digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Leaked Letter Reveals Conservative Strategy For House Iraq Debate

thinkprogress.org — Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) write fellow Republicans: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. ... If Democrats force us to debate the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -24/+47Conservatism is dead.
    • astrofire, on 10/12/2007, -34/+5BSD is dead.
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -10/+76Conservatism is dead until Liberals put on their greed hat at which point Conservatives will campaign against their greed and win for a few years until the Conservatives put on their greed hat at which point Liberals will campaign against their greed and win for a few years, blah blah blah. Rinse, repeat.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -27/+18Here's the full letter, they only quote two tiny parts of it in the article (insert PDF warning here):
      http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf

      There's also a list of some recent terrorist attacks since 2002 in the PDF, none of which took place in Iraq. Whether we're in Iraq or not, this fight is going to take a long time, and if we leave Iraq we'll just have to fight elsewhere.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -14/+40baron -- so you're saying that if we leave Vietnam, the dominoes will fall elsewhere and then communism will take over the world.

      Fighting for fantasies and complicated theories is a bunch of *****. The reality is: terrorism has skyrocketed since imposing this supposed "fix." Try something different!
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@bigdave and baron

      Communism basically took care of itself, even though invading Vietnam and Korea didn't do a damn thing. Baron is right about the fact that we'll have to fight elsewhere if we leave Iraq, but at least then we'll have the support of other countries. On the other hand, by invading Iraq we gave them a country to fight for to make their own, and if we leave they're just going to make it their base of ops.
    • thebaron2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19What I'm saying, BigDave, is that terrorism existed, and was rampant, long before 9/11 and the road to Iraq.

      I don't like that we're there. I DESPISE the fact that we ended up there because of ***** intelligence and poor decision making on the part of this administration. But to believe that everything is going to be peachy and peaceful if we just up and leave is the definition of naiveté. Your world view is obviously so twisted by your politics that you didn't actually THINK about the comment I made - you just assumed right off the bat that I must be some right-wing shill promoting the war, which is NOT the case.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11Hmm. So we should stay in Iraq because if we don't the terrorist will start attacking someplace else... like in the "homeland"?

      Wow. So that means that in order to insure the continued safety of the American people we must indefinitely fight in Iraq... in other words, we must not win. If we win, the terrorists will undoubtedly move elsewhere and attack us at home.

      So the reason we're not winning is because we don't want to win! It all makes sense now! George Bush is a GENIUS!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14This isnt even about conservatism. This just looks like two stupid parties taking polar opposite sides so as to not be confused with one another. I love our incredibly divisive and hate inspiring political system.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"Conservatism is dead."

      Sweet! Can we start drilling oil in Alaska and the Gulf now?
    • Sodamoeba, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7"The reality is: terrorism has skyrocketed since imposing this supposed "fix." Try something different!"

      Terrorism hasn't skyrocketed, the Liberal news coverage of terrorism has skyrocketed...Like the Sunni vs. Shi'a violence is really an effect of American presence. Those groups hate each other, whether we have troops their or not. Families at home just can't stomach the violence shown on the news that is a part of any war.

      "War is hell" ~William Tecumseh Sherman
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm glad our political leaders see debates as games that they may win or lose, rather than relevant and important questions that aren't served by meaningless rhetoric and unilateralism.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6@sodamoeba
      Yes, the Sunni vs Shia violence is America's fault as we executed the man that kept them in check as an excuse to send our troops to sit around and guard Cheney's corporate interests.
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Do any of these Congressmen think for themselves, or do they only know how to regurgitate the party 'talking points'. No wonder Washington is void of good ideas. It's just a never ending episode of 'Spy vs. Spy'.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13@sodamoeba - "Terrorism hasn't skyrocketed, the Liberal news coverage of terrorism has skyrocketed."

      Actually, terrorism rates HAVE gone up, and a lot. (Tripled, in fact.) The Bush Administration attempted to lie about it by not including a lot of data, but the truth eventually got out.

      See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

      Nice try though.
    • cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@thebaron2: your problem is you think the same as every other conservative - for whatever reason, you think we can win this militarily. i'm sorry to say this but anyone who still feels this way after all the blood that has been spilt in iraq (and other parts of the world) these past several years is a moron. there is only ONE single solution - DIPLOMACY.
    • pitlord, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I can't believe thebaron got buried for providing a link to the full text of the letter. Diggers should be ashamed of themselves for burying the truth like that!

