Iran is NOT a democratic country. It’s run by the Ayatallahs. And Ahmedinedjad’s mind justifies the Holocaust. Being Jewish, I support Israel and believe Iran is an Islamo-Fascist dictatorship. I, for one, want to see the Kurds and the Sunnis strong enough to stand up to Iran and help us and Israel take out Iran’s nukes.

And IRAQ is not a Democratic country under the Bush-imposed Constitution. The political stagnation is a direct result from that Constitution (which excludes the majority from having Democratic power) and the imposition of cabinets and Prime Ministers that were selected by the Bush regime. Remember that all of the prior governments were selected by Bush…and the Shiite desired ones were “vetoed”.

I notice that you exclude the 66% of the population of Iraq…the Shiites when you say that you want Iraq to take out IRAN’s Nukes…Nukes that don’t even exist except in your mind.

As far as Ayatollah’s running the country…SCIRI Ayatollahs and clerics and Sunni Mullahs are also behind their factions in the Iraqi Parliament. And Moqtada al Sadr has close affiliations with Hezbollah. ..but dislikes the Iranian-influenced SCIRI.

Islamo-Facist is a term that even Bush has abandoned after it was pointed out that it applied just about to any of the nations that he considered “allies” in the way that he applied it. And that it was an oxymoron in any other respect. It was simply a propaganda tool, created by Bush speechwriters to make “codpiece” feel like he was on a crsade against the Nazis. The Nazis (or Japanese or Mussolinis Italians) have nothing to do with Islam. In fact, if you really want to see parallels to the Fascists you have no further to look than the Bush regime…Imperialist, anti-Constitutional, xenophobic, fomenting cultural wars internally, using a Christianist nationalism.

Invading Iraq actually placed Israel at GREATER RISK that when toothless old Saddam was in place. He wasn’t interested in al-Qaida, who would have threatened him…and would have ruthlessly dealt with them if the had…and he certainly brooked no agreement with the Iranian regime. You A*P*C mentality has built this situation.

Ed*ard Teller @ 115

First I’d heard that, and I thought I’d read every credible article on the subject. Did you read that somewhere?

The Vanity Fair piece on Ledeen was one place I remember seeing it.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..006837.php

Ledeen apparently mentioned his meetings with Iranian exiles in Rome to the newly appointed Ambassador, Mel Stembler. And Stembler was supposedly unaware of these activities and contacted the CIA to see if they had some sort of covert operation going on. Tenet freaked out, because the NSC/DOD…who was apparently running Ledeen’s activities, hadn’t notified HIM. Stembler contacted the wrong group…and back-channelled this illegal covert activity to the CIA (the only appropriate group to be undertaking this).

Some think that Ghorbanifar was involved in getting faked documents to Ledeen, or setting up their dissemination to the Italian and British intelligence services…who were then to pass them to the US as “independent” sources proving the veracity of the documents. Each set was to be slightly different in terms of their portfolio, but unfortunaely for the conspiracy, additional alterations were made that established that the contracts were fake.

It’s also possible that Stembler had brought Ledeen’s activities with the Iranians to the CIA for some other reason.

…
Heinlein once wrote that sovereignty is a word between sober and sozzled–to be ignored when you have to to wipe out a Hitler like threat. I do not believe that have to withdraw. I certainly KNOW that we are not committing genocide. We are fighting terrorism.

Evidence?

I find it odd that no one beleives that we SHOULD win.

I believe we should win. It’s just that there is no victory to be found in Iraq.

I mean it’s one thing to think we ought to get out, it’s totally another to think we should LOSE.

Who says we should LOSE? Cite?

I must admit that when a group hates their own country enough to want it to lose a war, I find it disturbing.

That’s what perplexes us about Bush and the NeoCons. Why do they hate America so much they would invade an innocent country, slaughter innocents, waste away our military and our treasury?

LibertyLee @ 155

Are there any terms that anyone here would think would be a success? … If there are any signs of success, shouldn’t we rejoice instead of withdraw with our tails between our legs?

The term “success” suggests that it would be a result of something justifying our invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. … Redeploying out of Iraq, is not withdrawing with our tails between our legs, it is going to be necessary, because the majority of the violence is not from Al Qaeda, it is from resistance fighters who want the occupation to end. … Success for the Iraqi people would be if they could ultimately reconcile and live in peace. We can’t do that for them. Our presence there is the leading fuel for their fury. We would feel the same if we were invaded and occupied and our infrastructure destroyed. There are no good answers to “save face”. Diplomacy is the only way. JMHO

Play it out:

Are we EVER going to leave Iraq? Sure

When? Nobody knows.

Why? Nobody knows.

Will it be a loss at that time?

If we wait 50 years and then leave will it be a loss at that time?

If it’s only a matter of how we feel about leaving, then apparently there are some people who would rather see a long slow trail of coffins than to feel personally dejected about having ‘lost’.

This ISN’T a good political argument. It isn’t effective to insult people’s feelings. But, sadly, it is the truth.

