Comments on Report from Vancouver, Washington: Rep. Baird Gets Blasted

I heard him on The Conversation today, and his position seemed to be against immediate withdrawal. I got the impression, however, that he was not opposed to withdrawing troops in six months or so. Practically speaking, it's a moot point as the troops won't be coming home until there's a Democrat in the white house anyway.

As long as he has no serious challenger in his next primary, this seems like a purely symbolic political gesture to bring the center right into his camp. The more the Pink Ladies or whoever they are scream at him, the more attractive he is to rural voters. Classic move to broaden the base, and as long as his concessions to the right are purely symbolic, it's not necessarily a bad thing for anti-war Dems.

OK, he originally was going against a slight majority (though mabye not in his district, I don't know a thing about the 3rd) in not wanting to start the war, now he's against a large majority of the anti-war folks in not wanting to pull out immediately (yet unfortunately yes, things CAN get worse). What is Baird's evil scheme in all this?

You say you want politicians who stand on principle, who are independent, who call things the way they see them. And then you pounce.

Maybe you need to be rethinking your stance, not trying to bully this politician out of his.

"Six months"?

Come on, that's one Friedman Unit.

In another six months, he'll say he needs another six months. Six months adds up to ten years pretty fast.

Wow! Something happened in Vancouver! Guess I should have gotten out of bed for that one. Hey! That's my high school no less!!! :) My old high school. I'm quite too old to be in high school now. ;)

You mean to tell me that people in Washington state still remember that Vancouver is also in Washington state? Wow!

Baird is an idiot for changing his mind about the Iraq War simply because the situation on the ground improved. Progressives need to put the pressure on so that even a simpleton like Baird will toe the party line and agree to a complete and immediate pullout in order to give the US the defeat it deserves.
Giving him a lashing like this one in Vancouver is a great start.

The facts on the ground don't seem to matter to Baird's critics.

Many observers are saying, not just Baird, that the military/security situation in Iraq has improved due to the surge and they have statistics to back this up.

The possibility that Baird's new position could be sincere, perhaps even more correct than the anti-war Democrats' insistence that the war is lost, cannot be admitted by his critics.

The facts on the ground don't seem to matter to Baird's critics.

Many observers are saying, not just Baird, that the military/security situation in Iraq has improved due to the surge and they have statistics to back this up.

The possibility that Baird's new position could be sincere, perhaps even more correct than the anti-war Democrats' insistence that the war is lost, cannot be admitted by his critics.

This illustrates the beauty of our democracy. If Rep. Baird's 700,000 constitutents really don't agree with his Iraq position, they will vote him out next year.

He doesn't represent 2-3 activists WHO DON'T LIVE IN HIS DISTRICT, but rather the residents who voted for him. Let the activists do their best to bring out their hard left voters, their political opponents will do the same for the moderates and the right wing. In the meantime, Baird's responsibility is to do what he sees as the right thing, and let the people decide if they want him to represent them, next year.

I'd say that Jon Soltz believes you're entitled to your opinion on Iraq, so long as your opinion is in lockstep with Jon Soltz's.

If the conspiracy-minded leftists think that the greedy oil companies are making a profit now, pull out of Iraq before the job is done and watch what they reap.

Excuse the double post...

Brilliant, Gordon! At first I thought you were serious. It's gotten so hard to distinguish a parody of an anti-war rant from the real thing.

Uh, that was a parody, wasn't it?

I think it's pretty ballsy of Baird to do a 180 from the popular view to the non-popular view (as much as I disagree with him). Also, I HATE it when people chalk up the whole Iraq war to Oil. It's way too simplistic and dismissable to be convincing, and it makes the rest of the anti-war crowd look like naive college-age hippie marxist LaRuchies. We're in Iraq for reasons that are a lot worse than oil.

Damnit! The slog ate my comment.
Gist of it here: Dems very wishy washy all the time. Baird's actions/inactions not surprising. I still wouldn't vote for a republican though. Let's see if this will post. GRRR.

