President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 01, 2007 08:05 PM UTC

Going to War Over War

  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

A Loveland father with a son getting ready to return to Iraq for the third time is furious over a lawmaker’s criticism of a resolution opposing the war.

“This war has nothing to do with 9/11, with terrorism, with our national security,” Ken Bennett, 58, wrote to Sen. Greg Brophy. “We are the parents of a Marine. We do not support the war. You do not speak for us, so please do not claim to speak for military families.”

Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, introduced the resolution Wednesday, urging against any troop buildup in Iraq.

Brophy, a Wray Republican, warned Tupa to expect an all-out war on the Senate floor if he introduces the resolution. Their exchange resulted in Bennett’s impassioned e-mail to Brophy, which was copied to Tupa.


93 thoughts on “Going to War Over War

    1. Here is the link (sorry no hyperlink) to the Kinsley article.  I encourage all of you to read it.  I thought it was great.

      and a quote from the article:

      The one power members of Congress still might have is the power of the purse. Why don’t they use it? Supporters of the war dare them to try, but stand ready to accuse them of abandoning the troops if they shut off funds – as if ending the war meant leaving American soldiers shivering in Baghdad without bus fare home.

  1. Everyone from the Generals on down, including SOD Gates, is encouraging debate on the occupation in Iraq, except Republicans. I’ve always questioned their support for the troops on the federal level (especially with the lack of equipment and medical support when our friends and family return from war), but now I’m going to be looking at how the Republcans in Colorado abuse this resolution, with meaningless rhetoric and sloganeering.

    “Tupa said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace have acknowledged that debating the war won’t hurt the morale of troops, something which he also included in the resolution.

    “I would question whether that’s their real concern or if they simply don’t want to discuss this issue,” Tupa said.”

    1. of meaningless rhetoric and sloganeering on the part of Republicans:
      Brophy said, “I don’t want our guys to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.”

      How, in anyway, does this Colorado Resolution tie the hands of our troops? Is Brophy completely oblivious to the occupation in Iraq?

    2. the Army is rushing to send two combat brigades to Iraq without sending them through the advanced desert training.  When questioned about this, press sectretary Snow replied “they can get desert training other places, like Iraq”

    1. …it’s useful to Dems that some members of the GOP affirming the perception that Iraq is a Republican war.

      At this time of the day it’s obvious to even the most mild-minded that the 2003 version of what counted as “victory” (e.g., “greeted as liberators,” “creation of a western-style democracy”) has not materialized and that in 2007 nobody appears to know what “victory” might mean–let alone how to achieve it. Further, the Libby trial and upcoming oversight hearings will drive home the lesson that the Bush administration took a U-turn from the war against al-Qaida and into Iraq based on deliberately manipulated intelligence. Iraq is a spectacular foreign policy failure that will shame the GOP for a generation.

      As an active Democrat, I’m encouraged to see members of the GOP stridently affirming their mistake even at this late date. They’re writing their own political obitiary, so more power to them.

      But, setting the purely political standpoint aside, as an American it makes me sad that more lives will be expended simply because those in power fear losing face. This is the sort of thing that should transcend party politics–but it obviously hasn’t.

  2. I cringe at the thought of this debate in the CO legislature.  I think the Iraq war has been a fiasco from the beginning, but where will this resolution get us except stuck in mud-flying and flag-waving?

    1. With 27 other states doing the same, it will send a strong message to the Capitol and White House, that the occupation has been misguided by the Bush Administraiton, and there needs to be a dramatic change. We do not want four more years of the same.

      1. Our state legislature will spend a bunch of time and therefore money debating this resolution. I would rather have them spend that time on issues where they can make a quantifiable difference.

        1. First off, we have family and friends from colorado in Iraq. I don’t think our state voicing it’s concerns over the thousands we have sent into harms way, as a waste of time. That’s incredible that you would have such an uncompassionate heart and mind, to shun our soldiers in that way. Now I realize why they are not receiving the equipment and care they need, because of the “bury my head in the sand” mentality that people like you express.

