any independents THat win will be voted in by deFAUT Right "wingers' who can not vote left.

Bootlickers, Sandy? Like the Republican Party who is in lockstep with every Bush failed foreign and domestic policy? Who believe everything that comes out of his mouth? Who support his "signing statements" that allow him to virtually ignore every bill he signs into law? Who continually vote to keep tax cuts for the richest Americans while we slip deeper and deeper into debt? Who allow the radical religious extremists to set policies that discriminate against gays and who want to tell people who can marry who, who has children and what people legally do in their personal lives? Perhaps if some of you could actually think for yourselves, have legitimate debates about issues without fear and hate mongering, and stop trying to turn this country into a dictatorship, we could take you seriously. You're no different than Rush ranting against drug users when he was one, Bill Bennett railing about morality while losing millions in gambling, and other Republicans who lament the destruction of the "sanctity of marriage" (no such thing exists) while marrying their latest mistress. Extremism is destructive in every form and your party has written the book on that.

Sandy,

I know this will upset you, butthere is no way Leiberman runs as an independent unless he starts now. The independent/minor party filing deadline for CT is the day after the Dem primary or 8/9/06. Leiberman would have to run both a signature drive to get on the ballot as an independent AND his Dem primary race simultaneously. If he doesn't start collecting signatures soon, he's not going to have time to collect them.

Joe will win again. Either as a Dem or an independent (which I hope he becomes, as well as more senators. Be good to have some more politicos that aren't boot lickers).

SandyK

Joe Liberman lost his way within the Democratic Party a few years back and now he continues to try to push his way into the Pentagon as the new Secretary. As a life long Democrat I was sorry to see Joe lose his way and his true convictions. I remember him as AG of Connecticut and he was a true liberal. I remember him as a Senator, and in his first few years and he was a true liberal. As the VP candidates in 2000 he continued that liberal view as well. Where did he lose it. I think during the 2004 election when he was so negative to both Kerry and Dean but it was likely prior to that when Gore announced his support for Howard Dean. Joe likley felt betrayed and decided at that point to leave his views behind and start down this bitter path.

Joe, you could have been a contender. You could have been someone. Goodbye Joe.

Good points on Lieberman, but don't forget all the high tech bribes he received as well.

Andy R -

Sorry but I did not see your request until today. Ask and you shall receive:

1) Lieberman voted yes on the enery bill that conatained billions of dollars in subsidies for huge oil companies at times of record profits, and was one of the few Dems to do so.

2) Lieberman sided with the religious wackos in his opinion that private hospitals should not be required to offer contraception to rape victims.

3) Lieberman sided yet again with the fundies in Congress over the Terri Schiavo case and even hinted that those who disagreed with him do not value human life.

4)Liberman regularly goes on Sean hannity's show on Fox News and ridicules other Democrats who disagree with him even as they represent the mainstream Democratic party and he does not.

5) Liberman prevented an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib torture scandal even as the Republicasn who sat on the same panel were ready to authorize an investigation, and he emerged as the premier Democratic apologist on torture.

6) Lieberman voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales, the only Dem from a blue state to do so, and since then we have found out that Gonzales blatantly lied to the Senate during his confirmation about the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Lieberman remains a Gonzales supporter.

7) Lieberman was the absolute last Democrat to get on board in the effort to stop Bush from privatizing Social Security.

8) Lieberman unflinchingly continues the idiotic "stay-the-course" non-strategy in Iraq. His stubborn (some Washington insiders would call it "principle", lol) refusal to see that Iraq needs a new plan not only hurts democrats but leads to the continued deaths of our men and women in uniform. On top of this, he ridicules any Democrat even military veterans such as Murtha and Kerry who put forth a new plan.

9) Lieberman voted Yes on Alito cloture.

10)Lieberman is a pharmacuetical lobby special interest addict. Lieberman took $400,000 in big drug money and then voted against a bipartisan plan to force drug companies to offer drugs (drugs developed with the use of taxpayers' money) at " a fair and reasonable" price.

Hopefully this PARTIAL list of the reasons why Lieberman faces a primary challenger will dispel the myth that Lamont is a single issue candidate. I'm sure it won't convince the wingnut screamers like SandyK though.

SandyK -- I understand having distaste for the current political climate; most definitely a plague on both your houses mentality is understandable right now. But where on earth have you gotten the idea that today's Democratic party is far-left let alone Maoist?

Mainstream Democrats - and by that I mean an overwhelming majority of the party's caucus in Congress - are moderate politicians who completely support free markets and balanced budgets. They're certainly more fiscally responsible than the purported party of fiscal discipline. So if you're going to repeatedly accuse the party of being wacko lefties, could you please provide atleast one example? If you stop to think about it, I think that may prove more difficult than you think.

Anon:

"There is not one core Democratic principle on which he [Lieberman] is a leader."

Actually, as much as I despise Lieberman because of his 15th-century stand on most issues, he does have a good voting record on the environment, per the League of Women Voters. Or at least he did as of 2000. Everything else is straight GOP party-line.

FH-

"First, of course the Iranian elections were rigged, they did not even let some moderate candidates run."

When given a decision between a "moderate" Mohammad Khatami (who won in 2001 and 1997 because women and young people voted for him as a progressive) and a not-so-moderate Ahmadinejad, the people chose the less moderate of the two candidates. Your points about the fairness of the election are legitimate, but I think you are assuming too much about the Iranian electorate. If moderates were on the ballot do you have any guarantee they would vote for them? Why, then, did they choose the least moderate of the available candidates?

"You have no plan other than what was...support our bad guys against their bad guys."

I've already explained my plan. Which is do not support Democratic Islamofascist candidates, even if they are elected. I would support a Kurdish state at this point by redeploying all American troops to the northern part of the country and defending them against Terrorists. If the Shiite and Sunnis self-detonators follow, we redeploy elsewhere.

I don't consider the Kurds "bad guys", rather I consider them a calculating and industrious group of people who survived with relative autonomy under an extremely hostile Saddam. And they have proven a willingness to adopt Secular Government and thus I feel can be trusted in the long run. I do not trust SCIRI or Islamist Dawa party, much like Rumsfeld did not trust them in 1979 and thus supported Saddam against them in the Iranian Revolution.

I do not want to fight the same Radical Islamofascists once every 20 years because of "Democracy" or some other ideal that is meaningless without providing context.

I've raised the possibility that Saddam was the kind of bad guy we had supported in the past, the kind of bad guy who acted reasonably, and the type of bad guy who happened to be in a fight with other very bad guys. In fact, many of the bad guys he fought were Islamofascists. Our enemy's enemy...

"That strategy has been shown to be ineffective by 9/11."

Why? If so, why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan yet? You have a very simplistic view of this conflict. We have to participate, by necessity, with people we don't agree with. Our enemy will not change; it will persist in being Islamofascists. Saddam was not an Islamofascist.

Our current strategy, of legitimizing our opposition by giving them the vote, is utterly disastrous. We'll be battling the SCIRI and Islamist Dawas for the next 30 years. One more Secular domino falls amongst a flurry of Sectarian governments.

Iraq was first, then came Iran (which was never that secular, but it was closer then than it is now) then Egypt then Palestine. Pakistan will be next.

"You seem to think that bringing down Saddam is the entire reason that this supposed "furor" against the U.S. has risen. That belief ignores the very history you seem to find so important."

It's certainly not the only cause, but a major contributer. I have only to look at the world in 2002 and compare it to the world in 2006. Ahmadinejad goes from mayor of Tehran to President of Iran to Kingmaker of Iraq in the course of four years. And he took the seals off nuclear power plants. We blinked and suddenly one of the largest Islamic countries in the world has taken a huge dive towards state sponsored jihadism.

In 2002 Hamas was a political nobody. In 2005 they take the government largely under the promise to fight infidels.

In 2002 the Muslim Brotherhood was completely banned from participation in Mubarak's Egypt. In 2005, though still banned, they take 88 seats in Parliament making them the largest opposition party in Egypt.

In 2002 Iraq was run by a secular dictator who was constantly fighting Islamofascism. He remained committed against the 1979 Iranian revolution (that we were also against). In Dec. 2005 the Iraqi people elect, suprise, the SCIRI and Islamic Dawa Party to a majority of the parliamentary seats. Suddenly the people we had fought against 27 years ago in Iran are running our new government in Iraq. For this we've bled.

