Gen McAuliff actually, but other than that I'm nto sure I follow your rambling

"The thing of it is battles are historically fought out in the open ,soldiers of uniforn in some type of regimentated order.Here though and however it is more of a hunter and killer kind of a thing."
It's not how a good portion of the American revolution was fought. It's not how Vietnam was fought. Most wars aren't out in the open among regimented forces. War is chaos, and war is hell. It requires strategic vision to outline an end state and operational and tactical planning designed to achieve desired effects to reach that strategic objective. Until that strategic objective is defined and tactical objectives are established to lead to that objective, all the fighting in the world won't make one bit of difference, it's just killing for the sake of killing. that's why body counts don't work, that's why it didn't matter that we won every single battle we fought in Vietnam but still lost the war. We need to define what winning is, and we need defined objectives to reach that point.

Right now, we don't have any, other than to hold Iraq together. That's not a military strategy because success isn't dependent on us, it's dependent on someone else (the Iraqis, in this case). Nothing we can do right now militarily will achieve the objective of creating aDemocratic Iraq. All we can hope for is not to lose and hope things work out, and there's NO way to win when that is your objective. It's the problem we ran into in Vietnam, and why Iraq looks so familiar.

I think Patton used the term(nuts) The way to win a war is to win it. If you have no direction than there isn,t any direction. Sometimes no direction is the best direction ,But that only applies when riding a bicycle.You should try riding a bicycle ,than try having no direction to mind on it, see how far you can go,and see where it leads.You cannot fool people with the wars of world in history.And all of your opinion there does not win battles.Smart guys are also winners in battles when they are with the right people.No one is that smart in battle.The smartest thing there in battle is the win.So it all went as planed.So the generals talk about the history of all battles that have occured in history. The most recent in how it will compare.Or the truth is they thank God for the sucess and the troops and continued success in future battles and the winning end to the war,.Venator et. vassator, miss/spelled but it may mean hunter and killer,.A Latin phrase.The thing of it is battles are historically fought out in the open ,soldiers of uniforn in some type of regimentated order.Here though and however it is more of a hunter and killer kind of a thing.Identifying the enmey is not so easy,they seem like civilians.It therefore takes more than ones philosophy to keenly identifi the enemy.It takes real talent,real training, and real special people.It takes real leadership,and real leaders.All with one cause in mind,just who than is the teacher now?Who will they fallow? Does your view there have weight and mass? As General George Patton once said, NUTS.

I'm primarily sticking to the overall military strategy (or lack thereof) and how to get it back on track. Nut if you want Bush's explanation and rationale, I doubt there's many people out there who deny the neocon worldview, to include Bush, and how it has driven the policy in Iraq (he said as much in his second inaugural). Bush and the neocons base their worldview on Fukiyama et al's notion of democratic peace theory, the notion that democracies don't fight one another. They believe in an almost Trotskyist manner that democracy can be transported and thrust upon nations through overwhelming US force, and thus by using our military as a catalyst to spread democracy, we will spread liberalism and enlightenment, thereby undermining the support of terrorism and prevailing eventually in GWOT.

Nevermind that the whole idea suffers from numerous flaws. It negates correlation-causation fallacy that democracy breeds liberalism and enlightened though (normally it works the other way around). It ignores the fact that democracy requires educated citizenry who place notions like individualism above tribalism and sectarianism to foster debate to reach consensus (which is what Democracy is really about, otherwise elections are simply a way of counting factions which inevitably will lead to further strife), and it ignores the fact that democracy requires messaging and organization. Following years of opressive rule by dictators, the only people with such organizations left are the mullahs and the fundamentalists (because liberal reformers, communists, and all other political movements were chased out by the dictators who saw them as a threat, while the mullahs thrived because their tacit approval was necessary for the dictators to remain in power (When Saddam became threatened, he'd declare Jihad despite being a secular leader-religion is the opiat of the masses).

On top of all this, the unilatera manner in which we waged this war ignored Thucididies warning about hubris from the History of the Pelloponesian Wars. Might does not make right, and by pressing your agenda in such a manner and forcing all neutrals to pick sides, you will only isolate them and strengthen your opponent in the process. All these reasons and more are why we got into this mess.

What you're looking for is why were we, the public, not aware this is what was going on all along? That's the right question, and more people should be held accountable than just Bush. He pushed the agenda, but by not calling him on it, others are also culpable. This includes the media for failing to ask the right questions, the opposition Democrats for failing to do their jobs and being more concerned about election cycles. Republicans who forced a vote immediately before the election thereby cutting off any meaningful debate of the subject (unlike Bush's father, who waited until after the 1990 election to press the war authorization).

The fact is, Hussein was a horrible guy, we should all have hoped he would be removed at some point, but we should have recognized the difficulty in doing so (as we did in 1991), the greater strategic issues that prevailed at the time, and considered other forms of American power besides military strength to do the job. We should have kept him in the box, used the post-911 political environment to enforce it, finished the job with bin Laden and the various Islamic terror groups, and then have an honest debate about American and our strategy, then look at what to be done with Iraq. Bush chose instead to go after Iraq ASAP because it's what he wanted to do, and no one stood in his way. That's why we're where we are now.

Last Post. You Micheal may have overlooked another central point in the over all issue at hand, that being war. First question keeping it simple ,why exactly are we in this war. Suddam was located in and within his hole in the ground,we also recall the mars bars in Seattle Wa. And ah, we found no nukes. The situation that took us to track down Suddam was the 9/11 attack situation,and global terrorism .Than without hesitation the central point of focus became establishing democracy in Iraq. This shift is still non sensical in how it came about and furthermore requires further explination on the part of the Bush adminstration .Mr. Bush took this nation to war because the 9/11 attack situation happened and an act of war had occured within the United States. this gave the president the support of both oouses and the people by a given majority.We as a nation have been misslead by the president ,and that remains the issue.

"Setting specific timetables, unfortunately, gives opposition precise intel to plan future operations.

I agree that this is a well-defined strategy with rational thought behind it.

However, relocation of troops in Iraq will probably be to Iran if things keep going as they are."

Which opposition? The key is to separate the conflicts (the war on terror and the sectarian strife in Iraq). We will continue indefinately fighting elements of AQI that exist in Iraq, but we make clear that the formation of a new government is for the Iraqis to sort out. We've invested in them for three years, and will continue to do so militarily in the short run and by other methods in the long run, but as for military support we must look to our own strategic position and for our own interests. We're still fighting a global war, and we still have other counties we're not at war with but we need to leverage against. Besides that, timetable or not, they're just gonna try to cause trouble and wait us out anyways, it doesn't matter if we set dates or not. At least by seetting dates well in advance, we push in advance that it's not retreat, it's handing the war and responsibilities off in a planned and somewhat organized manner.

The problem with this is, it undermines the neocon argument that really led to this war in the first palace and that they are pushing behind the scenesto move into Iran- not really WMD, but regime change (WMD is a scare tactic to get popular support behind it, as I said in my previous post, but probably has little to do with the calculus at the White House). Iran is probably years away from a weapon, even if everything goes right (unless they have outside help, in which case it's the outside help we need to pressure and not just Iran). Why would Bush, with his whole presidency riding on Iraq, throw away any chance of success there knowing that the minute we invade Iran the majority Shi'ites of Iraq will turn on us, likely killing thousands of Americans, while we press a war against a much larger, stronger, more geographically challenging nation with less support for war both internationally and domestically? As much as people badmouth Bush for being wreckless, tyhat's just suicidal.

But, then again, that's why the argument Kerry should have made last time around to make the road to war In Iraq relevant and not just complaining in hindsight is that Bush simply cannot be trusted to make these decisions again with Iran and North Korea still out there. That would also allow him to explain his vote, that it was to give Bush leverage to push a diplomatic solution that he and the Deomcrats who voted for it thought they had a good faith agreement on. He double crossd them last time, so how can he be trusted the next time?

