U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 14, 2007 06:45 PM UTC

Iraq War Resolution: Bring 'Em On

  • 80 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Our previous threads on the the Colorado General Assembly resolution against the Iraq war have provoked lively debate from our readers. So we can expect to see all of you down at the Capitol this afternoon, right?

The show won’t disappoint — the Rocky Mountain News is predicting a “marathon” smackdown in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Two Colorado parents whose sons fought in Afghanistan will offer vastly different views when they testify at the state Capitol today on a war resolution.

John C. Buckley III, a Colorado Springs attorney, is furious over the Democratic-backed measure, which opposes sending more troops to Iraq.

“I almost lost a son in this war, and I still think that, by and large, we have tried to do the right thing,” Buckley said.

He said he believes the resolution undermines support for the troops: “This resolution sends a message to every Coloradan who wears a uniform.”

But Gaye Lowe-Kaplan, a retired teacher from Lakewood whose son is scheduled to be discharged from the Marines in July, said she thinks it’s an important issue for legislators to discuss.

“I’m not a pacifist. I think we need to defend our country. But not this way. My kid’s life was offered up for a lie,” she said, and then broke down…

Tweet
Share

Comments

80 thoughts on “Iraq War Resolution: Bring ‘Em On”

  2. Someone take notes for me please :). I am curious about some of the legislators stances. I want to know if they are supporting a phased withdrawal or if they are supporting cutting funding for the war in an effort to force W’s hand.

      1. I thought it was a war to bring democracy to Utahns and liberate the down-trodden, subjugated for so many years to despotic, theocratic rule.  The Utahns are our friends, and they need our help, whether they want it or not.  What fun is exporting democracy if you can’t ram it down an unwilling populace’s throat?

  4. * 46% of people say the US can win
    * 46% of people say the US can not win (this is the first time this number has dropped below 50%)
    * 37% say we will win
    * 54% say we will not win
    * Only 29% said things were going well in Iraq (all-time low)

    Here’s the fun part… a majority of people are finally waking up but not enough.  54% said the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about WMD.  (How much more proof does the other 46% need!?)

    47% think Congress should be “primarily responsible” for setting war policy.  Only 33% think the president should be setting the course.

    2. 46% do not think that W “misled” America? Amazing. Well, there is a number who think that we were created in the last 5K years, and some of those think that the earth is the center of the universe and even a smaller number claim the earth is flat.

      Perhaps it is the lies that we tell ourselves, rather than the lies that others tell, that get us into trouble.

      1. Forty-six percent say U.S. cannot win in Iraq; same percent says U.S. can win
        • Most think Bush administration was deliberately misleading before invasion
        • So-called “surge” remains unpopular, but opposition has lessened a bit
        • Twenty-one percent support an immediate Iraq pullout
        (from the same article)

        There is a difference between “deliberately misleading” the nation, and having faulty intelligence.  I don’t recall there being any proof that it was something other than faulty intelligence.  So don’t ask “how much PROOF” does someone need, when there is NONE!

        Only 21 percent support an IMMEDIATE IRAQ PULLOUT.  Sorry, y’all are still in the minority.

        Also, here’s an article about the surge having positive effects in Iraq.

        http://news.yahoo.co…

        2. The problem is the manipulation of the intelligence (cherry picking, distortions, etc.) used as justification for war rather than credibility of the intelligence itself.

          1. When I hear “diliberately manipulating intelligence”, it’s usually in conjunction with alligations that Bush flat out falsified reports.  And there are people out there that believe that Bush literally sat there and wrote intelligence reports while everybody else knew there wasn’t a problem but feared what Bush would do if they said anything.  And polls that say “a majority think Bush lied” are the first thing that people who believe that point to to make their point.

            Anyone who watched the debate leading up to the war could have told you that information was being “cherry-picked”.  Sadly enough, I have come to expect that from either side.  But all in all, I believe that we did the best we could with the information we had at the time.

            Regardless, whether or not Bush “lied” has nothing to do with the problems in Iraq.  It’s not like if we had found weapons of mass destruction that the insurgents would have said “oh, our bad.  Saddam lied.  I guess we’ll put down our guns and live peacefully.”, or Iran would have said “oh snap-look at that, let’s let Iraq govern themselves.”

            “But if we had good information, we wouldn’t have gone in the first place!” you might say.  Need I remind you that we have had problems with Iraq ever since the first Gulf War?  Do you really think that the problems in Iraq could or would have ended with anything other than finishing the job that should have been finished in 1991?  I don’t think so. 