If you think Iraq has *nothing* to do with these developments then fine. We can agree to disagree. The Iraq war has alienated us to people throughout the region INCLUDING the Iraqis we are allegedly there to help. Ahmadinejad ran against a moderate by preaching anti-American imperialism and a return to strict Islamic rule. The Brotherhood continually preached anti-Americanism and Islamic rule in an Islamic country that was finally receptive to it. Hamas continued to spout hatred towards Israel/US and it paid off... in ballots.

And what has happened in S. America?

"You open the door to free elections and what was forbidden is always going to explode to the surface. I just believe that those forces will settle down given time."

Why? Your assurances of "just believing" something to be true are not convincing enough for me to accept them. I've identified a demonstrable voting trend in the Middle East and you've simplified it to "well it's just a phase." Iran has been a "democracy" for years and just recently elected Ahdmadinejad. Likewise with Palestine and Hamas. Do you really think SCIRI and Dawa are just "phases" for the Iraqi people or is it more likely that *gasp* the Iraqi people actually SUPPORT SCIRI and Dawa?

"My plan for Iraq is the path we are taking. Stay there until the govt. is able to secure the country."

What do you mean secure? Didn't they have a successful election in December?

My point is we don't want these types of people to be secure. If there was a secular social revolution in Iran tomorrow that'd be great news. If Dawa and SCIRI ultimately lose power to Kurdish Secularists, that'd be awesome by me.

Why do you want to "secure" the majority rule of the UIA? Do you agree with their foreign policy? Do you agree with their Domestic Islamification of Iraq policy? Why are you so keen on Islamofascists?

"Make sure the democratic process continues."

It's imperative we not allow this to happen.

"Try and convince the Sunni's that the insurgency is counter-productive given that unless they get their act together they will allow the Shiites to dominate the government. Kill the terrorists. There is no magic bullet in this process. It will be long and hard and expensive...but retreating now would be worse.(of course, I know you disagree)"

You say there is no magic bullet yet you have magic bullet solutions: Kill the terrorists. Well, the vast majority of the insurgency are (voting) Iraqis who hate us. The government is currently debating ways to grant Amnesty to people who have killed American soldiers (the kurds are our only hope in deflating this plan).

The Sunnis and the Shiites are killing each other now. They are going to continue killing each other after we leave Iraq no matter when that is. In 2092, the Shiites and Sunnis will be killing each other. If you plan on staying in the country until they stop, you will never leave.

The Shiites already have a majority government in Iraq and do not need the Sunnis. This majority is held together by a group of religious fanatics who will ultimately promote Islamofascism. Our inability to recognize our historic failures during the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, manifested by our policy of literally handing the Revolutionaries the government of Iraq in 2005, will prove to be a detriment to American foreign policy that will cost us billions and human lives.

I cannot support this foreign policy. I appreciate that you've debated the issue with respect but I fear that we have reached as much common ground as is possible. At this point we are just agreeing to disagree. I recognize that you have the country's best interests in mind and I respect your view comes from an altruistic position. Still, I think you are misguided in some of your assumptions, particularly your idealogical attachment to "Democracy" in the face of recent demonstrable failures of that approach in the Middle East.

If you have anything else to add I'd be more than happy to comment. Have a great day.

Sandy the problem is Joe is working for Washington bosses and party bigwigs. He is incensed that he even has to deal with a primary. He feels this Senate seat is his birthright. He has become merely an operative of the inside-the-beltway DC consultant class. His friends and advisers are calling this a "jihad" against him. How incredible is that?

I also love how you claim every Democrat is a "Maoist". Yea, being for the 1st Amendment, against government intrusion into personal, private choices, and against huge tax breaks and giveaways to monolithic oil companies is being just like Chairman Mao. And Joe isn't trying to get onto just any TV. It's his constant presence on Fox cowtowing to his right-wing masters that makes him so unappealing.

You did not answer one of my points about Lieberman's positions and what makes him an effective representative of the people of CT. Yet you say that my response is illogical. A response with no substance, just to repeat media talking point about how he is so "principled" and a "centrist" is illogical.

I have no problem with people being conservative Democrats. You don't see people calling for the ouster of Ben or Bill Nelson, do you? They are at least as conservative, if not more conservative than Joe Lieberman. But you know what they don't do? They don't go on with Sean Hannity and bash the other members of their party. They don't open up the REPUBLICAN debate on the Iraq War. They don't always agree with some on the left, but they don't go out of their way to endear themselves to Republicans. THAT is principle, that is being a good representative. Sanctimonious Joe is no better than any other right-wing blowhard on Fox. After he loses in August, hopefully he'll get his own show.

Sandy, please tell me what makes Joe this model of centrism? And why shouldn't the voters in CT decide if he represents them and the Democratic Party anymore?

Whoever it is wrote:
===========================================
"SandyK I cannot agree. Lieberman is a sanctimonious politician that will do anything to get himself noticed on TV(usually Fox)."
===========================================

Are you Mike? As it's the same illogical reply..."I agree" to everything but what I stated ploy.

And no other politician is as TV saavy? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. So you can drop that put down as it's just mud slinging.

Lieberman gets Republican support because of 2 things:

1. He's an orthodox Jew (and the Religious Right needs to ensure 144,000 Jews remain in Israel for Judgement Day -- each needs each other to make their scriptures "true").

2. He's not a Hollyweird ultra leftist, and one they want so much to convert. Meanwhile use him as a front to show not every Dem is a Maoist.

Being principled, Lieberman can't renege on his religious upbringing, nor could he kowtow to the Maoists. So he has no choice but plow ahead as a conservative Democrat (even though his stances on abortion and such aren't very conservative, which is why social conservatives don't like Lieberman [they like him since they were once Democrats themselves -- nature is calling -- but religion trumps party politics]).

Lieberman, IMO, is a good bridge candidate (much like McCain is for the Republicans). One that sure to displease each side of the aisle, but voters get more than just a rubber stamp, they get someone who thinks out every vote. He's suppose to work for his voters (i.e., bring home the pork), not for some Washington bigwigs or party bosses who add little to communities anyway.

SandyK

I live in CT by the way...and this guy is not representing the majority of us anymore (in essence he didn't do that to a great extent, but he was business connected) I was luke-warm to him over the last 6 years until the blinding issues of 9/11 began to dim and the underbelly was exposed.

Term limits....let's discuss

SandyK I cannot agree. Lieberman is a sanctimonious politician that will do anything to get himself noticed on TV(usually Fox). I'll always remember the moment that I began to have a distaste for Joe. It was in the days after Columbine when he got up in the Senate and declared that Marilyn Manson helped cause this tragedy and he went on and on about how music and video games led to this event. Now I don't like MM, never listented to his music. But to say that music and video games caused Columbine was just too much for me to handle. A prominent Democratic senator standing up against the First Amendment made me sick to my stomach. That issue alone almost made me abstain from the 2000 presidential election.

I've always wanted to ask supporters of Lieberman this. If he would have won the presidential primary, what would have been his platform? He has carried Bush's water from day one. What would he say or do to distinguish himself from Bush? There is not one core Democratic principle on which he is a leader. Supports right-wing energy policy, supports their anti-privacy platform, and favors allowing hospitals to only treat the patients whose treatment they agree with. He is the leader of sucking up to Republicans in order to bash the people who helped him get elected.

This is not about principle, it is about knowing and doing what is right. Does Joe have principles? Yes, but what does that matter if they are ALWAYS wrong? When you're the Democratic senator from CT and you have endorsements from Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, you are doing something wrong.

I agree with SandyK for once. Things are getting so damn heated that we may actually be snapped back into line on how to use our creativity to get things done rather than rattle sabers all day long.

Lieberman should be tossed on his head for contributing to the business as usual of this administration and Congress. The sell out of our future as a country for some immediate gratification is inexcusable and it sickens most red blooded Americans. It's drastically more important than the bogus social issues that are dividing us. Lieberman should be considered part of the old guard in this regard.

The current course of the war is making progress, but honestly it's just not enough to justify the costs. It also is casting a looming shadow of a potentially unfriendly theocracy (WFT hit this one right on the head). With the HAMMER being disgraced out of Congress maybe progressives and conservatives can actually carry out legitimate debates again. Both ends of the spectrum have legitimate concerns and by combining ideals we may have viable solutions.

TERM LIMITATIONS FOR CONGRESS! Keep the power mongers on the political fringe to bring the country back on track....

