such. But don't blink, or ya might miss it. Again, case in point. Dean has been working to build grass roots support. Hillary the capitalist thinks he outta be raising money and forget hearts and minds. But Dean has been working to change opinion, not to sell an ad campaign. I believe in the long run, this change of tactics will pay off big dividends.

We can change their ideas and thought by changing their actions,
much easier than we can change their actions with thought and idea.

Go reread the Rockridge institutes links covering George Lakoffs basic framing techniques.
This shit really works. We all do this stuff even if we don't know it. This is how our brain is wired.

What you are saying is that American politics is an ugly business no matter who is in control, and deception and deceit must be the rule to be successful. I don't accept that. America has become something ugly and unrecognizable to me.

AFW,

I am 51, and though that's not terrible old, it;s also not young.
And in 51 years the only profession ranked below used car saleman,
is politician!

It's always been that way too.

Always!

Politics is like preparing for a sports game, say football. Your opponenet knows your weaknesses because he's studied you, and likewise vice-versa. So by the time the game starts, they each know where their opponents will attack. It is then your job to come up with a plan to exploit the other teams weaknesses and stop their strengths.Sometimes its a stalemate 6-6 going into the 2 minute warning, when a wild card appears, an end around you haven't seen on film before. The Dems were handed three in the past week in my estimation, the Terror Bill suspending Habeus Corpus, and thus breaking the law of the land.,Rep Foleys admition of the e-mails with an underage kid, with a bonus---the leadership knew about it and did nothing; and lastly, Bob Woodwards book, which has the Repugs wetting their pants.

now, the Dems have been given basically a "free agent signing" to add to their arsenal in the last month of the "season". they need to run it down the Repubs throat, be relentless and never stop until the votes are counted. This is their chance, they can't blow it, or they'll be considered the Buffalo Bills of the new century.

The way I see it, the #1 problem with the Dems is that they don't tell their most valuable and needed audience, the American electorate, anything about their plans and visions. All the people are hearing from the Dems is how fuckin' bad the Repubs are and how everything they do is bad, bad, bad. What they're not hearing is what the Dems are gonna do about Iraq, the economy, immigration, etc. So it's for a dang good reason that the Dems are widely perceived as sissy wishy-washy hand-wringing doomsayers with no cogent plans of their own. Negativity and only negativity will not win them any damn elections. Like James Carville recently said, with all the troubles the Repubs are having, if the Dems can't win back at least one of the houses of Congress this fall, they might as well fold up their tent and cease operations because it would be obvious that they are no longer a viable political party. They may very well already have reached that point in 2000 when Gore blew a fantastic golden opportunity to win the White House. How in the fuck could he miss? The economy was good, there were no wars and he was the incumbent vice president with 8 years experience. A slamdunk in politics if there ever was one. I know, I know. I'll be hearing all about how Bush "stole" the fuckin' election. But that's just a copout and a piss-poor excuse. By all rights, Gore should have won by a humongous landslide and there never would have been any bullshit talk about "stolen" elections. So what happened to the Dems in 2000? That, my friends, is the greatest mystery of them all.

We'll just have to make our best guess's on November 7th,
and then see what the Democrats do.


I'll bet $20 right now that we're not all gonna be real pleased.
Some of us find it easier to focus on what's not right instead of the opposite.

Makes sence too. I mean, we all do it negatively for Bush, which in my world is fine and good.

With the exception of the contention that Gore should have won the 2000 election, I agree with all of this. The explanation that the Democrats cannot share their plans with the American people because to do so would be to subject them to attacks from their opponents is totally absurd and I think a convenient excuse. I don't think they have a plan. They just want control. Their "plan" is to be successful at the same goals the Republicans have, except to do it better and with a "Democratic flavor". If they had any good ideas they would state them publicly. The fact that they do not state their plans means that the American people will not take them seriously, and why should they? I guarantee you the Republicans love that the Democrats sit back and whine and complain and do nothing on their own, because that creates just the kind of impression the Republicans want the American people to have the Democrats. So how the fuck can you tell me that this is somehow a smart strategy? Don't make excuses for them because they are your party, Sky. A little "tough love" is needed here. Actually, more than a little.

I do not place any kind of high hopes in most Democrats. We have the Democratic Party we have, not the Democratic Party we want, so we are going to have make do with what we have.

