Iraq: much worse than just civil war ... hello? Democrats?

[welshTerrier2]

up until now, the civil war has been a battle among factional militia ... but the glue that was holding at least the pretense of a real government together was support from leading Shiites ...

Shiite leaders are the ones who pushed their followers to vote and to support some form of constitutional government ...

it is OVER and DONE ... see you later ...

while the civil war has clearly worsened, the political framework that "sanctioned" the government appears to have collapsed ... without that, there are no chess pieces left on the board to maneuver ... there is nothing left to work with ... there is no path to stability ...

source: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15174290.htm

Shiite leaders distance themselves from Iraqi government

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Many of the Shiite Muslim religious leaders who strongly backed the formation of the Iraqi government now are condemning it, warning that the country could descend into full revolt.

Their statements, observers said, reflect their effort to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular government, one they once encouraged voters to risk their lives to support. In the process, they hope to win back support from the populace, the majority of which is Shiite.

The signs of defection are troublesome for U.S. and Iraqi officials, and another possible sign that the American strategy is threatened. The Shiite leaders have pushed for formation of the government more aggressively than any other Iraqi group, and their frustrations come just as American and Iraqi officials had encouraged Sunni Muslims to participate in the nascent political process.

"The government formed after the fall of the regime hasn't been able to do anything, just make many promises. And people are fed up with the promises," said Sheik Bashir al Najafi, one of the top four Shiite leaders and one of several who suggested there could be a revolt. "One day we will not be able to stop a popular revolution." <skip>

Regardless, Vali Nasr, an adjunct senior fellow who specializes in Shiite Islam at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. foreign policy-research center, said the new position of the Marjaiyyah and their followers was precarious. Saying the government has failed "is a dangerous conclusion because then the country goes to Plan B. What is Plan B?" Nasr said. "Chaos."

[paulk]

1. Hello? welsh Terrier2?

Last time I looked it was GW Bush that got us into this mess.

You know... that REPUBLICAN president who's party controls all three branches of the government....

[welshTerrier2]

3. hello? paulK?

let's see if any Democrats in the Senate have called for an immediate end to the war ... well, no ... not that ...

but, OK ... some don't like that idea ...

let's see if any Senate Dems are calling for a cut-off of funding FOR BUSH'S WAR ... nope ... not a single one ... must not like that either ...

well, OK ... how about Murtha's original out in 6 months proposal from last year? ... nope ... the Democrats didn't like that idea ...

and then we had the April Kerry proposal ... Kerry called for immediate withdrawal (imagine that) as of May 22 if the Iraqis didn't form an "effective unity government" ... the Democrats didn't like that idea either ... and then even Kerry, after deciding the Iraqis had formed an EFFECTIVE unity government, gave up on that ...

then we had the Kerry 12/31/06 proposal ... nope ... the Dems didn't like that one ...

and then we had the Kerry-Feingold out by 7/1/07 ... nope, not the Dems ... too radical ... can't have that ...

and now we have some sort of milquetoast gibberish about withdrawing a handful or two of troops by year-end but not making any sort of timetable or any sort of real plan ...

yeah, it's bush's war ... too bad he's not being challenged by an opposition party to try to end it ... the Democrats are doing nothing but playing little political games while Iraq is totally collapsing ...

any attempt to label it bush's war without recognizing the total failure of Democrats to oppose him is nothing but a political dodge ... it's bush's war all right ... it's the Democrats' war too ... if you fund it, you're an owner ...

[paulk]

5. like what the Democrats do is going to make any difference

other than to give you something else to piss and moan about.

[welshTerrier2]

6. piss and moan - paulK decides to not discuss the issue

you know, you've carried your little grudge for months ... this is not about your thoughts on the war ... this is not about Democrats ...

try a laxative ... you'll feel better ...

[paulk]

10. of course it's about Democrats

or you wouldn't have added your "hello? Democrats" bit in the header.

I mean, that is your "issue" isn't it? Your perpetual state of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party?