In another six months, he'll say he needs another six months. Six months adds up to ten years pretty fast.

And before you know it, you have another damned success story like Germany and Japan on your hands. God, who needs that on their conscience, especially if it costs short-term political gain?

Many observers are saying, not just Baird, that the military/security situation in Iraq has improved due to the surge and they have statistics to back this up.

What statistics are those? The military refuses to provide facts and figures, and the only statistics show that Iraq is more violent now than it was this time last year (though marginally less violent than when the surge began).

The only question is whether we leave Iraq, or stay and be defeated and humiliated (since we cannot "win," staying in Iraq is a defeat). Bush, Petraeus et al want America to be defeated and humiliated; "bipartisan" types like Baird merely make it easier for defeatists like Bush.

That's the most mangled piece of logic I've read yet this morning. Too bad it speaks for most of the Democratic party, but at least it insures they will be the party out of power soon and for a long time after.

Judging from their performance at the aforementioned town hall meeting, I'm pleased to announce that Mr. Jon Soltz and, collectively, the residents of the Washington 3rd Congressional District are this year's recipients of the First Annual Earl Landgrebe 'A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Use' Award.

In case you're not familiar with Earl Landgrebe, he was the Indiana Representative who, when confronted with evidence of Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, famously snapped:

"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Awardees: your complimentary tinfoil hats, Halliburton coffee mugs, and "Dick Cheney Wants My Precious Bodily Fluids" t-shirts will be going out in today's mail. There's no need to send me your addresses: as a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Inc., I already know where you live.

Enjoy!

Keep your priorities in order, folks, and remember what's REALLY important!
Remember: a defeat for America in Iraq is a victory for the Democratic party in America!

The surge may have some military success, but wasn't the intended purpose to grant political breathing room to allow a political consensus to form? Politically, Iraq is more fragmented than before the surge with a struggle over leadership, Sunni have mostly deserted the political process, and the political infrastructure is a total failure. Therefore the surge is a failure.

Dog and pony shows are seductive, eh Brian?

That's the most mangled piece of logic I've read yet this morning.

I take it, then, that you think it's better for America to suffer the defeat and humiliation of never ending this war? Not very patriotic of you.

I know you're going to say you want to "win," but since America can't "win" an Iraqi civil war, victory isn't an option. The only options are leaving, or suffering the defeat of staying. Bush, Petraeus, Baird want America's defeat.

It constantly amazes me how out of touch with reality the Democrat Left is.

Oil profits in Iraq? Who exactly is making oil profits in Iraq? It's a constant meme...all resonating with "Bush lied...yada yada yada..."

Why doesn't Washington State secede from the Union and establish itself as a Socialist Democratic Republic. The leftist Dems are just sooooo good at "groupthink".

It's a sacriledge to the Dem Leftist Loonies that Baird should actually base his opinion on FACTS.

By God, he better not change his mind about his sex orientation. Care to step into the stall with me?

Iraq is just a mess, period. Does anybody really have a good solution for the problem? No. All the debate is pull out or stay (I'm not trying to get all pornorific on you here btw). SOMEBODY needs to think of some good solutions for the mess. Meanwhile, Americans are yammering while real people are dying in Iraq. Really, who cares what Brian Baird thinks. He can think about pulling out of Iraq or sticking it to Iraq all day long. Is he actually working on a plan for anything? Does anyone have a plan if we stay in Iraq? Did anyone even have a plan before we went into Iraq? Well, obviously that answer is no. I'm not saying anything...I'm just trying to say the discussion should move away from in or out to doing something about the situation now.

I don't see any problem with Baird's position. He was against going in but now that we're there he feels we have responsibilities. He's right.

Politically, Iraq is more fragmented than before the surge with a struggle over leadership, ...

If that's our measure, we'd better get the hell out of the US too!

I see the righty astroturfers are hard at work this morning. Welcome to the Slog, folks, nice to see ya.

JGreene @22: Groupthink? This thread is a great example of groupthink from the right. Really, you should make accusations that don't also apply to your own brethren.

