“These are people,” Kucinich said, “who don’t understand what civil liberties are, what the Constitution represents, or what democracy is all about. What they are doing is despicably un-American and a violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Turning our own military assets against our own people is a flagrant violation of everything this nation stands for and a crime against our citizens.” Kucinich said.
Fuckin' A, Dennis.
I don't hear any other candidate making this much sense. Why is DK "unelectable"?
As he said in 2004, "I'm electable if you vote for me."
Fuckin' A.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 20, 2007 12:38 PM"Lukewarm" describes that entire debate.
George Step-on-phalus is a tool.
"Can prayer prevent bad things???"
WHAT THE FUCK!
Posted by God Of War at August 20, 2007 12:49 PMi have a feeling that hillary's brand of being a consservative democrat is very much along the lines of gwbushes brand of compassionate conservatism...it's bullshit
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 01:12 PMGOW, I almost vomited when they posted that question, but had to stay tuned to see how awful the answers were gonna be. The only good thing about it was it provided Kucinich the best part of the whole debate: "I've been standing here all morning praying that you'd call on me, George."
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at August 20, 2007 01:13 PMI'm tired of this middle of the road, right leaning crap.
The country went bezerk to the right after 9/11... from unreasonable fear. Now any correction left is "extremist" and Hillary feels the need not to appear to left leaning..
What utter fucking bullshit.
As I've said before, I loathe the prospect of a Hillary corporatist presidency. This is getting ridiculous.
Posted by Simp at August 20, 2007 01:20 PMif bobby kennedy were running in today's world he be saying a bunch of shit he didn't mean..in order to get elected...he was an idealist..but also one of the most pragmatic human beings ever to set foot on the planet..and he was ruthless..hillary clinton is saying what she has to say...lot of people don't seem to get that..
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 01:20 PMOT: Via Josh Mashal at TPM:
Gen. Petraeus to deliver report on Sept. 11.
if there was any doubt that anything and everything this administration does is political....
What absolute pricks.
Posted by Simp at August 20, 2007 01:31 PMi like dennis kucinich..i like him a lot i really do and i wish more people listened to him..but he is at 1% in the polls for christ sake..you have to ask why ....
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 01:34 PMWhy? Corporate media are in control. Until people wake up and step out of their sheep skins, MSM will stay in control. Don't pay any attention to MSM. That's how to put an end to their dominance over society.
Posted by Bill at August 20, 2007 01:53 PMI cringed, reading that question in the transcription. I found that I spent much if the 4 pages skimming answers and skipping the same stump points recorded by the Register several times before. The prayer question just made it worse.
The only good thing about reading David Yepsen is that he tends to really not give 2 dumps about most religious issues, unless it's highly divisive like gay unions or abortion. "Prayer? Fuck that - I wanna hear these guys explain how they're going to defend family farming when we all know what wealth we have in this state is because of factory and corporate farming."
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 20, 2007 02:07 PMThank you Jeff for putting Kucinich in your title.
I was so disgusted yesterday:
one of my favorite liberal bloggers was on a local tv show, and when asked which dem candidate supported universal health care, she and the other lefty blogger just didn't answer at all. My jaw dropped and I thought "what's the fucking point?" I felt like she was catering to the notion that if one mentions Kucinich's name, one must be a lunatic in the allppowerfuleyes of the MSM, so best to keep quiet. What a way to support important issues, huh?
Why? Corporate media are in control. Until people wake up and step out of their sheep skins, MSM will stay in control. Don't pay any attention to MSM. That's how to put an end to their dominance over society.
True knockin. "Oh, Kucinich is unelectable." Over and over again in the news.
Fucking corporate media.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at August 20, 2007 02:23 PMSharon, that's my point, really. I don't care if the candidate is at 1% in the polls, the issues he raises must be addressed, IMO. If his platform is viewed as the lunatic fringe by the MSM, then I'll wear that label proudly.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at August 20, 2007 02:33 PMIf his platform is viewed as the lunatic fringe by the MSM, then I'll wear that label proudly.
Jeff, you have the power to contact Kucinich and offer him a platform. Send an email to his people, explain what you want, and try to get him on here to guest blog for a day. At least offer him a post or two so that he can explain his platform. Be egaltarian and offer it to the other candidates.
Get Hillary for sure. I want to ask her about her non-platform on her non-healthcare reform...and other questions.
Posted by phidipides at August 20, 2007 02:49 PMHow is Hillary anymore right leaning than Obama?
Posted by Melanie at August 20, 2007 02:59 PMPresident Eddie Haskell and Vice President Lumpy Rutherford. Leave it to Brush-cutter and Dead-eye...
am i to assume that the msm that brought us impeachment with popcorn and kept bush in the white house these 7 years is the same msm that is now trying to elect hillary clinton..something wrong with that picture...to blame the 1% on the msm is a bit of a stretch and a humongus over simplficaation..of a very complicted electorate..you want to be elected..you pander...