Now, lets compare the differance between the military funding and the strength in man power of the military in this country,year 1973 and today.Durning the Nixon adminstration befor presidential powers were lets say reduced by congress,and the military budget was soring high into the sky.Vietnam was undergoing evacuation,the Vietnam war had ended.Inflation was high,the old pocket books were not looking so good.The oil embargo was a happening thing.You may recall gas rationing at the pumps.Our military troop statiss was still at opitmal though the budget cuts were on the table.We may have thought Nixons intrests were diplomatic relations in China,little did we know that the Middle East was the big cheese.Inflation, cutting the military budget, our armed forces still at opitmal.The White House was deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs and Aferica.And the President at the time had his hands right down into it.By Febubary 1973 something changed ,by March 73,something changed again,almost as if the plug to the power had been pulled out of the power inlet.This though and however is from the outside of this country looking in.I would have thought to wonder ,just what ever in the world are they up to? WATERGATE.The old power outage.I would suppose if a mistake never happened ,than you cannot make the same mistake twice.At the same time I would seriously question that.One thing is for certain ,if we pulled out of this today,terrorism will indeed continue,just as it has since way back then.

Scott Ritter parses the polls on Iraq:

"I’m saying Americans don’t know enough about anything to have a well-informed opinion; this is all superficial. At the end of the day, yeah, we don’t like to get our asses kicked. We have a lot of national pride that’s based around the notion that we can kick anybody’s ass—we’re the biggest, baddest boys on the block. And in Iraq, we’re not winning, so a lot of Americans have their ruffles up. I guarantee you, had we invaded Iraq, had it gone easily—let’s say it went as easily as it appeared to go; we got rid of Saddam, we bring down the statue and peace and prosperity breaks out—there’d be a small, little element in the so-called anti-war movement; they’d be screaming about violation of law, etc. They’d be shouted down by the vast majority of Americans who would thump their chests with national pride and say, 'No, we did the right thing. To hell with international law. We got rid of Saddam. We’ve instilled democracy. And it’s a good thing we did.'

Of course, things have gone sour, and now a lot of Americans are jumping on the bandwagon of “Hey, we shouldn’t have gone there.” But, again, at what point in time, I ask these newfound converts to the anti-war movement, did this become a bad war? See, that’s a key question people have to ask. I say it was a bad war the day we invaded Iraq, because it’s an illegal war. It’s totally out of keeping with my personal vision of what America stands for—you know, a nation of laws, the rule of law; we stand for individual freedoms and liberties and justice; we stand for the Bill of Rights; we stand for a whole bunch of things. But we don’t stand for planning and implementing wars of aggression.

I don’t think America represents a nation that embraces war crimes, and a lot of people were willing to sweep all this under the rug had we won, had we been victorious, which tells me that they have a superficial understanding of what the United States represents, or they don’t agree with what the United States represents and they have a new vision of what America should be—perhaps a global empire. Who knows."

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

The 100%-vindicated Scott Ritter, who has been proved right on every count, has plenty more to say. As usual, he is outspoken, utterly sincere, and completely accurate.

RMill
And unfortunately there are WMDs being created there and they definately have the will to use them. Scares the H out of me.

To Drindl,

Nowhere in my comments did I say I wasn't an American. You read what I said and made an obviously incorrect assumption. Being and opinionated ASS appears to be what you are good at so continue to impress all of us.

For the record I fought for the United States, was born in Orlando Florida and lived there most of my life. At the moment I am working for an AMERICAN company outside of the US.

And this being a BLOG soliciting different opinions from all persons allows me to share mine publicly, hell even your opinions, as infantile as they are we welcome. But next time do you think you could find a more suitable word to use than "Fuck", or is your vocabulary that limited?

In conclusion to my post I don,t think the war was ever a good idea.The 9/11 attack situation required force ,no doubt about that ,at the same time the 9/11 attack situation has been on the table for more than thirty years ,for a fact since the seventys.From where I sit ,when George Bush bypassesd Vietnam when he addressed the nation ,mentioning ww2,korea,so on bypassing vietnam than continuing back as far as the revolutionary war,he is also sidestepping ,avoiding something else inside events within the Nixon adminstration.That was known as the oil embargo. The orgins of origination in the form of a plan or a possible master plan and the master plan was all about the terrorist threat.This is also to say since 1973 of record ,in all this time we are in this war with no clear mission.This means to me they have no idea what they are doing.They just don,t know anymore now than they did in 1973.So you may ask why is that. Or you may ask, if they knew that,than why was there no counter plan to fed off the terrorist airline attack.Or you may think thats a lie because if they knew that than ,they would have used a form of electronic surveillance either C-I-A. or military.On the other hand if you know this is true than you had and have to have faith in both the congress and the senate,reguardless to your party perference. This conflict doesn,t compare to Vietnam,though it is comparing because we have nothing else to compare it to.We are in a psychological war,the battle tactics are all about psychological warfare.The psychological impact effects everybody.The thing about WW11 is this country was prepared for war.Everybody contributed ,people went without,but they were involved.The Roosevelt adminstration took it to the people.The Bush adminstration will ask us to place our trust in an adminstration and a president that offers no clear agenda ,no clear mission for the troops.No clear reason to carry on with a war that will seem to bounce from one middle eastern country to another.Geographicaly it is indeed nonsensical.The vice predident is on the campaign trail donating moneys for R seats and spending tax payers moneys for the trip expense,$7000.000 mabe a million in Washington state .Stopping at a airforce base to commend the troops. Those same troops that are undermaned,underfunded,lacking of the necessary equipment and being sent over to Iran or Iraq and who knows where else.

Hey Sandy, seems people like you fit right in with the Bush doctrine, hear no evil, see no evil, but they do talk evil, that is instead of telling the truth they run around waving the flag and spewing crap about how patriotic they are and those of us who see this war in Iraq for what it truly is are somehow unpatrioti.Except those of us who see this administration for what it really is, a bunch of corporate idiots with their fingers on the trigger who never fought in a war, nor had to work hard and play by the rules because their daddy's gave them everything and when they broke it he gave em something else to screw up, only this time it's an entire country and population of people. I hope you don't live somewhere that is going to be flooded or burned up any time soon becuase if you do your going to be out waving your hands in the air asking for help from the government you thought could do no wrong. You agree with such tactics as smearing "real" war heros so long as it meets your end. And speaking of weed, I think that's what got your commander in chief in so much trouble in the first place, that and those lines of cocaine he snorted have damaged his brain, but pick up a bible and recite a verse and wholly cow your a born again who knows whats best for the rest of us. I think that most Americans have seen through these idiots and know that there will always be simple minded soles like yourself willing to send someone else's kid off to be killed or maimed in the name of 'OIL'and who will call it Patriotic. Don't think to hard on this you might hurt yourself!

Setting specific timetables, unfortunately, gives opposition precise intel to plan future operations.

I agree that this is a well-defined strategy with rational thought behind it.

However, relocation of troops in Iraq will probably be to Iran if things keep going as they are.

This bears repeating:
"As for the dead, more US soldiers died in the first two-and-a-half years of the Iraq war than in the first four years of US involvement in Vietnam."

Bush lies, who dies? Some of my friends, some of my friends friends. And for what? If this is such a "noble war" why aren't the children of the people who VOTED for the war in the Army or Marines? Thought so.

And why did Bush BAN cameras at Dover? Talk about manipulation of the press. He doesn't want us to see their coffins and doesn't want us as a NATION to pause and respect them.

He wants us to forget. And we never will.

"My suggestion is we lay out a time table of 6 mos to a year, at which point we will relocate the vast majority of our forces to a nearby base of operations (either Bahrain or Qatar will work), leave Spec Ops in country to fight the terrorists, some additional troops to advise the Iraqi Army but not in a combat capacity, and let the Iraqis sink or swim. If they sink, we rapidly redeploy forces to prevent chaos from spreading. Until this happens, the Iraqis have little incentive to do the work for themselves, and we have no way of measuring whether what we’re doing is successful or not. It’s not about retreat, it’s about pressing the Iraqis to step up. Until they do, we’re just holding on praying that it doesn’t fall apart."