            In anycase, the issue was poor management of the war.  And nothing that our state senate does or says changes that.  Lets focus on winning this thing, because sadly enough, we have a lot more to loose by loosing than gain by winning.

            1. Let’s compound the mismanagement, the manipulation of the intelligence (There’s so much…just google it and read for yourself), the cost in lives and treasure by “staying the course” which, what?…..will result in more mismanagement, more manipulation of the truth, more death and destruction of innocent lives and more wasted treasure.

              While you’re at it, look at the edicts Bremer issued immediately after the occupation which attempts to establish a corporocracy in Iraq that favors American corporate interests, not the Iraqi people. Go ahead, now, look it up.

              What’s sad is this country elected a Bimbo that hasn’t a clue or a plan on how to fix this broken pottery barn he created. Not a fucking clue except to throw more innocent lives into the caldron he lit.

            2. Ted Westhusing, a West Point scholar, put a bullet in his head in Iraq after reporting widespread corruption. His suicide note — complaining about human rights abuses and other crimes — was addressed to his two commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, now leader of the U.S. “surge” effort in Iraq. It urged them to “Reevaluate yourselves….You are not what you think you are and I know it.”

              The number of suicides my U.S. military personnel in Iraq is underreported. It’s because they’ve been placed in Hell for corporate interests, not U.S. interests.

              1. I know Iraq is a mess.  A lot has gone wrong.  But you’re missing the point.  We can talk all about how Bush “lied”, but that doesn’t help the situation now.  We can speculate that Bush did this or that to help his corporate buddies, but that doesn’t help the situation now. 

                If you really care about the troops and what is going on over there, put the Bush hating and paranoia aside and put some effort into trying to win the damn thing.

                The war is underway.  If we leave, it may preserve the life of some troops, but are our people more important than all the people who will die when Iraq completely melts down?  Do those people deserve to be tortured and killed because people here are pissed at Bush?  Do you think that those images on the news are going to make the terrorists hate us less, or the world like us more?

                Start thinking long term.  Bush will be gone soon and you can hate him all you want forever.  But out that aside and try and do something that will actually help the situation we’re in.

                1. That line of reasoning always bothers me. Well, sure he’s screwed up left and right, and sure there has been rampant cronyism, but, hey, thats in the past so lets act like nothing has happened and go along with what he wants us to do now. I abhor the term “drinking the kool-aid,” but what you are asking us to do is essentially that.

                  Iraq hasnt completely melted down? Well, it sure isnt a place of peace and prosperity. People have been tortured and murdered by US soldiers already. And they are being killed in marketplace explosions by terrorists. Dont think for a second that that will stop if we remain there. Which images are you referring to?

                  What do you suggest we do to help the situation that we are in? Kowtow to more of Bush’s “someone else will finish this” attitude, or starting working on ways to get us out of Iraq, and refocus on Afghanistan, OBL, and al-qaeda.

                    1. Well, us staying wont make it better. Us leaving probably wont make it better either, but as far as I can tell nothing we do will make it better. Next question you will probably ask is what do I think we should do, and to answer that I would say that I subscribe to John Edwards’ plan. Read it and you will get a better idea of where I stand.

                    2. I really would like to get an idea where you stand, so shoot me a link and I’ll take a look.

                      Thanks!

                    3. http://johnedwards.c…

                      Here’s one. Its a press release with a couple of bulleted points. I am cooking dinner right now so bear with me to find something a little more in depth. There was a good piece in NYT the other day comparing Obama, Hillary, and Edwards that was pretty informative, but I dont have a link and I cant remember the next day.

                      To respond to your other post about radio hosts, I am an NPR man myself or the rockies if they are on (please let them be good this year!!!!). As far as right wing radio is concerned it is tough to stomach and I dont like left wing radio, because it is too similar to right wing radio. They either jump from issue to issue to issue in two minutes or spend too much time on one issue that i dont care about, and would rather research myself. The tacos are burning so I got to run.

                    4. I’m still at work and I have tons of time in between projects.  No rush though, do what you need to do.

                      Obviously I am for staying in Iraq until the job is done, but it’s a sticky situation.  “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t” at it’s best.  But I’m not in the military so I don’t know what we should do.  I like the idea of the surge because it’s something new.  I hope it works.

