 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 14, 2007 at 09:19:13
by Stephen Crockett Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Telling the truth to both the American public and themselves are weak points in the thinking of top Republican political figures. They have been intentionally dishonest with the voting public and intellectually dishonest with themselves on almost every aspect of the Iraq War.
The failed policies of the Bush Republicans have turned the Iraqi people against American occupation by huge margins. In the past year, the American public has moved rapidly in the same direction. The Republicans have placed ideologically based worldview over reality based policies on almost every issue. In the Iraq context, the results have been a complete disaster to American interests.
Tying the Iraq conflict to the so-called "War on Terror" is dishonest. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not help conduct the 9-11 terrorist attacks on America. Terror is an emotion and not a political movement or a military force. It is impossible to launch a war against an emotion. The war slogan was design to create emotional support for the Republican Iraq War policy and to curtail honest, logical debate on the policies adopted by the Bush Administration.
Because the pre-war debate was not honest and logical, the policies that followed were awful. The results were a logical result of a failed, ideologically based policy that concealed the real motives for the conflict regarding both concept and execution. Right Wing Republican ideology and greed are poor standards to use in designing military and foreign policies. Slogans are no substitute for logical thinking. Cherry-picking facts to support ideologically motivated war policies is approaching insanity.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and other Bush Administration figures are in deep denial about the reality of the Iraq disaster. It is very bad and getting worse. Increasing the number of troops will not help. American military power is not the answer and never was the answer. Killing more Iraqis, blaming Iran, risking the lives of more American soldiers and wasting hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars will not make the Republican approach intellectually sound, logical or reality based. Only the rapid removal of American forces will limit the scope of the growing disaster.
Republican efforts to taint disapproval of the Bush-McCain troop surge, by falsely charging that it is not supporting our troops, is illogical and intentionally dishonest. The proposed Congressional resolution opposing the Republican escalation plan clearly states that Congressional resolution supporters strongly support our soldiers in the field.
Senate Republicans blocking debate on a resolution opposing the Bush-McCain troop surge plan tried to change the subject by pushing a proposal to block any future option cutting off Iraq War funding. The option to block war funding if results on the ground continue to degenerate should remain on the table. The Senate Republicans are trying to lock America into a failed policy forever or at least until Bush leaves office.
American voters should vote against all Senate Republicans or Democrats who blocked the resolution opposing the Bush-McCain troop surge when their terms expire. Over 70 percent of the American public opposes the troop surge escalation plan. The Senators blocking the resolution debate and vote fail to understand that the United States is supposed to be a Democracy. They should not use their offices to thwart the overwhelming will of the American public.
Staying in Iraq is even worse than the decision to invade. Staying has no real hope of making the situation better. We have seen years of reality to judge the wisdom of the Republican Iraq War policy. It is a failure. Our soldiers are doing an excellent job but they cannot work miracles. The failure is at the political level. Our soldiers should not be paying the price of Republican political dishonesty or ideological thinking.
Support our troops by bringing them home by the end of 2007. We need a new reality based policy. An honest debate on the failed Republican Iraq war policy is years overdue!
Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com.) Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com . Phone: 443-907-2367.
www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 30 comments |
|
Sure, but the Democrats are their accomplices. What's worse,
being the out-front proponents of these crimes; or feebly pretending to oppose them while doing nothing substantive to prevent the crimes from going forward? The Democrats won the midterms only because the public wanted this monstrous crime in Iraq halted. Now the Democrats have diddled around with "non-binding" resolutions for over a month. They refuse to impeach Bush or cut off the funds for the war -- the only measures that could possibly be effective. Furthermore, they refuse to tell the public the truth about the war's motivations, pretending it's part of the "war on terror" (itself, another lie that the Democrats tacitly support). So what we have is a 3-pronged political system consisting of 2 big-business parties and the corporate media, all collaborating in the crimes which your article incorrectly attributes to "Republicans." The Democrats' deeply corrupt role, as well as that of the media, are essential parts of the warmongers' strategy. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 9:41:20 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Anti-Democratic BS no substitute for political realism
Really tired of the anti-Democratic BS! votes are not there to impeach Bush even if all Democrats in Congress support it. I do support impeachment as do many Democrats. Votes are not there in Senate to block Iraq war funding either although sentiment among Democrats in that direction is growing rapidly. In a Democracy, you must build public support first before changing such an important policy. Because of the filibuster, we need some Republicans in the Senate to break with Bush. Without huge public majorities being there first, we cannot swing the Senate Republicans. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 8:27:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why make excuses for the Dems' abject cowardice?