      Digg up thebaron2 if you stand for truth!
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7baron:

      >What I'm saying, BigDave, is that terrorism existed, and was rampant, long before 9/11 and the road to Iraq.

      Terrorism was rampant? Nonsense. There are now more terrorist attacks in a single month than there used to be in entire years. NOW it's rampant, but it wasn't even after 9/11 -- before we invaded -- it has skyrocketed since the invasion.

      >I don't like that we're there. I DESPISE the fact that we ended up there because of ***** intelligence and poor decision making on the part of this administration. But to believe that everything is going to be peachy and peaceful if we just up and leave is the definition of naiveté.

      Yes, that's what I said -- everything is going to be peachy and peaceful and sugar cookies and happiness and love and snuggles. It only sounds stupid because you just made it up. There is a civil war there right now, according to our Generals. Whether we stay or leave there's still going to be a civil war there, and there's zero methods of fixing it because no one has any strategy to put cats back into bags.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Soda:

      >Terrorism hasn't skyrocketed

      Here, let me summarize the recently declassified NIE for you (that the Bush administration tried to suppress):

      * The total number of international terrorist incidents, both significant and non-significant, declined until 2002.
      * 2004 marked the single, largest increase in terrorist activity ever recorded since the CIA started keeping records dating back to 1968.
      * The four fold increase in significant terrorist incidents (attacks in which people were killed and wounded) was a direct consequence of the war in Iraq. All you have to do is look at the attacks recorded and the people killed and wounded in those attacks. Iraq and India were the big targets in 2004.
      * According to information provided at the U.S. State Department in 2005, there were approximately 198 significant terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2004. This was nine times more than the 22 significant terrorist attacks in Iraq identified in the State Department's 2003 report. Indeed, the number of significant terrorist attacks in Iraq in 2004 exceeded the 175 significant terrorist attacks that occurred throughout the entire world in 2003.
    • DGaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"baron -- so you're saying that if we leave Vietnam, the dominoes will fall elsewhere and then communism will take over the world."

      Actually, bigdavediode, I think baron is actually saying that if we leave Vietnam, those responsible for the withdrawal will be responsible for the slaughter of millions in Cambodia, the executions, re-education camps, and effective enslavement inflicted upon the Vietnamese, and for laying the seeds of 9/11 by helping convince Osama bin Laden that the US weak, and burdened by large numbers of short-sighted dupes who can be intimidated into fleeing from a fight--which, unfortunately, it apparently is. And as it turns out, all of that is exactly what happened after Vietnam.

      It's regrettable that even the US withdrawal from Vietnam wasn't ill considered enough that people won't rush to make the same mistake 30 years later.
    • montage, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5You guys really don't have a clue what the terrorists are trying to do. The whole purpose of terrorism is to provoke a response. And the US has responded in kind. We've done exactly what they've wanted us to do all along.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Democrats convinced me that "staying the course" was a bad idea. They now control congress. It's time to unveil their better plan. Humiliating Republicans with non-binding resolutions and silly debate doesn't stop the bloodshed. Grow the ***** up. I'm inches away from regretting my vote for Democrats.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3At an end your rule is and not short enough it was -- Yoda
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1DGaw:

      >Actually, bigdavediode, I think baron is actually saying that if we leave Vietnam, those responsible for the withdrawal will be responsible for the slaughter of millions in Cambodia, the executions, re-education camps, and effective enslavement inflicted upon the Vietnamese,

      Hey, a history rewriter! Nice to meet you. I read all about you guys in a documentary called 1984. In reality, North Vietnam again and again refused to support Pol Pot. However we had no such qualms about supporting repression by the then existing government, and bombing the crap out of Cambodia, thereby fomenting seeds of rebellion and revolt.

      >and for laying the seeds of 9/11 by helping convince Osama bin Laden that the US weak, and burdened by large numbers of short-sighted dupes who can be intimidated into fleeing from a fight

      Don't read what Osama has said much, do you? He wanted the troops out of Saudi Arabia, Bush took the troops out of Saudi Arabia. He wanted a military response to the Cole to gather his followers, and was disappointed, but was very happy that the second try was a charm.

    • Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"* 2004 marked the single, largest increase in terrorist activity ever recorded since the CIA started keeping records dating back to 1968."