No matter what the topic - it's always - "Why aren't the Democrats doing exactly what I, WT2, want"?


-------------

[RiffRandell]

11. Exactly. n/t

[dpbrown]

7. You're absolutely spot on about this...

...Democrats should be doing everything they can to point out that this is Bush's disaster and pulling support from it.


:thumbsup:

[skeeters2525]

2. Hello Also

I think Welsh Terrier needs to actually get a radio or tv. I know the mainstream media ignores them, prefering Biden 24/7. And I think Joe has been tough on the war most of the time.

Maybe I'm lucky to get Air America here. Chicago Progressive talk 850AM

But the Dems come on there and go ape ship over this war.

The regular media don't wanna hear it. They are Bush puppets.

So just face facts. All Democrats are not Lieberaman. The press is pro war all the way. Not the entire Country belongs to Democratic Underground, they don't get to see the lies pointed out day after day.

I'd like to say something nice, hmmmmmmmm. Blame Canada.

[welshTerrier2]

4. "the Dems come on there and go ape ship over this war"

my focus is on the position of the Democratic Party specifically in the Senate ... i am not talking about myself or other Democrats who oppose the war ...

what's really pathetic is that bush will end up getting more credit for eventually withdrawing troops than the Democrats will ... what's their plan - to withdraw a few troops around the end of the year? and then what?

it's time to leave Iraq? do you disagree?

[gratuitous]

8. Kerry seems to be delivering a speech right now

The thread on it is here, along with the text of his remarks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2755791

I'm not sure what good Kerry's speech will do, since the Republicans control the agenda, the length of debate, the scheduling of bills and everything else in the Senate (and the House, and the White House), but Kerry is talking about it.

Will you similarly call out the media for not reporting on Kerry's speech, and the speeches of other Democrats, or will you be satisfied to call out Democrats for being in the minority and ignored by the major media?

[welshTerrier2]

9. leadership, even without power, starts with sharing your vision

there are so many posts on DU that argue the Democrats are not in power and cannot change what is going on ... and, quite rightly, there are posts that talk about how the MSM is stacked against us ...

no one is asking Democrats to do the impossible ... i'm certainly not ...

what's at issue for me is not whether the Democrats have the power to force change now but whether they are speaking out on what are the best policies to follow ... i consider the positions, really non-positions, of most of the Senate Dems to be disgraceful ... i will not be a bit surprised to see bush actually (eventually) withdraw most US troops at a pace faster than what the Dems have called for ... maybe he won't withdraw any troops at all but i won't be surprised if he pulls most of them out of there ... i think he wants to keep only a sufficient force to guard the new BIG OIL oil fields ...

and what kind of opposition party will that reflect? imagine having bush get credit for ending the war ... and what exactly are Democrats doing and saying about the war? after this post, i'll go read Kerry's latest statements ... most Democrats are pretty much nowhere ...

how can anyone seriously see value in remaining in Iraq? it's insane ... it's a pipedream ... the place is already a cauldron of horrors and keeping US troops there sure isn't helping the situation ... i don't believe bush even wants to see a peaceful outcome at all ... apparently Democrats believe he does or they wouldn't be "giving it a bit more time" until some imaginary positive outcome is achieved ... from my perspective, supporting even another day of continued occupation is investing even more in bush, cheney and rumsfeld ... does anyone really believe those guys will ever engineer anything positive in Iraq?? how crazy is that???

[gratuitous]

12. You say you're not asking for the impossible, yet . . .

You claim the war is a Democratic war as much as Bush's war because it's being funded by the U.S. Treasury. Are you saying that Democrats control the Treasury, when they don't control the legislative or executive branches? This seems to be a very long stretch to create an equivalency the ignores not only real world reality but political reality.