Personally, what I want is for the Democrats to gain control of the House and to become an obstruction for Bush and his non-progressive policies. If they do at least that much, I will be happy. If I get anything more than that from the Democrats then that would be even better, but I am not at all expecting that. I have learned that many Democrats are only "progressive" when they determine it is in their own political interests to be that way.

And that's where I differ with many of you.
I believe the majority of Democrats are progressive fighters, but we rarely hear about them.
Their are what, 400 congressmen and 100 senators? And of this 500 or so, we hear from maybe a dozen with any regularity, and others we almost never hear from, unless you live in their state.

As I have said many times, there is no doubt that there are some Democrats that need serious reeducation.
However I think if we back away from the painting to get perspective, we can see that it's not all one color after all.

How many of you have ever hear of Brian Baird? He's the Democratioc Congreessman for my district, and he's one of the good guys, but I bet few of you know the name. Senators from my state you have likely heard about, if only because I talk about them. Murry is a real populist and progressive. Cantwell, I can't always agree with how she votes and I have sent her mail saying so. But I have also said in mail to her that over all we agree enough that she gets my vote. If nothing else, because her Rethug challenger is a real dick head. Even so Cantwell has done a pretty good job working against Sevens of Alaska. Better than anybody ever has, and that's a real plus in my book.

Would I ask my Democratic leaders to spend ad dollars to let me and the rest of the nations Democratic supporters know the full plan? Would I want the Democrats to opely challenge the Rethugs knowing full well that they would not win? No to both! I expect my Democratic leadership to be smarter than the opposition. I expect them to let the Repugs freefall WITHOUT assistance. Let the GOP self destruct without having to get any dirt on the Liberals? That's a GOOD plan!


Would I like my Democrats to stand up and show more back bone on the really important issued like wiretaps, torture, and the Pat Act? Most absolutely I sure as hell would. But, I have to remember that I AM NOT ON THE INSIDE. I do not know the whole story and I also realize just exactly how easy it is to arm chair quarterback this whole fiasco.


What I do know is this, and very few of you will find this to be anything new from me....

The Republican party is so corrupt and incredibly innept in it's domination by the Neo-cons that is so complete, the entire party must be dismantled, and the only infrastructure currently in place with a ghost of a chance of creating the circumstances for this to even possibly begin a process which might bring this about, is the Democratic party. There is simply no perfect or easy answer to this problem. Right now it's crunch time. Right now is when we the people of this contry are going to decide the direction we take, and that decision will be in play at least for the next several decades.

Right now, if you like um, love um, or hate um, the Democrats are the only game in town with any shot of defeating the Republican machine. A machine that has deliberately been built with this fight absolutely in mind. They have prepared for what was bound to come, and now it's almost here.


When you look at the two main political parties in this country, we cannot afford to look at the plus and minuses of the individuals. We must look at where each of them will take us if we give them the power to do so. If you like what the Republicans have done in the past 6 years, then by all means vote for them. But if you are as disgusted as I am, even marginally so, then you have no other option than to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Neocon dominated Republicans and help put that corrupt party out of business.


November 7th is a little more than 5 weeks away. When you're looking at your ballot and making your final decisions, I have little doubt that you will do the right thing for this country.

I am saying to vote for the Democrats, Sky, but the purpose is to obstruct the non-progressive policies of Bush and the Republicans, not because I believe the Democrats are going to do a good job in a leadership position. And you are right, they are the only other party in town. To me, blocking the Repiblicans is doing the right thing for this country. So we both want the same thing, Sky, but for very different reasons. I believe the politically-hungry Democrats don't care how they gain control, just so they gain control. They should keep one thing in mind if they do win: it wasn't because people liked the Democrats. It was because they disliked the Republicans more. That is all it will mean, and whatever is gained in 2006 can quickly be lost again if the Democrats do not step up to the plate and show that they are the party we hope they are.

I realize that we don't agree on every point. To expect other wise isn't very realistic.
Same goes with politics and politicians.

That's exactly what happened in 2000 and 2004. In my humble opinion, Bush wasn't elected twice because the voters were so dang crazy about him. Bush was elected because the two Dem dummies running against him were even less likeable than he was. Voters basically held their nose as they went into the voting booth and voted for the lesser of two evils. Just my opinion.