*passes the olive branch*

Will in Texas: First, of course the Iranian elections were rigged, they did not even let some moderate candidates run. You have no plan other than what was...support our bad guys against their bad guys. That strategy has been shown to be ineffective by 9/11. You seem to think that bringing down Saddam is the entire reason that this supposed "furor" against the U.S. has risen. That belief ignores the very history you seem to find so important.

Look at Prohibition in this country...you outlaw something, and it becomes the forbidden fruit that everyone must have. You open the door to free elections and what was forbidden is always going to explode to the surface. I just believe that those forces will settle down given time.

My plan for Iraq is the path we are taking. Stay there until the govt. is able to secure the country. Make sure the democratic process continues. Try and convince the Sunni's that the insurgency is counter-productive given that unless they get their act together they will allow the Shiites to dominate the government. Kill the terrorists. There is no magic bullet in this process. It will be long and hard and expensive...but retreating now would be worse.(of course, I know you disagree)

I've enjoyed our discussion and you obviously have some well-founded concerns and you voice them with clarity and detail.

TheIrishCurse wrote:
===========================================
"I for one bought in to Bush's "compassionate conservatism" first time around, and gawd did he prove me wrong. Seems strange the far left is vilifying Joe Lieberman for doing what i consider the most honorable thing a politico can do--following and voting his conscience...."
===========================================

I don't see eye-to-eye with Lieberman on some issues, but he's principled, and in a day where voting on polls and ultra agendas in a party is the mainstay, it's refreshing to see a politician stand his/her ground even to sacrifice his or her career. That, to me, gives Joe (and anyone else who'll stand before the lions) the higher ground.

We need more principled statesmen who'd buck their own party if needed to stay true to their principles (I have much more respect for Joe than Zig Zag Miller, for no one questions Joe's convictions [he has a lot to lose to not bow to the ultras], where Miller did it for pure face saving politics to gain some mediocre after politics job). It offers voters more choices to vote anything but another Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum.

Hope Lieberman wins, if for anything, he kicked the status quo right in the kisser (and ultra-Left Dems will get a repeat of history of not alienating the majority -- the moderate and independent voters who tire of ultras hijacking their parties).

SandyK
A non party TR conservative, who would vote for Democrat candidates, who are qualified for the job that aren't Maoists

FH-

"These groups may have been brought together in Afghanistan, but they were alive and well living in oppressive regimes long before that war got going."

Zawahiri is an Egyptian and former (current?) member of the Muslim Brotherhood which, in case you didn't notice, picked up 88 seats (nearly 20% of parliament) in 2005. They are now the strongest opposition party in Egypt.

Egypt is a quintessential example of when Democracy goes bad. The autocratic Mubarak shockingly proclaimed in 2005 that he would allow a multi-party election so that, surprisingly for the Egyptian people, they'd actually have a chance to vote for people they support.

And what happened?

Instanenously the super conservative yet BANNED Muslim Brotherhood picks up seats signaling a change. A democratic change. A terrifying change.

Zawahiri is from the Muslim Brotherhood and his team is winning seats in the most representative election Egypt has seen under Mubarak. Do you consider this shift towards "Democracy" a victory? Giving the keys of Egypt to the likes of Zawahiri and his ilk?

"In my mind the only difference in Iran now as opposed to before the Iraq war is they are showing their true nature. If Irans elections were legitimate, maybe that country would be more moderate than it is now, which is where our continued presence in Iraq will be beneficial...keeping elections on the up-and-up. Hamas may be in power now, but if real elections are held again...maybe not. Your opinion is that the status quo was not all that bad...I disagree."

This is dangerously naive. Less than a year ago elections WERE held in Iran, and a radical anti-American/Israeli pro-Islamic statehood candidate won the election over the "moderate" choice (who was anti-America/Israel but more secular and not supported by the Ayatollahs).

What makes you think Iran's elections were illegitimate? Because of the results?

Isn't it possible that the people of Iran hate America? That they wish ill things upon us?

As for your substantively shallow hope that Hamas will lose power... 4 years ago they did not control the Government. Today they do. That's an observable trend that needs to be addressed; why is the Islamic world electing radical governments and/or radical leaders? Why have we continued to facilitate this shift when Radical Muslims are who we are at war with?

Is your official position "Maybe tomorrow Hamas and Iran will become more moderate."???? Because that's insane. We have demonstrable evidence that they are becoming more radical, not less, and it has to do with our foreign policy. We need to do something about that immediately before it is too late.

"I'm only dealing with what is, not with what might have been."

Even if we ignore that the war itself is unjustified, resource wasteful, counter intuitive, etc. my point still stands for leaving Iraq NOW. I'm as much for looking forward as you are. We've now facilitated the Democratic takeover of Iraq by Sectarian Religious Zealots. The likes of al-Sadr will be running this country (just like Zawahiri will continue to gain power in Egypt and elsewhere, and as Ahmadinejad solidifies his political power in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the region...) and we will be fighting them for the next 4 decades.

Democracy has failed us in the Middle East repeatedly. In Iran, in Palestine, in Egypt, and now in Iraq. How many more anti-American Pro-Islamofascist democratically elected officials will we suffer before you realize that?

By the way, what's your plan for Iraq? Hang out until...? What are we waiting for? They've already had elections, they already have a Government in place. Why do we still need to be there?

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party," Lieberman told Broder, "but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line"

----------------------------------

The issue here is not about "diversity of opinion", but is instead about Lieberman simply failing to do the job that he is being paid to do, which is to faithfully represent the sentiments and will of the CT voters regarding iraq -

I was extremely disappointed to see this particular Broder column, which was little more than an uncritical platform for Lieberman to speak his nonsense unchecked.

Did it occur to Broder that back in the good ol' days of party bosses that was so prominently discussed in the Broder piece, that such party bosses would never have allowed Lieberman to support & side with the opposition so openly?

And what is this Broderspeak about Lieberman being "forced" to run as an independent?

Nobody is forcing Lieberman to do anything; if Lieberman loses the primary, what is wrong with Lieberman just accepting that as the democratically expressed will of the CT Democrats and simply bowing out? Isn't that how primaries usually work? If Lieberman loses the August primary, why should Lieberman have a second shot in November?

One more thing I wanted to clarify...I did not support the initial invasion of Iraq. I'm only dealing with what is, not with what might have been. I just wanted to make that clear.

Will in Texas: Your history lesson is too short. Zawahiri's group shot Sudat for making peace with Isreal before Afghanistan. These groups may have been brought together in Afghanistan, but they were alive and well living in oppressive regimes long before that war got going.

In my mind the only difference in Iran now as opposed to before the Iraq war is they are showing their true nature. If Irans elections were legitimate, maybe that country would be more moderate than it is now, which is where our continued presence in Iraq will be beneficial...keeping elections on the up-and-up. Hamas may be in power now, but if real elections are held again...maybe not. Your opinion is that the status quo was not all that bad...I disagree.

FH-

"Oppressive regimes in general...regimes that seek to quell religious fanatics...as you say."

I support oppressive secularists over oppressive Islamic republics. You operate under the assumption that "Democracies" can never be oppressive.

I pick and choose which "oppressive regimes" I support or don't because we are at war with a very specific class of people: Islamic Radicalists. Saddam Hussein is not and was not an Islamic fundamentalist. Ahmadinejad is. SCIRI and the Islamist Dawa party are.

Would I prefer an American loving democracy in Iraq over an American loving dictatorship? Sure. But I'll support a Secular dictatorship over an American hating Islamic democracy any day of the week.

What pisses me off is while Ann Coulter goes on the air complaining about Democrats' "sacred cows" such as Murtha, the Jersey Girls, etc. I raise MERELY THE POSSIBILITY that democracy is hurting us in the middle east and people say "But democracy is absolutely valuable!" So I'm left defending saddam or arguing against Democracy which are two sacred cows that are virtually impossible to overcome.

However there is nothing unreasonable about questioning the views of those popularly elected individuals in "successful" elections. When the President says "We've made progress... We had elections in December" I just want to scream right back at him "Do you support the views of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq or the Islamist Dawa Party"

Why shouldn't we demand bang for our buck. If the Democracy isn't going the way we want then we should back out and hope for turmoil.

"Strong-men who keep the populace from expressing themselves in the way that they want, all the while fomenting resentment in the population."

That's the whole point.