Should another soldier have to go to Iraq to die, lose limbs or lose their minds, just so the ones who have gone before and suffered won’t feel bad about their personal loss(es)?

How long must the war go on and how many soldiers must suffer before the ones who have already gone and suffered won’t feel so bad?

If the last soldier in Iraq before we leave dies, will it matter whether that’s tomorrow or 50 years from now? Would any soldier who has been there feel better knowing somebody else died after they suffered?

This is serious stuff. Our leaders can’t afford to be taking direction from suffering veterans. This situation requires Leadership, not followership.

Bush is a twit moron war criminal traitor or irrelevant, depending upon your attitude. We have to convince the Public and that will translate into political change — forcing the hand of the NeoCons and their sympathizers in Congress.

Losing? We aren’t going to lose by withdrawing. We only lose by doing stupid things like staying there.

realworld @ 91

…
We need contrast, not finesse.

Edwards is doing a good job of giving us just that!

GO EDWARDS!

And, it’s not just being different to be different, as Obama seems to be saying. It’s to state who we are and what we want and then showing clearly how that differs from our competitors. Don’t let them muddy the waters and blur the distinctions. It’s important for the public to know precisely what each candidate is and might do as president. The same goes for the political party label — it has to really mean something.

Woohoo Thom Hartman is having quite a heated discussion with a Repug who is calling HRC a socialist for proposing a bailout fund for at risk homeowners.

From what I read she didn’t suggest anything for homeowners, only for mortgage lenders (typical DLC behavior).

They keep labeling her as So*ial*st and it’s pretty funny. I think Republicans don’t know what a So*ial*st is.

I wonder what the wingnuts are gonna think — they’ve been braying for years now that Iraq isn’t Vietnam, and now their Glorious Leader is saying it is!

It should be easy enough for someone with video skills to put together a simple video showing Bush saying the one thing and then the other with a date labeling each, so the viewer will know they’re being played.

Show ‘em up as liars and conmen (not to disparage conmen) and the public will trash ‘em. They’re already giving about twice as much money to Dem candidates as to Repubs. Come election time it will be a complete wipeout.

Still, the most effect can be gained by convincing the public in states with Repub senators and reps to go with Dems on impeachment and conviction. How could we focus and direct our message to get those folks on board — presuming their moron senators would follow suit to save their jobs?

… Truth is always better than mindless blind loyalty.

I am so confused I just can’t figure it out. Certainly he has figured out we are paying attention and won’t let this slip by. There must be something I just am not getting that makes so many Democrats willing pawns.

It could be a lack of the appropriate degree of cynicism or maybe the Republicans greased his palm. A lot of campaign finance cash for the future will often buy a lot of votes. Funny how Rahm Emanuel knew exactly who to call.

When cash it being handed out by the suitcase and there’s no accounting then the last guy to see the money needs to be put in jail. We simply don’t allow money to be tossed around that way. It would violate our traditional family values.

You’re right, of course. Iran is no more democratic or a state of laws then, say, the USA. But i don’t exactly see a reason for the Sunnis or Kurds to help the US (or those Arab-suppressing zionists, as they might see it) to take out the Iranian nukes – scrath that, there are no Iranian nukes. The Iranian nuklear program. These (still and for the next 10 years) non-existing nukes don’t threaten their Arab brothers, so why should they interfere ? Brothers top cousins top family tops tribe tops clan tops people tops state tops religion … and everything tops the Big or the Small Satan. Dream on.

By the way, you didn’t exactly object to anything i said, did you ?

edited and released by mods

LS, A war is not a game. When you commit lives to an enterprise, it’s certainly not a game. But it wasn’t done in the name of cheap oil. I DO have a hard time understanding how one justifies in their own mind having their own country lose a war. I hated that idea when my fellows collegiates protested Vietnam, and I hate it even more now when the enemy is so far more vicious. I really don’t understand the thinking behind having your country’s lives committed to battle and then not doing everything you would do to win.

You’re right, war is not a game and neither is national security. National security is not determined by who gets more in the “W” column in the box score of wars. Wasting our armed forces in a country that was no threat to us harms our national security.

I have a hard time understanding someone who believes that the only decision allowed is one to commit our country’s lives to battle, and after that, we must continually pour ever-increasing resources into it regardless of how badly it goes. But you’ve never come close to addressing that question so far, I don’t expect you will now.

The decision to commit our forces to battle can be wrong. Even if it’s made in good faith and for the stated reasons, which this wasn’t.

Because winning is more than a game; it’s survival.

Bullshit. There was no force in Iraq that could threaten the survival of the United States before the invasion, there is certainly none now. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war. The “winning” course for America would have been to take the fight to the people who attacked us, not pull forces out to invade a country that didn’t and create more enemies. That’s the “win” that those of us here are trying to move the country back to.

But you apparently hate your country so much that you’re willing to see our armed forces ground down forever mediating a civil war that was triggered by the nonsensical decisions of your unquestioned leader, rather than turn our resources against those who, even if they aren’t the existential threats to the nation that your fantasy, are real threats.