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 03:07 PMmelanie...she's not..nor in reality anymore left than edwards..and she is also way ahead in the polls..
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 03:09 PMdefinitely the most conservative candidate of the Dem field.
I disagree, though it depends on how you define "conservative". I think that title goes to Joe Biden. Hillary is way better on women's
issues (natch). I remember Biden being an asshole to Anita HIll and voting for parental notifications for abortion.
I really like Hillary. She is tough and not afraid to kick preconceived notions about Democrats. A Democrat who is pro-War on Terror and knows that we must take the fight to Iran. She also knows that we must raise taxes to pay for the war. The first isn't popular with Democrats and the latter isn't popular with Republicans. She'll win the whole thing anyways!
Posted by Steve N V at August 20, 2007 04:22 PMJust to remind y'all again. In 1991 Bill Clinton was nowhere in the polls. I seem to remember he was polling less than 5% into December. There's time, or there would be had the primary season not been accelerated, The current primary season makes it so difficult to build a campaign. The dates aren't set even now. Everyone wanted to have a say after they're lack of determining the last candidate. What a crock, instant results, long run for the leader. I guess the media makes a killing with ad buys, especially with the touring candidates in the year preceding the primaries.
Posted by peter at August 20, 2007 04:36 PMA Democrat who is pro-War on Terror and knows that we must take the fight to Iran.
What a statement for Hillary being GOP-lite. You're saying, she is Pro-Military Industrial Complex and Pro-AIPAC.
That would put her immediately at the bottom of my list of Democratic candidates.
As a woman, I hope Hillary is just trying to talk Hawkish, not because she really believes it.
If anything, we have screwed up so bad in Iraq, that dialogue with Iran, along with the whole Middle East, is imperative.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 20, 2007 04:38 PMDennis, thanks for clearing that up.
Steve N V, get a hold of yourself She has not in anyway advocated war with Iran. That's just fodder for bored bloggers.
Posted by Melanie at August 20, 2007 04:40 PM"if Bobby Kennedy were running in today's world he be saying a bunch of shit he didn't mean..in order to get elected...he was an idealist..but also one of the most pragmatic human beings ever to set foot on the planet..and he was ruthless..hillary clinton is saying what she has to say.
Dennis, I just can't agree with that statement. I don't think pragmatism would make Bobby Kennedy say something he really didn't agree with. I think Hillary is saying what SHE thinks she needs to say to get elected. Not all people who enter politics are as rudderless. Hillary has spent her life with the same kind of brain-dead, DLC politics that has spoiled my judgment of her husband's "convenient" style of politics.
I'm a great admirer of Bill Clinton's political prowess. Unfortunately, it flourished at the expense of "free" trade, corporate media control and a host of other compromises which we, as a democratic society, simply can't afford.
Not everyone is pragmatic enough to abandon their basic moral structure in order to "win" elections. Let's believe that some people are NOT political whores. I would vote for Hillary if she becomes the Democratic candidate, simply because the Republicans are all certifiable. But I would definitely be holding my nose, as I have for the past 30 or so years to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I also like much of what Dennis has to say. Gosh, even Mike Gravel makes some kind of sense. Unfortunately, such views are neatly sidelined by Mainstream corporate media and we're encouraged to consume a healthy portion of the traditional, "they all do it" tripe by morons who couldn't hold down a real job if their lives were not being propped up by a grotesque Speakers Bureau of the far right.
We're better than that and it's about time we started voting that way.
Posted by DeminNewJ at August 20, 2007 04:56 PMDeminNewJ..
i lived on cape cod for thirty years..didn't know bobby kennedy but knew a lot of people who did..and knew him well..he was a good and decent man..and perhaps i stated it wrong..but bobby kennedy would do whatever it took to win..losing to them was not an option..it is a very different world today..things are quite gray and you have to please an awful lot of people to win elections these days...bill clinton understood that better than anybody...and say what you will about the clinton years..but i'll take them back in a heartbeat..hillary clinton is a liberal..a real liberal..but she has to get elected first ..
Posted by dennis at August 20, 2007 05:14 PMThe Bobby Kennedy I knew wouldn't be a member of this Democratic Party. That's for sure. Jack Kennedy wouldn't either. You'd be labeling him a DINO or loserman, he was way to conservative for many of you.
Just to be clear, I didn't know him personally. I did witness his campaign from Chicago and San Francisco. RFK wouldn't say anything to get elected, that's brother Ted.
Posted by peter at August 20, 2007 05:31 PMCamp Casey is deserted. The left has redeployed from protesting the war.