          Secondly, do you even know what is going on at the Capitol? When Democrats are steering the ship, they get things done efficiently.

          “Fewer bills have been introduced this year than any year this decade, and the House is ahead of schedule on acting on those bills.

          Lawmakers were warned up front that bills with big price tags weren’t going anywhere. Most, but not all, lawmakers, held off on introducing those measures.”

          Democrats can tackle more than one issue at a time, to help our citizens and our soldiers in Iraq.

          1. charge, everything will be just fuckin peachy.
            Let the hand holdin and Kum Ba Ya sessions begin.
            Peace and prosperity will reign in Colorado.
            My gosh, why have we waited so long to make this change?

            Oh wait, we have had Dems in charge before and everything was just as fucked up as ever.

            1. Also known as the Clinton years.  Do you really want me to post those stats again or would you like to go wallow in your own delusion?

              You know, the stats about the longest economic expansion and the biggest surplus in American history, highest percentage of home ownership, higher overall wages, higher employment, and lowering poverty rates.

              God help us we should every fall back into that peace and prosperity morass.

          2. There is plenty of compassion in this heart. I feel no need, however, to prove this to you by sharing my personal endeavors and discussing my time spent actually helping soldiers and their families instead of talking about it like I feel so many people do. I will say it sickens me that simply because I do not believe the Colorado legislature discussing this resolution is a wise use of time that I have a “bury my head in the sand” mentality. You may be a person who actually helps soldiers and their families, and if so I commend you even though we disagree about this resolution. At the same time, I must say it disgusts me that you judge another blogger so quickly.

            Your argument for “efficiency” is a unique one. I did not realize they had gotten so much done that they could spend time on bills…oh wait… resolutions, that some of the minority party has vowed to fight. To me, it seems to be a silly move by both sides of the aisle.

            I have a tough time making the connection between this resolution and compassion and caring for our soldiers and their families.

            1. If you are concerned about wasteful resolutions go take it up with the minorty party for introducing commenorating Milton Friedmon and Ronald Reagan, which were debated on the floor.

              if you’ve forgotten, the Colorado Legislature also passed a resolution in 2001 in support of the war on terror. Was that a waste of time?

              1. I am sure you felt pretty good about yourself, thinking I am some mindless partisan hack. Sorry to disappoint, but I didn’t particularly agree with the Colorado state legislature passing resolutions on the Iraq war at the start of it either. I do believe state’s rights are crucial and am a strong advocate of laboratories of democracy. However, the military is under the watch of the federal government to which our state sends representatives to voice our concerns.

                I do not believe resolutions of this nature accomplish anything, although there may have been times in Colorado’s history when a resolution had an impact.

                At any rate, thanks for abandoning your “efficiency” argument and laying off the personal attacks regarding the amount of compassion in my heart.

    2. There is no more urgent issue today than ending the disastrous occupation of Iraq and Bush’s pell-mell rush to bombing Iran.  The only remotely possible way to stop this looming disaster is  a continuous banshee wail of STOP! from every quarter of the land.
      If a state that voted twice for Bush makes this vote of no confidence, along with Vermont and a dozen other states their voices may be heard.  If nothing else our own Congressional delegation might hear and heed such a clear statement.
      The seven people arrested in Salazar’s office in protest of the war never made the news, but the introduction of a “useless” resolution merited significant coverage in the local media – the debate spreads and gathers its voice.

  3. and I am the first to say that Iraq has NOTHING to do with the War on Terror.  All it has done (which is exactly what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded) has been to provide a training ground for future terrorists.

    And don’t even get me going on the “Chicken Hawks” who favor the war as long as somebody else or somebody else’s kid has to be the one who fights it.

    And what about the real War on Terror?  The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are reforming in Afghanistan, Osama is still on the loose, and we still worry, on a world-wide basis, about terrorist attacks.  In other words, we’ve failed.

    I once heard Newt Gingrich say that every time he passes the Viet Nam memorial in Washington, D.C., he thinks to himself that maybe all of those people whose names are engraved died in vain.  Will we be thinking the same thing in 10 or 20 years when the Iraq War Memorial is dedicated?