In a few weeks, voters will once again vote for whom they consider to be the lesser of two evils. But which party will they actually consider to be the lesser of two evils? Will it be the wishy washy Dems whose only plan seems to be attack, attack and attack some more without putting forth a coherent plan of their own? Or will it be the Repubs who at least do have a plan (stay the course), even if it is flawed? Stay tuned, folks. The mudslinging and fireworks has only just begun.

In all the elections I have participated in since I was 18, 33 years ago, every single one the issue was about voting for the lesser of two evils.

I recall as a teenager seeing a cartoon of a ball of cotton on a cotton plant and two bugs on it, and the caption saying something about picking the lesser of two weavils.

So don't go off as if this terrible situation is anything new. I'd be willing to bet half a pay check that ever Roosevelt himself was the one dispised least when he first won. (even though It's entirely possible the history books might not agree)



Look. We're not voting for a daddy. The person elected is not gonna be perfect, and he's not gonna please all the people. Hell, odds are he's not gonna please any very much. If you like the person is NOT the issue. As I said, yer not voting for a new daddy. You will instead vote for the person that best, NOT PERFECTLY, but best matches your own values and interests. And like any other human being, you will have to accept that sometimes they do stupid things and other times they just piss you off!



OK, I'm ranting. Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

Not saying the Democrats should not be in power over the Republicans, but what I hear is you making a whole lot of excuses for them, Sky. You cannot defend the indefensible, and many things the Democrats do are not defensible. The reason they are out of power now is as much their own fault as anything else. The American people cannot respect a party that does not stand up and state its own policies on the issues, but instead sits back and stays quiet and criticizes the way Republicans do everything while at the same time not offering any serious alternatives of their own.

So what we have is a scale. On one side is America's disgust with the Rpublicans. On the other side is America's disgust with the Democrats. Which disgust wins?

Amen, there aint a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat.

Neither one of you seems to have heard what I was saying.

Oh well. I guess I'm just to obscure.

I did not say there is no difference in the Republicans and Democrats. What I did say is that I think the American people feel disgust toward both parties, but for very different reasons.

The Democratic strategy of sitting back and not offering its own policies is a very bad one, IMO, and will lead to many bad things for the party. Hell, even I do not know what the Democratic plan is, and I take the time to follow the news and pay attention. How much less does the average American know what alternatives the Democratic Party offers to the Republicans? All they know is that the Democrats complain a lot about what the Republicans do. Why should they choose Democratic candidates over Republican candidates?

How could something so simple as this go over the heads of so many Democrats?

If they lose in November, Sky, they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

A side note: I have said this before and I say it again: I think it all goes back to Iraq. The Democrats are afraid to be critical of the Iraq War because of how many Americans have died (and are still dying) and do not want to appear to be anti-American or weak on National Security by opposing the war. Thus they are stuck in the rut they are in now, wanting to help "Win" in Iraq instead of demanding withdrawal. They do not have the political courage to come out and oppose the war and demand withdrawal. This is a noose that the Democrats have willingly let the Republicans put around their neck, and they are stuck in it.

Iraq is like a chinese finger puzzle. The more you want to win the less you will win. The harder you try, the more opposition you will get. The smartest thing to do is to just let go, but nobody is willing to do that. When the American body count reaches the 10,000 mark, maybe they will think better of it.

Okay, I'll go this far on the topic. I try not to judge people, including elected government representatives by their party membership. I attempt to maintain my neutrality and analyze their performance by what they do.

But for the sake of furthering the discussion. Let me see if I understand this. You are saying the Democrats should run on Iraq as their primary plank? And that they should demand an immediate, total withdrawl?

No.

Well then, don't read it!

Yes, I would love for the Democrats to run on Iraq as one of their primary planks, and to come out and speak with one voice against the war. The mistake Democrats are making today is to agree with Republicans that we must "Win" in Iraq, although they differ with Republicans on the methods used to "Win". We will never "Win" in Iraq, and the sooner we realize that, the less people will die in this huge American blunder.

In Vietnam, we had the same attitude. We fought and fought and fought and kept saying "we must win". We kept saying that until over 50,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese were dead. Finally we stopped saying "we must win" and got the hell out. How many more lives would have been saved if that decision had been made sooner? It was inevitable that we would not win in Vietnam, just as it is inevitable we will not win in Iraq. Its just a question of when someone comes to their senses and admits it. Why postpone the inevitable? Admit we made a mistake and withdraw. Yesterday.