Michael, this may be one of the best damn exit strategies I've seen.

no prob, oh and since I never got wounded, I think the people you should thank are people like my friend Dan, another Dem, who's now 25 percent wounded and still serving - he's going officer since he got his law degree and can accept CFR.

People like him are the ones you should thank.

Will in Seattle: Thanks for the info! That's what I was afraid of.

RMill: Thanks for the typology link

Elizabeth: Matthew 5:9 to you. A conscience is always helpful. More focus would help though.

All of this talk about "the liberal media" is laughable. IS R. Murdoch liberal? Is his cable networks, and his numerous news outlets (the biggest being FOX NEWS) liberal? Not by ANY stretch of our imagination.
DO Iraqis love us, and want us there? Recently, an Iraqi man was speaking to our college class, and merely by his tone and body langusge you could tell his disdain. They are tolerating us in their midst of civil unrest. He said since, the invasion, gambling is higher, drinking (which is forbidden by their Holy Quran) is becoming more prevalent in their country. Jobs are scarce. The new graduates of the Iraqi police academy, are in fear for their lives, and the lives of their families, and they will not pursue much criminal activity. How can we go in to a country and try to dictate (yes, I use the word DICTATE purposely) how their government should be run, when the US "powers that be" have no knowledge of this culture. That is why so many other nations are becoming disenchanted with the US. We are ethnocentrists who are constantly butting into matters that are none of our business. Yes, as Americans, we are apalled at the autrocities that many of these world leaders do to their citizens, but if we invade all of these countries, to spread democracy, who is going to pay the bill, in lives and financial costs. We have a bunch of "ignorant rednecks" trying to bully people into their way of thinking. Our concepts go against much of the Islamic world.
Also, unlike Vietnam, when protestors truly took it out on the war heros, most of the anti-war groups do support our troops that is why they are protesting. We were misled and they were misled. All those in favor, or strongly in favor of this war, need to suit up, grab a gun and ship out. If they are too old, or too feeble, than they need to ship their children out. It is usually the ones who are least likely to serve, or least likely with the lack of need to join the military, that are so PRO-war. Bush's daughters need to suit up, and Bush's nephews and nieces need to don some camaflouge and get packing.
The young Iraqi man is Shiite. He said that they will definitely have civil war when the troops leave. and he also said as bad as Sudam was at least the Iraqi people were getting paid, and they were working before the invasion. And he is not a "liberal news outlet". His father is working in the US currently and he is a student in our schools. The disdain he has for our "way of life," our arrogance, and our self-centeredness is telling.

Thanks RMill, that is the data I was looking for. Even though it totally kills my theory.

RMill, If I read this right then about half of the Dems lean liberal and half of Reps lean conservative.

Guess its time to do my homework and find out exactly what those terms mean and how they are being applied.

Though it is odd that the country is so evenly polarized. How did we manage to create 2 such equally sized (approximately) diametrically opposed groups.

Anthony Newbill's post proves one point: his ignorance of the history and situation of the region at least equals that of some policimakers of this administration.

M. Newbill explains that had the US not intervened in Iraq, they would have teamed with Iran (in their hate of the US that is) and would now be forming a nuke threat "axis": you do know that Iran & Iraq aren't best friends, do you? (Iran - Iraq war anyone? gas attacks? Iran sponsored Shiite organization trying to destabilize Saddam? etc.). In fact, before the invasion, Saddam was pretty isolated in the region because he was between Saudi Arabia / Kuweit (US allies) and Iran (long time enemy). Heck, even muslim fundamentalists (OBL inspired) dispised the secularist and not very pious Saddam (that's why nobody outside the US ever believed the Iraq-Al Quaida connexion: it was such a nonsense...just stupid)...

I know you might not understand M. Newbill but people from Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. aren't THE SAME. For instance, Iranians aren't arabs....

Issues in Middle East are complicated. Big time ignorance and over simplification is what got us all in this situation!

The above Pew Research report was for 2004. A 2005 study is a bit different but includes more categories.

Party ID
Rep 31%
Dem 34%
Ind 9%
Lean Dem 12%
Lean Rep 14%

Ideology ID
Conservative 15%
Liberal 18%
Ambivalent 42%
Populist 16%
Liberatrian 9%

Crosstabs
REP DEM IND LDEM LREP
Conservative 52% 18% 7% 4% 19%
Liberal 8% 58% 6% 24% 4%
Ambivalent 29% 32% 12% 10% 17%
Populist 36% 31% 9% 9% 14%
Liberatarian 36% 26% 9% 15% 14%

Dan and everyone

Pew Research has a typology survey that may be interesting to do.

http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

Judge

CC may have taken your permission to heart and is sleeping it off this AM.

Dan

Didn't take long:

Pew Research

2000 2002 2004
Dem 33% 31% 33%
Mod 39% 35% 36%
Con 23% 22% 22%
Lib 52% 49% 51%

Rep 28% 30% 30%
Mod 21% 24% 22%
Con 49% 50% 51%
Lib 9% 9% 8%

Dan-

I know, this was as close as I could get on short notice. If I come across more extensive data, I will post.

Thanks for your comments Will in Seattle, and thank you for your service to our country.

The more folks like you who have seen the struggle and devastation first hand who come out and speak against this war, the better. America needs your voice and so do the Iraqi and Afghan civilians caught in the crossfire of this pointless misuse of power. Thanks again Will.

Yes, but some of us have never waivered from our original position, i.e., that US (Superpower)policy, which is always based on idolatrous Superpower pride, rather than substance, led to the invasion and occupation of another sovereign but innocent nation. Who will be next?

What is truly sad is that too many Americans are willing to overlook American misbehavior and its misguided policies, in order to secure wealth and to show the world that you do not mess with the American Idol. Sadly, Iraq will not be the last country to be subjected to the misguided policies that are sanctioned by too many Americans.

But what else can you expect from a country that began with invaders, murderers, racists, hegemonists, child-molesters, genocidists, tax-evaders, adulterers, slave-owners and rebels?
Not much has changed.

Good to see that eventually most people now consider Iraq a mistake and they see through the lies of Bush.
But had this happened before the war, there would not have been any war in the first place.
So Americans please this time keep ur eyes and ears open and do not let Bush & Co. launch another oil / neo-con war eka Iran.Otherwise we will have a biggger mess on our hands.

One more post before "good night." My son is alive, and well, and thank goodness for that, I told him, screaming, NO, Clinton didn't go to Vietnam, why should you go to Bosnia? I was furious at Clinton and I am furious at Bush. My ex also told my son he did not believe joining the Marines was appropriate at the time. I did not hear what he said. My ex attended Harvard, where I met him at Harvard Summer School, 1969. It was the Vietnam era. Rioting in the streets and tear gas, before I met him.

When I was at Harvard Summer School, things were quieter (I attended 1968 and 1969), but the active political protest was very much alive, and the level is missing at present.

Good night.

Well, Nor'easter might bother to check my blog, so I'll post it, but I have not put the time I would if I were doing it professionally, even though I have an M.S. Journalism: Science Communication degree, I cannot blog professionally without pay, when WE are venting, trying to be accurate, but from our own view, obviously ad libbing, here, is what this is, and what my blog is, a wishful thinking blog, which I have decided to stop soon, and upgrade and do some photojournalism reality check instead: soon I will convert to a newsformat and the intended title will be "BostonPeaceView" and I will do SUCH things as ask the Congress how many letters supporting impeachment they have received -- due to the desire for peace not war?

There are many organizations that are peace oriented, and I intend to try to cover what they are doing especially any EVENTS and take photos. I was at the Cindy Sheehan peace protest here in Boston at B.U. Afterward, outside, I saw her standing with Attorney John Bonifaz, who has written a book, "Warrior-King: The Case to Impeach Bush." I said are you Cindy Sheehan? She turned around and hugged me. Of course I know her son died in the Iraq war and was shot in the back of his head. Certainly I share her grief.

Also I believe the war is wrong and should be stopped and the U.S. should not interfere. Already said. And, yes, for the future, I intend to do a site that is photojournalism on BostonPeaceView showing photos of people IN ACTION to net PEACE and the public eye, much deserved.