      So that means they weren't even keeping records for the other 5,961 years. This proves nothing about global warming! Oh wait, different topic. I don't know about this NIE what's-it, but according to some almanacs in my attic the years around 1776 were the high-water mark for terrorist activity.
  • sbassin, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43What?! Republicans trying to avoid the issues and stick to talking points? This is a first. Next think you know they'll be accusing dissenters of wanting the terrorists to win.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Everybody knows the entire world can be fit into two distinct groups. The Republican Party, and the evil freedom hating terrorist supporting liberals that hate America. That's what I keep hearing anyway.
    • UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Jeez, next thing you know, they will be using these talking points to block a bill to raise minimum wage and not even letting it reach the floor.

      Nah, that could never happen.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10The thing I hate the most about these Neocons is there is no debate, you are 'not allowed to talk about it.

      Yeah, isn't that what a child molester tells his victims too?
    • NeptuneZen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So did you even read the article? I wonder how many people that commented actually read the article. They are looking at the long term consequences, while their democratic colleagues are thinking about the short term consequences. We committed ourselves to fighting terrorism after 9/11. And whether or not Iraq was the place to fight terrorism, it is now. If we pull out it will be seen by the terrorists as a win. It will embolden them, and Iraq will become a blood bath of sectarian violence. You can't just pull out of Iraq, and the troop surge is not something bush came up with. It is something that our military came up with. They have been asking for more troops for a long time. More troops will allow our military to better control the violence. This is what our troops are asking for, and we need to give them reinforcements. So to all you people out there who want the violence in Iraq to end here is your chance, go sign up with the army.
  • lagitane, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31This is the first I've heard that we are in Iraq to defeat radical Islam!?! That's a pretty big task!!! So the GOP strategy is to turn the debate into a True Christian (tm) Crusade... One problem - I probably wouldn't have started with one of the most SECULAR GODDAMMED COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, JACKASSES. What, the Taliban wasn't "radical" enough for you? Damn these ignorant monkeys piss me off.
  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8Reps. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) are totally WRONG as in the past 2 weeks, ever since the announced Bush Surge, we know that hundreds of members of al-Qaeda, and Moqtada al Sadr [with members of his army] have cut-and-run from Iraq. Is that how you prove that we are losing this War?

    These 2 CongressCritters should go home to mama if they can't keep up to speed.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Yeah, they've "cut-and-run" to Iran, because they want to provoke an attack on Iran while at the same time making trying to make it look like Bush is the agressor, and Bush is taking the bait.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Every week it's some new fake information. Every week you guys repeat it. Even if they had left Iraq, and there's no evidence that they have, it's not going to make any more of a difference than the various elections where you were told that we were turning the corner, or the constitution where you were told that we were turning the corner, or the capture of Saddam where you were told we were turning the corner, or when Bush declared that major combat operations were completed where you were told that we weren't just turning the corner but that it was over, or when Saddam was executed when you were told that we were turning the corner, or when we went into Fallujah when you were told that we were turning the corner, or when...
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9You're ***** retarded. Every news outlet has reported at this point that al-Sadr and his leadership have all run from Iraq and fled to Iran. If you weren't so ***** stupid that you actually get your news from anything other than what you see on The Daily Show or the Colbert Report, you'd know that.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2ark:

      >You're ***** retarded. Every news outlet has reported at this point that al-Sadr and his leadership have all run from Iraq and fled to Iran.

      Good point! If everyone says so then it MUST be true! Especially if they are all quoting the administration -- how could it be false? (/sarcasm /sarcasm /sarcasm /sarcasm /sarcasm)
  • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30GOP admits that they can't defend the surge or the presidents strategy, so they decide to use (are you ready).... FEAR!
    • RevChris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I pictured a Blood Elf Warlock casting fear when he realized he was about to lose a stupid escort quest to some Paladin named Surge ... (... added for the 2 second casting time that warlocks have)

      BE are just like the GOP , all shiny and pretty , but on the inside , they're still horde.....

      gotta get off the warcraft...
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4How misaligned these leaders are with the will of the people they are elected to represent. Why do we allow them to constantly manipulate us? The American people can handle the truth.

    Please do debate “the surge or the current situation in Iraq." Every Christian knows that the truth makes us free.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Sadly, there are quite a few who seem to have missed that memo.
  • psyops, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Radical Republicans

    Narly Neo-Cons!

    Tubular Terrorists!



  • mwsherman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23As a full out leftist commie pinko loser who hates war and likes abortion, I have to say that the democrats are being incredibly stupid. We, being the USA, started that war and now we have a horrible disaster on our hands. And unfortunately, it's our responsibility to clean our mess up, weather we want to or not.