Aren't you concerned about what will happen to Iraq if we leave?

If that is truely your concern, then let us call in the U.N., who the Bush Administration condemned and criticized as being weak and indecisive on Iraq, to take over from our blunder and to correct the mistake we made. The only way that would happen is for Bush to apologize to the U.N. for invading Iraq without U.N. approval and making the mess of things that America has. Bush would have to humbly ask for the U.N. to take over. He would rather die first.

I think your concern is not for Iraq, but for America and its image, both here and abroad. You cannot stand the thought of America being perceived to have "failed" at something like this. That is the core thing keeping the Iraq war going: American Pride. America must "win" at whatever it does, or at least be perceived to have won. Whatever it started out to be, this is what Iraq is now.

So, you don't care what happens to Iraq when if we leave?

Bill Frist has already "given up" on Afganistan: http://tinyurl.com/r5rxk

The UN has already proved its unwillingness to insert itself into situations such as the Lebanon / Israeli crisis where they can't get enough troops to help keep the peace , or places like Darfur where thousands die daily. The UN is going the way of the League of Nations, it is a body of corporate level beaurocrats who aren't going to get their hands dirty doing anything. Iraq? They , nor the nations involved will touch it with a ten foot pole, its our mess , we need to clean it up. Should our soldiers still be there? NO! But the plan for rebuilding was and is so fucked up, the nation may be lost as we know it anyways.

Can our image get any lower in the world view? Short of nuking someone, probably not. It is not about winning and losing at this point, its about right and wrong. We threw millions of lives into chaos in that region , now it is our duty to clean it up as much as possible before we go home. American Pride comes in doing the job right, but it has been hijacked by the corporate team of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The planners have pissed away more money than should have been possible to companies like Halliburton et. al. , the logical thing would be to cut off their payments until some real progress were made. Then we may start seeing results.

When you realize that wars aren't about winning and losing so much , that they are more about profit, then maybe you will see the picture more clearly.

Celtic, I couldn't access your link but I think I know what your refering to. Frist has floated the idea of inviting the Taliban into the new Afghan government, is that it?

This is not giving up the fight, far from it. A war against an insurgency, (counterinsurgency) isn't about military victory, it's about political victory with a military feature. You cannot "win" a fight with insurgents.

I've wonderd how long it would take our civilian leadership to realize that they are the key to stopping the insurgency and not the military. The military role is limited, it can only set the table so to speak, provide a somewhat secure environment, capture insurgent leadership when necessary and apply military force only as a last resort and if it must use force, it must be the minimum amount of force possible, applied precisely.
The heavy lifting in a counterinsurgency operation must be done by diplomacy, our politicians and the new government have the biggest role to play. They must convince the populace that what they have to offer is more in their best interests than what the insurgents have to offer.

Frist's suggestion indicates to me, finally, is the light bulb above someone's head is shining at last. Someone is thinking unconventionally rather than conventionally. The goal is to end the fighting, not "win"

It is a mistake to think of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as conventional wars, and as wars that can be won in a classic military sense, for they cannot. An insurgency just loses it's momentum and peters out and one day the new government can declare the emergency over after a period of relative peace and stability.

If this tactic is tried, and the Taliban accepts this is one way to possibly stop the insurgency. It remains to be seen what comes of this, but at least someone on the civilian side is beginning to understand what a counterinsurgency is all about.

Before we talk about cleaning up the "American mess" in Iraq, I want to see some real accountability on the parts of the people who were ithe architects of this war, both civilian and military. Until we have that accountability, its a lost cause trying to clean up a mess that is still being made as we speak.

We have had zero accountability from this administration. Until we see it, there will never be a bipartisan effort to try to undo the shit America has wrought in Iraq.

Do you think George W. Bush would ever accept this kind of thinking in Iraq? Make no mistake about it. Iraq is a football game to Bush, and he intends to "win", no matter how long it takes or how many people lie dead at the end of the process.

I completely understand this is not conventional warfare, but why bring the Taliban back and let them share in power? It has been 4 years and I think the populace is more controlled by fear than what a new government can do for them. If the proper military resources were spent in Afganistan, rather than diverted to Iraq, it may be a different story. I agree with you that it needs to handled politically, but why let a group back into the government after villifying them? By our mere presence there, is it possible that Afganis will never have peace
because the attacks will not stop? And will they stop if/when we leave?Or will the Taliban view that as a weakness in the government and a chance to once again seize control?