                      NPR, huh?  I listen every now and again.  I know what you mean about stomaching talk radio.  It’s like video games.  Do it for too long and your brain can turn to mush. 

                    5. I gave up on NPR news when 9/10 times I turned it on, they were talking about how we’re all going to die of bird flu. 

                      Car Talk is the best, though.

                    7. Yeah, I’m worried about that too:)

                      I just can’t listen to those heavily affected radio voices.  Ick.  “I’m Meeeshell Norris for awll things considered.” What is that?

                    8. If being primarily on the clearer FM signal does that to snooty radio, I can’t WAIT to see what HD does to TV anchors.

                      Car Talk is the bright spot – just two smart alecks answering the clueless questions of turtleneck-wearing lefties. 

                    13. Dinner that is. I dont mean to boast, but my tacos are the best this side of Mexico. The key is in the chalula, tabasco, whatever you add when making them (i love spicy).

                      The thing is, to me, the job will never be done in Iraq, ever. Just like it will never be done in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Terror will never be eradicated. The best we can hope to accomplish is containment. To realize this is pragmatic and realistic.

                    15. One are my delicious tacos and the second are beer battered fish, also delicious (one beer, sam adams is good, per cup of floor and and some cayenne pepper). Anything else you are on your own.

                      The other website that I read and contribute to has many subforums. One of which is a cooking forum with its own wikipedia style recipe repository (http://www.goonswith…). I highly recommend it.

            3. I don’t think Bush “lied” or flat out falsified reports.  I believe those under him who wanted to go to war provided him with only the intelligence that built up their case, giving Bush a manufactured and distorted view of the actual situation in Iraq. 

              Bush was duped by Cheney.  Why would Cheney be so angry at Joe Wilson ? Because Wilson was frustrating his efforts to build a case by reporting the truth about the spurious “uranium from Africa” claim.  Cheney was the biggest promoter of the invasion of Iraq – he would pore through every bit of intelligence he could get his hands on in order to find info to buttress his argument.

              As to why Cheney was so gung-ho about invading Iraq in the first place I have no idea.  War for oil or Halliburton just seems too fantastic to me, and a bit simplistic as well.

              I guess historians will debate this for years to come, but at least the picture is becoming a little clearer. 

              1. I appreciate you’re level headed response. 

                I think you’re right, some people just wanted to go to war.  I think people were so upset about Sept 11th, we wanted to take on the world and kick some butt.  I think the world was so horrified about what happened to us, they supported our effort to go to war out of sympathy.  They probably didn’t think that we would actually invade (the pervious administration had made a lot of empty threats), but Bush says what he means (one of his strenghts and weaknesses).

                There was a lot of “evidence” that supported the “threat”, which wouldn’t have been enough under normal circumstances, but Saddam played into the evidence so well with his actions (that had worked perviously).

                I think there is a lot of blame to go around, but one place that I think a portition of it rests is with an organization that hasn’t been discussed too much….the United Nations.  If they had enforced pervious statutes that were passed, I doubt that Bush would have had such an opportunity to make the case for war

                1. the pervious administration had made a lot of empty threats

                  I am sorry, but exactly what empty threats did they make?
                  Was it along the lines of threatening Nortk Korea and Iran for 6 years?

                  but Bush says what he means (one of his strenghts and weaknesses).

                  Please, give us some good examples; perhaps “Mission Accomplished” is one of them? Or would it be, I will fire and charge all those that connected with with the outing of Valaie Plame? Or perhaps, he means it when he said that he would run a balanced budget (and means it when he says that he will balance the budget now)?

                  There was a lot of “evidence” that supported the “threat”, which wouldn’t have been enough under normal circumstances, but Saddam played into the evidence so well with his actions (that had worked perviously).

                  What did Saddam do that played into this? He allowed inspectors in. They searched all over. Exactly what the inspectors said was there, is exactly what we found. Nothing more.

                  What evidence that did not come from W’s group was there? In fact, one of the stupidest pieces that I have heard was that he was working with Al Qaeda (OBL considered Hueiseen to be far worse than America just as he considers a number of middle eastern leaders to be worse than USA). One of the funnier things that I have heard over the last year is that Iran supports Al Qaeda. That is obviously more crap coming from this admin.