    Democrats, we get the idea. Everyone sane is against the war, and everyone knows that you can continue to cry "shame on you" by waving junk like this in the face of the Republicans. However, it's not going to solve any problems, you vote-mongering whores. Now, perhaps some more concrete plans are needed before we send more troops there, and yes, the whole thing sucks. But please, grow up. When I was 2 years old I was taught to clean up any messes I make, and now it's time to clean up this mess.

    Rather than using Iraq as merely a political tool, democrats should take the opportunities presented by the change of power and actually do something. With the change in leadership we have an opportunity to get the rest of the world, NATO, and the UN involved. All that needs to happen is a few Democratic leaders need to go on TV, admit that the US government made a mistake, and ask for the support of the world to stop a bad situation before it gets much, much worse. Chances are we'll get it, and at the very least it will improve our international standing. And it still makes the Republicans look like idiots, which is the whole point of the resolution in the first place. You spineless donkeys.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4mwsher:

      >When I was 2 years old I was taught to clean up any messes I make, and now it's time to clean up this mess.

      Don't keep us in suspense, tell us the "how" part.

      Some problems don't have good solutions, and the civil war is already there -- we can either stay there and play a part in it or save a few of our guys' lives.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8There isn't always a way to fix everything you mess up. Say whatever you want about Saddam, but he was the only thing holding that country, and the area in general, together. We killed him, he's dead, we can't say "whoops sorry, that didn't work out so well, come back to life now please". Our village idiot shot a hole in the dike, has been continuing to shoot more holes, and we're at the point now where sending more people to plug the holes with their thumbs isn't really very practical or helpful.
    • NeverbyLuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I am probably completely opposite of you on the political spectrum, but I agree with what you have to say. If Democrats would stop using this as a political football and see it for the serious situation it is, the whole country and world would be better off for it.

      I don't think this whole thing was a mistake, but it has certainly turned into a cluster. However, it had almost unanimous bipartisan support so it is the responsibility of everyone who voted for the measure. I think a little bipartisan cooperation and compromise would do the whole world some good right now.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7mwsher

      SIGN UP OR STFU!!

      Send my kid to die for a pack of lies and corporate special interests? FVCK YOU!!
    • HAKdragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Abortions for some, little American flags for others!
    • mikecap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Don't abort your babies - we need them to die in our oil wars! Go Exxon!!
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, that chickenhawk argument, that hasn't gotten old.

      If we're going to use that "logic," you're not allowed to criticize the government anymore until you start an armed revolution against it.

      Yeah, sounds pretty ***** retarded when it gets turned back around on you, doesn't it?
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ bigdavediode - "Don't keep us in suspense, tell us the "how" part."

      I'll tell you exactly what we should do to 'solve' the problem over there -

      1. We need to pull our troops out of Baghdad and other cities and pull back to the borders.
      2. Set up a perimeter to keep the foreign fighters from Iran and Syria from instigating more violence and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out for control.
      3. Get the UN and other NGOs to run refugee camps for the Kurds and other civilians while we keep the conflict from spilling over to the rest of the region.

      Result: Either a new, strong central leader will emerge and reunify the sects or the civil war will lead to the creation of autonomous regions for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis - each with independent governments. The north will go to the Kurds, the central area including Baghdad will end up Sunni and the south will go Shia. Islamic Republics will be formed and the whole reqion will basically be run like Iran today with a heavy dose of Sharia law.

      The country is going to tear itself apart and there is exacly zero we can do to prevent that from happening now. What we can do is get our boys out of the line of fire and keep out the foreign influence from neighboring Arab states. We're fooling ourselves if we think adding more troops will do anything than add more fodder for the IEDs. This is the only reasonable solution - a mixture of 'cut and run' and 'stay the course'.

      When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging.


    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2mrswirl:

      >1. We need to pull our troops out of Baghdad and other cities and pull back to the borders.

      We already have -- didn't you see that we've lost control over most of Baghdad?

      >2. Set up a perimeter to keep the foreign fighters from Iran and Syria from instigating more violence and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out for control.

      It's a good idea, unfortunately it seems like we don't have enough troops to secure the borders.

      >3. Get the UN and other NGOs to run refugee camps for the Kurds and other civilians while we keep the conflict from spilling over to the rest of the region.

      The UN already told the Bush administration to ***** off when Bush went begging to them last year, that they weren't going to help and that it was our mess. That's what he gets for pissing on the international community (and appointing an ***** like Bolton to the UN.)

      >Result: Either a new, strong central leader will emerge and reunify the sects or the civil war will lead to the creation of autonomous regions for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis - each with independent governments.