They could be on TV every day, explaining to the public the many ways in which Bush has committed war crimes, and crimes against the Constitution. If they don't do that (& they're certainly not doing anything close to that), the public can't fully understand the severity of the crimes. By holding back, they are in effect helping cover for Bush. This is what you're trying to make excuses for. You try to give lectures on how things work in a "democracy," but actually, 2/3 of the US public is already against the war. What you really mean by "build support" is getting more Congressional Republicans to vote against Bush. But the R's have marched lock-step behind Bush for 6 years, & are not exactly famous for breaking ranks or being reasonable. So what we have (as we saw in the Senate last week) is the Republicans playing tough & loyally protecting Bush, while the Dems play like pansies, diddling around with milquetoast non-binding resolutions, & apparently relying on the well-known "kindness" of Republicans, to push through a measure that's (at best) a mere wrist-slap. A word about your language -- you think you're entitled to use the phrase "Anti-Democratic BS." I could just as easily call the points you make "BS." // And as for "anti-Democratic," this is no different from calling critics of US policy "anti-American." Yes, I'm "anti-Democratic," because I correctly perceive that the Democrats are cowards who cover for Bush, & refuse to play seriously against him. There's nothing wrong with being "anti-Democratic," in this sense. It's objectively entirely appropriate. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:09:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "Sure, but the Democrats are their accomplices. What's worse
Rich M's outrage against the War in Iraq is to lauded and nurtured into an attitude of resistance to the war effort. Survey research showed Bush with 87% approval ratings at the time we invaded Iraq. Two thirds of the American public supported the invasion, remember how we used to refer to it as the liberation? In three and half years 50%, literally one half of the American public have changed their minds about Bush and about the war. Depite this sea change in public opinion, the institutional government still is pursuing the conflict. Because the institutional government is still engaged there is a need for continued debate on the best exit strategy from Iraq. Stemming from the debate, a binding decision and implementation of this decision. Contrary to RichM's perceptions this debate has not taken place, nor has the decision on the withdrawal strategy been made. Richm's proposal that funding for the troops be denied is extreme and needlessly punishes men and women who acted in good faith. The troops fighting in Iraq went when asked, we owe them the support and the resources they need to survive in that hostile environment. As a counterproposal to RichM, I offer the following proposal: THAT THE CONGRESS PAGO, THE NEXT APPROPRIATION FOR IRAQ OPERATIONS. This means that Congress would impose a surtax to pay for the war the next time they appropriate money. Such a measure would increase taxes by the amount that is required to maintain the war. Everyone sporting a bumper sticker to support the troops would have the gratification of knowing that their tax dollars are dedicated to the mission. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 8:19:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Excuse me, I never said what you're claiming I said.
You write, "Contrary to RichM's perceptions this debate(on exit strategy) has not taken place..." - I never commented about whether that debate had taken place, one way or the other. Re: "Richm's proposal that funding for the troops be denied is extreme and needlessly punishes men and women who acted in good faith..." - I never said anything that in any way implies "punishing the troops." The funds can be cut off immediately, but with allowances made to bring the troops home, safely & promptly. The parties who are really "punishing the troops" are the Bush regime, who sent the troops to Iraq for fraudulent reasons; and the Democrats, who refuse to take serious steps to put a prompt end to this criminal outrage. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:15:46 PM (0+)
|
|
The pot calling the Cettle.
"""""The failed policies of the Bush Republicans have turned the Iraqi people against American occupation by huge margins.""""" I with this uninformed coment.What soldiers have you spoken to? What Iraqi people have you spoken to? Where do you get your information. There are far more Iraqis that love the American's than hate them. The problem, even according to the far left, is they want us to stay forever. What a Crock. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 5:49:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Maybe you didn't catch it ...
... but if you would have read the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines Times about two months ago you would have read that for the first time a majority of those serving are against this war. Even Ollie North came out today and said that not one soldier he's talked to thinks the surge will work or that military action is the right course. Creditable surveys have said that 80% of the Iraqi's want us out and 60% say it's okay to kill Americans. Google it. THAT'S YOUR FRICK'N PROOF! Maybe if you were on your 2nd, 3rd or 4th tour you'd be a little disillusioned too. But, me thinks you're just as delusional as the ones you parrot in the WH. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 7:37:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I talk to soldiers myself.