Posted by peter at August 20, 2007 05:50 PMDennis is tha man!
Posted by Parallax at August 20, 2007 06:10 PMI really like Hillary.
I hope she wins the Dimocratic primary.
It's gonna be tough though.
"...it's obvious, and certainly not news, that the front-runner is staking out a middle-of-the-road, somewhat conservative territory, even this early in the primary season. This is a wise postition to be in during a general election, as long as she can hold off Obama and Edwards and secure the nomination."
Methinks someone has been watching too much Faux News. So, its 'wise' for Hillary to remain marketable to fascist, racist, ethnocentric, militaristic, immoral asswipes who believe that invading and occupying Iran is something The United States of America should set as a goal?
Setting aside the point that this presumes that significant percentages of America support this garbage, should Americans REALLY applaud (1)Hillary's successful attempt to obscure her true leanings on these matters, (2) that she herself believes that this kind of EVIL is an acceptable path to lead this nation down, or some mix of the two? She OBVIOUSLY thought that on some level that it would be OKAY to allow the Neocons to sentence tens of thousands of Iraqis to living the rest of their lives DEAD or alive in a polluted, crime-infested, warzone.
Are Americans really stupid enough to think that this is a sustainable foreign policy?
Even I am not cynical enough to think that Americans would allow Republicans or Democrats carte blanche to invade and occupy a second nation. But even if this is the case, and suburban Soccer Moms across America are indeed having wet daydreams of our military scattering depleted Uranium shells across elementary schools in Iran, then that is all the more reason for anyone that considers themselves ideologically leftward of...say...Strom Thurmond...to oppose a Democratic candidate that would think it 'wise' to pander to that demographic. What's next, courting the Klan vote?
Posted by Tampa Student at August 20, 2007 06:35 PMMethinks someone has been watching too much Faux News.
No shit!!
Gravel: When Democrats buy into ‘the problem of Iran,’ they just help Vice President Cheney, who should be committed with his recent statements.”
A Democrat who is pro-War on Terror and knows that we must take the fight to Iran.
The Democratic Party has got to stop echoing these talking points because if Bush/Cheney/Kristol attack Iran, the American public will not know what is propaganda and what is truth.
All the above from C&L debate round up.
Posted by phidipides at August 20, 2007 06:45 PMCamp Casey is deserted. The left has redeployed from protesting the war.
Hell man, we have elections to win next year!
We will have over 60 seats in the Senate, 10 more in the House, and the Presidency!
Seven, how right you are! And Melanie, what a great name. "I've got a brand new pair of rollerskakes, you got a brand new key" Hehh!
Posted by tempus at August 20, 2007 08:28 PMIf you gain three senate seats, three current Democrats will change party affiliation. To have a veto proof senate, you're going to need 65 senators or a gain of 15. That's not going to happen.
House, what only 10 seats. That's so conservative of you. Is the electorate only 10 seats mad at Republicans? That certainly isn't what Democracy Corp polls are saying. Seven, you're a conservative at heart. We'll have to see. Congress isn't very well liked right now. Democrats give Congress an 18% approval, Republicans give it a 12% approval. Either way, it's at historically low numbers. Last years Congress was fired with a 23% approval. Stew on that a while.
The WH is only a Democrats dream. That's it. HC trails RG by seven in the national numbers. RG's not over the 50% number, yet.
Any up tick in Iraq, any hint at a certain victory next April. All the boats float upwards. Those nay sayers will have to answer for their comments. Senator Schumer said something like that last March about Republicans. He wanted to tie the loss noose around Republicans. It flows the other way with positive news. What a bad position that puts Democrats in. American bad news is good for them. Good news for America is bad for them. I'm glad I wasn't put into such a place in 2000. We only needed to beat a sitting VP that wouldn't let the most popular president ever help him win. Sounds like my grandson, he wants to do it by himself. That's ok for three year olds, 55 year olds, not ok.
We'll see Seven, I'll be here that Wednesday morning in November, God willing. I'll take my lumps or be singing the theme song to Flashdance. I like my chances to be singing. seeya
Posted by peter at August 20, 2007 08:41 PMCongress isn't very well liked right now. Democrats give Congress an 18% approval, Republicans give it a 12% approval. Either way, it's at historically low numbers. Last years Congress was fired with a 23% approval. Stew on that a while.
I'll take my chances. I figure the people think like me, and did not get rid of enough of republi-con obstructionists in the House.
The same goes for the Senate. All we need is to stop the damn cloture votes and make it an up or down vote. I don't want a full 67. You can have Loserman, he's off his committee next year anyway.
Just enough to stop the republi-con obstructionists! They are what is killing this country.