      That's going to happen anyway, whether or not we continue to keep our guys in the line of fire.
    • mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0>1. We need to pull our troops out of Baghdad and other cities and pull back to the borders.

      We already have -- didn't you see that we've lost control over most of Baghdad?

      >>> No, we haven't pulled out of Baghdad - in fact, there's now talk of invading Sadr City which will only ensure more US troops will die and adding the 21,000 extra combat troops will only enflame tensions further. We need to publicly announce the pull out and demonstrate to the average Iraqi on the street that we no longer have a presence inside the cities. Empty the Green Zone completely and, as cruel as this sounds, abandon the citizens to their own fate or force them to flee behind us. This will automatically mean that no more US troops will come home in flagged drapped coffins which is what the American people really care about.

      >2. Set up a perimeter to keep the foreign fighters from Iran and Syria from instigating more violence and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out for control.

      It's a good idea, unfortunately it seems like we don't have enough troops to secure the borders.

      >>> By pulling the troops out of the cities we can concentrate them on the main border crossings between Iraq and Iran and Syria. Most of the border is desert which we can control with fighter and helicopter sorties. 100,000+ troops is enough to maintain an effective perimeter but even if we have to increase troops levels, the American people will be more likely to support this kind of mission instead of the current IED meat-grinder.

      >>>Plus we won't be pouring money into the infinite black-hole of reconstruction projects that never get finished. The cost should actually decrease as a result and this kind of mission is more in-line with current military parameters than the current full-blown nation building that we suck at.


      >3. Get the UN and other NGOs to run refugee camps for the Kurds and other civilians while we keep the conflict from spilling over to the rest of the region.

      The UN already told the Bush administration to ***** off when Bush went begging to them last year, that they weren't going to help and that it was our mess. That's what he gets for pissing on the international community (and appointing an ***** like Bolton to the UN.)

      >>> The UN will support humanitarian missions and they've said so time and time again. They will not provide troops to assist in combat missions and they've made this very clear. We are far more likely to get internation support once we stop blowing ***** up and start concentrating on keeping refugees alive.

      >Result: Either a new, strong central leader will emerge and reunify the sects or the civil war will lead to the creation of autonomous regions for the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis - each with independent governments.

      That's going to happen anyway, whether or not we continue to keep our guys in the line of fire.

      >>>That's exactly my point. We can't stop it now. Our chance to really change things over there came and went 3 years ago. We've continued to just ***** things up ever since. We need to acknowledge reality and do the only thing we can do now - stand back and watch as they fight it out.

      >>>Listen, I'm not a right or left winger - I'm a realist. For whatever reason, we're the ones who messed things up over there but we have to finally admit that we are unable to fix it. Nobody ever wants to talk about 'real' ideas to change things - only talking points like 'stay the course' or 'complete victory' which doesn't mean anything to the average Iraqi trying to dodge suicide bombers or the US soldier without legs in the VA hospital.

      >>>You wanted to know 'how' to solve the problems over there and this is the only reasonable solution left. Please provide counterpoints if you have any better ideas - stop throwing rocks at other people who are trying to provide workable solutions.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Mrswirl:

      >>>> No, we haven't pulled out of Baghdad -

      We have in that we've isolated our troops in the green zone and aren't doing more than superficial patrols outside of it. They're hiding, basically.

      > By pulling the troops out of the cities we can concentrate them on the main border crossings between Iraq and Iran and Syria.

      Yes, we should have done that two years ago. However now it's too late, we can't fight both insurgents from the Iranian side and the insurgents from inside Iraq at the same time. Putting them out there means more mortar attacks against our guys, and certainly more pipeline and supply line bombings -- ie. more dead troops. As our NIE already stated, the insurgency inside Iraq is "self sustaining" -- securing the borders at this point accomplishes nothing as the horse has already left the barn.

      >>>Plus we won't be pouring money into the infinite black-hole of reconstruction projects that never get finished.

      The amount of money leaving will not change as most of the expenses are no bid contracts.

      > The UN will support humanitarian missions and they've said so time and time again.

      No. The UN has said it will support humanitarian missions IF Iraq is stable enough to do so safely, and additionally they will send zero peacekeeping troops.

      >They will not provide troops to assist in combat missions and they've made this very clear. We are far more likely to get internation support once we stop blowing ***** up and start concentrating on keeping refugees alive.

      What refugees? They're already fleeing to Jordan at the tune of 150,000 a month.

      >That's exactly my point. We can't stop it now.

      And mine as well. So why are we there?