                  You are seeing the evidence that is presented to you on fox news. Quite looking there. That is about as much evidence as you will find in Pravda. Instead, look beyond our borders. Interestingly, you will find AlJazeera useful to help you understand the middle eastern politics and how groups play together. Also, I find interesting news in  Canadian, Aussie, and British papers. There are lots of good ones who routinely come out with info about 1-2 weeks before the American sites do. Also, take a look into Sibel Edmunds. She, like George Tenant,  is  a true patriot who is being forced to not speak out (tenant is doing it voluntarily, but I am betting that in another 5 years, he will speak up).

                  1. That’s a mouth full there.  I’ll do my best.

                    “I am sorry, but exactly what empty threats did they make?
                    Was it along the lines of threatening Nortk Korea and Iran for 6 years?”

                    Yes, along those lines.  Like Clinton’s “weapons inspectors need to do their job.” or short bombing campaigns that were supposed to convince Saddam to let inspectors back in.

                    “What did Saddam do that played into this? He allowed inspectors in. They searched all over. Exactly what the inspectors said was there, is exactly what we found. Nothing more.”

                    He allowed inspectors in, but he did a lot of suspicous activity, such as showing up at sites before inspectors got there and then leaving with a bunch of trucks–things that lent itself to the preception that Saddam was hiding something.

                    Sorry, I want to make this shorter, but I have to go to a meeting for an hour.  But for the record, I don’t watch Fox news.  All television news bugs me (except the Daily Show).  I get most of my news online or from the radio.  And for the record, my favorite AM personality is Glenn Beck, not Rush Limbaugh.

                    1. Is Rush-lite. Maybe he is different on the radio, but his tv show is almost as conservative as oreilly, I remember him talking to Keith Ellison, and, well, here’s a transcript: http://mediamatters….. And here is another piece that could be mistaken for Rush: http://mediamatters….. So, you dont like TV, but I cant believe that Beck is different on the radio versus tv.

                    2. I hope it’s not like O’Reilly, that guy is seriously annoying.  Beck on the radio is pretty funny, and he’s not all about politics.  I really like him.  If I was going to recommend a radio show to a Dem, I would recommend Beck way before I recommend Rush. 

                      And I would never recommend Hannity.

                2. People wanted war on al-qaeda and the taliban, not Iraq. We wanted the people that attacked us not some despotic douchebag that could do nothing and had done nothing against us. The world supported the war effort in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If by empty threats you mean enforcing the no-fly zone, and destroying, by ASM, radar and SAM sites then I guess you could tangentially say that we were making threats, but I see it as enforcing UN protocols. Windbourne has already pointed out enough indiscrepancies in Bush saying what he means.

                  What actions that had worked previously? You mean that he invaded Kuwait again? Or that he quashed a Shia insurgency after Bush, the former not the latter, promised the Shia american backing, but reneged. Saddam was an asshole no one is going to deny that, but to assume that he had WMDs was foolish based on his actions. If he were truly carting away WMDs there would haven been remedial evidence, none of which was found.

                  Bush would have gone in no matter what the UN did, and shifting the blame to them is petty at best, and at worst is like a child refusing to accept blame for what is clearly his fault.

                  1. Go ahead and read it again….Did I say that all the blame rested with the UN?  Did I?  You’re right I didn’t say that at all.  Surely you’re not saying that they carry none of the blame, since they have allowed the world to view them as a joke.  No one cares what the UN says because the UN rarely enforcing anything. 

                    The no fly zone was part of the peace agreement to end the Gulf war.  That was sort of enforced.  But what happened when Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors?  Did we even bomb them then, or was our action only taken over the “no fly zone”?

                    Again, other than pulling out of Iraq and issuing a death sentance to thousands Iraqis, what plan do y’all have?

                    I’m waiting

        3. There is a difference between “deliberately misleading” the nation, and having faulty intelligence.  I don’t recall there being any proof that it was something other than faulty intelligence.  So don’t ask “how much PROOF” does someone need, when there is NONE!

          There was plenty of proof. In particular, one of the most damaging items that seems to be missed in the “investigations” was that Tenat came out against GWB’s SotU where he said that Iraq was acquiring uranium. W then said that Tenat approved the speech, but from others, I have heard that he did not. Basically, they went over his head.

          The investigations only talked to a few ppl. They did not look very far. Want more proof for yourself? Talk to a few NSA or CIA agents from middle layer or below (and worked there at the time) and see what they say. You may be surprised what a few has to say.