People forget that things were going relatively well prior to the War in Iraq. Iran was considerably more moderate, S. America wasn't nearly as leftist, we were generating a more positive military relationship with Pervez and the House of Saud, and fanatical Islam was restricted to a few pockets of clear anti-population terrorists.

There was no "occupation" in Afghanistan because there was a perception of legitimacy.

And then that all came crashing down because we went after the one guy who was fighting our battles against radical Islam daily for us. And the Islamic world hates us for it.

2005- Ahmadinejad gains control of Iran. He quickly solidifies his power in Iraq. Full page ad in the New York Times from the Iraqi government saying they've been compromised by the Iranians (who are now pursuing those treacherous exiles who went to Iraq during the 1979 revolution. I wonder if they passed the Iranian exiles we were fighting at the time but later handed the Iraqi government to?)

"The question is...over the long run...will people keep electing a govt. that beheads, mothers, daughters and sons...tortures and takes freedoms away from its people. I think not, but only time will tell."

It's not a question, it's a foregone conclusion. Why do you think Hamas seized power? The entire region is becoming MORE Islamic as a result of the Iraqi war because our occupation enables firebrand Muslim Fanatics to preach anti-American hate and Religious solidarity all the way to the ballots.

Will they continue to elect beheaders and torturers and murderers? They sure will! And when all is said and done it won't have mattered one wit what you "thought".

A quick history lesson is in order.

Al Quaeda was the product of the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) which was a militant organization formed by Bin Ladin and Palestinian Abdullah Yusuf Azzam in the 80s. Their main purpose was to train holy warriors (Mujahadin) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So al-Quaeda would train terrorists around the world and transplant them to Afghanistan. Who knew 30 years later they'd be doing the same thing... against the United States and Coalition forces with the same chain of command in place.

But I get ahead of myself. It was against (godless, infidel) Soviet Communists that MAK-al-Quaeda fought with the support of the United States and wealthy fundamentalist Muslims. Communism made for strange bedfellows.

Our failure at the time was not recognizing our "ally" and why they fought. We viewed al-Quaeda as a means to an end vs. Communism without recognizing 1300 years of Muslims-Infidel conflict. It never crossed our minds that al-Quaeda would find the United States infidels just as despicable as those godless Commis. And, as a matter of fact, they did.

Fast forward to the first Gulf War. This is when al-Quaeda developed a historic beef with the United States that ultimately played itself out on national television on September 11th, 2001.

Iraqi expansionism threatened the House of Saud because the Saudis, though well funded, were outnumbered by Iraqi forces. Two (former allied) factions offer their assistance; the United States and Osama Bin Ladin's MAK. The Saudis opted for the United States approach. Can't blaim them really, we represented significant military hegemony and the best solution to Iraqi expansionism.

Bin Ladin felt differently. He thought that infidel boots, no matter how useful those boots had been combatting the Soviets, in the land of Mecca and Medina was a grave insult to Islam. He alienated the Saudi government by inciting the point among the population (who were receptive to it, which is why we are happy that they don't vote) who exiled him to Sudan and revokes his citizenship.

Bin Ladin, furious at this embarrasment and the House of Saud's pandering to "infidels" creates al-Quaeda and later attacks America.

Iraq is tangentially responsible for al-Quaeda in the sense that Iraqi expansion set in motion the events that followed. The more directly player is the House of Saud, the United States, and most directly (obviously) Bin Ladin.

To answer your snide question: No, I do not support the House of Saud, the King of Saud, or Saudi Arabia who consistently undermines our national interests while we pay him to do so with oil money. But make no mistake about the people of Saudi Arabia; they are Wahhabists and fanatical Muslims. It is one of the most restrictive and oppressive countries in the world. And should the people vote they would quickly elect the likes of Bin Ladin.

Oppressive regimes in general...regimes that seek to quell religious fanatics...as you say. Your plan is only a stop-gap, it has no long-term solution...its basically the status quo. Strong-men who keep the populace from expressing themselves in the way that they want, all the while fomenting resentment in the population.

The question is...over the long run...will people keep electing a govt. that beheads, mothers, daughters and sons...tortures and takes freedoms away from its people. I think not, but only time will tell.

FH-

Which oppressive regime is that?

Sounds like you support oppressive regimes who trounce religious freedom and create groups like Al Qeada...and so we go around...and around. No easy answer my friend!!!

FH-

"You have no long-term answers. Saying "we really pissed them off now" is to miss the point."

That has not been my point.

"Iraq has 3 distinct groups: Sunni, Kurds, Shiite. The Fundamentalist govt. you seem to think is coming in Iraq would have to unite at least two factions. I just don't see that happening."

They already did this. The United Iraqi Alliance controls the majority of Parliament and key positions in the admin which essentially means that an Iranian puppet government is operating with more power in Iraq than either the Kurds or the Sunnis.

An analogous scenario is here in the United States. The Republican party, if united, would not need to "negotiate" with the Democratic party since they control the Executive and Legislative (and possibly SCOTUS) branches.

As for whether or not you "see that happening" well... if you don't open your eyes it isn't my fault. The one thing the Sunnis and the Shiites agree on is that Americans are infidels and women should cover themselves. Even the Kurds are reluctant secularists willing to play ball only because we represented the quickest way to rid them of a hostile Saddam.

At some point in the future one thing they will all be united for is a fundamentally Islamic Iraq, which is already happening. This is why the UIA gained ground in December and Secularists lost ground.

Not that we should view the "Democracy" without question or apprehension; the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't control Egypt. Yet. Every seat they gain is contrary to our national interests though. Just as Hamas gradually took power over the course of a series of elections so to will the SCIRI and Islamist Dawa party in Iraq. Or the Brotherhood in Egypt. Or the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran seized power in Iran nearly a year ago to this day. Or the future Islamist state in Pakistan the day after Pervez takes a bullet to the head because he aided us in the War on Terror (which is contrary the wishes to his, er, "constituents")

"You seem to be so hung-up on the short-term that you can't see the long-term advantages of our mission."

There is no long term advantage. In fact this is long term deconstruction; we've gone backwards 2 decades by taking out Saddam (who we funded to fight against the Iranian 1979 Islamic Revolution) so we could replace him with... the Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries from 1979. How is this progress?

"One of the primary reasons Muslims have hated the U.S. is our support for repressive regimes."

You're absolutely right. Osama Bin Ladin's main claim against us was that the King of Saud supported us and allowed infidels to march on the holy lands in Saudi Arabia. So, in reaction to that, we invade the only SECULAR country in the entire region to oust a guy who was in the same life and death battle with Islamic fundamentalism; Saddam.

And what do we do about the ACTUAL country that Muslims ACTUALLY hated us because we ACTUALLY supported the ACTUAL oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. And how do they repay us? The King of Saud throws his constituencies a bone by supporting an ultra conservative archaic form of Wahhabism and funds anti-American Islamic Universities throughout the world (INCLUDING IN THE UNITED STATES).

Friends like these, eh?

You seem to want to have it both ways. We need people like the King of Saud and Pervez Musharref to successfully engage in the war on terror. Yet now you claim that our engagement with the likes of them (and Saddam? Hah!) is what causes the war on terror.

This is an all or nothing proposal. We either support oppressive regimes or we don't. The absolute WORST thing we can do is support the oppressive regimes that actually generate American hating terrorists (in Saudi Arabia) and combat the oppressive regimes that daily suppress Islamic terrorists (Saddam). Bin Ladin hated Saddam nearly as much as he hated us! So did Ahmadinejad.

"In the long run, a stable Iraq, representative of its people, can only help our image."

You are absolutely wrong. A stable Iran, representative of its people, has consistently embarrassed us on the national scale. Why do you keep insisting that "stable democracies in the middle east makes America look good"???? Has Hamas improved our relations with the Palestinians? Do you think the Brotherhood of Muslims in Egypt is pro-American? Do you think SCIRI and the Islamist Dawa party will quickly forget that we funded Saddam so he could kidnap, kill, and exile their senior leadership (even if we did forget, apparently)?

What fantasy world do you live in where Democracy has worked in our favor in the middle east?

"Remember this is a group of people who seem to be O.K. with beheadings and torture and killing of innocents by the terrorists...something tells me they will get over Gitmo."

That's my whole point! Why do you want to give elective power to people who BEHEAD "infidels"? Why do you want to elect a country that will make apostasy an executable offense? Who do you think you are empowering in Iraq when you hold elections? Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Islamist Dawa Party. Iran. Ahmadinejad. Fanatic Islamists. These people are getting the vote for the first time and they are going to vote for their radical interests.