I see the righty astroturfers are hard at work this morning.

Sorry, are we disrupting your echo here in the chamber?

By a rough count 17/20 people in the background of the picture are of the gray-haired variety (and rather "pale" I might add.) "Hey, Hey, Ho, Hooooooaaahhhhh - Matlock!!!!"

'astroturfer' means a person paid by an org to pretend to be a grassroots supporter.

Misusing the term is a sure sign of a conspiracy theorising wacko.

@15

Are you serious?

Do you know how many American soldiers were killed during the occupation of Germany after WW2? You guessed it... 0!!!!

So how exactly you draw a parallel post-war Germany and a "nation" in the midst of civil war that has engulfed nearly 4,000 American soldiers is beyond comprehension.

>Many observers are saying, not just Baird, that the military/security situation in Iraq has improved due to the surge and they have statistics to back this up.

That the stats are as phony as can be, or that military progress is irrelevant in the absence of political progress, or that our generals are talking about staying another decade (as if the American public would accept that) seems to have slipped by you.

Oh sure, let’s continue the Iraq War and occupation forever. It’s only destroyed our nation’s reputation and fiscal security as well countless thousands of innocent lives.

You warmongers have been 100% wrong about everything, but eventually we’ll be greeted as liberators, right?

Perhaps you’ll enlighten us as to where we’re going to find the troops for this glorious war? Are you going to enlist and die for your God, Jesus W Bush?

Well lucky you, you’re going to get your wish since we’re going to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future. We are a right-wing country governed by our worst citizens, after all.

And by the way, the “Left” hasn’t had any say in how this country is run in over a decade, which goes a long way towards explaining this failed, despicable state of affairs.

Let me guess. This post got linked to NRO or something?

Anyways, some statistics. Sectarian killings have doubled since last years. 400,000 additional Iraqis have fled their homes since the beginning of the surge. Maliki is operating a minority government in Baghdad. Baghdad is averaging less than two hours a day of electricity. 191,000 American weapons have gone missing. Those aren't winning numbers.

If we stay for the ten years the apparent freepers above say will be required for victory, our victory will be an Iraq that has gone through a civil war with complete ethnic cleansing, no central government, and no infrastructure. The only difference between that and "defeat" is how much blood and treasure we waste in the meantime.

I'm still waiting for some specifics besides "let's stay for another six months," which is what we've been hearing for years. Judging from a Baird speech at a fundraiser a few months ago, I'd say that there is more to this than just a personal change of heart; I think he's positioning himself for bigger things than mere congressman from Washington state by recreating himself as a pragmatic centrist. But that's just a guess.. we'll see..

"victory isn't an option."

The catchphrase of the modern Left.

"Victory is (perpetually) Just Around The Corner"

The catchphrase of the modern Freeper.

"Do you know how many American soldiers were killed during the occupation of Germany after WW2? You guessed it... 0!!!!"

With "facts" like that, it's no wonder you're against this war. Pick up a history book. WWII was a balls-up operation from the world go, a never-ending series of mistakes, lapses in judgement and stupidity in action. Iraq is a masterpiece compared to that war.

And, yes, MANY US and allied soldiers died in the 3-4 years following the end of the war in Germany. Don't disrespect or try to erase their memory. They're one of the main reasons you can sit at your keyboard today and spout your silliness.

All the talk against Baird doesn't matter -- if no runs against him in the primary election in 2008.

An antiwar candidate would immediately have support .... could raise a ton of money nationally via the internet... would have immediate national exposure...

Anyone in the 3d cong. district interested in walking the walk as well as talking the talk?

The next GOP zombie who explain what winning is (in the context of Iraq), will be the FIRST!

I thought it was getting rid of the weapons of mass destruction? Nope. Not there anymore. Oops! Then it was toppling the Hussein government. Check. Done? Nope. How about finding Saddam, prosecuting him and killing him? Check. How about now? Can our troops come home now? Not exactly. How about elections? Check. Now? The question remains.. Why the HELL are we still there? What is our presence preventing? What is it accomplishing? If the best you can say is temporary security, then you have NO PLAN for exit. Kinda like King George. He is just killing time (and American troops) so he can pass it to the next president.