      1. Possibly many reasons:
          1) Partisan Politics
          2) Many of them have never served in the military
          3) Partisan Politics
          4) They don’t have to worry about their kid fighting
          5) Partisan Politics

        1. I respect your service and will add that it doesn’t take a blue or red bent to get that the Iraq War was a hoax- it just takes eyes wide open…. 

          Just think if we would have dropped 150,000 troops in Afganistan!!!!

          1. Heck – just think if we’d dropped a few more thousand into Tora Bora.

            At the time, the strategy in Afghanistan – until that last bit – was pretty sound.  Al Qaeda wanted us on the ground in the region, and we didn’t oblige them; that may have been a wise choice.

            But after the battles were over and done, we also didn’t have any way to influence the warlords into accepting central rule, and we didn’t organize a reconstruction effort that would have cemented the victory.  That was a Poor Choice.  And no-one in the Administration even wants to admit *that*.

            1. Did you see the Frontline show, about a year ago, which indicated that the CIA thought that they had bin Laden in Tora Bora?  But they didn’t have enough boots on the ground to totally surround the place.  So they called the Penatagon for Army Rangers to come in and complete the encirclement. 

              But political infighting (CIA vs Pentagon, or if you will, Tenet vs Rummy) delayed the Rangers arrival and bin Laden slipped away…

  4.   What’s that you say….there is no General Assembly Foreign Relations Committee?  Because there’s no jurisdiction over foreign policy?
      Maybe this is why our legislators shouldn’t be wasting time and energy on meaningless, symbolic gestures…
      If Tupa wants to stop the war, he should announce his candidacy for C.D. 2 next year.  If Brophy wants to demonstrate how loudly he can clap for the war effort, he can take on Musty in the GOP primary in C.D. 4 next year.
      These guys are clueless. They should read the job description for the jobs that they currently hold.

      1. That one was funny…

        As an aside- is One Queer selling you amphetamines and giving you “back rubs”? 

        Oh, sorry- none of my business….

        1. …what’s his name?

          (Reporter: One Q. Dude)

          I’ve never heard of the man.  I’ve been faithful to my wife.  Thanks.  I gotta go.

    1. The voice of reason.  I hope there is nothing pressing that our legislators could be doing that would actually achieve something for our state.  I’m glad to see they have this much spare time on their hands since their pay is crap. 

        1. They can also spend their time off talking to the press and carrying protest signs.  They don’t have to spend tax payer dollars trying to pass non binding useless resolutions.

          1. It’s been four years since we invaded and occupied Iraq. We have sacrificed too many lives, let down our injured soldiers returning home by not providing them care, and allowed billons to be stolen. For you to compare the costs that the state legislature will spend on debating this bill vs. sending more troops into a civil war is unconscionable.

            1. …debating this resolution and sending (or not sending) more troops to Iraq.  I hazard to guess that most people who question the resolution fail to see the connection.  That is, whether this resolution is debated (or even passed) will have no effect whatever on whether more troops go to Iraq. 

              In my view, this resolution is simply an excuse to fight at the state capitol when there are plenty of other reasons to fight.

              As for the fact that there are many Coloradans in Iraq, and thus Coloradans should have say about Iraq, I agree.  That’s why Coloradans have representatives in Congress: to debate (even affect!) national policy.

              1.   I’m not saying that what is going on in Iraq is unimportant.  It is very important. 
                  I’m just saying that it’s a waste of time to debate and vote on a meaningless resolution passed by an irrelevant governmental entity. 
                  If Bush is contemptuous of, and pays no attention to, a symbolic resolution passed by the U.S. House (which actually has some jurisdiction over foreign policy), why would he give a rat’s ass about the opinions of Colorado state legislators?