Why do you want that?

"To say that maybe if we did this or that, we might be able to make a few more friends in the Middle East is just wrong...in my opinion."

I don't want to make friends, I want to incite a civil war or, at worst, a political standoff whereas the Religious fanatics cannot gain ground. You support full and free elections in Iraq just so they can nominate and elect our enemies. I do not support handing the keys to Iraq over to a Fanatical Islamic Regime that we will be fighting for the next 3 decades.

We lost because Democracy won in the Islamic Iranian revolution. 30 years later we are licking our wounds and feeling the consequences of that failure. You are ignoring that an Islamic revolution is EXACTLY what we are facilitating in Iraq RIGHT NOW. And Iran is the power broker.

From the New York Times this morning, I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the article. Jan. 5th 2006 quote from Ahmadinejad:

"The occupations in our neighboring countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] has placed the governments of those two countries into the lap of Iran."

What does he know that you don't?

Will in Texas: You have no long-term answers. Saying "we really pissed them off now" is to miss the point. The status quo produced 9/11. We have no where to go but up. By the time 9/11 took place, Al Qaeda was out of the box...killing Bin Laden would have had little effect in stopping Islamo-Fascism. Sometimes you need to take a few steps back, to go forward.

Iraq has 3 distinct groups: Sunni, Kurds, Shiite. The Fundamentalist govt. you seem to think is coming in Iraq would have to unite at least two factions. I just don't see that happening. Or else you believe that the Shiite's will use force to create this govt., which could only happen if the U.S. leaves. You seem to be so hung-up on the short-term that you can't see the long-term advantages of our mission. One of the primary reasons Muslims have hated the U.S. is our support for repressive regimes. In the long run, a stable Iraq, representative of its people, can only help our image. Abu Garab and the rest will fade in time. Remember this is a group of people who seem to be O.K. with beheadings and torture and killing of innocents by the terrorists...something tells me they will get over Gitmo. In the short-term we added a few more to the active fight...they hated us anyway, it was only a matter of time till they jumped in. This war requires a long term vision, not a short-term reaction. To say that maybe if we did this or that, we might be able to make a few more friends in the Middle East is just wrong...in my opinion.

No easy answers...every opinion here is correct in one way or another.

First of all, let me agree that the discourse between will and acarriedo has been very enlightening and interesting. I work as a congressional staffer, and one of the constituent letters that came across my desk a few days ago actually had an intriguing approach to the dilemma. What this constituent advocated was holding some sort of "special election" in which the only question on the ballot would be "should the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq?" Then abide by the decision. The US will be able to claim a successful democracy, and either they will be told to go home (in which case they can still declare a political victory while giving power to the Iraqis to choose their own path) or they will be asked to stay (in which case they will be able to say with certainty that a majority of the Iraqis are actually supportive of the American mission). Either way, it would seem that the US wins, the largest victory being a divergence from the "occupation" label.

SandyK:: thank you..i completely agree..people become moderates/independants cause they don't care for the extreme sides of either party. I for one bought in to Bush's "compassionate conservatism" first time around, and gawd did he prove me wrong. Seems strange the far left is vilifying Joe Lieberman for doing what i consider the most honorable thing a politico can do--following and voting his conscience....

Has anyone considered the possibility that the Democrats could make five net gains from the GOP, but with Chafee and Lieberman both re-elected as independents. This would (technically) leave three independents, but Sanders (who will presumably win Vermont) can be classified as a Democrat. Lieberman and Chafee holding the balance? Which way would they jump while having no obligations to a party? My guess is Chafee would vote for Reid as Majority Leader. Lieberman probably the same.

Quentin Langley
editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

acarriedo-

I appreciate that you've engaged me respectfully.

With that said:

"I guess we'll just have to wait and see how things play out."

I think this is a devestating and terrifying attitude. We are not resigned to one particular foreign policy agenda; we can react to circumstances in the region. "waiting and seeing" is exactly what we've been doing for 3 years and it has resulted in disaster after disaster after disaster.

Now is the time for decisive action.

Thank you drindl.

Will in Texas,
Thank you for your insight. Like I said, I don't know much about the region. I just know a lot of general theory. So, your posts have been educational. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how things play out.

[Checks the article title again...yep, it's about Lieberman not Iraq]

One thing that's repeating, is the ultra Left shooting themselves in the foot again. They did the revolt thingee with Carter, they were trying to do the same with Clinton (and doing it to Hilary today), and now going after Joe -- all because they're MAINSTREAM politicians. They're more centerists.

What the Democrats need IS more centrists to gain the seats they want, otherwise the mainstream voter is going to bypass the Dem candidates. If they could gain another Sam Nunn they could carry the South and the Midwest. But nooooooooooooooo, they want to repeat history a la Carter and elected another Reaganite type president (and fellow travellers).

No one's to blame other than the Democrat party's own leadership which ISN'T looking at reality (and it's outside San Francisco and New York city!). They're fired up so badly they're looking like Maoists before the "Cultural Revolution", which will repel mainstream voters to more conservative politicians.

SandyK

What about Akaka/Case in Hawaii?

Last week Ed Case rubberstamped Bush's war, and today Akaka voted to withdrawl troops from Iraq. It's a reverse Lieberman situation, and Akaka is being challenged by a D-in-name-only...

accareido and will in texas, thank you both for your thoughtfulness and patience and for trying to reach across the aisle, whatever it is. you both have a lot of say that is worth hearing.

acarriedo-

"However, I do think that IF both Afghanistan and Iraq became legitimate Democracies that would be incredibly beneficial and help stabilize the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent."

You are welcome to think whatever you'd like. The problem is that there is voluminous evidence that you are wrong. Ahmadinejad's election in 2005 has been catastrophic for stability in the region.

The Palestinian election of Hamas has set the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back decades, further destabilizing the region.

In my opinion, the absolute most catastrophic event of this milennium will be the popular overthrow of Pervez Musharref in Pakistan. An incredibly conservative electorate will free itself from a semi-secular dictator and vote for Islamic Statehood. And they have nuclear weapons capable of launch throughout the region. And they have a historic beef with their immediate secular neighbor, India. This scenario is terrifying.

Lest we forget that true Democracies throughout South America are repeatedly electing popular anti-American leftists: in Brazil, Chile (not anti american so much as leftist), Venezuela, Argentina and, most recently, Bolivia's Evo Morales who has pledged to join the "Axis of Good" with Castro and Chavez.

Ignoring South America for a moment, "democracy" in the middle east has been an unmitigated disaster. We've sacrificed Saddam for the likes of al-Sadr who will be a perpetual thorn in our side. We've created an Islamic Republic that is going to be equally opposed to the ideas of America, Religious Freedom, Women, and liberty as Iran.

"I think I made my stance clear, but if I didn't I'll try to condense it. Democracy is good and worth fighting for just as long it promotes freedom and not bigotry."

And as soon as we recognize that a Democracy is forming that is contrarian to those views do we have a responsibility to oppose it? Then the Iraqis will truly see how naked our emperor is. Make absolutely no mistake about it: SCIRI and the Islamist Dawa party vehemently support religious bigotry and the elimination of social freedoms. This is who we are electing in Iraq. This is why our soldiers are dieing, so that a Conservative Islamic Republic can realize its anti-Americanism on a national scale.

"However, since we are in Iraq we need to do everything that we can to help their fledgling Democracy not succumb to the problems that have plagued Democracies in that region. That includes providing guidance, but also allowing them room to grow on their own."

How can you "guide" a Democracy without interfering with the Democratic process? The fact is, the people of Iraq HATE America and they believe in an Islamic state. The only thing preventing the Iraqi people from realizing an Islamic state was Saddam Hussein, who we quickly ousted. The entire ruling class of Iraq were IRANIAN EXILES. Who do you think we were fighting in Iran in 1979 to prevent the Iranian Islamic Revolution? It was Chalabi, al-Sadr's Uncle, the Ayatollahs (who are slowly gaining command over Iraq) and others. We supported SADDAM AND IRAQ against the mullahs in 1979 just so we could replace him with their successors in 2005. How retarded is that? In 2025 we will be supporting a Secular leader against SCIRI and Dawa while they try and turn the Iraqi "Republic" into an Islamic caliphate.