Obsolete opinion blog, because it was wishful thinking, my opinion, claiming I believed the majority believes what I tried to present, ineffectively, called it "Majority View Today" and that Nader is reflective of a majority and his platforms would get the proper support if he had been properly presented and might have net a landslide victory...

Well...the site, for Nor'Easter, is: http://www.MVToday.blogspot.com

And, soon, I hope to post a straight "real news" not opinion, but COVERAGE of the PeaceMOVEMENT in Boston, with emphasis at the beginning using photos. 20 hours per week is all I will be able to do, because I need to earn money. Getting something done "anyway" in spite of the opposition, is very important to me.

I fully admit I should not try to speak for the majority. I want them to speak, loud and clear and truthfully, and I do not believe that is happening. The media is not presenting the truth. They push peace out of the picture. It is egregious.
I intend to put it back in.

And, Ralph Nader, in my view, is still Harvard Law School's most prestigeous graduate. For those who do not know some of his limelight accomplishments which should have been featured when he ran in 2000 and again in 2004, was the founding of the PIRGs (Public Interest Research Group), suing General Motors while working in the Senate in an Auto Safety Subcommittee, netting the Federal Regulation of the Automobile Industry--he had been horrified at their willingly waiting for the public to force them to take the Corvair off the road when they knew it was unsafe. And, the Clean Water
Act, and Clean Air Act, and Federal monitoring of interstate meat inspection. The list is long, and his name is in Who's Who, where it has been for years. And, also World Book Encyclopedia. Not someone to shove out of the picture. His offering as a President is something to vote for, easily not with great difficulty. The media owed the THREE WAY RACE and the reality of everyone should vote for who they individually wanted and see the democracy happen.

Bush is dreaming if he thinks staff personnel changes will rescue his presidency. The chances of an uptick in Bush approval ratings are zero and none. The November mid-term elections will see a huge turnout of angry voters who vote against Republicans at every level, thanks to the history of distortions and the history of gross incompetence in the Bush administration. When folks are angry they want to send a message, so just wait. Finally all the Bush BS about Iraq is coming home to roost.

I keep seeing adament supporters of the war using several flawed arguments over and over again:

"We need to fight them over there or else we'd be fighting them over here."

Bull. This assumes a fixed front line and our ability to limit enemy maneuver. That's not the case with international terrorism. We're not fighting a fielded army, we're dealing with an asymmetric threat that can draw forces and funding worldwide, and strike us with a small number of men designed to cause terror, not to attack key centers of gravity to achieve conventional military successes. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not prevented terror attacks in Spain, Bali, Pakistan, Africa, Saudi Arabia, or numerous other places in the world. The limiting factor is opportunity. Terrorists strike soft targets and plan for years (planning for 9-11 probably began about the time they realized the 1993 bombing didn't scare America enough, like in 1994 or 1995).

"If CNN had covered D-Day in real time, the US would have left the war the day after. The American people have never had a stomach for seeing their families and neighbors dying."

The problem with the American people and the "will to fight" isn't that America is soft, it's that we won't support a war unless we feel it threatens us directly. This is why the war needed to be sold in the first place as if Hussein was somehow a threat to nuking America. After 9-11, it wasn't enough that he was a horrible guy who should have been removed, we had bigger threats out there that needed to be taken care of first. The American people needed to believe that Hussein was at least as big a threat as bin Laden if not moreso, or else they would not support the war. People also knew this before the war took place. Look at poll numbers before the war that showed high support. When they asked questions about price, cost, and lives lost during any conflict, the numbers supporting war dramatically declined after 1 year, 200 billion dollars, and 1,000 lives. If America is threatened, America will do everything necessary to protect itself, just like every other nation. If America is fighting a war that is not viewed as a necessity, it does a cost-benefit analysis. Other nations would likely do the same thing, but very few other nations embark on such wars in the first place without the US pushing them there.

“'insurgency' is taking place in the central 3 of Iraq's 14 provinces”
The insurgency also makes up only one small piece of the puzzle in Iraq, but it gets the most attention because it is directly related to the war on terror and thus is spun by those in power as being what the conflict is all about. The larger problem is a result of the tribalism and sectarianism of Iraq. Democracy works in the west because the individual is viewed as the basic element of society, and we cherish individualism. That’s not a natural thought in many parts of the worlds, who still hold a higher loyalty to their tribe or their faith over their individualism. Until this worldview permeates that part of the world, elections will be no more than a means of counting the factions and dividing the spoils, and those kinds of elections do not equal democracy. Democracy exists when true power resides with the people, who can openly discuss, debate, and reach consensus among differing perspectives. It’s a concept we’re too often losing sight of in this country.

“the war is necessary because so many people are re-enlisting.”
It’s called duty, and not just to the flag or the cause, but to the service and to each other. It’s a concept those who have never served don’t understand. When you’re on the ground, you’re not fighting for God and Country, you’re fighting for your comrades, putting your life in their hands as they put theirs in yours. Retention remains high because soldiers are loyal to each other, because few can live with themselves knowing they get to go back to the safety of home while their best friends remain in harms way.

“it’s not as bad as Vietnam because we haven’t lost as many people”
We didn’t lose people steadily in Vietnam, it was slow early, picked up from 66-70, then declined as the war waned. But, besides that, we didn’t lose Vietnam because of the death toll (we killed a whole lot more of them than we lost, but as general Giap said, it didn’t matter). We lost Vietnam because we intervened in anCivil War in SE Asia with our own international goals of containing Communism in mind. Our aim was Moscow, not Hanoi. We never understood the conflict, the people, or the nature of what would need to be accomplished. In truth, we lost Vietnam when we decided to back the French territorial claims there in the name of keeping them from going communist after WWII. If we would have understood that was as a war of nationalism, not part of the global struggle to contain communism, and would have reacted accordingly, the situation would have been much different. Yes, Iraq is not Vietnam in that the nature and scope of the war is different, but that can be said of all conflicts. It is like Vietnam in that we are still insistent on defining the war and “victory” through our own paradigm of the war on terror, with little regard for the facts on the ground. We don’t understand the history of the region, the role of local culture, the true loyalties of the people, and how it all comes together to dictate the course of the war. We lost control of this war when we failed to plan for the aftermath, something that was predictable and that many people warned of who weren’t taken seriously solely for the reasons I mentioned earlier, it would have meant admitting to a longer war with more difficult objectives for a cause unrelated to the threat the America wanted to counter, and thus it likely would have meant us not going there in the first place.

“we were fighting a country in Vietnam”
No, we were fighting a guerilla insurgency backed by outside forces (North Vietnam, who we were not officially at war with and didn’t fight outside the blockade and AF bombing campaigns, China, and Russia), much like Iraq today.

Unfortunately, Iraq is in many ways worse than Vietnam. We withdrew from Vietnam without major strategic consequence because Vietnam at the time wasn’t a strategic location. That’s not the case in Iraq. For those who argue against wars for oil, look at every National Security Strategy since the Carter administration that say in no uncertain terms that this country is willing to go to war to keep the flow of oil open. Without it, our economy would collapse and the security of America and our way of life would be destroyed. This is why we have made our mission in the Middle East based on stability for the past 30 years, and why we made a horrific blunder in invading in 2003. But, it also is why we can’t leave right now. The chaos that would inevitably follow would be worse. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place that we weren’t in during Vietnam. What’s more, we’re further complicating our global strategy by having so many troops on the ground in Iraq. If anyone thinks a war in Iran is coming in the near future, ask yourself where those troops are coming from. 10% of our military is on the ground in Iraq, 10-20% is engaged elsewhere in the world, a large number have just returned from being in Iraq and will rotate with those currently there (so another 10-20%), and the remainders are filling critical staffing positions at home that cannot deploy. Never mind that a war in Iran would turn the majority of Iraq against our forces on the ground in Iraq and lead to a dramatic escalation making this conflict really look like Vietnam in terms of the body count. Who’s left? This was a fools errand from the beginning, and those responsible shouldn’t be given the opportunity to make the same mistakes again in the future when the stakes are higher and the odds are lower (guess where I’m looking).