When looking for Wifi hotspots:

http://hotspot.live.com/web/SearchView.aspx

Doesn't Josh phone EVERYTHING in?

Jonah: "young, good looking, charismatic" description of Soltz. I agree with him but man your editor should tell you, try not to sound like such a propagandist for the peace movement and you might be taken as less biased.

@38 Think again. There were zero combat casualties during the post-war occupation of Germany or Japan. Check out The Rand Corporation's monograph, America's Role in Nation Building: From Germany to Iraq. Zero. Those are real numbers.

Perhaps you bought into Rummy and Condi's barking about Werwolves in post-war Germany, terrifying tales of SS officers carrying out the Fuhrer's will after his death. Contemporary reports show that they were actually Hitler Jugend who were too young to even be drafted, with no military training, 10-15 days of supplies, and a habit of running home to mommy as soon as they were given an actual assignment.

Um, yeah, Dan if my "many" you mean roughly 50 Allied Occupation Forces fatalities suffered at the hands of former SS "werewolves" between June 1945 and December 1947. Compare that to 2,212 Coalition Forces fatalities suffered at the hands of Iraqi insurgents between May 2003 (when shrub gave his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln) until December 2005 for a comparable period).

And unlike post WW-II Germany, the number of Americans KIA continues to increase on a daily basis in Iraq.

Oh, and I should point out that of those 50 Allied fatalities Post WW-II, 46 occurred in the first six months of the occupation; the remaining handfull occured in 1946, and literally none in the third year or beyond.

we could pull out today and it will probably be a good thing for us.

but perhaps we could actually come up with a plan for leaving -- one other than just abondoning iraq -- that would be a much better way of leaving.

our next pres needs to set two dates:

Date 1: we must have a withdrawl plan
Date 2: we must withdrawl

i imagine it might take a few months to come up with a plan. let's give them that, but only that. i image it might take one to two years to withdrawl. let's give them that, but only that.

Dan @ 38

With "facts" like that, it's no wonder you're against this war. Pick up a history book. WWII was a balls-up operation from the world go, a never-ending series of mistakes, lapses in judgement and stupidity in action. Iraq is a masterpiece compared to that war.

Yet despite the fact that World War II was a balls-up operation from the word go, a never ending series of mistakes, lapses in judgment and stupidity in action. Your words, not mine, it was over four years after it started and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were no longer threats to the United States, Europe or Asia. Yet here we are four and a half years into our war in Iraq, and six years after 9/11 and not only is Osama Bin Laden still alive but Al Qaeda is killing more people than ever. This is your definition of a masterpiece?

And, yes, MANY US and allied soldiers died in the 3-4 years following the end of the war in Germany. Don't disrespect or try to erase their memory. They're one of the main reasons you can sit at your keyboard today and spout your silliness.

What a fucking piece of shit you are Dan @38. You sit there and describe World War II as a massive clusterfuck and then you have the temerity to criticize someone else for not giving the veterans of the Allied occupation their due. Join up or shut up you worthless piece of shit.

I miss Jolene Unsoeld.

I really wish some of the jingoistic hordes of the 101st Keyboard Commandos waving their flags from the safety of their overstuffed LaZBoy would tell me how we'll tell when we've won in Iraq. What constitutes victory? No, seriously, what is the goal? What would victory look like? Does anyone, anywhere, seriously believe that a stable, peaceful, single democratically-governed entity is possible there?

There *is* a way to win Iraq.

It just requires 800-900 thousand troops in Iraq for the next decade.

Of course, that means we'll need a draft to build the necessary forces.

If you want to win in Iraq, you have to support a draft. Nothing less will get the job done.

"He was hammered by Jon Soltz, the young, good looking, charismatic chairman and co-founder of political action committee VoteVets.org."