What would the reaction of the American public be, if, in 2 years the Taliban is back in power and Osama comes waltzing into Kabul? Or do you believe that the Taliban will agree to a cease fire and turn over their weapons to join the government? That is the only concievable way I could see anyone letting them participate, of course I have been known to be wrong

And unless somebody has the balls to impeach,arrest and charge the whole lot of them with crimes against humanity, then they never will be held accountable.They sure as hell aren't going to admit they have been wrong about anything, thats why, possibly, a Democratic Congress can limit the flow of money to the civilian contractors in the region. Its a good place to start and then move forward from there.

This does not do shit to solve the Iraq War. We have a choice. Either leave now or stay for an eternity, and build those permanent military bases, because they are NEVER going to stop needing us there. We are propping up a government with our military that only exists because our military overthrew the rightful government of Iraq. A war based on lies and deceit does not deserve to be successful. Frankly, I'm glad the insurrection exists and I hope it re-doubles its efforts to drive out of Iraq an unlawful invasion force: The United States of America! Whatever it takes.

Both will have to happen at the same time.
I rather doubt we can simply ask everyone in Iraq to put the violence on hold while we submit Bushco to prosecution.

The war won't wait. The prosecution might, but the war simply will not.

Odds are ther even if some of Bushco are impeached, it's not likely anyone will actually be prosecuted.
It's just not gonna happen.

Sky, if there's one thing that I can say about you, it's that you deal with reality instead of the pie in the sky hopes and dreams that many have of either impeaching Bush & company or arresting them all for high crimes and misdemeanors. You're right, it just ain't gonna happen.

Impeachment is quite likely, if things happen November 7th as it seems they might.
Prosecution is a whole nother ball game. I won't say it can't happen, but it is a long shot.

Besides, I'm not so sure prosecution is the best thing for the country.
It would certainly have an emotional feel good effect, but I don't know that it would help more than it hurts.

I don't have all those answers. At this point, I'm just saying I'm heartend to see that someone in our government is thinking out of the box. This may not be the answer, but thinking along these lines might lead to a solution.

In terms of Afghanistan, I agree with you. But what about Iraq? What kind of "out of the box" thinking is required to solve that fiasco, if there is even to be a solution at all? And if this type of thinking does offer a solution, will the rigid, conservative Bush Administration be willing to explore these alternatives to help get the U.S. out of Iraq?

Let me ask you a few questions, CA. What, in your opinion, is the current goal for the U.S. being in Iraq today? Why are we there? For whom are we there? The answers to the questions are critically important to a discussion for a solution to Iraq, because unless you know what kind of problem you are trying to solve, you can never come up with a solution.

Good questions! (Shifting gaze, looking to Cap'n for his answer)

Do you know how many times I've asked people to explain their stand and I've been told to kiss off? Because I was just trying to set them up?

Despite that I'll give this a shot.

To the military personnel serving in Iraq, they see one way to get back home and that is to accomplish their mission.

Their mission is to conduct counter insurgency operations in order to defeat transnational terrorists who have come to Iraq to prevent the new government from taking hold, provide a secure environment for reconstruction efforts and the new Iraqi government to take root. Their mission is also to deter outside forces from taking advantage of the current vulnerability of Iraq. To protect the free flow of natural resources from the region, i.e. oil. Their most important mission is to establish and train the new Iraqi Army to the point that they can take over the missions we are currently conducting.

We are there for us, and for the Iraqis. By extension we are there for other moderate governments in the region now as well, because we must prevent this conflict from spilling across the borders and sucking other unwitting muslim nations into it.

U.S. military personell serving in Iraq are simply a tool used by others in the U.S. government to implement a policy developed by others that has one or more strategic goals. The tool does what it is told, and knows only a very small part (if anything at all) of the bigger plan of why it is being used in the way it is. It does not know. Its not its job to know. It just does what it is told and believes the reasons that are given to it for doing what it is told.

Looking beyond the view of U.S. military pesonell serving in Iraq, is it possible that the United States might have long-term goals involving Iraq that are different from those you have stated? If so, could this explain some of the things we have seen in Iraq, and could this effect any potential solution to the Iraq war? Things might not be so simple and pure as your government wants the common soldier in Iraq to believe. I just want you to consider that there might be more going on in Iraq than you (or I) know.