      >Our chance to really change things over there came and went 3 years ago. We've continued to just ***** things up ever since. We need to acknowledge reality and do the only thing we can do now - stand back and watch as they fight it out.

      Exactly. Bush set everything on fire, and no one has a firehose that big to put it out.

      >You wanted to know 'how' to solve the problems over there and this is the only reasonable solution left. Please provide counterpoints if you have any better ideas - stop throwing rocks at other people who are trying to provide workable solutions.

      You assume that every problem has solutions -- there aren't any in this case. Children and Republicans know that every problem is solvable, while adults know that there are plenty of unsolvable problems. Any quote-unquote solution that involves staying there, more deaths and more money deserves rocks.
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The government of the United States was established for good, honest politicians with varied opinions and beliefs. Safeguards were put into place to protect the people against dishonest and corrupt leaders.

    Had the founding fathers seen our day where corruption is the norm they would have established a system of government first to protect the people against dishonest leaders and then to provide safeguards, freedom and influence for the honest.

    I hope the American people elect good leaders to revisit the entire framework. The country needs another Constitutional Convention of 1787.

  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Well the Dems won't be having an open debate and won't allow the Republicans to debate their plan for Iraq. So all the cries of "trying to stifle debate" we heard 6 months ago can go on and continue. Oh that is right. Dems are in power now and it is OK to stifle debate if it is YOUR side. The ends justify the means.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Talk to Dick Cheney and the Project for the New American Century if you want to know about the end justifying the means...
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Ah, it wouldn't be digg if someone didn't throw "z0mg teh neocons nd teh JOOOOOS are behindz 9/11 wtF!1!!" into every topic.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I missed the part where I said a single word in your entire post. Care to point one out to me?
    • DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Apparently, the mere mention of the PNAC means you susbscribe to some whack job conspiracy theory where dick cheney drove one of the planes on 9/11. The reality is neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Fox News regular Bill Kristol saw 9/11 as a way to execute the pre-emptive attack that they tried to get Clinton to execute in the late 90's. When an attack occurs on your country, the hardliners in your country take over, and that's all that is represented by the empowerment of the project for a new american century in the years after 9/11.

      As a sidenote, that is exactly what will happen in Iran if we attack it-- the hardliners will gain power and the growing grassroots movement in Iran that dispises those hardliners and their ambitions will be stifled.
  • Deranged, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5pardon my skepticism, but how does a government letter "leak"... I know our president is a dumb *****, but they don't let him have the important stuff.
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2SNIFF...ah, the stench of discontent. Grow up, Kiddies.
    • mightydavefish, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ah, the apathy of ignorance. Wake up, dumbass.
  • thewump, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11To all the retards who voted for Bush in 2004.. "***** you. We told you so"
    • BassMastr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Do you really think we would be better off with Kerry? Guess we'll never know...
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3 Please, as can be seen from my posts here that I am no fan of Bush, but to think he is the mastermind or the head huncho is simply silly. Cheney might be, but I don't that too. Regardless who won in04 the same thing would have happened. They were both bonesmen, they answer to the same people.

      BTW - I don't mean the American people.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It's a good thing no one knows what you're talking about or you'd have ark7 jumping on you for being a conspiracy theorist.
  • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Wow what a misleading argument that is, and here it is spelled out in black and white.

    Premise: "We must protect ourselves from criminal attacks."
    Logical steps: ?????
    Conclusion: "Therefore, we must send more troops to Iraq."

    Wha ... ?
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You are right...whenever the gangs in L.A. start acting up we always reduce the number of police because we know fewer police means less crime.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The difference is there are actually gangs in LA whereas there are no Al Qaeda people in Iraq... We're not fighting terrorists there, your vice president said it himself.
    • floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Krymore

      I would recheck that

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660179/
    • Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Krymore, I think you meant to say "there *were* no Al Qaeda people in Iraq". There sure as hell are some now, since a prolonged, mismanaged, foreign occupation has provided them with a fantasctic recruitment tool.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"If Democrats force us to debate the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.""

    If they don't debate the current situation in Iraq, we all lose.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's not a debate. The Democrats refuse to admit they have no plan either. They simply want to withdraw troops, and hope for the best, even if the result is an escalation of war the engulfs the entire Middle East.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3And what is so bad about removing the troops? The troops being there aren't stoping them from fighting are they? So there is no net gain. It is all an ego thing so that you don't have to say you lost the war - you are willing to let your brothers and sisters die for your ego..

      whats worse, is you think by doing that it is you that is supporting the troops.....

      incredible.
  • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6This is actually pretty top priority and should be in the mass media.