          2. …is the arrogance it portrays.  As though people really, truly give a damn about what a bunch of tye-dyed Democrats from Boulder and Denver think about our liberation of Iraq.  The common retort is, “well, we need to get our voice out there  If enough local politicians bang their pots and pans loudly enough, maybe Bush will decide to call it a day.”  Ah yes!  I’m sure that’s what’ll happen.  I’m sure David Petraus is combing the Denver Post everyday to make sure that Emminence Tupa is on board with everything.

            I didn’t vote Democrat last fall and so I cannot quite put myself in the minds of those who did.  But, sprinting out onto a limb here, I don’t think the good people of Colorado really had this in mind.  That’s why they voted for our federal guys and gal.  If nobody likes Congress micromanaging the war through namby-pamby non-binding resolutions, what does this look like?  Maybe if we were Texas or California or some big-wig state that actually shows up on the national political radar map.  But Colorado?  Well, pass all the resolutions you’d like, but don’t have hurt feelings if Bush and Patreus don’t go on Primetime TV here in the Centennial State and offer an sincere apology for our atrocities in Iraq.

              1. It was a great day, a cold yet sunny day, today in Right Field.  It’s surely getting crowded here.  Everybody keeps coming over here and I look out into left field and there’s some guy draped in a rainbow flag chanting ‘puff-puff-give’ as he’s meditating on a giant peace-sign blanket.  He’s alone.  It’s just him…chanting, puffing, chanting, puffing–it’s just relentless.

                Meanwhile in right field, though terribly crowded, we’re having a grand ol’ American time of it.  We’re getting married, having families, baking apple pies, attending church, supporting our troops and their heroic, necessary quest for victory, and trying to make room for one another in a scary world.  Sound too crowded?  Well, there’s plenty of room.  The state’s taking down the 328-marked right-field wall to make more room. 

                But as the days go by I really wonder about the chap in left field.  His rants get angrier and angrier.  He recently started calling us names, really frantic names–theocrat, fundie, war monger, bigot, homophobe, islamophobe, and other rude appellations.  We just smile at him.  He’s getting old and it won’t be long before we’ve got the place to ourselves.  Every once in a while a group leaves center-field for left-field, you know, just to talk or whatever.  But they get so turned off by the angry chanting, the smell, and the quixotic conversation they end up coming to right field.  So, the answer to your question, I’m certainly not taking crazy pills.  I sit at tea with my lovely family and smile.  In Colorado, in America, things are very sunny.  But I must go now.  There’s another storm moving overhead the old man in left field.  He’s cold.  He’s lonely.  But he’s still one of us.  I must go lend him a place to stay.

            1. ‘if nobody likes Congress micromanaging the war’  last i saw about 58% wanted Congress to stop the war, over 60% opposed the surge…

              it’s no wonder you ‘can’t get in the mind’ of people who voted democrat, you are lost in Dobsonville with the other Kool-aid drinkers, currently 1/3 Americans, although undoubtedly in higher concentration down there.

              1. …troops do.  For what it’s worth, a majority of Americans still believe that the war is worth winning and indeed, that we should give it a try.  They also overwhelmingly oppose cutting funding.  I don’t know what ‘stopping the war’ means, though it certainly cannot mean cutting funds.

                But, like I said, statistics don’t fight wars.  And though you can probably dig deep into the Daily Kos’s latest push-poll (of NYTimes or CBS or whatever other proud beacon of defeatism you cite), I don’t care much for it.  You can only stand so much political pressure, I suppose, but you can’t let a diverse bunch of media polls determine how you fight a war that we quite simply cannot afford to lose.

                And please, I live in suburban Denver–not the Springs.  Though, to be honest, I really can’t deny that suburban Denver IS ‘Dobsonville.’  In much of the ‘burbs, Dobson is found to be rather fetching. 

                1. have fun over there at your playtime Tea Party, Dr. D, with the ‘crowd’ of Bush supporters who believe that the occupation of Iraq is ‘worth fighting.’  Perhaps you are right, and it is I deluded, ‘puff-puff-give,’  and that Americans are convinced that borrowing another $100b from China to hand over to either a) Halliburton or b) drop off by the pallet-load, with no accountability, to militias that wish to do us harm and are causing the very violence we are purportedly there to stop…  is a good strategy worthy of support. 