          As to Tenat, something to keep in mind; Supposedly he was ousted for being incompetent, even though he served Poppa Bush and Clinton very competently. IOW, he was competent for some odd 15 years. If he was as bad as W’s team and their investigation would lead you to believe, then why give him the medal of freedom? Again, if you want more proof, talk to those that worked in the midlayer of the agency and are outside of the political realm (that is if they will talk).

          Keep in mind, that I am in the very few that supports more troops, but I have large doubts that it will be effective.  While I think that pulling out will be a long-term disaster, I note that we have the same bumbling idiots in charge of this (gates is of the same mold as rumsfeld). Even the civil war was not this badly mismanaged (and Lincoln and the union did a horrible job at first).

          As to the article, I have simply two words : “mission accomplished”. Just because the news reports what the feds want you to hear, do not believe all. In particular, I would say give this 1-2 months, not 1-2 weeks. I HOPE that this is helping, but I based on the record of last 6 years, this is just more lies.

          1. There were others in the intelligence community that were supporting what Bush was saying.  Unless you feel that Bush pressured everybody in the intelligence community into agreeing with him.  Just because somebody disagreed with Bush’s logic doesn’t mean that everybody in the intelligence community did.  And that alone won’t convince me that Bush decided to manipulate intelligence reports to support going to war.  And until I see a memo or something like that that says “make intelligence reports that say ‘xyz’ so we can go to war”, I’m going to veiw everything else as speculation.

            Now as for Tenet, I probably would have listened more to what he had to say, but I wasn’t president.  It was bad judgement on Bush’s part, but that still doesn’t mean that Bush lied.

            1. Those that have worked in the intelligence community keep quiet. That is part of the code. There are some who are speaking out, but in general, you will not know if they served or not.

              The problem is that the investigation did NOT go into the middle. It stayed very high level and all were recent political appointees by W. or one layer down. IOW, it was not a proper investigation.

              And that alone won’t convince me that Bush decided to manipulate intelligence reports to support going to war.

              cool. So exactly what intelligence report did you see that supported going to war?

              Assume that bush did not lie and that all of this was cheney, rove, and libbey’s part. Then why has W. not fired Rove like he said that he would? In addition, why were charges not brought against Cheney and rove? Out of the 4, only W. had the power to declassify the info about plame. If he declassified her as being a NOK, then

              1. Why was she not told to give her time to protect her informants? By now, they are most likely dead, and others will not fear working with the CIA. Keep in mind, that it was poppa bush who made it criminal to out NOKs (even though in my mind, this is pure treason)>
              2. Why did W. then say that he would fire all those connected with her outing? He should have stepped forward and said that declassified her.

              Basically, W. is caught in a lie. He either declassified her, but then lied on the TV to America (denied involvment by him or his admin in treasonous outing of a NOK) or he was part of a conspiracy to out her. And this is just one easy to prove lie.

    1. Highlight of the day…

      Outside the capitol were two groups: those supporting the war (many of whom were parents of soliders) and anti-war fruitcakes (most of whom were anti-war fruitcakes who were able to get their 1964 Volkswagon mini-bus running on ethanol so they could make the long trek from Boulder).

      One anti-troop guy yelled out to the troop supporters that our soliders are mercenaries (which, of course, is typical fever swamp liberal rhetoric).  One lady, with a picture of her son, a solider in Iraq, pointed to her button on her jacket and yelled back, “Are you saying my son is a mercenary?”  The hippie yelled back, “Fuck yeah!”

      And, that, Yokel, is why I’m quite convinced that support for the war is much more robust than CNN’s hack polls suggest.  Most people want to win but are concerned that we are not headed towards victory.  The most vocal opposition is coming from such losers as the moron above.  Leave Boulder and San Francisco and find yourself in Real America, Real Colorado, and you find an America that wants to win.  What’s been displayed at the Capitol today is a disgusting display of anti-war partisanship.  And it is yet one more think that will sink the Party of Defeat in 2008.

      1. I’ll just burn that copy of the Constitution I have – it’s obvious I serve my own interests, not the Constitution’s, because you saw a hippie say as much.

        But it puts me in mind of an outstanding take on the whole anti-war thing posted on The Belmont Club a while back.