Any up tick in Iraq, any hint at a certain victory next April. All the boats float upwards. Those nay sayers will have to answer for their comments.
peter, you must read this Op-Ed from the soldiers on the front lines in Iraq. It will surprise you.
Just a reminder, there is no current functioning government in Iraq.
The ancient Yazidi had the worst terrorist attack on them (in human terms and largest since the occupation began) since 9/11.
I'll just post the entire article with my highlights.
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
As my friend Lurch says at Main and Central: "Note carefully: no PhD “experts” from political agenda think tanks; no academics; no dancers and prancers from Army Vo-Tech polishing their career resumes. Apparently just some grunts getting hot and wet and dirty on a daily basis, fighting in Mr Bu$h’s ego-war."
Baghdad - VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
These are soldiers on the groung talking peter. It would behoove our leaders to listen to them.
I saw the NYT article. I read the NYT article.
The Yazidi attack was for Democrats benefit. Sure a shame they thought that attack would help them. AQI did it for many reasons. Maybe to show the Muslims that they are an equal opportunity attacker or maybe to say "ok, we'll attack others and leave Muslims alone." Anyway, they didn't care who they attacked. Just get on the front pages all over the world. They're getting routed, Seven.
People are restarting a life style again. They are getting a life again. The national soccer team is helping to bring them together. Things aren't perfect, far from it. Electricity, water, gas, the marketplace still need fixing. Services need to be available 24 hours a day. The people are seeing smiles on their faces. They are getting to feel free, to walk around without fear. The more the conditions improve the better the society.
The political solution will have to come around. The people will demand it. Right now they're barely functioning. Won't argue with you there. Seems the people are further along than the politics or the government is. Our government took time to get themselves together. The German and Japanese governments took time to gather themselves after WWII. We kept our forces there while they were getting it together. Sure, our GI's came home in groves, but the percentage to the populations of those countries were the same as the percentages in Iraq.
Now is a time for patience, for everybody. The UN or NATO needs to get involved sometime soon. Or, I would like them to. Sometimes I wonder if they're even capable. The "blue hats" seem to mess things up even moreso. We're at the 1863/64 stage right now. Our new Sherman/Petraeus is doing a marvelous job and has rounded the corner. Americans must be patient.
Seven, I'm sure we can both find soldiers who will give both of us their opinions. We can both filter the message we're hearing. We need patience right now, period. Rep. Baird stated the same and he's not a supporter of this admin. HC, BO, and JE have all changed their tune over the summer. We just need patience.
Posted by peter at August 21, 2007 03:53 AMLeaders listen, Seven? We have both been to combat, many times.
Posted by tempus at August 21, 2007 03:54 AMI am voting for Kucinich in the primary. I hope others will also. Why doesn't Steve endorse Kucinich? 7o6 you sure are rough on the hawks.
peter: Camp Casey is deserted. The left has redeployed from protesting the war.
Try redeploying your pants-pissing cowardly ass to Iraq.
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 21, 2007 06:37 AMpeter: "If you gain three senate seats, three current Democrats will change party affiliation."
oh really? been gazing into your crystal ball?
peter: "To have a veto proof senate, you're going to need 65 senators or a gain of 15."
the stoopid it burns! to override a veto requires more than 65 votes in the Senate
peter: "Congress isn't very well liked right now. Democrats give Congress an 18% approval, Republicans give it a 12% approval. Either way, it's at historically low numbers. Last years Congress was fired with a 23% approval. Stew on that a while."
Listen pants-pissing peter, the ReThugs were turned out in 2006 because they were still supporting Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, Americans will NOT turn back to the party that STILL supports the war.
peter: "Any up tick in Iraq, any hint at a certain victory next April. All the boats float upwards."
The American people overwhelming oppose this war. Troops will start withdrawing next April because the army is BROKEN, but you don't give a rat's ass because you "support" the troops by leaving them to die in the middle of a civil war.
no more pants-pissing right-wing cowards!
The people are seeing smiles on their faces. They are getting to feel free, to walk around without fear.
Comphresion problems again peter! Read slowly:
Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect.
Damn peter, what else didn't you understand from the article.
Once again:
...it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
"Smiles on their faces"? You've been to Iraq so this is accurate right? peter, you're full of shit!
Posted by Seven of Six at August 21, 2007 07:17 AMLeaders listen, Seven? We have both been to combat, many times.
You're right tempus, I meant to say Military leaders.
Posted by Seven of Six at August 21, 2007 07:19 AMpeter: They are getting to feel free, to walk around without fear.
well I'm up for starting a fund so we can send pants-pissing peter to Baghdad so he too can "walk around without fear"
jebus, even for a troll you're pathetic
Posted by Gay Veteran at August 21, 2007 09:35 AM