Will Bush pull the troops out faster than what Dems have called for? That seems highly unlikely, provided you remember what the Democrats have proposed to this point already. But the major media don't seem very interested in the pronouncements of the people who have been right all along, preferring to air the views of people who were originally in favor of the shock and awe portion of the invasion of Iraq. For example, when was the last time you saw Scott Ritter on a news or cable show talking about the pattern of administration deception from late summer 2002 on? I'll go out on a limb and say "never." And there are dozens, even hundreds, of other responsible voices who have been opposed to this bit of foreign adventurism. How many can you name, right off the top of your head? I'll guess less than five, and I've spotted you one.

You're right, there is no value in remaining in Iraq, and as a member of one of the historic peace churches, the situation hurts my heart and fries my butt. I'm not sure what you mean by Democrats advocating giving things "a bit more time," when so many people are demanding a plan for withdrawal now. This administration, however, is remarkably slow in doing things it doesn't want to do, and has been quite successful at clouding the issue, fogging the debate, and diverting public attention. Various Democrats have called for a plan for ultimate victory, a plan for swift withdrawal, a plan for slow withdrawal, and have articulated a very clear vision for getting us out of Iraq -- and I see no trace in your posts that you're aware of any of it. Without the power to convene hearings, subpoena witnesses, or compel action legislatively, Democrats are reduced to making speeches and talking to reporters, much of which apparently goes right over the heads of people who'd like to hear for themselves what Democrats plan to do. So much so that folks make posts claiming such nonsense that this war belongs to the Democrats as well as Bush.

I can understand frustration with the snail's pace of unfolding events. More and more people are dying every day for no reason whatsoever than the stubbornness of this corrupt administration to avoid admitting making a mistake. But to claim this war belongs to a powerless minority in Congress as much as it does to the administration prosecuting it is ridiculous.

[welshTerrier2]

13. i hear two arguments in your reply

first, i hear you making the case that opposition voices do not have much if any access to the MSM ... i couldn't agree more ... what i stated in my response to you was "and, quite rightly, there are posts that talk about how the MSM is stacked against us ..."

the fact that I don't see Noam Chomsky on TV with Katie Couric comes as no surprise to me ...

second, you incorrectly spent most of your response suggesting that I see an equivalency between bush's (and the neocons) responsibility for the debacle in Iraq (and frankly everywhere) and the Democrats ... this is a fallacy ... it is also not my position ... I do believe Democrats who vote to continue funding for the war, and every single Senate Democrat has, shares a responsibility for it ... but you've misinterpreted me or perhaps i have not been clear if you take that to mean that bush and the Senate Dems are EQUALLY responsible ... that just is not my view ...

in fact, a majority of elected Democrats voted AGAINST THE IWR in the first place ... for anyone to suggest elected Democrats are equally responsible, even just looking at that single vote, is absurd ... numerous Democrats have called for all sorts of changes in tactics ... so there are a few million miles between saying Democrats who vote for more war funding bear a responsibility for the war versus saying that they bear the same degree of responsibility as bush ...

on edit: oops, i failed to answer your question: "I'm not sure what you mean by Democrats advocating giving things "a bit more time," when so many people are demanding a plan for withdrawal now."

What i mean by "giving it a bit more time" is that ALL the plans I've seen from prominent Democrats call for something other than "immediate withdrawal" (which I define as a pace of withdrawal as fast as US troop safety will allow) ... this means that ALL of the plans from Democrats, whether they "are demanding A PLAN for withdrawal or not, call for spending more time in Iraq presumably with the hope or belief that remaining there can produce something positive ... Perhaps they believe with a little more time Iraq can be "stabilized" ... perhaps they believe democratic institutions can flourish ... perhaps they believe at least we can leave behind a functioning Iraqi military and an Iraqi police force ... they are certainly entitled to their views ... i strongly disagree with them ... my view is that nothing positive will be achieved in Iraq ... that's especially true with the neocons running our government ... for anyone to suggest that remaining even a day beyond what our troop safety requires, seems to me to be putting your faith in bush and cheney and rumsfeld ... and that seems like total madness to me ... there's a huge difference between Democrats asking for a "withdrawal plan" and Democrats taking the case to the electorate that the withdrawal plan should be OUT NOW ... Democrats are clearly not choosing the latter ...