"Aside from refraining from a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (it already happened and nothing we can do now will ever change that), what would you have the US government do to improve its foreign policy in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent?"

First thing would be to meet the total and complete demands of the Iraqi people; by slowly removing troops from the area. We could hope for a civil war whereas the Shiites and Suunies would occupy themselves in vicious bloodshed for years and years. They deserve each other.

The one group that we should play ball with are the Kurds who have consistently proven open to secularism and independence and are relatively pro-American. The absolute ideal situation, from a purely realpolitik stance IN MY OPINION would be a tri-state where the Kurds control northern Iraq, the Suunis take the dumpy middle, and the Shiites gain the ports. We can facilitate this by removing our troops and letting the chips fall where they may; either the Shiite will dominate the Suunis with their superior numbers or the Suunis will dominate the Shiites with their bravery and will. The Kurds would stay out.

Tri-state Iraq has a number of advantages. It weakens the largely sectarian Suunis and Shiites because they lose the valuable oil reserves in the north, which would be controlled by the Kurds. The Suunis would become largely irrelevant because the middle and western portions of Iraq are wastelands. Without access to water the Suunis will have to negotiate with the Shiites (the Kurds can buy access with oil), weakening their stance further.

The Shiites will appreciate that we've freed them from Saddam and the Baathists. They might turn into an Islamic republic, but we can buy them off when we've separated them from the Sunnis and Kurds. More importantly they will hate us less because the driving force behind anti-American sentiment in the region is the presence of "occupiers".

This also weakens Iran's position because, rather than having control over all of Iraq, they will only influence the Shiite portion of the country. The Kurds will be ours. The Sunnis will be on their own (and quickly approaching irrelevance).

So, to sum up: I think we should begin abandoning portions of Iraq immediately. If this ignites a Civil War, so be it. They need to solve their own problems. The Kurds will survive, as they did with relative autonomy under a hostile Saddam. The anti-Americanism in the region will quickly subside without a constant American presence to hate and loathe.

I think that is a legitimate approach. Whatever it is we are doing now, or have been doing for 3 years, has been a complete disaster. Every corner of the world despises and loathes us more each day that we continue to occupy a country that doesn't want us or DESERVE us. Europeans consider America a greater threat to global security than Iran. S. America continues to elect leftist anti-American populists. Iran continues to move towards radicalization, electing Ahmadinejad last year over his more moderate predecessor. Hamas somehow wins Palestine. The brotherhood picks up seats in Egypt. Iraqis go from secularism to following SCIRI and Dawa. Pakistan is one bullet away from utter disaster.

We enable anti-American islamists because our foreign policy has made us the persistently successful pinata for ambitious politicos throughout the world. If you hate America enough right now, you will get elected.

Let's put a stop to that.

Will in Texas,
You are clearly much better informed on the happenings of the general area of the Middle East. As you probably noticed by now, I don't know much of anything about regional happenings in Iraq, the West Bank and Egypt. I won't pretend that I do. All I know is what I selectively read on the New York Times and Washington Post's web sites.

That said, I firmly believe that regional lords, secular dictators, various forms of oligarcies and otherwise authoritarian rulers produce inferior conditions than legitimate Democracies. The "Be careful what you wish for" calls do carry legitimate weight. So, don't think that I'm one to brush them off without careful consideration.

Hopefully this doesn't paint me in the wrong light, but I actually have attending a Palestinian rally here in the US. It was during an all day series of rallies for peace in the immediate aftermath of the congressional vote to approve the use of force in Iraq. I was part of the protest against the use of force. We were hopscotching different rallies prior to the main march on the capital building and wound up in a HUGE Free Palestine rally.

I know that anti-semitism aside, many Palestinians have legitimate beefs with the Israeli state. I don't want people to think I'm pro-annihilation of the Israeli state, but I found the speeches intriguing. So, I stayed for about two hours and caught up with my friends later.

In part because of what I witnessed that day, I'm not ignorant enough to think that the US military could just go into any country and impose a full functioning Democracy that represents "Western" interpretations of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, I do think that IF both Afghanistan and Iraq became legitimate Democracies that would be incredibly beneficial and help stabilize the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

In no way shape or form do I think our soldiers should be dying in order to create an American hating government. During the Mexican Revolution the indigenous and Mestizos alike died for eight years just to create that joke of a Democratic government we had for the next 80+ years.

I think I made my stance clear, but if I didn't I'll try to condense it. Democracy is good and worth fighting for just as long it promotes freedom and not bigotry. I didn't support the use of force and still think it was a bad idea (mostly because I think we left Karzai out on a desolate island). However, since we are in Iraq we need to do everything that we can to help their fledgling Democracy not succumb to the problems that have plagued Democracies in that region. That includes providing guidance, but also allowing them room to grow on their own.

Now, I'm sure that there is something that I said that you disagree with. However, seeing as how I've obliged an answered you contentions honestly and in earnest, I'd like to pose one overarching and open ended question to you. Aside from refraining from a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (it already happened and nothing we can do now will ever change that), what would you have the US government do to improve its foreign policy in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent?

said the cold war is over the age of islamic fantassists is on us...

that's right:

WE ARE IN A GREATER DANGER FROM TERRORIST ACTIONS AGAINST US THAN WE WERE FIVE YEARS AGO

because there's money to be made

in perpetuating the cycle of engaging an "enemy"

so they manufactured and then created one...

by inciting a bunch of primitive tribemen to focus on America as their enemy.

.

acarriedo-

"I'm not at all an advocate of that "Democracy." It's not Democracy when people vote for you because they fear reprecussions such as death, imprisonment, fines, etc. if they vote against you."

That's not what happened in Palestine. The people simply made an informed democratic choice... and decided that terrorists better represented their views. You seem incorrigible on this point. I'd love to hear why, specifically addressing the Palestinian issue.

"Creating the type of Democracy that truly represents the will of common people is almost impossible to create in an environment of fear."

You don't know the people in these regions. They HATE Christianity, and unclothed women, and America. And they will vote their feelings and elect people they view as anti-American, anti-Secularism, and pro-Islamic statehood.

You can rant against "Democracy" or preech your "true" idealistic Democracy, but you don't get to choose the elected officials in the democracies you stand up. As it were, the democratically elected leaders in these regions are CONSISTENTLY anti-American and work against our sovereign interests.

"I don't respect leaders like Ahmedinejad and al-Sadr. They represent their own bigoted pinciples and care nothing for true Democratic values."

But you aren't an Iranian, so it doesn't matter who you respect. The Iranian voters wanted Ahmadinejad and voted for him; because he preached hate against the United States and Israel and promoted Islamic statehood when such sentiments were at an all time high in the country.

You seem to operate under the assumption that "When they elect the people I don't like, that isn't true 'democracy'". The fact is, these people don't want to elect American loving, freedom respecting, peaceful leaders. They want revolutionary Islamists who are in a perpetual war with women and non-Muslims. And that's why they consistently elect them throughout the region!

As for al-Sadr, let him be the definitive example of our failures in Iraq. Our short memories forget that al-Sadr was a member of the INSURGENCY who fought and killed American forces in August of 2004. How did we reward this murderer?

Well he holds unofficial control over Sadr city and enormous political clout. Many of his followers backed the UIA (United Iraqi Alliance) which ultimately won over 50% of the Iraqi parliamentary seats in the election last december. Sadr has considerable influence in the Government has a result.

Let's discuss the UIA coalition (which now holds legitimate majority rule over Iraq):

Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Love the name right? It just shouts "moderate Muslims" doesn't it?

Well, not exactly. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim runs the show. He and his brother, the late Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, brokered power in Iraq after a long exile in IRAN. Saddam didn't take kindly to their brand of religious extremism and expelled them from his country. Like many members of the UIA, the SCIRI is made up largely of Iranian chickens come home to roost. This largely supports my narrative that Iran has benefitted more from this war than any other country in the world.

SCIRI's political platform is that they support Khomeini. They think Iraq should be run by the ulema or, in more palpable terms, Islamists. They support a Muslim state (and will get what they want).

Islamic Dawa party is another member of the UIA coalition. The founder of the Islamic Dawa party was Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr who is, incidentally, Muqtad al-Sadr's uncle. You think they are still close?

Their resume reads like one long Islamofascist fight. They hate secularism. They supported the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution.