My suggestion is we lay out a time table of 6 mos to a year, at which point we will relocate the vast majority of our forces to a nearby base of operations (either Bahrain or Qatar will work), leave Spec Ops in country to fight the terrorists, some additional troops to advise the Iraqi Army but not in a combat capacity, and let the Iraqis sink or swim. If they sink, we rapidly redeploy forces to prevent chaos from spreading. Until this happens, the Iraqis have little incentive to do the work for themselves, and we have no way of measuring whether what we’re doing is successful or not. It’s not about retreat, it’s about pressing the Iraqis to step up. Until they do, we’re just holding on praying that it doesn’t fall apart.

I have come to the conclusion that there are many people in this country, between 30% and 35%, who will never, never, never, admit that this Napoleonic adventure in Iraq was a bad idea, just for pure partisan reasons.
Saddam used to be our friend, we provided him with the chemicals used on the Kurds, we provided him with field intelligence (photos) during the Iran war, the Saudies and Kuwaities were happy to loan him the money for it, whenever he needed it, we trained his pilots in the use of Sikorski helicopters to gas the Kurds, he was and has always been a butcher, but back then, he was our butcher, his cardinal mistake was to try to develop nuclear weapons that would threaten Israel, then we parted ways and he became the evil Saddam, the next Hitler and blah, blah, blah.
As bloody of a butcher as he was, he was the lid that kept the bloddy Iraq pot from boiling over and checked Iran's influence in the region, so there was a useful purpose to let the bloody butcher stay in power.
Enter the very bright people in power now in the U. S.,use 9/11 and scare people into supporting the invasion of Iraq, mushroom clouds on american cities, Saddam and his arsenal of WMD in the hands of Al Quada, fear, fear and fear and bingo you get 70% support, the plan goes like this: we go in, with the amount of firepower we have, we will wipe out Saddam's army (done), we will be in Baghdad in 6 weeks (done), we will bring in our friends in the exile community :Mr. Chalabi and his ANC, Mr Allawi, etc,etc (done), we will put them in power (done, up to the first round of elections demanded by Mr. Sistani).
And here comes the fantasy part: we will train the new Iraqui Army, and the new friendly Iraqui government will sign agreements allowing for permanent U.S. bases, to replace the ones we lost in Saudi Arabia, the new pro-U.S. iraqui administration will sign oil deals with American Oil Companies to secure oil explotation of Iraqui oil fields, make lots of money and the boys will come home to the parades and everybody will forget about no WMD's, because after all, everybody loves a winner.
The reality: Iraq is a very disfunctional country, perhaps the only way to govern such place is Saddam's way, ethnic differences, religious differences, a tribal based society, and corruption everywhere, with a Shia majority who looks to clerics (with Iranian sympathies)for leadership, a Sunni minority who has lost power and hates it and those who brought this about (us), and the Kurds who only care about an independent Kurdistan with Kirkuk in the oil underneath in it, and we are out in the cold. The Shias are happy to let us kill Sunnies on their behalf, the Sunnies want to kill us and the Shias, the Kurds do not care who kills who, as long as they get their Kurdistan, and the Iranians are happy to funnel money and weapons to the BADR and Mahdi militias, knowing that one day they may be used aginst us, how far is this from the original plan going in ??
To date we have commited $ 320 billion, with another $ 60 billion more at the end of this fiscal year, 2,378 americans killed, over 8,000 badly wounded not counting Iraqui deaths, the credibility of the U.S. badly damaged, our preaching about human rights, freedom and democracy is laughable after Abu-Gharib, and all for what ??, trying to make Irak into another Switzerland ??, it is a noble mission, the comander in chief said the other day, to that I say, at this price, I rather not be noble, thank you very much.
Never have so few, caused so much damage to so many, to get so little in return.

Declassified British intelligence reports dating back to 1973/74 reguarding the United States posing the threat of war in the middle east ,published at some point after the 9/11 attack situation ,reveal the British governments concern about the United States creating a war over in the Middle East.This war as you may know associated to oil intrests.,and perhaps the recession of the seventys.,Remember whipp inflation now? British subjects over in the middle East working for the oil corperations were also concerned about getting out of there. It is no secret that Nixon had far more in mind than he would have us know at the time of the seventy two elections. Ending vietnam was his feature point, the Middle East was The Plan.

Just a brief remark about the partition of Iraq. There are no natural boundaries. I have seen Kurdish maps which show about half of Iraq as a part of a Greater Kurdistan including Mosul with over 1,000,000 Sunni Arabs. Baghdad is a Shia majority city, but it is also the traditional Sunni capitol. Who gets the oil?

Remember 1,000,000 people died during the partition of India, and they had Ghandi!

Nor'Easter, you said "Unlike Viet Nam, Iraq has the next conflict already in line behind it. Any ideas how the rank and file in the military have been developing plans and tactics for combating a well-funded, mobile, apparently educated invisible enemy? Or, has that been stifled?"

Sadly, everything I hear says the only things coming out are the wrong ideas, and the good ideas aren't allowed to be disseminated, except on the low-level tactical side (which is usually person-to-person).

We're still training for the wrong war, and promulgating the wrong strategies and tactics, from everything I hear.

We'd probably be better served, for those still in Iraq, with a switch to MPs and training, and a pullback to the Kurdish area, but the SNAFU has them moving to the "permanent" military bases Halliburton et al are constructing.

And even though the Canucks aren't subject to US command-and-control and still teach useful strategy and tactics, they're severely outnumbered and have no practical local linkages that work, plus they're getting a lot of anti-deployment feedback due to the Iraq Fiasco from the civilian side.

Lie to me once....same on you (WMD...nuclear)
Lie to me twice....same on me (WMD...Biological)

RMill,

I was actually trying to get a determination of how the parties are internally. Liberal (or Progressive, I'll be fair) Dems vs Centrist Dems and Moderate Reps vs. Conservative Reps

Kerry is a buffoon. A buffon I say! You hear me, Kerry is a buffoon!!

YYYAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Poll done by ABC in 2003

31% Dems
31% Reps
32% Ind (no affiliation)
7% Third party identified

Ind (no affiliation)leanings

46% Lean Dem
43% Lean Rep

Ideology
20% Liberal
33% Conservative
41% Moderate

Party ID for those calling themselves conservative
50% Republican

Moderates
Dem stable
Rep growing

Pew polls in 2004 had party ID at 33% D to 29% R with Ind leaning Dem 47% and leaning Rep at 41%.

I would have to agree that the lack of support at this point boils down to the method used to get us in rather than a general lack of will of the American People to engage in (some other necessary) war.

Will in Seattle: Excellent points. The war against the Al Qaeda type of Invisible Enemy will still be there after we leave Iraq. The President and Vice President could not have been more right in saying that such a war has to be different. Significantly different from classic guerilla warfare.

Unfortunately, the President and V. P. (and the cluster _ _ _ _ of advisers whispering in their ears) may have seriously impaired the support for what may truly be needed in that effort, with how Iraq was handled. [Again squandering political capital.]

Unlike Viet Nam, Iraq has the next conflict already in line behind it. Any ideas how the rank and file in the military have been developing plans and tactics for combating a well-funded, mobile, apparently educated invisible enemy? Or, has that been stifled?

It all boils down to this- THIS WAR IS BASED ON LIES. Once the american public realized they'd been lied to the support stoped. Also more and more people are realizing our so called leader is an idiot. Bush#1 knew if we took Sadam out the sects would fight among themselves and we'd be tied up in the reasulting mess for years. He feared if the Shites gained control they'd align with the Iranians and that's the last thing we needed. That's why he ran Sadam back to Bagdad but let him be. Colin Powell knew this and when he realized he'd been lied to, left. Has everyone forgotten Bin Laden? That's the SOB I want. We can only PRAY he leaves Iran alone. We've wasted so many of our resources- financial and lives in this unneccessary war in Iraq, we'd probably lose a war with Canada.