        “That’s why the outcome of the “Vietnam War” doesn’t refer to the resolution of foreign conflict forty years old but to a perceived — and permanent — domestic outcome in America. Just as the Civil War abolished slavery, “Vietnam” was regarded as having abolished American “imperialism” overseas forever. And even though this “outcome” was never the explicit war aim of the Peace Movement; nor even did they claim it a victory, it remained at least within a minority, the Legacy of the 1960s. The antipathy of the Left towards Ronald Reagan and George Bush cannot be rationally explained without appreciating that, in their eyes at least, the conservatives were embarked on a “rolling back” of the gains of history; that they were trying to undo the results of the Civil Rights Movement and the Legacy of Vietnam.”

        Link here.

        1. There is a natural distrust on the Left of American power.  Any expression of American power is necessarily suspect and usually sinister.  Yet, the very same liberals who so disdain American power in Iraq or Afghanistan, jump up and down like a bunch of teeny-bopping school girls at an NSYNC concert when they see the French start waving their ubiquitous white flag.  How can we read that as anything but anti-Americanism?  I certainly wouldn’t say that all opposition to the war or even all liberals, are anti-Americans.  But there is a very strong line of blatant hatred for this country on the Left here and in Europe.

          There are foreign policy realists like James Baker and good Democrats who oppose this war.  They are patriots and good Americans.  There are soliders and veterans who oppose this war.  I certainly wouldn’t question their patriotism.  But there are some on this site and many on the Left whose stridency in opposition to any flexing of the American muscle  is suspicously anti-American.  Most Americans believe that America is basically good and so is our power.  Many believe that our power in Iraq is good, well-intentioned, but wrong-headed.  That’s fair.  But the liberal blogs like DailyKos and Huffington Post are filled with America-hating liberals who are not patriots and whose rhetoric is simply treasonous.  I would like to think they are a teeny part of the Democratic Party and American Left.  But I’m afraid they are not.

          1. What planet are you on?  I thought we were discussing the CO state resolution on opposing the surge…

            Most ‘teeny-bobbers’ screaming at an NSYNC concert are now adults, who give’s a rat’s ass about France?  and what the hell are you talking about?  Treason is telling those who oppose your narrow, kool-aid colored vision of “American power” that they are traitors…  Dissent–especially in times of crisis–is the highest form of Patriotism.  Talk about treason?  How about Rep. Young getting up on the House floor and basically saying that those who oppose him should be hanged????  (and misquoting it as if Lincoln said that, which we all know he didn’t).  Treason is sending our men and women to war under false pretenses, under-equipped, following the lead of men like Bremer and Rumsfeld. 

            1. For this post and subsequent posts. The battle for the high ground of ideas is being fought on the internet. We will control the high ground. We will not give ground. And, when we have won that ground, we will hold it for a thousand generations.

          2. drgod…replace the word America and American with the word Germany and see how your post reads. Mitt Got….might makes right…..

            If you are who you say you are; you are a pompous little fool who never had a chance to grow up and see the real world or explore different points of view…you are now locked into a world view which supports your prejudices because you are locked into a life style at far too young an age….which does not allow for any deviation.  I flucuate between feeling so very sorry for you and being afraid, if you are who you say you are, of what you represent.

            You should not be teaching  if you are calling “rhetoric as simply treasonous.”. which means you don’t support the Constitution of the United states……..you disgrace  the CU political science department built by brave and good americans who fought and won WWII and came home and said “Never again, and never here.” and devoted their teaching lives to that goal….and they represented both political parties….

      2. Most people don’t like the war, but only a small fraction think it’s a good idea to pull out now.

        Premature withdrawl from Iraw is a death sentance for a lot of Iraqis.  We need to remember that while we discuss this mess.

        Again, I ask (as I have in previous posts) what business does our state have passing resolutions for or against the war?  I thought that’s why people elected Democrats to the majority in Congress. 

        1. and are you saying that when the GOP controlled the State House they never proposed, debated, or approved resolutions on issues of primarily national import?  Of course they did.  Oh, damn facts.

      3. …who are not “boulder hippies” oppose Bush’s plan to escalate, and want to bring our troops home.  Your straw man (that some fruitcake–and I will give you that–and his verbal assaults represent the majority of war dissent in this nation) is just flat out wrong.  Such misconceptions and failure to see reality is why the GOP got trounced in 2006 and why it is already heading to defeat in 2008.  Pull your head out of your…errr…the sand, and face the facts, Dobby.

        1. And he’s the one who made sure we haven’t heard a squeak out of Mosul, then went on to write the book on how to win. 

          Then there’s the whole issue of the surge actually *working,* whether you’re looking at metrics, or the big picture.