    Email MSNBC.com and get this on the air, MANY more people need to know about it.

    Take a minute to write to Keith Olberman at Countdown on MSNBC, lets get this and digg on the air.

    Their email is: countdown@msnbc.com
  • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6More selectively quoted thinprogress spam. Maybe they'd like to cover how al-Sadr has fled Iraq following the announcement of the surge?
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"HEY LOOK OVER THERE, A PUPPY!"
    • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Uhh... whats out of context. They print the entire letter. If you care to look, its posted right on a government website.

      http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I'm pretty sure they try to cover confirmed facts with physical evidence and not "official speculation". Speculation is the reason we're in Iraq in the first place after all.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Yeah, and the whole letter has a bit more to it than "oh noes if we talks about teh surge we are teh ended!1!!" that thinkprogress is harping on.
    • Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Maybe you would like to quote a source on that information?
  • wageslave1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@thebaron2 26 minutes ago
    If you meant "I DESPISE the fact that we ended up there because of ***** intelligence" to mean "I DESPISE the fact that we ended up there because of Office of Special Plans manufacturing propaganda"

    Do a google for "Office of Special Plans".

    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2While you're at it, add Team B, Project for the New American Century, and Operation Cyclone to that list.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5God damn neo-con/JOOOS! All up in 9/11 and that *****!
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I'm pretty sure you already made an idiot of yourself further up the page by attempting to put the same words into my mouth, though at least this time I actually did say the words "that" and "and".
  • edgeoforever, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That goes with this article:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070206/pl_afp/usiraqpolitics_070206201955
    "Perino said the White House had contacted about 200 lawmakers to explain Bush's plan and the decision-making behind it.

    She spoke of "a quite robust operation"
  • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4How did Rep. Hoyer's office acquire this letter?

    Nobody asks this question?

    Think Progress links to Gregladen.com for the letter. Gregladen.com links back to Think Progress for the letter.

    Umm, that's a circle of no answers.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Didn't you hear? Logical fallacies are standard boilerplate at digg.
    • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How is linking to a direct file off a government website a circle of no answers.

      http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/ShadeggHoekstraDearColleague.pdf

      You cant bury this as liberal spin. It's in black and white on a government website.

      Click the f'n link.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@odinfire

      Ok, I see. The link to Laden is just the Text version of the PDF on Hoyer's site.

      However, that still doesn't answer the question as to how Hoyer acquired a confidential communication from the Republicans.
    • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@gabriels

      You have a point, but I cant imagine any member of Congress would be willing to host such a file on their site if they didn't have some sort of credible source. In addition, who said it was confidential?
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@odinfire,
      exactly-those guys supposedly work for us, right?
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@odinfire

      Well, my comments are getting downvoted so you can help out by upvoting them as I'm simply engaging in conversation about a legitimate question.

      The letter was sent to specific individuals. It was sent to Hoyer. The implication is that the communication was confidential just as all letters sent to fellow members of Congress are confidential unless the parites agree to share them.
    • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@totorototoro

      Of course both sides have their agendas, but thats not really the point here. Its a pretty clear and straightforward letter. We are not really talking about the credibility of the entire congress, we are talking about the credibility of one letter clearly written by Republican members. It shows their real intention.

      As far as how they would get ahold of it, well the Bush administration's dam has started to crack, I think we will see quite a few more leaks along the way.

      There is no chewbacca defensing this one, its pretty clear.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@odinfire

      As we learned with Manual Miranda, we cannot rule out foul play in the asking questions about the acquisition of this letter by Rep. Hoyer's office.

      Asking questions about the acquisition of the letter is entirely legitimate. Rep. Hoyer has it posted to his own Majority Leader site, so he's confident that it is accurate. But by posting it he opens this line of questioning.
    • odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@gabriels

      No problem with the diggs. I enjoy engaging a legitimate debate.

      Whats interesting in regards to the credibility is that Hoyer's site hosts the file, but its not linked to on the front page. At least not that I could see, it would seem someone had to dig this up off the site to post the article.

      The crediblity will no doubt be affirmed or dismissed by those with the adequate resources.

      The problem here is that by sticking to an argument on credibility it detracts and sidetracks the contents of the actual letter. Especially considering the fact that its hosted on a government website. This would certainly imply, if not back up, the fact that the article is completely credible. At this point, and in this forum, arguments that move away from the contents of the article are red herrings.

      Two Republican members are responsible for the letter and say they dont want to engage a debate on Iraq. They encourage other Republican members to help them stop the debate.