They do split hairs with SCIRI in that they do not think the ulema should run the country. They support Ummah rule which is a little more inclusive than the ulema. The distinction is hard to explain but it essentially means that SCIRI supports Islamic Cleric rule whereas Dawa supports Islamic populist rule. Still, no jews, christians, buddhists, hindus, or atheists allowed. Oh well.

The four pillars of the Dawa party are as follows:

1. Absolute sovereignty belongs to God (guess which one).
2. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam.
3. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers.
And my favorite:
4. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality.

In other words, they are a radical Islamic group that supports Religious State rule.

Is this the kind of "Democracy" you think is worth fighting for? Just so we can establish an American-hating Islamic regime?

We are at war with Fanatic, Radical Islam. I ask again how any country can win a war when they hand the enemies the key to the city. Democracy or not, what is happening in Iraq will be disastrous for the United States for years and years to come. We've sacrificed Saddam for the likes of al-Sadr, the Islamic Dawa Party, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Iraqi "democracy", like the Palestinian elections, Egyptian elections, and last year's Iranian election, is turning out to be an unmitigatable disaster.

This is why I object to your parroting of "democracy".

a democracy?

when we can't trust our electoral process?

Blackwell is investigating himself in Ohio, following el Presidentes' hate full lead...

yes we have a democracy like mehico.

.

read "Giles Goat Boy," by john barth

"Bush et al ... diverted critically needed assets, esp special forces and special opps troops out of the real central front to a unnesssary war of choice. As a result, both fronts had been starved of the resources needed to win and we have two quagmires for the price of one."

Given how much this Administration has obviously studied the tactics used in 1930s Germany to stifle dissent and gain domestic support for wars of aggression, you would think they also would have learned from Hitler's "fighting on two fronts" mistake. Guess they didn't make it to that part of the history book in time.

And of course, "The Pet Goat" doesn't cover any of this in much detail.

have a democracy or an oligarchy...

and Mexico has a plutocracy, there is no democracy in Mexico, that's why they all want to move to L.A. and San Diego.

.

Will in Texas,
I want to choose my words carefully, but I don't want you to misinterpret that as me sidestepping the issue.

Democracy is more than merely an election. In Mexico we've had "Democracy" for nearly 100 years. We had "globally recognized elections." The PRI government was also corrupt beyond belief and notorious for doing whatever the hell they wanted and killing anyone who dared to oppose them.

I'm not at all an advocate of that "Democracy." It's not Democracy when people vote for you because they fear reprecussions such as death, imprisonment, fines, etc. if they vote against you. That is not the Democracy we are fighting for. Creating the type of Democracy that truly represents the will of common people is almost impossible to create in an environment of fear. Like I said, it took Mexico 100 years, but then again Mexico didn't have any help.

I don't respect leaders like Ahmedinejad and al-Sadr. They represent their own bigoted pinciples and care nothing for true Democratic values.

If you want to make the argument that we've spread ourself to thin by trying to fight for Democracy on multiple fronts I'll agree with you. It's a tough fight that needs our full attention. But I will never agree that Democracy leads to oppression and bigotry. Lack of adequate social/economic/political infrustructure, competing forces and terror have led to that situation throughout the Arab world.

Our military isn't going around bombing sacred Mosques. Iraqi government officials aren't bombing market places. The forces that are causing that to happen were already in place before we got there. The invasion probably created the power vacuum that helped some of those terror cells become more active.

Blame the invasion itself, but don't blame Democracy.

"
Three years ago Iraq was controlled by a self serving dictator.
"

and where is the United States?

in the same place apparently with most of it's population asleep at the wheel...

as two jobs in retail passes for being middle class.

.

acarriedo-

Palestine is not a true democracy? WHY?

The list is daunting.

Democratic elections in Egypt leads to a pickup of seats by the Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative religious fanatical group.

Palestine elects Hamas, in an internationally recognized legitimate election, even though Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Iran elected Ahmadinejad nearly exactly one year ago just so he could quickly take the UN seals off his nuclear plants and preach hate to the willing masses... hatred towards the US, Europe, and Israel. We indirectly helped elect him by stationing troops in Iraq and Abu Ghraib's stain, which incited the local population and aided his Anti-American message vs. his moderate predecessor.

Do you want "democracy" in Pakistan? What about Wahhabist Saudi Arabia?

What concerns me is that you people don't understand this region. You are exporting this American ideal of "Democracy" to these people. A noble idea, sure, but it has unintended consequences. Why have we taken Iraq from one dictator just to hand it to Islamofascism? What country can win a war if it consistently empowers the enemy?

acarriedo-

"Three years ago Iraq was controlled by a self serving dictator. Now it is a fledgling Democracy, which IMHO is light years better."

Why don't you explain the metric you use to measure "progress". If it is "how the people perceive their situation" then we have not made progress. If it is the amount of electricity, water, or infrastructure then we have not made progress.

We keep touting this line about "Democracy as an absolute good" but why? Would you fight so that Palestinians could elect Hamas? Should we invade Pakistan to free them from Pervez Musharef? Why? So they can elect a Talibanesque ultra conservative radical Islamofascist government?

There are a few troubling developments in Iraq. Many were mentioned in the Diplomatic cable published by the Washington Post. During Saddam's reign women were generally free to where whatever they felt like. Iraq was considered one of the more "western" countries in the middle east largely because Saddam was a secularist who did not tolerate radical religious groups (they threatened his power).

Fast-forward to 2005. Iraq went from a dictatorship to a series of fractured "democracies" where sectarian Shiites war with Suunis for dominance. Conservative religious leaders, both Shiite and Suuni, were all too happy to fill the power vacuum left by Saddam (such as al-Sadr). As a result, women who were free to walk the streets without their hijabs or abaya coverings in the Saddam era are now forced to cover themselves... or fear retributional acid attacks and kidnappings.

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Iraq/July05/Acidattack.htm

Be careful what you wish for. Democracy in Iraq is a euphemism for disaster. We are at war with Islamic extremists; trading Saddam Hussein for the likes of al-Sadr will prove to be a Faustian bargain.

Jake,
Palestine is not a true Democracy and you know it. Iraq is not a Democracy yet and it's much more democratic that Palestine is on its best day.

jeff... a quisling is a traitor... the name comes from the prime minister of norway that was imposed on that country by the nazis in WW2 following their invasion. The term is now used for political puppets imposed by invaders.

A false flag attack is when a country attacks a second country while claiming to be a third country, the term comes from the old practice of pirates flying the flag of their intended victims to get close enough to launch an attack

Note to all, Dems, GOPers or independents...go to "Frontline" and catch the special "The Dark Side", then go to the web site and read the interviews.

Bush replaced the regular policy making process with an agenda implementation process... with the Vice Prz at the helm with a virtual veto power.

Bush et al completely misunderstood the nature of the threat, a "war of ideas", totally effed up the intervention in Afganistan, and diverted critically needed assets, esp special forces and special opps troops out of the real central front to a unnesssary war of choice. As a result, both fronts had been starved of the resources needed to win and we have two quagmires for the price of one.

Final point... American are not so dumb after all. A recent poll indicates that a majority of american now consider Geo W Bush the worst pez in history! The best... Bill "lets play hide the cigar" Clinton

Poll conducted by (spelling) Quinnipeack

drindl,
If you are advocating what Karzai said then I am with you. I truly respect Karzai and I completely respect his assessment.

What I don't agree with is the "we're not making any progress" statements similar to the one Murtha made a few days ago. We certainly are making some progress. Three years ago Iraq was controlled by a self serving dictator. Now it is a fledgling Democracy, which IMHO is light years better.

The cost that we've paid for that does trouble me and I agree that some time in the near future we do need to change our approach.

"Democracy in...the Middle East would ultimately serve as its own deterrent to terrorism"? How about the election of Hamas in Palestine? If a country is full of terrorists and they have a democracy, terrorists will win the elections. Democracy itself is actually less likely to cure terrorism than a dictatorship, because a dictator is able to crack down easily on terrorists. With a democracy, extreme views will be represented at least in part by the government, making it hard to take the necessary decisive action.

Accariedo,
I don't think ANYONE is advocating a full-scale immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That has always been a rightwing distortion of what Democrats are saying--Jack Murtha never said that, nor anyone else that I have heard. What people talk about is a change in direction in the way we are pursuing terrorists. You read what Karzai said -- and he knows. What we are doing now is counter-productive.

Yes, democracy anywhere is a good idea which I fully support. However, why are US kids fighting for Iraqi democracy? Why aren't Iraqis? Isn't democracy something you should fight for yourself? We did it in this country.