          Damn facts, indeed.

            1. You mean there was a higher death rate on Okinawa than when the Navy was sailing there?  What a shocker!!!

              Troops in open combat = troops at greater risk. 

              But our troops have never been defeated in open combat in modern times.  What’s the death rate in terrorist, civilian-bombing scum?  I’ll take our odds over their’s any day.

        2. You must understand it’s all black and white in Dobby’s mind.  If you oppose the war you must be a hippie.  There IS no other explanation.

          1. Grateful Dead concerts…but I drive a Nissan (not a VW), am gainfully employed (a business owner even)…

            But then I hear Mann Coulter likes the GD too, so there you go.  Another crazy hippie Fox whack-jobs for War…

  6. Talk to almost anyone who has been over there or is over there and has looked at it clearly. Iraqi, American, other. Military, journalist, NGO member.

    Even Petraeus says he has maybe a 1 in 4 chance and he is assuming he will get more troops for longer than our military physically can supply. And definitely more than this country is willing to supply.

    Yes the fact that Bush has been out most incompetent war-time president ever is irrelevant. We are where we are today. Yes the fact that the Republican leaders are morally and intellectually bancrupt is irrelevant – we are where we are and the Dems are now at the table and that is already having an effect.

    But here’s the thing, staying in Iraq at best keeps the present status. It does not move anyone toward success. Leaving will probably lead to at least low-level civil war and informal partition.

    But leaving starts the road toward an eventual solution. Lebanon needed a 15 year civil war – and may go into another. Israel has had a 8(?) year infatada and it may continue.

    But keep in mind India and Packistan went through the same process. India then progressed out of it. And the only way India could get through it was for the British to leave.

    Iraq may turn out like Packistan, or it may turn out like India. Or something altogether different. But we have to leave for anything to change.

  7. We did not have the moral right to invade and occupy Iraq.  Spare me all the righteous crap.  We did not have treaty obligations.  We were not requested to intervene by a struggling minority within Iraq and even that would have been problematic.  We did not have UN authorization.  We claimed that we were in immediate danger from Iraq because of their possession of WMD and the means to deliver them to the US. That was the only justification under international law and certainly under the critera for just wars.

    I believe now that Bush doesn’t know his head from a hole in the ground. But, I believe that someone in that administration, including the Joint Chiefs knew that there was little danger that our invading army would be attacked with weapons of mass destruction….which is, of course, one of the two moral justifications for having WMD. (The other is the strategy for peace known as MAD)

    The invasion strategy does not show, as I have claimed many times, that the army was prepared to protect itself from a real danger of an attack of WMD.
    Quite the contrary…..even Hitler did not try “blitzkreig” over a three hundred mile run…with no protection for supply lines, etc…. If Iraq had had WMD, we stood to lose upwards of 100,000 men…our army.  That is why I opposed the invasion…quite apart from the moral issue.

    Now, I believe that as Americans, we must hold ourselves accountable for what our government did, in error.  In the long run, I think that will work out best for us. But, in the short run, we may suffer consequences economically.
    I believe that the State Legislature’s action is part of that process.

      1. No, tell us how an invading army, streched out over 300 miles and going forward to Baghdad.(which we must assume was hostile) did not have to fear an attack by chemical weapons.  Remember, there were no safe havens along that invasion route and nothing safe and secure in Baghdad…..So tell us why biological, chemical or even the roadside explosives were no threat….

        Remember….the american army had no place to hide……

        1. When I raised this question before, someone pointed out that we had heavily bombed before we invaded.  BUT, the justification for the invasion was that Iraq still represented an immediate threat to the continental US because of its possession of WMD.  We also argued that we did not know where the WMD were….

          We did know that Iraq had engaged in a land war with Iran twenty years before and had not been defeated.(with our  help…..just like we had helped the Taliban or their predecessors defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanstan)

          The tactics used and the strategy used look like our generals assumed that we would not be met by armed effective opposition from Iraq forces…..even though that same Iraq military, we argued, was capable of delivering WMD to the United States….

          Don’t feed me that crap about Sadham spirited the WMD out of the country before we invaded…….why would he get rid of his defense? That is crazy thinking…

          invading American army had  hazmat suits which might protect them for twelve hours…no safe haven, no way to resupply, no safe medical facilities…stuck in the dessert……a target from the air and from the ground…

          GIVE ME A F…….BREAK.

