And that, ladies and gentleman, is the typical answer from the crying neocons about abysmal poll numbers. “Why, it’s the gullible population so easily led astray”. Or “the big, evil media has brainwashed them”. Jesus Christ already, give it a rest. All I hear is how huge and popular fox “news” is. The number one news source in America, they crow. So are they complicit for this sorry state of affairs the gop’s gotten themselves into? And the election, the one where little bushie had sooo much political capital? Did that slim 51% suddenly fall under the spell of Air America?

If people are starting to realize that the crew of incompitents running the Union are out of touch, then it’s the administrations fault. If Iraq is a fucked up mess it’s the administrations fault. And if you can’t understand why more people aren’t falling for the bullshit put forth by the likes of three times divorced, junkie, I-got-a-boil-on-my ass-that-kept-me-out-of-Nam Limbaugh or the roster of never served in the military types like Bill O’rielly, Sean Hannitty, or Mike Medved, then it’s because nobody’s buying that partuicular brand of grade “A” bullshit anymore.

The current implosion of the right reminds me of a twilight zone episode where a castro-like character sees his enemies in a magic mirror. He kills them off of course until he’s left alone, paranoid and vulerable. He’s shot his inner circle. That’s what’s going on right now. Who’s the enemy cheny? A decorated war vet? The mother of a dead soldier? 60% of the country, regular people who pay bills, freak out about heating their homes or are displaced by a hurricane? According to the gop they’re cowards and traitors all.

Face it stupid, the curtin has been pulled back, the emperor has no clothes and there’s nothing all the kings horses and all the kings men can do to put it back together again.

Huh? This statement conclusively demonstrates just how desperate the Bush supporters are. If the only way you can support your position is to claim that McKinney represents the position of the Democratic party, you really are toast.

That’s the most disingenouous thing I’ve read on this thread. McKinney has been screaming BUSH LIED! and BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! for years. She’s been a completely reliable, completely typical anti-war leftie Dem. Does she represent the entire party? Of course not. But she represents the BUSH LIED-WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS WE JUST DON’T SUPPORT THE MISSION crowd as much as anyone. At least she had the integrity to vote for what she’s been agitating for, which is more than I can say for the rest of the Dems, who just don’t want to pay the political price for advocating surrender to the insurgents, and instead want to hide behind a bunch of bullshit language about “over the horizon forces” and “as soon as practicable”. Puh-lease. Admit it. Murtha wants the troops home yesterday, and his proposal says as much. It’s surrender, capitulation, game over. I don’t care what euphemism you want to use. If it’s anything short of a full court press to crush the insurgents and remain in-country until the Iraqi government is able to provide security, it’s a defeatist policy.

The Dems don’t need the GOP’s cover. They have the majority support of the American public. It’s only a matter of time before the GOP rank and file join with the Dems. The American people believe they were lied to and they see no end in sight for this war.

If that’s true, it’s only because your crowd has, with the support of the major media outlets, been screaming this bullshit pack of lies that we were “misled” into war so loudly, for so long, that enough people have been fooled into thinking it’s the truth. It may be the case that public support has been lost, but I fail to see how that’s good for the country or good for Iraq. It’s sure good for the Democratic party, though, isn’t it?

Make all the stupid, snarky comments you want but the GOP Bush supporters are running scared. That’s why they have to lie about the Dems’ position.

They’re not lying about the Dems position. They’re calling it what it is. It was a “Sense of the House” resolution—it was a completely non-binding statement that did not preclude later consideration and debate of Murtha’s proposal in the slightest. It was a way to put on the record what everyone in your camp has been bitching and moaning for for two years, and when the time came to put up or shut up, all the Dems could do was whine.

It would be really pitiful if it weren’t for the fact that young men and women are dying for their lies and lack of courage.

Too bad it’s even worse that because of views like yours, if you get your way, the sacrifices of the 2000+ who’ve already lost their lives will be in vain.

I hope you’re happy.

I’m telling you that the answer to your question is that the military exists to carry out the wishes of the civilian authority. Period. And in this case, the civilian authority is going to be moved by the public will, which no longer supports the war.

Say you’re right. What’s that to do with me?

For that matter, how does it answer my question? “Why have a military?”

Please explain to me why it is that you expect me to change my support for the war based on the popularity that support may or may not enjoy? Or are are you suggesting that because I’m a Soldier I should keep my mouth shut?

Har, now THAT’s grasping at strawmen.

None of the above.