F'''PNAC/F'''AIPAC

Constructive and to Sandy's point.

Its really funny to hear people like Sandy
denigrate critics of President Bush. Exactly what in the hell do you call what Republicans. conservatives and the far right were doing in reaction to former President Clinton for 8 years?

Oh btw sandy, do you actually think that republicans recent success in elections is
a permanent thing?

RMill, You always seem to have the numbers. Thanks.

Do you happen to have numbers as to membership leanings within the parties? Meaning have you seen any polls that attempt toplace party members in relation to left/center for dems and center/right for Reps?

just like to say that FairAndBalanced has some good points, and that JAMES McGRAW has swallowed the hallucigenic koolaid and bought the spin that bears no connection with facts on the ground.

there are friends of mine dying - and coming back wounded - because of this. it's one thing for gung-ho attitudes in the active or former serving armed forces - it's a sad day when the gung-ho comes from spinsters who never hear a shot fired in anger.

By the way, even though we're messing up (not as badly, thank god) in Afghanistan, we do need to remain in that theatre of operations, and I too was dismayed that 25 percent of people think Afghanistan was a bad idea, but given the Bushies' track record, I'm not too surprised they've fouled the waters in that one.

When we wake up and redefine the actual battlefield to include Pakistan, where Osama still resides and al-Qaeda is still active and growing, that would be a refreshing change, but the Bushies lack the guts to do what must be done, if there is no personal profit in it for their paymasters.

Gandi was assassinated. Good doesn't always triumph.

As ex-Army myself, with a few counter-terrorism ops under my belt, it never appeared to me that any of the strategic objectives were going to be met with the plans one could infer, nor have any of the other vets I've talked to ever thought any of our tactics or strategies would be effective.

It's been a cluster.... since day one, to be frank.

Everyone I know with salt, at all levels of rank, thinks that we're deluding ourselves that staying in achieves any American objectives at all, and that any time lag before departure not related with supply and defense in orderly removal is just adding to how badly we'll do.

It's time to wake up and smell the quagmire - we did have a brief period where we might have turned it around, but that train left the station more than a year ago, and won't be back.

Sandy

Here's some common sense for you: How many billions of $$$ have we wasted in Iraq? How many billions more will Republicans waste before it's over? How many millions of barrels of oil have been removed from the market by this war? Why do you think gas prices have doubled in 3 years? Maybe they will double again.
Here's a difference between now and 35 years ago: Nixon was actually trying to get America out of Vietnam; trying to negotiate a settlement. Bush hasn't even started negotiating with the enemy and has no clue as to how we get out. It's not a conspiracy; just the facts.

Why the hell are you all still arguing about the 2000 $elections? Honest 2 Christ!

I hope that the US will end the way the USSR did, collapsing of its own stinking rot with little violence and bloodshed.

Whenever I despair,
I remember that all through history,
the way of truth and love has always won.
There have been tyrants and murderers,
and for a time they seem invincible.
But in the end, they always fall.
Think of it... ALWAYS.

Gandhi

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld might have a little more street cred if we had found UBL, who is dead BTW, found massive stockpiles of WMDS, found the mysterious Anthrax Suspect, didn't torture innocent people, supplied the right body armor, squashed the insurgency they claimed didn't exist, united and not divided the shiites and sunnies, stopped the opium production in the narco state of Afghanistan, still had a coalition of the willing, brought the troops home, didn't create hundreds of thousands of "new" terrorists, Democracy?

Sorry for the sloppy post. I'll try again:

We'll never know how Gore would have reacted but enjoy the results.

I'll discuss the problems of two party system but it doesn't change the facts that the FL Nader votes contributed to the current style of cowboy politics and six gun war prosecution that Naderites supposedly deplore.

As far as delusions go, Nader wanted and got his platform. Anyone who thought he wanted anything more was deluded. He had no intention or expectation of winning. Attack the system all you want, this is what we've got right now and you can see the results. It is just inconceivable that you can't see the stark contrasts between Bush and Gore. The myopic "fight the system" attitude, which in other respects may have merit, in this case is just out of touch, in my opinion.

ISN'T THIS A "HUGE" SCANDAL? I've been asking the politicos at WAPO discussions this question every day for 2 weeks but no takers! Is there anyone out there?

Rumsfeld: US Media Manipulated By bin Laden and Zarqawi?

U.S. military plays up role of Zarqawi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.

Rumsfeld: US Media Manipulated By bin Laden and Zarqawi

Pretty good for two dead guys to be able to pull off, right?

Usama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: The Dead Voice of "al Qaeda" in Iraq

Like I said, we'll never no how Gore would have reacted but enjoy the results.

I'll discuss the problems of two party system but it doesn't change the facts that the FL Nader votes contributed to the current style of cowboy politics and six gun war prosecution that Naderites supposedly deplore.

RMill

I could have cast 1,000 votes for Gore in VA where I live and it wouldn't have mattered at all. Unless you lived in FL, your vote didn't matter either. Our "democracy" is anything but due to the 2 party system, electoral college, corporate campaign contributions, corporate media, etc. You are deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise.
Nader stood for fundamental change, Gore was just more of the same.

Sandy-
I thought that is exactly what I had done.

The cavalier attitude and incompetent manner in which the Bush administration and specifically Donald Rumsfeld have conducted the war effort has led to some intractible problems.

Republican members of the US Senate have said so. Former command level Generals from Iraq are saying so.

I do not believe this is hyperventilation or out of the mainstream of moderate thought. I do believe that Gore would have had a different approach but it is now impossible to say what that would have been. I just know that Bush has handled it wrong. I wish I was smarter to have a solution at hand but I don't and I don't know who does. But it seems to me, and this is probably not a popular one, that an increase in troop strength is required with requisite resource upgrades before we can withdraw completely.

To Nor'Easter...I hope we don't get one, I am in Boston. I talked to someone who seemed happy, inhis late sixities and said he did "EYE ON THE PRIZE" and was a Harvard MBA success story, yes, a black guy, reason talked to me was my tee shirt, and I have the group's CD on order...to see if they are good...he figured I was interested in Jazz, "New Orleans Jazz" was the Tee shirt...and he was into music, but when we stopped talking, and I had told him I used to be Publicist for the State Commission on Human Rights against discrimination -- law enforcement and he asked where...then I told him, Connecticut, and shortly after I tried to get him upset, outraged, we were fine, but, you certainly know, all is not settled, yes, I am white WASP, but I hate imperialism and oil corruption and anti-environmental and all that stuff, and am 57 and very angry and energetic...and intend to maintain what Nader calls "The Good Fight"--the guy who happened to talk to me, pulled in the plants as if a storm were coming as he retreated into a city building he owned...and oh yes, Katrina hit in a few days or the next day...not sure.

He is sane, but yes, he heard me. Yes, likely he thinks it is time for the youth to realize it is theirs to do. For him, maybe.

But, for Nader he is still out there, willing to fight the right fight. No nukes. No threats. Diplomacy.

And, to answer your what is to me "garbage" that Nader took Gore's votes, I like Nader SO MUCH MORE SOO MUCH MORE, that I cannot begin to allow such "garbage" I wanted and still do, Nader. and the point is for the entire audience, how many others actually WOULD have preferred Nader to either of the other two!?

Get with the music. Gore was stupid and thought the media knew the truth, when the votes were not counted accurately and he could have waited. MEDIA PRESSURE caused him to bow out. I hated the CBS news reporter who told him FALSELY that he was the "loser" and he knew he was not, and told her so, but she continued to ignore it. YEs, Gore got the popular votes.

But, whose truth was it?

Gore won really? No.

The truth was the media pulled Bush, and NO, I do not think it was Bush, it was Indeed the Media, just as I believe the votes were "real" but not the TRUTH.

We are supposed to vote for the best.

Did you know Al Gore is not for the FREEZE (old term, now it is called Peace Action, and before that, they called it SaneFREEZE)--it is no nukes.

Yes, very yes, Nader belonged in the debates and the polls pre-empted it, and you haven't seen THE REAL CANDIDATE.