                  Personally, I think you are living in a fantasy world. 

                  “Hey don’t sit there!  That’s Mr. Wuggles, Dr. D’s imaginary authoritative source for the pulse of the American people. 

            2. Please put down the Koolaid.  Bouncer, would you call a cab for D.D.H.G.L.Q.?  I think he’s had enough to drink for one night….

            3. …is that if it’s a “namby-pamby” resolution that will have little practical effect why is the GOP so bent out of shape over it? Ah, when talking points collide…

      1. … since most bills originate in the House. During the first half of the session, Senators don’t have so many bills to discuss. Once bills clear the house, the senate finally will have a full schedule. (But the herd will have been thinned, so even then the Senate will not have as many to look at as the House did.)

        Of course, Senators from the minority party have much more spare time. They don’t serve on as many committees, don’t chair any committees, and have few bills that make it out of committee. Thus, they have time to get their faces on TV and talk with reporters and to stick their collective feet in their mouths.

    2. This affects not only usage and availability of our National Guard troops, but it affect every single Coloradan who is in Iraq, is family of someone in Iraq, knows someone in Iraq, or otherwise. Trying to stop bloodshed is never a waste of time.

    3. When Boulder declares itself a nuclear free zone (there’s a shocker), I agree that that is a total waste of time.

      But when this country is divided over a question critical to it’s future, a political question (and what we do in Iraq is now totally a political decision), then having state legislatures debate this issue is very important.

      Congress is debating this and they are getting calls, emails, faxes, and carrier pigeons on this issue. And from that they are trying to get a sense of the country.

      But state legislatures, unlike any other group out there, is a good indicator of local passion on this issue. You and I can yell to leave Iraq and that is 2 votes. But if legislators in competitive districts publically vote to leave, it’s not binding but it is probably the best indicator of how the voters as a whole feel here.

      And additional conversations on Iraq are valuable. Because exactly what should we do now? I don’t think anyone knows for sure.

      The legislature is not composed of military experts. But they are political experts, the farm team to the Congress. And that makes them a valuable unique voice on this discussion.

      – dave

  5. I mean, while most states are debating health care, taxes, education, and other pressing issues, the Centennial State is dreamily spending its time on non-binding resolutions on national foreign policy.  Crime?  Here?  Naw!  Bush lied, people died, and the hippies in the state legislature need you to know that!

    But, by all means, I’m just lovin’ this stuff.  The Democrats started this session with high overtures of moderation and centrism build upon Ritter’s nebulous “Colorado Promise.”  But the breathtaking pace of simply stupid bills to pacify the Left has shown the good people of Colorado how no matter how nicely the Democrats speak about “centrism,” it ain’t gonna happen.  The Democratic Party is tied to left-wing lunacy–be it Planned Parenthood, the radical gay lobby, the unions, or the environmentalists and no mean rhetoric is going to change that.  Unfortunately for them, Colorado’s just not there.  Tim Gill can only hope to buy elections because his ideas sure as hell can’t win ’em.

    The Democrats foolishly thought their election gave them a left-wing mandate (though they never campaigned on anything remotely liberal) and come 2008, they’ll see how sorely wrong they really were.

    Of course, you know, to my most joyous delight.

    1. Dems can rub their stomachs and pat themselves on the head at the same time!

      Not only are the Dems following through with their campaign promises, they are are taking on the problems of the day. Unlike that other party that is still trying to the live in the dark ages with their heads in the sand, the Colorado Democratic Party is able to look ahead, and tell voters where they stand on “current issues”

    2. problem here is one of perspective.  You assume that your point of view represents one of being a little right of center.  Therefore anything you perceive as being more liberal than your point of view is considered “left wing lunacy”.  As many have pointed out, your views  are not moderate or centralist.  They come straight out of the extreme right playbook. Instead of discussing a resolution about the war in Iraq, you woul prefer that they spend time, as in the past, arguing about those grand old social conservative issues of prayer in school and flag burning and displays of the ten commandments.