Hmm. Young, I'll give you. Charismatic, I can't tell from a picture. But good-looking? I think Josh needs to have higher standards.

... What? Was there a political point to this report or something?

WHEW !! There for a moment I thought I detected some hostility between the commenters, but surely not..that could not possibly happen in "godblessamericaland" ..after all, President bush said he was a uniter and not a divider, so there...

You say you want politicians who stand on principle, who are independent, who call things the way they see them. And then you pounce.

Maybe you need to be rethinking your stance, not trying to bully this politician out of his.

Posted by Seattle Stu | August 28, 2007 3:25 AM
===============
ah yeah, man you need a lesson in political representation...independent from towing the party line (especially the opposition) but he should represent his constituents who put him in office in the first place, not represent his own self-interest etc....jeesh wake up buddy.

slaybaugh @ 52,

"a uniter and not a divider..."

In BushSpeak that means he's going to be the most divisive son of a bitch in history.

Remember: a defeat for America in Iraq is a victory for the Democratic party in America!

I know you Dems think this is grossly unfair.

But then, please explain why the gang-tackling of Rep. Baird for offering what is, simply, his own opinion, based on numerous observations of the situation? There is a "how dare he?!" tone to your reaction. Is there one person on this site, or at the town hall meeting, who challenged his observations with facts of their own -- facts, as opposed to poll numbers "proving" America wants us to withdraw. It's so insulting to him, and to the voters of his district, to jump to the conclusion that he was snookered by a 'dog and pony show.' Baird has surely spent more time Iraq than every one of you posters combined. But you're so sure he's wrong -- so sure, you want to shut him up in case he influences someone else.

C'mon, Democrats. At least pretend to root for our success. Criticize Bush all you want, he deserves it. But don't wish ill on our mission just to prove your damn little points.

Cost of Iraq & Afghanistan: $12 billion/month.
Or $69 million/hour.
I hope our astroturfer's getting his cut for fighting the battle on the home front, or he's getting as ripped off as bad as the rest of us.

In another six months, he'll say he needs another six months. Six months adds up to ten years pretty fast.

And before you know it, you have another damned success story like Germany and Japan on your hands. God, who needs that on their conscience, especially if it costs short-term political gain?

That could POSSIBLY have been true, if Iraq was in any way similar to the situations of Germany or Japan. Unfortunately, my illiterate friend, it isn't. And if you balance your "short-term political gain" or LOSS against what the world has come to think of us, due to this ill-conceived, monstrous, criminal war, you can't justify the war hawks pursuing it instead off monitoring and negotiations, which is what the Dems who voted for this were PROMISED.

That's $69 mil/hour based on a 40 hour week. If we consider it as a service being rendered 24/7, it's only $16.5 miilion/hour. My bad.

Hey, Vancouver is a big city. It's not hard to round up 500 unionistas and burned-out hippies to support any "progressive" cause, as long as it's anti-Bush. Isn't the tolerance for diverse ideas wonderful among these free-speech advocates.

Or $275,000/minute. But what's the price of freedom? Don't we have a right to defend the only industrialized country without free health care and with a crumbling infrastructure, where elections can be hacked and our phone records turned over to the govt? I think you dems should realize that it's time for us working class folks to defend our leaders from the consequences of their own decisions, and give the surge six more months. It's only been 4 years since Bush declared victory, and we're losing less than 4 soldiers per day. Have some patience, and respect Brian Baird's patriotic duty to ensure this country is put in hock to a bunch of foreign investors. Ya pinkos.

Good, glad someone called him on this.

Only deadenders believe we're winning in Iraq - or that we should stay there. Four-fifths of America has already decided it's time to bring our troops home - sadly, some, desperate for campaign donations from profiteers, refuse to admit it.

Hal Nelson @ 59

Wow, you incompetent warmongers sure are defensive.

Isn't it enough that you've destroyed our nation's respectability, credibility, financial stability and military?

People like you have been running the country into the ground for years even though you're all always 100% wrong about everything.

Thanks bunches.

