You forgot Webb, who not only voted with the republicans to give Bush a blank check, (presumably because he felt a tawdry minimum wage bump was more urgent than, say, ending the war he claimed to help end if he got elected), but Webb voted AGAIN with the republicans to give Bush his illegal NSA program.

Or maybe Webb deserves his own catagory: Bush-SUCK Democrat.

Iraq will be another Korea.

"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms--never--never--never".

Lord Chatham (aka the "elder" Pitt) spoke those words to Parliament in 1777.

Were it brought to their attention, most Americans today would take pride in that observation. They would, at least, understand it.

Most, too, would make a connection between the spirit that animates their pride, and the spirit of those Iraqi's who- under no circumstance- will suffer American interference in their domestic affairs.

Why no democratic presidential candidate has seen fit to either invoke Chatham's quote, or otherwise speak of the universal, bedrock pride of other peoples, is something I cannot fathom.

hadenuf @ 4:

Oh lovely, a new weapon which sucks air out of people and ruptures organs:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/British_Army_deploys_new_weapon_based_0823.html

Nah, Napalm has been doing that for decades. And it is cheaper, heck you can make it in your very own garage.

I guess it is not only big pharma who re-spin farmaceuticals by changing a base, rebranding the product and selling it for 10x as much even though it is exactly the same as the product on which their patent just ran out.

the only war Bush and the rest of the Republicans saw was the one broadcast on television at the time. They had no clue as to what they were talking about then and they have no clue now.

I guess what I find really comical is that there are still some people in this country who support those same Republican military draft dodgers and think that they have the experience needed to "win" in Iraq. That thinking is so backwards. Hell, Pee Wee Herman and Bozo the clown probably have more military experience than Republicans do.

LongTooth @ 5:

"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms--never--never--never".

Lord Chatham (aka the "elder" Pitt) spoke those words to Parliament in 1777.

Were it brought to their attention, most Americans today would take pride in that observation. They would, at least, understand it.

Most, too, would make a connection between the spirit that animates their pride, and the spirit of those Iraqi's who- under no circumstance- will suffer American interference in their domestic affairs.

Why no democratic presidential candidate has seen fit to either invoke Chatham's quote, or otherwise speak of the universal, bedrock pride of other peoples, is something I cannot fathom.

Agreed. Its common sense really but apparently common sense is not common among the Republicans.

Joe O. @ 9:

Hell, Pee Wee Herman and Bozo the clown probably have more military experience than Republicans do.

Bob Bell the guy who played Bozo on TeeVee, actually served in the Marines. He was discharged because he was blind in one eye, he ended up serving for a few years in the Navy after that. He passed the marine physical by memorizing the reading chart in order to fool doctors about his single ocular vision status. This is, unlike most GOP chicken hawks who lied their way out of service, Bozo actually lied his way into service.

History is sometimes full of bread crumps like that.

If one where to take the Republican line of reasoning then the Americans should have welcomed the British with open arms during the war of 1812. We have seen this same sort of thinking time and time again throughout history by a number of invading countries and for the most part, each invading country has faced a resistance movement against them. The American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are no different. Especially to those that are being occupied.

Conservatives let a little success go to their head. In this case, very little success. Without a political solution how do you expect to have rule of law? I want to know WHEN the US can extricate itself from this EXPENSIVE police state. I use the "police" term very figuratively.

You know, all of this Sunni-Shia sectarian violence wasn't this bad before the invasion.

MeMyselfAndI @ 12:

In all honestly, Iraq is a made up country by the British... yet another byproduct of their legacy of "divide and conquer" nation building that was such a hit during the XIX and early XX centuries.

Good luck finding ANY country which had a virgin birth, and just naturally appeared within obvious borders. Or was the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, or the German Republic, or the Russian state, somehow also the fault of the British? It's a preposterous view of history.

It is hardly the fault of the British that Hussein decided to attack Iran, slaughter the Kurds, invade Kuwait, and murder the Marsh Arabs, and so doing scuttle the country. Nor was it the fault of the United States that Bushco stole power, held an artificial disaster to trump up a cassus belli, and then failed to guard any of the war materiel in Iraq, in order to foment civil war and genocide. These are the actions of dictators, not nations.

An Iraqi federal state with three regions could have been extracted from this disaster had Bushco not salted the earth with high-explosives, shoot-at-will mercenaries, a new palace citadel of permanent occupation, and a stack of permanent airbases. The failure of that loose confederacy of regions is DIRECTLY the fault of Hussein and Bush. The British had little to do with it -- and most people in the US have watched the rape and genocide in dismay -- even with a mountain of propaganda. It would help to blame the right people, instead of pretending these are the results of actions taken seventy years ago.