          1. Back when “Saddam spirited the WMD’s to Syria” was a hot topic, I did some simple calculations of what it would take in terms of trucks to do so.  I no longer have the facts in my head, so I’m not able to put forth the numbers here.

            But the upshot is that in order to move X amount of WMD’s, and every semi has a net load ability of Y, it would take Z amount of trucks to move the WMDS.  Pretty basic, eh?

            The answer was something on the order of several hundred truck loads.  Now, since there is probably one road going to Syria, wouldn’t our satellites note a movement of several hundreds trucks through a very open landscape over a period of probably several months?

            DOH!

            Another Republican Noise Machine obfuscation.

        2. Chemical weapons, in an open desert environment, with wind and especially sunlight, don’t last very long.  They certainly don’t outlast MOPP gear.  They’re certainly a factor in enclosed areas, like a subway station in Japan, or a domed stadium or something, but in an open desert, not so much.  Furthermore, the coalition had air supremacy (which = no Iraqi Air Force bombing) and Patriot missiles (which = more easily defended from SCUD missiles) with the requisite electronic/radar architecture (which = knowing where SCUDs were going when they were launched).  Additionally, roadside explosives weren’t a threat until later, when terrorists started running the show, and didn’t give a damn about mining roadways travelled by civilians as well.

          In fact, spreading your armies out is PRECISELY the strategy to use when chemical weapons may come into play, because you only have to take a small portion of your forces out of the fight to decon them, rather than the whole freaking division.  Additionally, racing toward Baghdad was an attempt to turn it into a knife fight, decreasing the time any chemical weapons would even be a factor.  Finally, the primary target of bombing was to take out the command and control structure from which and through which the order to launch chemical weapons would flow.

          Quit spouting off about stuff you don’t have the first bit of understanding about.

          1. Thank you. For the first time, the long stretched out invasion route does not seem fool hearty.  But I have more questions.  Where and how do you take forces out to decon them, if you have no safe havens along the route?

            1. Look, I am American and I have to understand what was done in my name. I ask questions to learn, not to villify.  Now I will not be blogging for a few days….Here are some more questions.  Let me make clear, I think there was no moral justification for this war. What my questions are about is whether or not the strategy used in the invasion reflects a belief that there would be no threat to our military from WMD.

              If we could eliminate the threat of a chemical attack by bombing contol and command center…why was it necessary to invade?  Where and how was our 130,000 invading army going to be able to stop, rest, eat and be resupplied safely?  Iraq used mine fields in its war with Iran…very effectively….why didn’t we anticipate the same tactic being used against us, an invading army?

              1. To your earlier question, you take them out wherever you safely can to decon them.  Mostly, like I said above, decon is about letting the sun and wind do its thing – though certain parts might need a little more TLC.  The “taking them out” is more metaphorical – they’re still on the route, but they’re not able to actively engage in combat, or move closer to their objective, until it’s safe to do so.

                The pre-war threat wasn’t from a conventional chemical SCUD attack – it was from the likelihood that said WMDs would proliferate in an unconventional fashion – a loop which the same command center is well outside of.  That’s the key difference – the pre-war threat was in A) Saddam’s WMD programs, B) The links between his WMD personnel and al Qaeda and other terror groups, C) The lack of incentive to NOT give them WMDs.  You can’t end that through a bombing – you can only end that threat through regime change.

                They stopped, rested, and ate where ever they could.  Most slept on the ground, and ate MREs.  The suck factor was high.  But it was the most effective military offensive in all of history.  So they had that going for them.

                Oh, I’m sure we did anticipate that possibility, and there were probably assets keeping an eye on potential mine fields.  Considering we’d been watching them with Northern and Southern Watches for a decade, we had a pretty good idea whether or not there were minefields.  Also, the French told Saddam he needn’t worry about our attacking, and that we’d back down – he didn’t take the threat seriously.  Finally, the attack happened rather quickly – the first bombing started before our own timeline, let alone what Saddam would have expected.  After that point, the shorter you make the space between you and the bad guys, the harder it is for them to build a minefield. 

                We can spend all day picking apart weaknesses – but you can damn well bet some really smart guys who’ve made this their lives thought of them first, and figured out how to defeat them.  The most successful military campaign in history, by every standard, doesn’t just happen on its own.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

315 readers online now

Newsletter

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