PS. You're totally shameless.

he should represent his constituents who put him in office in the first place, not represent his own self-interest etc....jeesh wake up buddy.

How the hell does this serve Baird's self interest? You guys, the most active Dems, are calling for his head. And while the Reeps are obviously pleased, that won't stop them from running a candidate against him. He is, y'know, a liberal.

The only conclusion you can draw is that this was a position taken on principle. Hard for you lefties to stomach, but you're just gonna have to deal with it. He's not a coward. He thinks you're wrong, and he's in your face.

Ooops, forgot to change my name that time.

The latest lie perpetrated by the chickenhawk righties (those who support the war but wouldn't actually ever risk their own lives fighting it) is that the surge is working.

But they don't back it up with any facts.

These people have been wrong EVERY step of the way on Iraq, from WMDs, to the (nonexistent) connection to 9/11, to being "greeted as liberators", all the way down the line.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed for no legitimate reason, and things are not "turning the corner" any time soon.

Want some facts? AP reported just a few days ago:
Deaths per day from political violence in 2007: 62
Deaths per day from political violence in 2006: 33

How, pray tell, is that a measure of the surge working? Answer: It's not. Which is why the warmongers ignore it. Any fact that doesn't fit in with their preconceived notion is magically disappeared.

Baird, by the way, did indeed get a pre-selected "dog and pony show" of only the things they wanted him to see. If you are only shown certain things, you can be convinced of anything. Like "Mission Accomplished." That he could be so easily misled , or even deliberately ignores all those on the ground who could have told him a different story, does not speak well for him, and his constituents have every right to be disappointed with him.

He'd serve them better by getting more information, from a variety of sources, rather than being fooled by the snow job he just got.

C'mon, Democrats. At least pretend to root for our success. Criticize Bush all you want, he deserves it. But don't wish ill on our mission just to prove your damn little points.

Sure, all of us "Democrats" let's root for the "mission", all right? Unfortunately, the "mission" is pushing your foot into a meat grinder and "rooting for our success" is pushing the troops feet in harder......

you don't have to believe the surge is working to feel that an immediate withdrawl could have negative consequences. at that point, the only question is do we want to help with those or not. we don't have to... but after all this talk of playing nice with the rest of the world, it might actually even be in our best interest to.

>

Statistics? Oh! You mean body counts! Body counts meant a lot in Vietnam too, or so claimed LBJ, Gen Westmoreland and then Nixon. We all know how that "war" turned out.

How the hell can we "root for our success" (what is this, Little League?) when no one can satisfactorily define "success" for me? What would constitute success? How do we achieve it? How do we measure when it's been achieved?

All I can see is billions of dollars and thousands of lives needlessly poured down a rathole.

I love it when people say the surge is working - give it just a little more time. Can you say "bend with the force"? The insurgents will wait the U.S. out for one simple reason - they live there.

wile_e_quixote @ 48 and others

Comparisons between Iraq/Afghan and Germany/Japan are pointless in this context. The types of warfare involved are completely different. WWII was the last war the US fought with the type of warfare required to beat an enemy to the point that they couldn't mount an counter-offensive or substantial insurgency. The US's inability to bring itself to wage a "total war" and the incredible horror, death, and destruction that comes with it is why we find ourselves in the position we are in today. Sure, we could fight the Iraq war and win it the same way we did against the Germans/Japanese, but it would mean leveling just about the entire country, its people, its infrastucture, its economy, everything; think of Berlin or Dresden and you'll understand how we won WWII and why there was no subsequent insurgency. Police actions breed insurgencies and never press hard enough to beat the enemy. Make no mistakes, the insurgents are fighting a "total war", they just don't have the resources necessary to progress much beyond guerilla warfare. We have to face the facts, if you are going to wage a war you must be willing to do what's necessary to win it. If you are not, don't bother getting into the ring. The Right is all too eager to jump into a fight but unwilling to do what would be necessary to win. The Left is all too eager to throw in the towel or turn a blind eye to the realities of today's world. Those of us in the middle are stuck paying for both of your mistakes.