Now, as inn the first Gulf War, we find our own kids being used as pawns when the people we are supposed to be helping are doing nothing, or actually attacking us. Why, for instance, didn't Kuwaitis repel Saddam's invasion? Because they wouldn't fight. Didn't want to get killed, and they knew their old oil buddy George Bush would be happy to use his own countrymen for cannon fodder.

I, for one, think the rest of the world should fight their own battles for a change. How many more billions of dollars and thousands of lives can we afford?

Ohio Guy and Drindl, I am genuinly asking what are these issues? I just don't know and if you guys can give me three other issues that Lamont differs with Liebermann that would be great.

Also either way I don't see how attacking a fellow democrat is going to help Liebermann. If he keeps this up Lamont might beat him even if he runs as an independent.

Chris writes:

"The events of this week point to the fundamental challenge before Lieberman. He has made his political name on being a principled leader who follows his beliefs and isn't swayed by the political winds. ... The war in Iraq has severely damaged that trust, and now that Lieberman has cast himself as a man of principle he cannot switch positions on the war without severe political consequences.

Lieberman's plans to vote against both of the Iraq war resolutions today seem to be a recognition that he has chosen his course and must stick to it whatever the fallout. It's a choice that has the potential to cost him his party's nomination this year, if not his political career overall."

To summarize: Lieberman is adhering to principle only because to do otherwise would be bad politics. That is not the price of principle, it is the price of politics.

Mike,
I'm not sure why you think granting a path to citizenship to illegals who are in this country represent the worst of the Democratic agenda, but completely disagree with you. Willing to debate.

Jackson Landers and B20,
Thank you for your insight. However, I do watch the military channel from time to time and granted its only going to show the positives. I have an uncle who served in Afghanistan all of 2004 and part of 2005. I have a brother in law who served in Iraq during the invasion and the first six months of the occupation.

We do track weapons and munitions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen it on tv and I've heard about it from first hand sources. Are we doing a perfect job of doing so? I doubt it. Are we effectively fighting terrorism? I don't think so, but does an immediate fullscale withdrawal from Iraq solve those problems? That's the answer I'm looking for from our country's leadership.

Also, don't get me wrong, unlike my uncle and brother-in-law, I cannot stand Bush or much of his foreign policy team. I do, however, believe in my heart of hearts that true Democracy in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East would ultimately serve as its own deterrent to terrorism. Why? Democracies don't go to war with each other.

post is not being immediately picked up, even though you've hit "submit," it's usually because the WaPo server is getting a lot of requests for service/"hits" and your send device has submitted your post, but your screen software has not received the acknowledgement from the server yet, so it doesn't show your post "having left,"

hit "submit" once

.

not that it's a big deal.

.

mustard gas is not a WMD

that's BS, it's about as dangerous as any other reactive chemical reagent

next thing you'll be saying cyanide gas is WMD,

I'm sure it's more leathal per pound than chlorine gas

being trapped with zouk on an elevator would be worse, I'm sure.

.

Sorry about the triple post. i have no idea why that happened.

The wingnut screamers aren't interested in facts, Ohio guy. You know, because reality has a liberal bias.

They're so desperate to believe that they haven't been duped that they will grasp any straw to reinforce their fragile belief system. It's tragic.

If anyone is really interested in why we are in Iraq, I suggest you read Kevin Phillip's 'American Theocracy.' Philips is a former republican strategist who, with great authority, detail and meticulous sourcing, lays out the history of how we got to where we are now in this country. It's huge and not light reading, but incredibly enlightening. I respect him a great deal.

The wingnut screamers aren't interested in facts, Ohio guy. You know, because reality has a liberal bias.

They're so desperate to believe that they haven't been duped that they will grasp any straw to reinforce their fragile belief system. It's tragic.

If anyone is really interested in why we are in Iraq, I suggest you read Kevin Phillip's 'American Theocracy.' Philips is a former republican strategist who, with great authority, detail and meticulous sourcing, lays out the history of how we got to where we are now in this country. It's huge and not light reading, but incredibly enlightening. I respect him a great deal.

Specter:

"the recently declassified document shows that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2002. That's what mustard gas is - a WMD. Same for Sarin - a nerve agent. Get over it."

There are WMDs in North Korea right now. Ergo we should go to war with them. What?

Reread my post: I said that the idea that Saddam had a WMD program that was a threat to the United States has been soundly rebuked. Nothing in the declassified documents changes that. Sarin and Mustard Gas existed in Iraq in 2002... ok? And? Why does this necessitate warfare?

The wingnut screamers aren't interested in facts, Ohio guy. You know, because reality has a liberal bias.

They're so desperate to believe that they haven't been duped that they will grasp any straw to reinforce their fragile belief system. It's tragic.

If anyone is really interested in why we are in Iraq, I suggest you read Kevin Phillip's 'American Theocracy.' Philips is a former republican strategist who, with great authority, detail and meticulous sourcing, lays out the history of how we got to where we are now in this country. It's huge and not light reading, but incredibly enlightening. I respect him a great deal.

KOZ -- I've asked you this a number of times in the past and you never answer: What do you define as "success" in Iraq? If you want to advocate staying in Iraq long-term, then that's fine. I'm likely to disagree with you, but I can respect that position IF you explain to me both: (1) What you would consider a successful conclusion of our presence there; and (2) How it is that you/those that agree with you plan on getting from where we are today - which is a mess - to that end result.

KOZ -- I've asked you this a number of times in the past and you never answer: What do you define as "success" in Iraq? If you want to advocate staying in Iraq long-term, then that's fine. I'm likely to disagree with you, but I can respect that position IF you explain to me both: (1) What you would consider a successful conclusion of our presence there; and (2) How it is that you/those that agree with you plan on getting from where we are today - which is a mess - to that end result.

Contrary to the beliefs of many Republicans, simply screaming "cut and run" and "stay the course" 5 million times doesn't constitute a strategy. Neither does saying "trust our Generals" because what we're talking about here isn't - fundamentally - a military issue. Rather, wisely or not we've decided to engage in National Building here - which is a task that is solely the responsibility of our Civilian leaders to oversee. If you expect me or the rest of the MAJORITY in this country that currently thinks we should pull out of Iraq to listen to your ideas, I think it is incumbent upon you to explain to me exactly what your plan is.

Chris

I have to disagree with your assessment of Lieberman as one who "made his political name on being a principled leader who follows his beliefs and isn't swayed by the political winds."
As a Connecticut resident in 1988, I thought his candidacy against Weicker was a mistake - I asked "Why replace a senior Senator with significant power on committees, just to put a Democratic nameplate on the door?" In fact, Weicker was a moderate Republican (whose views then would make him a moderate democrat now)

Lieberman has consistently been among the last to cast his vote in the Senate on many issues; issues where an early vote cast on the basis of principle could have made a real statement. (e.g., Clinton's impeachment).

I have for years characterized Lieberman as a "finger-in-the-wind" politician, choosing stances on the basis of their political impact and rarely on principle.

"That is what Ned Lamont's single-issue campaign is all about. No other issues but the war." - specter

Spoken like a true wingnut screamer. Is it just me, or the more and more you hear the rightwing screamers proclaim their loive for Joe Lieberman and disgust of Ned Lamont, don't you just become oven MORE convinced that Connecticut Democrats are doing the right thing by ousting Lieberman?? After all, if the only people still supporting Joe are the likes of specter and KOZ, dosen't that mean Joe has completely lost touch with the Democratic party?

As for specter's claim that Lamont is a single-issue candidate, I have never read anything more ignorant on this blog. Anyone who spent five minutes reading about Ned Lamont and why he is running would know that the Iraq War is one issue out of many, many issues in which he differs from Lieberman. Just another example of idiotic wingnuts not being bothered by things like the facts, just start yelling complete nonsense b/c the facts don't support your argument. Keep it up specter, you are on your way to becoming as much of a laughing stock as KOZ.

said the cold war is over the age of islamic fantassists is on us...

that's right:

WE ARE IN A GREATER DANGER FROM TERRORIST ACTIONS AGAINST US THAN WE WERE FIVE YEARS AGO

because there's money to be made

in perpetuating the cycle of engaging an "enemy"

so they manufactured and then created one...

Jackson Landers: You make so many good points, but I wonder if you don't think that all these new recruits would have been going to Afghanistan now instead of Iraq. I believe they