  6. The Bush/Cheney WMD liars are about to reap ‘Impeachment’. 

    There is thousands of hours of video tape out there that make Bush and Cheney the ‘most impeachable’ of all our leaders, ever. 

    It is just a matter of time until the pressure on our US House Representatives builds to that  Impeachment moment.

    See articles at…  on the Tupa bill  and others… 

    Colorado Iraq FireStorm!

    If you agree  see



  7. The Democrat position is not about debate, it’s about defeat.  Secretary Gates, et al, are calling them out on it.  Unfortunately, they’re canny enough not to fall for it – and “debate” by arguing trite cliches about “not being about the GWOT,” and “support the troops by bringing them home.”  Or they argue that there aren’t enough troops, until the President sends more, in which case they’re staunchly against it.  That’s not debate.  “Debate” is about strategy, not politics.  Debate is *how to win.* 

    To debate, you have to have common ground to begin from – in this case, the common ground would be to Win the War, and that such an outcome would be a Good Thing. 

    Think of it this way – you can debate whether or not Shanahan is still a good coach.  But the assumption in that debate is that you’re both Broncos fans, and, in good faith, you’re both arguing in favor of building a Super Bowl Championship team, regardless of your positions on the Shanahan, or Plummer/Cutler, or whatever issue.

    The Democratic Party isn’t in favor of the Broncos winning anymore – and many of them actually admit as much.  Those I can handle; at least they’re honest.  It’s the ones who wrap themselves in their own flag, while simultaneously not caring whether it burns or not, so long as they get elected majority leader or get facetime on all the Sunday shows, who piss me off.

    1. What are you rambling about? This is a debate. Do you, or do you not agree with the policies the Bush administraton is following?

      It’s that simple. We don’t need a stupid football analogy, and a pathetic one at that, to explain this issue. We’ve engulfed in it for years now, and most people have a pretty good understand, so don’t treat people like children.

      Who I have a problem with are the ones who wrap themselves in the flag, but do not even know what the 4th Amendment says. Those who couldn’t identify the Founding principles, or the ill-fated military policies of the past which we could have learned from but instead ignored out of arrogance.  What I have a problem with is rhetorical crap that Republicans utter so carelessly, while unable to act.

        1. That when people have a simplistic black and white view of the world they end up defending positions that are unsupportable. For example, if one is to choose between “victory” and “defeat,” of course one will choose “victory.” The problem, of course, is how those terms are defined. To SOME of us, the useless waste of our soldiers lives to further the political ambitions of a power hungry president is a DEFEAT. While ending useless bloodshed is a VICTORY. By my understanding, I want Victory and the GOP wants to “cut and run” on our troops and is advocating a “defeatist” mentality.

            1. Your point was that the GOP is filled with a bunch of anti-troop defeatists? Ok… I guess there isn’t anything to argue about then.

        2. Honest, rigorous involvement of all the stakeholders in the region, in the following order:

          The people of Iraq, including Sunni, Shia and Kurds
          Neighboring countries
          United Nations
          National Security Interests

          Those are the circumstance most likely to succeed.

          “Victory in Iraq”….! We found no WMD, we toppled Hussein…..what victory are YOU talking about?

          What would that strategy entail?…..irrelevant question without accepting points 1 and 2 above.

              1. False indignation is SO not a good color on you.

                Let’s see ‘ere…
                Get the Iraqis involved –
                Elections creating a political future and military units securing neighborhoods…  Check
                Get the neighbors involved –
                In progress – but the best way is to involve the Arabs AND the Persians AND the Turks, all at the same time.  It would be like watching Lawrence Beyond the Thunderdome.  But it might remind the peoples in Syria and Iran and Arabia that they don’t even have point #1 up there.
                Get the UN involved –
                There WERE those resolutions…  But it WOULD be nice if they cared about the result more than just “let’s make those Americans look awful.” 
                Address national security issues –
                You mean like the spec ops units taking out real, no-kidding terror cells?  Wow, you’re a strategic *genius*!  Did you, like, read Sun Tzu five times, or play a bunch of Civ?  That’s astounding.