I talk to my cousin and his brothers. They have all been there from day one. I get my info from the source. They are still there and believe in it. Good news doesn't sell. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 7:00:07 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: We all talk to soldiers
Talked to many soldiers myself who have returned from Iraq from Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland and Pennslyvania. Views are mixed. Early in war most supported it. Now very few believe in the war although they support each other. All are brave heroes in my book but the Republican politicans who sent them there are crooks and cowards. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 8:33:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Polling data & personal contacts
Both support the statements I wrote. The polls in Iraq were from several major polling firms including Pew. All US polls show around 70 % opposition to the troop surge and large majorities of US citizens supporting withdrawal by the end of 2007. The military polls cited in the other response was correct. I have received hundreds of emails from soldiers or Iraq War vets with over 90 percent opposing our current policies. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 8:19:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What soldiers have you spoken to
This writer's gibe about what soldiers say is a non sequitur. How would a soldier know what the Iraqis think? For the most part they are confined to areas away from the populace and they consort with other Americans. An Iraqi who cultivated relationships with Americans is certainly not an ordinary Iraqi and may well have skewed perceptions about us and about their own citizens. Reliable survey research, accounts by Iraqis who have left the country and the local press overwhelmingly comport with Mr. Crockett's assertion that the non-official Iraqi population is entirely hostile to the continued occupation. A definitive study by the British Ministry of Defense, released in the Spring of 06 documents the deterioration of Iraqi public support for the occupation and states that over 80% of them oppose the occupation. If troops are coming home or calling their relatives from the theater and stating their impressions that there is widespread Iraqi support for the occupation, one can only conclude the American capacity for self-delusion has reached psychedelic intensity. Robert Chapman Lansing, NY by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 8:33:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Again talk to the soldiers.
I still have yet to see anyone who has done an honest evaluation here. You go by polls. Polls are there to prove a preconcieved point. I talk to soldiers, there, on the ground. E-mails to an obviously bias source are going to come from those who agree with the same political view. I do not blindly trust the government. I do my own research. The troops are around the people all the time. The children love them as do the parents. It is the few insurgents that oppose, same as a drug dealer not wanting the police in their backyard. Mybe we should give over the US to drug dealers. We wouldn't want to have unhappy criminals. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 7:09:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You definitely do not understand polling
Take a course in polling techniques! Why would the British government design a poll to undermine a war they are fighting? Personal contacts cannot provide enough information to evaluate public opinion. Your views on the subject are illogical. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 8:37:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes Spock.
I know pleanty about polls. I also know what the troops say. There are polotics in England also. You deal with polls I'll stick with reality. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 8:24:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Silly rhetoric
Post has no real content. Baffled? by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 4:03:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes Spock.
I know pleanty about polls. I also know what the troops say. There are polotics in England also. You deal with polls I'll stick with reality. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 8:25:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Repeating the same lame argument is nonsense
Dumb tactic that shows how empty your arguments truly are. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq do not believe in Bush's Iraq policies. That is a FACT period! by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 3:58:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Repeating the same lame argument is nonsense Dumb tactic that shows how empty your arguments truly are. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq do not believe in Bush's Iraq policies. That is a FACT period! by Crockett (76 articles, 31 comments) on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 1:58:54 AM I am not the one repeating myself. You may not like the facts, but again, you can not say the troops disagree with the president without speaking to them. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Monday, Feb 19, 2007 at 4:16:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Repeating one last time- I do speak with soldiers
Cited states where they come from. Did you read the comments? by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 19, 2007 at 8:07:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here is the post!
We all talk to soldiers Talked to many soldiers myself who have returned from Iraq from Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland and Pennslyvania. Views are mixed. Early in war most supported it. Now very few believe in the war although they support each other. All are brave heroes in my book but the Republican politicans who sent them there are crooks and cowards. by Crockett (76 articles, 32 comments by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 19, 2007 at 8:08:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Both sides sent them.
There was a vote. Both sides are to blame. Page 140 911 com. 1st paragraph, Clinton let Bin Laden go. There are only a handfull on either side of the isle not to blame. You can't fix the problem without holding all responsible acountable. To say it was just the Reps is to be ignorant of the facts. And as for your speaking with the troops, as I said, do you realy think anyone would be e-mailing such an obvious ultra left liberal anything that would contradict what you say? No, they have a real fight on their hands. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:18:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Republican argument not reality-based
Much like the entire Iraq War. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:35:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fact.