I’m telling you that the answer to your question is that the military exists to carry out the wishes of the civilian authority. Period. And in this case, the civilian authority is going to be moved by the public will, which no longer supports the war.

Your opinion of all that, notwithstanding. It doesn’t matter what the military thinks of this. What matter is what the majority of the American people think. And over the next year, you will have an opportunity to see how that works.

As an individual: Please explain to me why it is that you expect me to change my support for the war based on the popularity that support may or may not enjoy? Or are are you suggesting that because I’m a Soldier I should keep my mouth shut?

Clever, trying to make out that I have some problem with civilian control of the military.

Then you have no problem with the fact that, politically speaking, the war is already over. Support in the US is not coming back. This action is going to be terminated, and in the near term.

In light of that, I don’t know what you are doing here. Trying to talk the civilian authority into staying?

Talk to the hand. In fact, talk to about 50-75 million hands, depending on how you extrapolate the numbers.

As Andrew Sullivan realized almost as soon as the GOP version was presented, the leadership there was terrified of allowing a vote on Murtha’s actual resolution because of the likely level of Congressional support it would reveal—and not just among Democrats. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)—the man who invented “freedom fries”, but who is now sponsoring the House resolution for a withdrawal timetable—said that Murtha’s proposal “gives a lot of weight to this debate”, and that it will make “some Republicans think about their responsibility as relates to the war in Iraq”.

Personally, I think John’s opposition to withdrawal makes about as much sense as insisting that Churchill believed in “cutting and running” because he evacuated the troops to Dunkirk instead of demanding that they stay in France and fight to the last man. But then, my biggest reason for supporting an Iraq pullout is the same reason I’m enraged at Bush rigging the evidence to gain support for putting the military there in the first place: we’re going to need it much more elsewhere for other jobs—and very soon. Such as, say, trying to keep Iran from acquiring the Bomb—if it isn’t already too late—and coping with any miliary crises produced by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it. In that respect, I agree with that notorious snivelling dove Graham Allison.

(My other reason for favoring withdrawal is the one I share with George Will and Kevin Drum: at this point there is no workable way to put in enough troops to win the damn war, even if we re-instituted the draft. And by “winning” the war, I mean preventing an Iraqi civil war, and preventing Sunni and Shiite anti-democrats from taking over their respective parts of the country. Of course, as Will points out, the latter goal was almost certainly impossible from the start.)

Come on. You take offence way too easily. Either I hit a nerve by being too accurate, or getting hacked off is just easier than addressing the issues presented.

• of yours that I

I’m responsible for reading your mind?

No, but you are responsible for acting like a ass…

One of the ways we communicate is by trying to resate the position ofthe other guy to be sure it understood.

Well, they you should have done it in a better way. I was more than cordial with you in this thread before the post of your I took issue with. You should be lucky, I’m not very friendly to newcomers who obviously support Bush. I’ll try to help you out by showing you what pissed me off.

I think you know that. I think you also think Globalism is a Bad Thing™.

Specifically the TM. Don’t try to caricature me as if I fall into some “group-think trend” bullshit.

The radical isolationists, like yourself, want to pull all our troops home and station them around the perimeter (if not disband the military altogether).

And for that one you get an “eat shit”.

Next time, don’t be such an ass and I might actually explain my views better.

Good dodge of the question as well.

Why have a military?

To obey the orders of its civilian command.

To see where that’s headed, check the polls. Support for the war is essentially gone and it is not coming back. The political process takes over from here. Republicans in Congress will face a simple choice: Distance themselves from the war, or lose. It’s already happening. They’ll posture about supporting troops, of course (right up until they have to vote for money for resources or veteran’s benefits) but the war itself is already over. Just the details need to be worked out.

Sorry you won’t like that, but that’s the way it is.

Try not to put words in my mouth and condescend to me next time and I might actually read your whole post and then respond. I will just say this. When I say isolationist I am specifically talking about in terms of the military—Not diplomacy.

I’m responsible for reading your mind? One of the ways we communicate is by trying to resate the position ofthe other guy to be sure it understood. Thanks for the clarification, but please note that there was no way for me to know that you made such a disntinction before.

If you want to can answer me this RTO…Is not the military suppose to defend America and the Constitution? Or is it their job to police the world?

You don’t really need to answer the question as I already am fairly certain what your answer will be.

Will you think me dense if I ask why you assume that these things have to be mutually exclusive? Perhaps if you read the rest of what I’d posted….

Sure, of course. It hadn’t ocurred to me that you would dig that hole deeper, but …. you did.

You think I’ve dug a hole? Okay….