                1. Get Iraqis involved: well, it would be better if the Sunni weren’t so sidelined.  It might, you know, give them a reason to not try blowing shit up every day.  And are we actually *holding* the neighborhoods we’re “securing”?  It sounds like we’re just starting to do that now, and we’re holding entire areas with a garrison of 20-40 troops.  I’m not yet convinced.

                  Get the neighbors involved: it took the Iraqi government to even begin this process.  The U.S. refused to talk to Iran, and it took al-Maliki – the guy the U.S. sometimes accuses of being ineffective – to get the ball rolling.

                  Get the UN involved: It’s really too bad “those resolutions” included that last one – you know, the one that asked for a second resolution before starting the war?  Why should the UN want to engage in a United States that’s intent on telling everyone else to piss off and we’ll go it alone?  Bush needs to act like a diplomat, not a spoiled child.

                  Address national security issues: no, not like spec. ops units taking out terror cells.  Try more basic – depriving Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists of new recruits by acting like we want to actually rebuild the country, secure the basic resources of the area for the people, and then get the f*** out of the country.

        3. I’d acccept any circumstances that gave us a victory in Iraq.

          To answer what I think you meant to ask – what strategy would I accept that would lead to victory? I would accept any strategy that was 1) was worth the cost, and 2) did not morally bankrupt us so that we lost ourselves in winning this fight.


          The Irish have been fighting a civil war for 800 years and the English have to date not been able to stop it. If the Iraqis are determined to have a civil war, we can take sides (bad idea) but we can’t stop it.

          I think when we first invaded we had a chance. But Bush has so screwed up things, that that chance is long gone. Entropy is a one-way street.

          So here’s my question to you – if you cannot win in Iraq, what do you do? And don’t say it can be won – the U.S. is powerful but it does not wield unlimited absolute power over all. We have limits.

          – dave

    2. Send another 200,000 troops that we don’t have?

      How can any occupier attain “victory” over a civil war?  That’s what it is.

      Actually, there is a way.  Not military rocket science, been done for thousands of years.

      You kill civilians.  That’s all.  Anytime there are soldiers killed, you go and murder civilians.  Round ’em up, put them against a wall and shoot them, hang them, whatever. They don’t have to be part of the movement that killed the soldiers. The living stop fighting.

      The Romans did this, and I”m sure they weren’t the first.  The Germans did this, and I’m sure they won’t be the last.

      Would America do this?  Such a strategy is unspeakable horrible, but we’ve been on lots of moral thin ice since this war started. 

      Yokel, would you partake in such a strategy?


    3. “The Democrat position is not about debate, it’s about defeat.”

      I think it is disingenuous to say that any American who wants to pull out of Iraq is all about defeat.  It ignores the fact that many Americans have serious doubts about this war.  It is overly simplistic to make this a D vs. R debate.  It is clearly not.

      “To debate, you have to have common ground to begin from – in this case, the common ground would be to Win the War, and that such an outcome would be a Good Thing.”

      Nobody thinks that we shoudl loose should loose.  The debate focuses on whether or not we CAN win.  When you ask American soldiers to erase over a 1000 years of sectarian hatred between Sunni and Shia you are asking the impossible.  That is not what militaries are for, they conquer and defend territory.  Period.

    4. Yokel writes:

      [T]he common ground would be to Win the War[sic], and that such an outcome would be a Good Thing [sic].

      So, Yokel, what counts as “winning” at this point? Seriously. Do you even have a clue about what the words you’re using mean?

  8. might even call them wasted lives as both Obama and McCain have…

    Lets never forget:

    Condoleezza Rice is the nation’s top national security official. After September 11th, she claimed that the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. That assertion was proven false. In the months before the Iraq War, Rice repeatedly reassured the public that the U.S. was seeking a peaceful resolution, and that war was not a foregone conclusion. However, it now appears that at the same time she was saying this, she was telling senior State Department officials that the decision to go to war had already been made – well before diplomatic efforts to diffuse the situation even began. Most recently, it appears that she has given three separate, incongruent stories about her role in the massive intelligence breakdown that led to the White House making false statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It appears that Rice has either been misleading the public about her role in that fiasco, or alternately, has been grossly negligent in not reading the government’s most important intelligence documents.