All Dems, All voted for the war. Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Breaux (D-LA) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Daschle (D-SD) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Schumer (D-NY) Torricelli (D-NJ) Who voted for the Patriot Act? Every Democratic Senator except Sen. Russ Feingold voted for the Patriot Act. Dem's the facts Time for a third party. That is REALITY. Like it or not. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 5:35:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: List the Republicans who voted against Iraq invasion
Only one. List the Democrats who voted against the war. Be honest, factual instead of distorting political reality. The policy has been a disaster. Most of the Senators who voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq thought he would use it with wisdom (a mistake), thought we would be their briefly (a mistake) and be competent as Commander-in-Chief (a huge mistake.) Like the rest of the nation, these Democratic Senators changed their views based on reality unlike Bush and you. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 6:14:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why?
I didn't ever say they were any better. I said we need a third party that is not influenced by lobiests, corperations or hollywood. I think both sides stink. I'm not defending either. I'm pointing out hipocracy. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 6:28:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I know.
Typo by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 6:29:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Republican Fallacy & Rhetoric
Yesterday I 'held my nose' and tuned the radio to a local FM station featuring the speeches directly from the House w/o commentary or editorial screening. The speeches by Republicans are almost all composed of rhetoric and logical fallacies. They use hot-button rhetorical phrases but are dismally weak on the facts and lack accurate historical information and analysis. Where DID these people go to school? HOW did they EVER graduate!? Did any of them EVER study logic, debate, public speaking, political science, propaganda, the mass media or history? And WHO can listen, without choking, to such a steaming load of fallacy, rhetoric and plain old bovine exceta ! What a shameful public display of lunacy - or barring that - perhaps it is simply a public display of dishonesty run amok! Disgusting. Today I sprayed my radio and the speakers with a disinfectant. by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 5:49:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Now -THIS EXPLAINS MUCH
THIS EXPLAINS MUCH http://tinyurl.com/2vbpw3 Here's a (purportedly) leaked Republican 'talking points' letter which encourages GOP supporters of Bush's insanity to talk about ... well read the link. *I think I'm going to invest in hand soap - sometime in the future that are going to be a lot of Republicans sychophants trying to wash a whole lot of blood off their guilty hands! by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 1:24:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Bush analytically weak
I watched President Bush's 2/14/07 press conference live on television. The President was very lame in his defense of the surge. He stated the Iraqi National government has just adopted a $ 41 billion dollar budget for the current fiscal year. My state, New York, with a population of similar magnitude to Iraq's has just adopted a budget of $110 billion for the current fiscal year. I cannot understand how the President thinks the Iraqis can repair the damage to their infrastructure, care for the widows and orphans and provide security in the chaos that HIS WAR has created on this meager budget. This lack of analytical power is unfortunately very typical of the President's policy initiatives. If President Bush's analysis of straightforward matters like public budgets is so weak, how can any confidence be placed in his analysis of subtle and complicated matters like military strategy or the intentions of foreign governments? Robert Chapman Lansing, NY by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 8:39:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Crockett, look at the 911 report page 140.
"""140 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Kandahar, May 1999 It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Ladin with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Ladin's location in and around Kandahar over the course of five days and nights.The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources. If this intelligence was not "actionable," working-level officials said at the time and today,it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence on Bin Ladin in Afghanistan would meet the standard. Communications were good,and the cruise missiles were ready."This was in our strike zone," a senior military officer said. "It was a fat pitch, a home run."He expected the missiles to fly.When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said,"we all just slumped." He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Ladin "should have been a dead man" that night, he said.173 Working-level CIA officials agreed.While there was a conflicting intelligence report about Bin Ladin's whereabouts,the experts discounted it.At the time, CIA working-level officials were told by their managers that the strikes were not ordered because the military doubted the intelligence and worried about collateral damage.Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field,the Bin Ladin unit chief wrote:"having a chance to get [Bin Ladin] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry.... [T]he DCI finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying 'we'll go along with your decision Mr. Director,' and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn't get Bin Ladin." Now you tell me the difference. You claim it's time for change, but you just want to go back to the cold war. Let's change. Unless you don't believe in democracy. by Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 6:48:50 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