"you don't have to believe the surge is working to feel that an immediate withdrawl could have negative consequences."

Which of course begs the question Infrequent: "even more negative than the consequences of staying on the ground, incurring even more casualties, pouring even more billions of dollars into a broken and crumbling economic structure, continuing to prop up a corrupt, increasingly ineffectual political regime, not to mention bankrupting our childrens' and grandchildrens' own physical, environmental, health and educational future?"

The proverbial elephant in the room that those on the Right (and regretably, far too many on the Left) simply refuse to acknowledge is that it doesn't matter when OR how we draw down: 10,000 tomorrow or 100,000 in six months, the result will still be the same. Iraq is trapped in a death-spiral, and no amount of blood or treasure is going to arrest the decline until the Iraqis themselves decide they've had enough - both of our continued occupational presence, as well as of their own sectarian self-extermination.

No matter how you try to spin it, things are only going to get worse over there, a lot worse unfortunately, until there's even the slightest chance for the situation to begin to improve. And our staying or going isn't going to have that much impact either way at this point, unless, as someone posted previously, we go "all out" and are willing to commit half a million or more ground troops and the commensurate increase in ordinance and logistical support for a period of at least a decade. I don't see that happening, and I doubt anyone aside from the most pie-eyed Neocon can envision it either.

Every time I hear this war compared to WWII it makes me sick. Both my grandfathers were in the service-Dad's dad was in the Navy, and Mom's Dad was in the Army in Britain, then through France and Belgium as part of the 'cleanup crews' who cataloged and returned the valuable items they found which the Nazi forces had stolen. Hey, we did that, sort of. Except when the Iraqui antiquities museum was raided (think, oldest extant items of civilized man) and Rummy just made a joke about it. Some flippant remark like 'well sometimes things go missing in a war' or words to that effect. He didn't give a shit.

Saddam couldn't even get past Kuwait-and that was before we rushed to their aid. So much for being like Hitler. Every single thing we were led to believe about this thing has been a lie-and if you don't think US profits are at the heart of it then you need to wake up and stop drinking that Kool-Aid. Do you know what the last act Saddam started to do before he was oustered was? He was going to take Iraq's monetary system and start doing everything in Euros versus US dollars. Which, given his central role in the creation of OPEC, would have insured that the rest of the oil rich states in that area would soon follow, except maybe for the Saudis. Such a blow to the US currency would be huge, and we can't have that now-can we?

George Bush has ushered in a new century and a new era-that of America's irrelevance. By the time I'm an old man, the US will no longer be the world's pre-imminent superpower. We've let our infrastructure go to waste, our manufacturing capabilities go largely to China, and we're more obsessed (if the news stands at the store are any indication of what the average American's into) with Brittney's baby than with what's going on in our world. We've let bald faced corporate avarice take over our banking system (of which all the subprime loans are the most obvious symptom) and let's not even mention the healthcare system. Oops, I did it again..

While all this is happening, what is Bush up to? He's staying the course in Iraq by God! Some leader he is, eh? What a unificator..

Does all this bring back memories? Give us just a few more troops and a little more time and we'll win this thing...we beat 'em on the battlefield every time...they can't possibly stand up to American power...we can see the light at the end of the tunnel...if we lose this war, the world is going to hell...ah yes, the memories...

Response to Hogarth:

How wonderfully you parrot the mindless Bushie talking points. Read some history, dude. There is NO correlation between the situations of Germany and Japan and that of Iraq. In the former you had cohesive, homogeneous, strongly nationalistic cultures with some experience, if fleeting, of democratic institutions. With Iraq you have a geographic entity cobbled together by the British comprising competing tribes and religious factions whose primary loyalties are to their own groups, not to the nation. Hence we are now in the absurd position of supporting a Shia-majority government (at the same time making noises about booting out its elected prime minister), while ALSO arming their Sunni enemies - the same Sunni insurgents who've been blowing up our troops - because the Sunnis are momentarily committed to ousting al Qaeda foreigners before they go back to killing our troops again, while ALSO continuing to attack Sunni insurgents (see today's report from Khalis). This is not a path to "victory", it's a clusterf**k in which even the best case scenario - a partitioning (already de facto) of the country into Kurd, Shia and Sunni regions - promises disaster. Large numbers of Iraqis will die if we leave. Large numbers of Iraqis and Americans will die if we stay, and in no case can the U.S. stay in Iraq at the current troop levels without a draft. Feckless decisions, delusional thinking, and incompetent implementation have real life-and-death consequences, and the U.S. and Iraq will be dealing with the consequences of George, Dick & Rummy's Insane Imperial Adventure for decades to come.

To all you folks out there yammering about the "facts" supporting Baird's metamorphosis, here are the facts, from an AP article two days ago by Steven R. Hurst: "This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace of a year ago." And despite the decline in "peak levels" in Baghdad, "Baghdad...still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press." There's your progress.

Solz is right. The only thing our legislators are going to see over there - necessarily, for their safety, if for no other reason - are heavily stage-managed dog-and-pony shows.

The whack-a-mole scenario playing out over there right now is exactly as many anticipated pre-surge and no different than what's been going on in Iraq for years now. Although Bush likes to represent his "surge" as a change in strategy, it's scarcely even a change in tactics, and there is (still) no strategy. The irony is that the surge is being managed by Gen. Petraeus, whose own Counterinsurgency Field Manual calls for a much higher "troop to task" ratio both in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, and which also "holds that 80 percent of any counterinsurgency effort should be political," which has been very far from the case(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301741.html).

My hat is off to Gen. Petraeus for valiantly taking on a task that he knew, going in, had only the slimmest of chances of working. But the majority of Americans are now paying more attention than they did a few years ago, and they know too well and have had enough of this administration's dog-and-pony show flim-flam and of congressmen gullible enough to be taken in by it. That - and not merely the presence of Jon Solz or Code Pink - is why Congressman Baird got the reception he got, and why he is wrong to have changed his tune.

pull the plug.

"Why the HELL are we still there?"

To reform the Middle East. Iraq is keystone. We can't revert to the old policy of propping up tyrants [see House of Saud] that will only create more Osama's. A free and prospeous Iraq will be the West Berlin that brought the wall down.

Theocratic depotism and proliferating WMDs are a highly dangerous mix, dangerous to civilization itself. Reforming the Middle East is the ONLY long-term solution to fighting radical Islam and global terror.

I say ONLY solution because no one on the Left has offered one, other than submission to Sharia Law [surrender]. Maybe when you guys are done with your mental breakdown you'll actually step up and offer alternatives other than the usual "blood for oil" and "Bush Lied!" nonsense.

Go Trappers!

Seriously, I believe Brian is sincere in his statements and is not acting as a Republican puppet. What I'd recommend is that Mr. Baird note that while the surge is achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq, it's unsustainable and 4 years too late.

"What I'd recommend is that Mr. Baird note that while the surge is achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq, it's unsustainable and 4 years too late."

I'd recommend Baird instead get his advice from someone who understands military operations.

I'm surging in my pants right now.

Fen:
How are we reforming Iraq? What have we done over the past 4 years beside kill them, bomb their infrastructure (hospitals, power plants, allowed their museums to be looted), filled their lands with irradiated uranium shells, and desolved their military without considering where those with military training would go without their jobs? What have we done that is reforming Iraq? We have removed the old tyrant we helped place there (Saddam), and replaced him with a new goverment that appears to be in chaos. Is that enough? Is our loss and their loss worth it?

Baird:
What kind of progress is being made? Just saying "We are making progress" means little - What kind of progress?

Yes, it always takes a tremendous amount of balls to abandon your principles for a position that will certainly improve your potential for campaign funding and your committee standing among your corrupt peers.

Real courage is an amazing thing to see against adversity.

He demonstrates balls, like Commander Codpiece's.