John Amato is certainly right. Baird is known here in Washington state as Bush lite since he seems more concerned about placating his conservative base in his large district that he is in than he is in getting those troops out of that quagmire as quickly as possible. Baird, like so many other Democrats and neoconservatives, is convinced that things will get worse if and when the U.S were to finally leave Iraq. As independent journalist Nir Rosen, who has spent much time in Iraq, has attempted to point out in an article in The Atlantic in late 2005, "If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left?" Rosen went on to note that that the reason why the Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them are fighting is because of one reason: intiqaam, which is Arabic for revenge, revenge for the destruction that the Americans have caused to their homeland and to their families and for the shame that they have inflicted upon them. These feelings will continue to persist for the Iraqis as long as the Americans continue to foolishly and stupidly remain in Iraq.

Tony Snow @ 19:

You know, all of this Sunni-Shia sectarian violence wasn't this bad before the invasion.

And contrary to the Bush's boldface lie, Saddam did not deal with or allow AlQeada, or whatever terrorist organization Bush likes to make up, operate in Iraq.

abarts @ 22:

The DINOs have indeed been very disappointing. Fool me once, shame on me...fool me twice..shame on ....fool me....we won't be fooled again.

I have a theory on that famous Bush quote.

I think he knew exactly how the old saying went, but mid-way through he realised he should not have any sound bytes out there of himself saying "shame on me"... so he butchered the old saying on purpose.

The Bush administration (or mis administration) is worried because they need a "legitimate" government in Iraq to pass the oil law giving the big oil companies control of Iraq's sovereign oil. Unless or until this happens, the U.S. military will be in Iraq in huge numbers to quell any revolts. Call it blackmail, call it coercion, call it anything you like, but that is the end game of this debacle. The Iraqi government leaders have no desire to sign over the oil. They consider it their oil as it comes from their country. It is really that simple - they have oil, we want it, they don't want us to have it. Of course there are nuances to this plan, and they keep changing, but all the deaths of our military and civilians in Iraq are but collateral in the quest for oil power.

You can't have this list without Jim Matheson, UT-02, DINO. He touts himself (and belive me, tout is exactly the right word) as a Democrat but turns around and votes with the Rethugs over 8% of the time; the only time he votes Dem issues is on relatively safe stuff like the minimum wage increase. His father was a good Dem governor, but he's a weasel in Dem's clothing. He voted an enthusiastic "yay!" on all of the recent bills, to give Bush his wiretap powers, to give him a blank check, and "nay" on the recent votes to try to rein in King George. He's one of the worst of the BushDog dems.

rdale

Bozo, who knew...I'l have o write a post on that one...

he didn't even go to iraq it sounds like

Senator Dodd's quote above is exactly correct. For many, many, many months we have
all heard both Dems and Repigs, the Pentagon, Snowjob, bush-lite and others in his admin.
say over and over again..."This war canNOT be won militarilly, it must be won by the Iraquis
people establishing a governmental democracy"...Can't anyone comprehend that by leaving
our troops in the middle of a country in civil war, that the only result is going to be more
and more casualties . I even heard one of the Pentagon spokespersons say as recently
as Tues. of this week that of the 16 Iraq military units, 14 were fully trained and at full force and doing their job..Since the Pentagon acknowledges that fact, let "that Army"
patrol the streets of Bagdah and re-deploy our troops out of the killing field, or better
yet, immediately commence with a troop withdrawal and rotation back to the State.
It seems so unbelievable and inconsistant... everyone seems to agree that the war
cannot be won by military force, and yet those asshole in Congress/Pentagon/White
House, will not agree to taking our fine men and women out of harms way and let
Maliki and his acknowledged trained soldiers carry out the missions in that country.

Dodd should not be one to criticize. He thinks impeachment is not good for the country. He is putting the election ahead of upholding the Constitution.

I can't listen to Carlson for more than five seconds without performing ritual self-mutilation.

He should be informed now that his services will not be needed in the 111th congress.
"Karl's-son" should spend 15 days with the 82nd Airborne on patrol.

crazylove @ 42:

That's 14 Bluedogs in congress,

There are FORTY-FOUR.

crazylove @ 44:

...impeachment not good for the country. Oh yeah. fascism is the preferable alternative, right?

Impeaching without conviction and removal is not an alternative to fascism.

It would REEMPOWER the fascists, no matter how warm it would make your tummy.

The hand-picked DLC Blue Dog Democrats are Howlin' Mad...just as the neo-con Republicans are Howlin' Mad rogue elephants.

And if they let Bush and Cheney expand their little neo-con war in Iraq by attacking Iran next door, which will have a disastrous effect on our nation's economy, then all of these Howlin' Mad Blue Dog Democrats and rogue neo-con Republican elephants should be tossed into one of Bob Murray's coal mines, where they can spend the rest of their sorry lives, with bars on the mine entrance to keep them from escaping and endangering our democracy ever again.

Tucker nothing more than a little shit kicker.

Harley @ 3:

Iraq will be another Korea.

Probably not. Korea was a draw.

Paul in LA @ 47:

crazylove @ 44:

...impeachment not good for the country. Oh yeah. fascism is the preferable alternative, right?

Impeaching without conviction and removal is not an alternative to fascism.

It would REEMPOWER the fascists, no matter how warm it would make your tummy.