How dare the media. That's what I said effectively to Dan Rather at JFK School of Government.

Neither election was valid. Bush is not valid. And, don't blame Bush. Blame the system? No, the media, and the individuals, obviously. But, corporate rule and lack of proper perspective and REFORM required? Desperately.

I read a biography about Gore, and the author was a B.U. alum, which I am, too. Journalism.

Oh well. Good day, y'all. From Boston. Cheers, Nor'easter!

Blah, Blah, Blah

"Bush should be impeached"

"Bush stole the election"

"Bush is worse than Hitler"

You people are delusional. That's why you consistently lose elections. Many people like me who are inclined to agree with your views and who are also deeply suspicious of the war end up recoiling at your over-the-top, ludicrous rhetoric and end up voting for Bush because you people nominate buffoons like Kerry who addresses the American people in insulting tones and who is completely out of the mainstream of American society.

Why can't you offer constructive, common-sense criticism of the administration in a more moderate fashion instead of all of this hyperventilation and dredging up not just the past two elections but also Kent State and all your other lunatic left/campus radical hippie conspiracy theories from 30 and 40 years ago?

You people have been smoking too much weed.

Dan-
Exit polls done by Nader himself said 25% would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest (37%) would have stayed home. It was not a real factor in 2004 with Kerry.

Nader got 97,000+ votes in FL and that is 36,860 votes for Gore and 29,258 for Bush. With a 500 vote margin, the extra 7,000 for Gore would have given him FL. Would have given him 3,000 more votes in NH, which he lost by only 6,000 votes. This certainly would have been crucial in changing the ultimate outcome.

Paul-
I was also careful to say that the tactical mistakes by the Gore campaign were largely responsible for his loss. However, there is no disputing the impact mentioned above and further, being talked down to and insulted by someone who did contribute, in some small way though it was, to bringing this current situation about and then complaining they do not like the results, does not sit well with me.

Elizabeth: Get off your high horse, "I voted Nader. To me it was both VERY AMERICAN, very good for this country, and SANE."

Nader's proposition was: Bush and Gore are Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee; both beholden to the special interests. I'm not, so vote for me!

Can you SANELY say that Al Gore would have done things exactly the same way George Bush has?

Voting for Nader was your right, but don't be sanctimonious about it.

Depending on the source of data quickly available to me, Bush beat Gore in Florida by anywhere from 500+ votes to 1,700+ out of 6,000,000 cast. Approx. 97,000 voted for Nader.

It can never be proven, but I believe, and it's not unreasonable to infer, that the Nader voters in Florida are significant reason for the first four years of George Bush.

Stop blaming Rather and CBS. Blame the Elizabeths in Florida who said, "I choose to protest!" and ignored the probable consequences.

I realize this is off topic, but many of you may be interested to know that, according to Taegan Goddard's Political wire (http://www.politicalwire.com, Rudolph Giuliani campaigned yesterday for Sen. Santorum and is headlining a fundraiser for Ralph Reed, yes "that" Ralph Reed who is running for Lieutentant Governor in Georgia. This tells you where the current Republican party is--far right!

I have no doubt that for as long as the Iraqi war was popular, that the Republicans, President Bush and Karl Rove in particular were going to use it for partisan advantage and to slam the Democrats as being "weak on national security". Hell, thats what got Bush re-elected and with Rove relieving himself of some of his duties today to concentrate on the midterm elections, look for him to use that strategy again. However, this time I dont think it will work because the majority of americans are seeing thru the smokescreen set up by Bush and company by implying that Iraq/Hussien are somehow connected to the events of 9-11. that has been proven false along with their exagerated claims on wmd's and "imminent threat" of Iraq to the U.S.

I agree and disagree with you Elizabeth. If you drop the Nader is everything and fall back to the we need more choice at ballot I think your argument would carry more weight.

There are more than a few people that routinely follow CC posts that are supporters of needing more than 2 parties, especially when each party caters to the extreme ends of their membership.

RMill
Since you worked for Gore you know that HE blamed Clinton and his zipper problem for his defeat, not Nader. Unless you live in a "battleground" state, which 75% of us don't, a vote for Gore meant nothing while a vote for Nader sent a message: No more corporate politics. Power to the People!

RMill, What are you using as a benchmark that all Nader supporters would have voted Kerry or Gore?

Elizabeth,

I can't say that lent much clarity, because I am not sure what poll you are referring to. Regardless, your assertion that voting patterns are not the true choice is completely wrong.

Polls can ask whatever questions and get whatever results but all that ultimately counts is the voting. Nader had his chance and got 2.4%. Are you saying with 49% of Independents in MASS. that the media conspiracy and the parties held Nader vote totals down 45 points?

There was no groundswell of support at the grass roots, where Ralph operates best, like there was for, say Perot in 1992. Your disdain for the ability of the American public to think for itself is clear and I also believe it is wrong headed. And how did you manage to escape its evil grasp? How special you must be. It is insulting, and nothing more.

And as far as balanced budgets, Democrat Bill Clinton ran budget surpluses in greater amounts than any president in US history, squandered by the President that Nader and his 2.4% helped put in office in 2000.

You can also chalk up the flouting of international law, peace and the nuclear option to the Naderites handiwork in 2000. Like I said before, are you pleased with your results?

Don't complain to me because the crop yielded by your desire for a candidate you liked best helped bring this about. I voted and worked for Gore.

In my opinion, what turned the US public against Iraq was the insurgent campaign of spring-summer 2005, which saw steadily climbing US casualties every month.

This, coming after the WMD hunt had definitively been given up, and with the drip-drip of revelations about the dishonesty of the case made for war, had a corrosive effect.

Criticism built up rapidly, forcing the govt onto the defensive. Rummy then compounded the problem with one of his outbursts of frankness.

The breaking point came, in my opinion, when Rumsfeld appeared on Fox News and predicted that the insurgency would last years and would not be defeated by US troops. This kicked the legs out from under his own remaining supporters.

The next day the debate was vastly louder and sharper, and the war's supporters were on the defensive and have been ever since.

Rumsfeld said: "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years. Coalition forces, foreign forces, are not going to be able to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2005/20050626_1853.html

That was the moment when the backbone of war support was broken. Pro-war people were shellshocked the next day, I remember it well.

FairandBalanced is quite right that improvements in body armor and battlefield medicine have dramatically reduced fatal casualties, making the wounded statistics a better comparison with Vietnam.

Considerable mystery surrounds these stats. Brian Fejer, above, says there have been 55,000 medical evacuations from Iraq.

I remember seeing a NYT story last year which said the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets needing VA care for FY2004 was 103,000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/opinion/30thu3.html?8br
I'm not saying these are all physical wounds, but those numbers are high and four times more than the govt had budgeted for.

As for the dead, more US soldiers died in the first two-and-a-half years of the Iraq war than in the first four years of US involvement in Vietnam.

Dan Rather spoke at JFK School of Government at Harvard University regarding the state of the media as a report card, and admitted the PROFIT MOTIVE is uppermost, and not public interest.

He likes CBS, he said, "I love CBS."

Setting money issues aside, for the moment.

The complaint I am lodging here as VERY IMPORTANT is the accuracy and representation of the public as a DEMOCRACY which is a duty, which while money makes CBS NOT A PROPER FORUM FOR THAT, AND RATHER CANNOT FACE THAT.

He also could not hear what is my ACTUAL complaint here, and introduced there at the Forum where he spoke at Harvard, recently, when I pointed out the 49% unaffiliated voters during primary season in Massachusetts.

No duty to those people to present Nader, for example?

Insistence that they can only see Democrats or Republicans for their choices?

Dan Rather said, "I don't know what duty the media has to the third parties, they are only 1-3%" I answered 49% were NEITHER Democrat or Republican or ANY party. I did not say those words literally, but he understood the point that there were 3% small parties and he chose to not hear the 49% are NOT any party--and what that means.

He obviously would say, OH THEY ARE UNDECIDED BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY. How about such media railroading of an election.