    On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,”[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden’s terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]


    Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We’re going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision’s been made, don’t waste your breath. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]


    When questioned about why she did not raise objections to the bogus Iraq-nuclear claim in Bush’s State of the Union speech, Rice said on June 8 that “no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” [AP, 7/23/03] However, a month later, the White House acknowledged that “the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa” [Washington Post, 7/23/03].


    Rice told reporters on July 11th that the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety.” As AP reported, “if Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House, she said.” However, “Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, said on July 23 that in fact he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet last October warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice.” [AP, 7/23/03]


    Facing questions over Rice’s changing stories, the White House then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that Rice and Bush both failed to even fully read the intelligence documents they were given – as if negligence obviates responsibility for misleading the nation. As the Washington Post reported, on the eve of war, “President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was `highly dubious,’ White House officials said.” That assessment, called the National Intelligence Estimate, is considered the U.S. government’s most important intelligence document and contained “a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq’s weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies” [Washington Post, 7/19/03]. When asked about Rice’s new claim to not have read critical CIA memos sent directly to her that debunked the Iraq-nuclear claim, Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, admitted “I can’t tell you she read it. But in some sense, it doesn’t matter. Memo sent, we’re on notice.” [AP, 7/23/03]

    — 8/1/03 UPDATE —



    “He’s trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year.”
    – Condoleeza Rice in PBS interview, 7/30/03


    “[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.”
    – George Bush, 10/8/02

    “This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”
    – George Bush, 9/28/02

    “Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.”
    – George Bush, National Radio Address, 9/14/02

    “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.”
    – George Bush, speech to U.N., 9/12/02

    “The intelligence community also had high confidence in the judgment that, and I quote, ‘Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material,’ end quote.”
    – Vice President Dick Cheney, 7/23/03

    Condi/Bush/Cheney ….the oil barons and war for pofit ghouls. Those who defend this war have no ethical ground to stand on, no heart to feel, and no brains to look at the plain truth in front of them. They are, in toto all the characters of the Wizard of Oz……without the redemption.

    Fuck them! Move to impeach and take our country back! Lauren can wait…I can’t and neither can the country.

    1. I agree they should for the gross incompetence they have exhibited. But they won’t.

      What will happen is that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. will go down in history as the most incompetent administration in history. Probably not the most corrupt (see Harding & Grant) but definitely the most incompetent.

      And that judgement of history will be more harsh than any impeachment.

      – dave

        1. Yes the dollar amounts are bigger today but the federal budget is gigantic today compared to then. In terms of percentages and blatent corruption, I think those will beat today.

          Next 10 years of investigations should get us a final answer to this.

    2. While I’m for it, at this late stage in the failed Bu$h presidency impeaching him is not going to be all that helpful. The better course of action will be evidence-gathering within the congressional oversight process. This will enable domestic criminal prosecutions and civil litigation once the ghouls are out of office, and it could form the basis for an international war crimes prosecution. The mistake the Dems made with Nixon was not ensuring that Tricky Dick’s underlings would not get second or third shots at public service. This time around we need to make sure that Bu$h’s underlings are so tainted (and impovrished by civil litigtion) that they couldn’t get elected rat catcher at their political leper colonies. We need to focus on the organization as a whole–not the know-nothing salesman in the front office.

    1. with DeLay and a Republican Congress whining like children – just like Yokel.

      Here’s a direct quote from DeLay on the House floor in 1999:
      “…I cannot support a failed foreign policy.  Before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far…Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face?  What good has been accomplished so far?”

      So Democrats (or anyone) questioning Bush is micromanaging, but a Repulican Congress throwing hissy fits over Kosovo is perfectly okay.

      Once again, Planet Wingnut appears to be an irony-free zone.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

72 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!