Too literal. I was simply directly quoting tongue-in-cheek. In an earlier post on this thread I preferred prison time and perhaps popguns at dawn at the edge of a lime-laced ditch.

Paul in LA @ 26:

abarts @ 22:

The DINOs have indeed been very disappointing.

Do you live in the district of a Blue Dog? Does anyone here actually live in those districts?

Pretending that the Blue Dogs is some kind of new betrayal is to not have watched the politics of the last seven years, and to ignore those district voting histories. These are mostly Republicans who run as Democrats. They ARE DINO, by definition.

Tedious I know, of these 44 who are the 26 roundheeled sluts?

Dodd's comment is moot, since Senators don't decide if there will be an impeachment.

That understanding is the one that the Speaker has to have -- and she does.

However, the 'truth' and what comes out of politicians' mouths are two different things almost always. There is nothing inherently sinister about that. But in the case of announcing that the Senate is too corrupt to vote a conviction, even if everyone knows that, that announcement would be counterproductive. Further polarization is not the path. The path is winnowing out the less corrupt from the fully corrupt, and that's what that 14 out of 44 in the House vote represents -- the good work of the Dem leadership, in wooing away the less complicit of the Blue Dogs (with the public's help, of course). In the Senate, that strategy is less clearcut, but we do want to pressure THE REPUBLICANS to abandon their complicity (in favor of keeping their careers), far more than hassling over Dodd's odd commentary.

.

Baird may say he's a Democrat, but when he starts using Republican talking points, the QUACK shows off his feathers.

Progress...

ONE HOUR OF POWER A DAY?
NO POTABLE WATER?
DEATH AND DYING FROM VIOLENCE?
PARLIAMENT WALK OUT/QUIT?

And so what is this success you allude to...

30 min. of electricity?
Wester ownership of natural resources?
Bottled water factories?
All out wholesaled slaughter?

Forget about how we got into this situation? IS HE SERIOUS!?!
Look only forward? GOT BLINDERS!?!

The Iraqis are in a very difficult circumstance because America thrust an a perversion of Liberty upon them and unleashed hell upon the Iraqis. And then he lists what America did to the Iraqis but doesn't, DOESN'T hold ANYONE accountable. Instead, because America went in and messed it up, he now argues FOR staying longer... even though he says he was against it before he was for it.

Some principles... NO?

.

"The United States has no legitimate longterm policy of staying in Iraq." -- Presidential candidate John Kerry, first debate.

"On July 25th, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy." -- Speaker Pelosi

In order to establish permanent airbases, Bush intentionally lied to the United States and our Congress. In order to serve the function of creating a civil war, he ARMED all hostiles by failing to guard the known controlled depots of weapons and high-explosives. Immediately after this failure of command responsibility, the IED death toll to our soldiers went up EIGHTY PERCENT.

When you arm the enemies of our troops, that is called TREASON. It is gross criminal negligence at the least, but it is a warcrime as well. No one can argue that leaving the HMX depot at Al-Qaqaa wide open for months is an act intended to "defend the Iraqis from civil war."

It is FOMENTING civil war that Bush is doing, that the US military is doing under illegal orders from him. And mercenaries by the tens of thousands, under no law. Yeah, we're protecting Iraqis -- from having any human rights at all.

The Blue Dog/DLCers should join the Lieberman for CT party. They're all pretty much right wingers but at least if they were all in that party their actions would stop the repeated damage to the Democrats' image that these Bush kowtowers are giving us nationally and locally.

Rp

Paul in LA @ 62:

John Nicholas @ 60:

He is supporting defending the Iraqis from slaughtering each other

Deploying tens of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, violating their human rights, destroying their families, starving them and preventing them from having electricity and clean water, and releasing every destructive materiel in the country to UNKNOWN HOSTILES is not the way to DEFEND anyone.

It is genocide.. Your representative supports installing permanent airbases in a dismantled Iraq? That's the only question more you need to know. He already supports genocide, so he isn't stopping the slaughter. He's abetting our domestic terrorists. Does he support Ustad Allawi, the known terrorist? Does he support the deployment of non-US mercenaries in a sovereign country with no legal responsibilty? Does he support Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions? Does he support the UN Charter, the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Hague Conventions against the use of poisoned weapons?

John Nicholas, you may think your country is uniquely entitled to set the standard of international war crimes, but you (and Bush foreign policy) are so far from the Nuremburg principles that you are arguing the other side.

Yep, I knew that one sentence fragment would get me into trouble the moment I wrote it. I apologize for taking the short road on that.
We are absolutely not uniquely entitled to anything, and we have made the world pay a terrible price for our actions (over the past centuries), and I am not advocating two wrongs making a right. However, I do not believe Baird, or many people who are fighting in Iraq or elsewhere have nefarious ends in mind. What I believe Baird is stating here- listen again- is that he believes an immediate withdrawl would be far worse for Iraqis (in the short term) in terms of numbers of dead, and that to walk away would be inhuman (yes, not that it already isn't). He said nothing of permanant bases.