He did railroad the Democrats. He picked Kerry before SuperTuesday. He can as an editorial comment, but most would ask for justification, and frankly it was not justified, and he offered betrayal of HIS opinion as superior to the public.

I complained online to CBS that he had railroaded the Democratic choices: when John Edwards, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich were sitting at the table, and most of the interviews to enable them to present their backgrounds and their platforms and track records of achievement, he then turned out to the audience and said as if they all agreed, which certainly they had not, "wouldn't it be great if Kerry won all 10 primaries on supertuesday?"

That was pre-emptive.

A mixed result on Tuesday would not be "bad" for Democrats, if that is what he thought. But, hopefully, the audience of this blog agrees that whatever the result, objective fairness and letting the candidates present themselves as if to assist honest and fair voting on SuperTuesday, with the voters as the proper decision makers, was supposed to be his duty.

Why did he do that?

I was horrified.

Doesn't mean I wanted Democrats to win, but, yes, I want a good democracy and I found media distortion entirely UNECESSARY and indeed, VERY BAD.

Voters were and are being ignored, while their votes are counted, and poll results are shown, still the media is egregious and the public media should get proper support.

Congress did not see the necessity and OF COURSE, nasty of me, I think Bush was very handily happy to get rid of Congressional support for the public broadcasting. Public out of the picture and CORPORATE RULE.

"I love CBS?"

NO, I love the future of PBS, and the public's ability to turn the channel.

This poll parsing, is OK, if he continues to listen to the responses, and offer sanity as his position and seek the public input.

If the public is ignored, and doesn't do what they should, of course "there goes democracy." Not supposed to happen when we have the best cutting edge technologies for the media.

The public needs to get the monied corruption out of the powermongering position.

Dan Rather believes CBS can respond.

Well, they did not when I complained that he railroaded the SuperTuesday, and asked A-fire him or B-at least, do not let him announce the results.

But, who did announce the results?

Of course,

Private enterprise doesn't have to like the public response. But the public can TURN THE CHANNEL if necessary, and put your well earned money where your mouths are.

I voted Nader. To me it was both VERY AMERICAN, very good for this country, and SANE.

Elizabeth, Ralph Nader (as a Presidential candidate)is the past. We need to move on to the present and future. Who would you vote for in 2008? And don't you think if Nader didn't run and take votes that otherwise would have went to Al Gore that we would be in a much different situation now?

Is Iraq like Viet Nam? In some ways Yes, and in other ways, No. You have to look at the whole canvas, and can't make the Universal statement based on one small component. In one very important way, Iraq seems to have become very much like Viet Nam.

Borrowing from the way Daniel Schorr eventually began to describe the effects of Watergate in his reporting - Nixon's survival, and then ultimate downfall, all depended on public opinion reaching some sort of "critical mass."

Nixon’s tapes were what pushed public opinion to the critical mass point. After that there was probably no recovery for Nixon, even if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled against him.

In Viet Nam it was Tet. The Viet Cong and North Viet Namese actually lost the battle; but I remember seeing Westmoreland on CBS' Nightly News just a few days before it, telling us how the war was already basically won. Tet pushed U. S. public opinion to the point of critical mass.

[I wish that Westmoreland had been correct, because a year later I went through the Second Tet Offensive.]

There's all sorts of statistical information being bandied about in these blogs, name-calling, etc. All of this is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s no longer germane; the question is, how do we get out (and when do we start)?

First some personal bitching: The Ivy League Brain Trust that set-up Viet Nam were so entrenched in Academia that they couldn't see what was happening in real life. Nixon was so paranoid that he truly never could see beyond himself. The K Street Neo-Cons who hid in Foundations for 20 years waiting for a moment like 09/11 as an excuse to push their agenda (remember the Road Map to Peace?) never had to get their hands dirty with the mess they created and never thought through.

But we were complicit also. It's ironic that one thing which could have tempered the American Empire chicken hawks like Wolfowitz is the one thing which the Anti-War Liberal community railed so much against - The Draft. They weren't careful what they wished for, and got it. With a volunteer Army ready to "go willingly," and a compliant Congress with both parties ignoring the Constitution and the War Powers Act, the President has his own personal Army. We let it happen.

When something just isn't right, eventually the American Public does "Get it." Although maybe not for the reasons some of us would like. Eventually we see through the charlatans and Pentagon B.S. (see "smart" bombs with 25% effectiveness rates, Patriot missiles, etc. )

It's been 1,084 days since Mission Accomplished (Thank you MSNBC's The Countdown). The President is correct, "This is a different war we are fighting." But, he has yet to stand up and ask us as a society to sacrifice anything, or tell us why we are spending so many lives or so much time, effort and money fighting "insurgents," not terrorists. Instead it's all been propaganda, much of which we are finding out were lies. Credibility Gap, welcome back! Eventually people realize that. The automatic goodwill he had after 09/11 was squandered.

Personally, I don't think that this Administration can recover to do anything positive in the next 2 3/4 years. They've made the same mistakes LBJ and the Pentagon made 40 years ago (the Pentagon flacks never really learn, they just get away with it for awhile each time we enter into some new conflict). Can the Administration now announce troop withdrawals to influence the November elections to stem the hemorrhaging? Probably not without risking an even larger revolt among retired Generals and Admirals. I'll bet that they never factored that into the withdrawal/election equation. They'd better do so now.

There will never be empirical data to support or refute it, polls are only indicators of a set moment in time; but I'm getting the sense that we're heading towards that "critical mass" point much more quickly than I ever expected. We may have already reached it; although usually there is some seminal event to which you can attach it. I haven't recognized one yet.

One thing I'm seeing I though is that the Administration apologists in these blogs now don't seem to be able to present any good sound logical defenses anymore. Which they used to be able to do, even if you didn't necessarily agree with their basic premise. No offense Mr. McGraw but, What "insurgents" would we be fighting in Kansas? Think about it.

Too bad that now it seems Americans at least once a generation end-up with leaders who unwittingly prove George Santayana correct about being doomed to repeat History.

The Administration treats us as if they think we believe "24" is reality. We know that Jack Bauer doesn't come to the rescue in real life - ever. Sometimes it just takes a while for us to admit that to ourselves. Once we do collectively, there’s no going back; and “damage control” is almost useless because to politicians “damage control” is nothing but spin and more B. S.

It’s April 19th, Patriots’ Day. A new revolt may have started, we just may not know it yet.

Take a minute to think about all of those who have gone before us, and sacrificed so that we have the opportunity to speak freely in forums such as this. They've given us a hell of a legacy. Thanks!

Brevity may help clarify.

1. The poll question was the pre-emptive "IF the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?" (Gallup and others asked that the entire time.)

2. Voting patterns are not the TRUE choice when such a question is used, they are not responding with who do they like the BEST for president?

3. And the results are that they are not voting for who they like the best at a majority level...NATION of MEDIA LULLED CORPORATE SHEEP.

4. Public interest track, not money should rule.

REMEDY: Recognize the Democrats and Republicans are MONIED and POWER and NOT INTERESTED presenting peace, balanced budget, no nukes, and respecting international law....

THERE WERE NOT ONLY TWO CHOICES. BUT AMERICA WAS OFFERED ONLY TWO BY HORRIFICALLY CORRUPT MEDIA MOGULS.

They have no such right to rule.

Cassini
That sentiment comes directly from the top. Bush sees no fault or accepts no blame so Rumsfeld sees no fault or accepts no blame and so on.

Even losing midterm elections and the Presidency will not stop them from their firm-held belief they did what was right not what was popular. Bush is already laying that groundwork for his upcoming conquest in Iran.

If one were to listen to Bush supporters as to why the majority of the american public is turning against President Bush policies on Iraq, the first thing that comes out of their mouths is "NEGATIVE reporting by the MSM".

These people are convinced that if more "positive" stories were covered and reported by the MSM instead of the daily violence and carnage, that american public opinion would be more in support of the President Bush's Iraq policies.

Bush supporters make me wonder if they are so blinded by their partisan allegiance, that they cannot see any fault with the execution of the war on terror by the Bush administration and s