      The crediblity will be proven, Hoyer is staking his reputation on it.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, if this is a letter to the Republicans in the House, maybe one of the Republican recipients leaked it? There's a few that have come out of their Kool-Aid comas.

      At the risk of sounding like another Digg drone, I wonder if Ron Paul leaked it? He seems to be the only Republican who's had the cajones to oppose the Iraq War from the beginning, so he seems like one of the few that'd have the cajones to give the Democrats a heads-up.
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Rules for not getting suckered my Internet hoaxes:

    "Leaked" == "most likely fabricated".

    Political advocacy site == almost assured to be fabricated unless a non-political outside source is referenced.

    Politicians like gullible people because they fall for their marketing tactics. Don't be one.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2 A simple question to both sides here.... So what?

    Seriously, if you were in the republican party would you want to talk about the massive blunder that is Iraq?

    Do you think the democrates wanted to talk about Clintons BJ?

    Think Bush sr wanted to talk about the Contra's??

    This is just politic's.

    No one is going to stop talking about the Iraq war, and if the democrats do for some reason "take that off the table", then how much more proof do you need before you realize both sides work for the same goal, and merely play you chaps off of one another.

  • youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great! So lets defeat radical islam by using force and inadvertently killing innocent people while trying to do it. Wouldn't that just add more fuel to their cause?
    It looks to me like a sequel to the whole democracy vs communism thing.

    How about, instead, we protect ourselves by improving security for our boarders and ports? I don't quite understand why that's not the most important thing we should be doing right now.
  • morningmatters, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Poor Conservatives, getting cornered by the mess known as Iraq and refusing to anything about it as usual. The typical whining about "biased lefty media" is getting boring at this point. Attacking the messenger (in this case thinkprogress) won't help much anymore now that America as a whole is waking up.

    It's no secret that the GOP tried to stop this debate in the house altogether. Now that the GOP is forced to debate it only make sense that they would try their best to sabotage any type of meaningful exchange. It's because of this attitude that GOP lost their majority this Nov.
  • phatt-matt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Does anyone ever read the articles that are submitted to Digg? You should be ashamed of yourselves. Bunch of mindless, liberal robots. Read the actual letter and you will be able to see that the strategy is different from what StinkProgress is implying.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Quiet, you! We only like our arguments in ten-word talking-points that don't require anything like (gasp!) reading the source material here at digg!
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It would've been nice to read the actual WHOLE letter, instead of what was cherry-picked.
  • toothpot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Crusade? Charade?
  • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2We can win this militarily. If we blanket the entire region in nukes, I assure you terrorism in that region would drastically diminish.

    It would've been nice to read the entire letter, instead of them cherry-picking what makes the Republicans look bad. They probably couldn't show the entire letter, because, taken in context, it ruins the article.

  • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq - both in American lives and dollars. The American people do not understand the consequences of abandoning that effort or the extreme views, goals, and intentions of the radical Islamist movement that is fueling the war in Iraq and the attacks on westerners and unbelievers throughout the world."

    In other words, they want to get the debate away from what Americans hear everyday on the news, and have a debate about the truths that Americans don't get to hear in the media. Sounds like a good idea to me! Maybe the entire letter should be read.
    • tkstock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By the way, that quote was from the actual letter.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2tkstock:

      >The American people do not understand the consequences of abandoning that effort

      Yes, we do. Terrorism will decrease.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thank you, counter-terrorism expert davediode. Tell me, what happened in Afghanistan in the early 1990's after Americans pulled all funding and operatives out of the country because, well *****, it didn't concern us anymore! I'm sure nothing bad happened, like, you know, a totalitarian religious theocracy intent on world domination that harbored terrorists with the same goal coming to power. And I'm sure nothing like that would happen now, either. Wahhabist Muslims will suddenly stop believing in the religion that is central to their entire life if we go away.
    • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Care to explain to me which radical religious theocracy wants world domination? The only radical religious theocracy I've heard with that agenda is America.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right. Because if you aren't a Christian in America, they cut your head off. Whoops, sorry, my mistake. That's every nation under Sharia law in the world. But watch out for those Christians! They might try to EVANGELIZE to you! *shudder*

      Of course, that little comment of yours only served to further drive home the point that you have no clue what the ***** you're talking about in this field of study. Go back to playing international geopolitical guru and terrorism expert on Daily Kos or Democratic Underground; you know, somewhere where no one else has any actual experience in the field and might believe that your head isn't completely up your ass.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.