The politicians who will withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afganistan are not the politicians who will want to deploy troops to Darfur.

No one reads history anymore. South Vietnam did not collapse until the Congress cut their military funding. And the slaughter that followed was horrific.

No one reads history anymore. South Vietnam did not collapse until the Congress cut their military funding. And the slaughter that followed was horrific.

Or maybe they just don't care what happens to the Iraqis in the first place. Their own moral self righteousness is more important.

Oh, god, now it's the conservatives who are urging us to abandon our national interests in the service of people elsewhere. America must do, first of all, what is right for America. And that means telling the Iraqis that we do not have infinite patience, money and lives, and that they must work this out on their own.

Your argument might have some merit if we could actually prevent genocide in Iraq by staying. Unfortunately, genocide has already taken place in Iraq, unless you have some other word for 600,000 dead Iraqis (if you want to dispute the figure, please go do your own peer-reviewed study). Iraq gets worse the more we stay, not better. We destroyed the country, made it worse off than under Saddam (it's un-PC to say that, but it's undeniably true). We at least owe it to them not to continue an occupation that is fueling a genocidal war.

And Dawnfire82? You might want to look at how many troops Nixon had pulled out of Vietnam by the 1972 election. If Bush was as much of a cut-and-runner as Nixon was, I'd be ecstatic. More than that, though, nobody ever explains how we could have helped matters by staying longer. Fewer Vietnamese died at the hands of the Communists (horrible as they were) than as a result of the actual war, and while Pol Pot was a genocidal madman it's not clear that we could have stopped him simply by remaining in Vietnam (unless we stayed forever).

The fact is this: committing to stay in Iraq until it is a stable, peaceful, pro-American democracy is the same as committing to stay until monkeys can fly. It means staying forever. If you can come up with an alternative between staying forever and telling them we have to go, let's hear it. And don't say "win" because we can't "win" another country's civil war.

Let's see if I understand:
Staying there gets Iraqis killed, so we cannot leave because that would get Iraqis killed?

What everyone seems to forget in this debate is whether or not the United States, no, scratch that, the PEOPLE of the United States still believe in the principles of our nation and whether or not they're worth fighting for, and yes; dying for.
Our founding fathers stated that All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They didn't say 'only those living in these thirteen colonies.
If it takes forever then so be it, if we fight to free the oppressed then we can hold our heads high.
M.A. and so many others apparently feel it better to watch from a safe distance (but is it?) and complain about why we're not somewhere else, doing what we're already doing for the people of Iraq, helping them free themselves from tyranny.

What everyone seems to forget in this debate is whether or not the United States, no, scratch that, the PEOPLE of the United States still believe in the principles of our nation and whether or not they're worth fighting for, and yes; dying for.
Our founding fathers stated that All people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They didn't say 'only those living in these thirteen colonies.
If it takes forever then so be it, if we fight to free the oppressed then we can hold our heads high.
M.A. and so many others apparently feel it better to watch from a safe distance (but is it?) and complain about why we're not somewhere else, doing what we're already doing for the people of Iraq, helping them free themselves from tyranny.

The 600,000 number is not credible and the Lancet which published it is not a credible forum of peer review.

This current number is a result of the SAME Johns Hopkins group led by the SAME political activist (who in 2006 ran for Dem nomination to Congress) -- Les Roberts -- doing the SAME politically timed publication of numbers as just before the 2004 US election.

In 2004, the Lancet's "peer review" was remarkably compressed and Les Roberts openly admitted to AP that he submitted it to the Lancet on condition that they publish it before the US election. That study was immediately criticized by Human Rights Watch's own expert -- who was no ally of the Bush Administration!

Some intellectually very twisted people back then prated on about how the only proper response would be another peer-reviewed study -- taking long past the election! To use that argument a second time in defense of the same political corruption of science is to admit to reveling in that corruption. It's an admission that one wants scientific journals to become activist rags -- in fact it's to reveal oneself as an activist rag of a person. Be the handbill. So much easier than having a soul.

Wikipedia article on epidemiologist Les Roberts includes mention of his 2006 Congressional run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Roberts_(epidemiologist)
The Google cache of his campaign site no longer captures the old text, as of a few days ago.

"655,000 War Dead?: A bogus study on Iraq casualties." - Steven E. Moore, Opinion Journal (WSJ), Oct. 18, 2006 p://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108

"Exaggeration won't save Iraqis: The new claims about the civilian death toll in Iraq are vastly overstated" - David Burchell, The Australian, Oct. 19, 2006 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20604818-7583,00.html

Regarding Les Roberts and his Johns Hopkins group in the Lancet back in 2004.

"Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqis may have died in war" http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-28-casualties_x.htm USA TODAY, Oct. 28 2004 -- Roberts admits he submitted article to Lance on condition of pre-election publication

"100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq" - Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Oct 29, 2004; Page A16, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html -- Human Rights Watch expert calls number inflated.

"100,000 Dead -- or 8,000: How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?" - Fred Kaplan, Slate, Oct. 29, 2004 http://www.google.com/search?q=How-many-Iraqi+Fred-Kaplan

"Bogus Lancet Study" - Shannon Love, Chicago Boyz, Oct. 29, 2004, http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
"Comment on 'Bogus Lancet Study'" AMMackay, Chicago Boyz, Oct. 29, 2004
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html#009323

"Lancet Civilian Death Report Kills the Truth" - Michael Fumento, Tech Central Station, Nov. 1, 2004, http://www.techcentralstation.com/110104H.html

Now, back in 2006:

"The Lancet: Medical Journal Or Activist Rag?" - J.F. Beck, RWDB , Oct 13, 2006, http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006_10_08_rwdb_archive.html

ForNow, it's been two years since that first study -- how come nobody has tried to do a more "credible" study? Apart from the whole thing about Iraq being dangerous and all. It might have been credible in 2004 to say that there had been no alternative study. In 2006 there's been plenty of time for non-Lancet alternatives and none are forthcoming.

Also, here's a debunking of the "debunkers" of the Lancet study.

As for the commoner, if you don't understand that the Founding Fathers did in fact value the freedom of America over the freedom of the rest of the world, you don't understand the concept of patriotism and national interest. Which, come to think of it, is true of many conservatives these days.

"is the same as committing to stay until monkeys can fly" a statement that pathetic makes you look like a complete fool. Why would anyone consider anything else you have to say. The MSM and Dems claim all is lost, yet in any measurement of history this war is still a huge success. Is it nasty, tough and tragic? Of course it is as are all wars. Retreat and defeat has so many more possible tragic consequences and will so embolden our enemies it will make this current battle look pale in comparison.
Lets be honest this is not about Bush lied or Bush is incompetent this is about the Dems lust for power consequences be damed. Bush is not in the basement picking bombing targets like LBJ he is taking his advice from the Generals in the field. Everytime the MSM and the Dems claims he is incompetent or has no plan they are just trashing the brass and could careless about the troups. The Dems just want power and the MSM is enabling them and it's all enough to make me puke.
I have wondered many times how this war would look if this country was united. But again thanks to the "power at any price Dems" and the terrorists they keep cheering on, that can not be known. I also love how the left blames Bush for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington as if he has said anything compared to what has been tossed his way.
The left can dream all they want about the coming Dem tsunami and relish in the last MSM push poll. I'll sleep well tonight comfortable in the sanity of the American people. Regardless of what the MSM claims will happen I am confident these pathetic clowns will never regain control.

Saddam Husein is gone and Iraq is no longer a threat. The question is whether democracy can be achieved in Iraq through our presence at an acceptable cost or whether we should prop up one or more authoritarian regimes in Iraq and leave.

I don't have the answer to that question. I do know that the Democrats are not capable of addressing it at all. A large Democrat majority in Congress would be a disaster for American policy.

Yes, it would be a replay of 1974 when the Democrats undercut our Vietnamese allies by withdrawing financial support for the war at a critical point, throwing away an American victory in the Viet Nam conflict and setting back American foreign policy for at least 6 years.

One thing I am sure of. We must be involved militarily in the Middle East indefinitely. It will be costly and horrendous mistakes will be made. The Republicans still seem willing to pay the cost and play the game in spite of the inevitable mistakes and setbacks. The Democrats consistently play the role of an opportunistic, irresponsible minority party that would compromise American lives and vital interests to regain power. Unfortunately we are stuck with the Republicans since the Democrats are unfit to lead the nation.

The MSM and Dems claim all is lost, yet in any measurement of history this war is still a huge success.

A national-security "success" is where you improve your position. America by any standard is worse off now than it was in 2002, having removed an enemy of the Islamists and of Iran (the evil but secular Saddam), destroyed Iraq, and bogged itself down in the middle of a civil war. The fact that you can call it a "success" because some elections were held is an example of why Republicans and conservatives can't be trusted with national security: they define national-security success by meaningless benchmarks instead of hard strategic benefits.

I don't have the answer to that question. I do know that the Democrats are not capable of addressing it at all. A large Democrat majority in Congress would be a disaster for American policy.

Huh? You admit you "don't know the answer" to our national-security dilemma, yet you say that the Democrats -- the only party that is offering solutions -- is not capable of addressing it?

Face it, this isn't 1974 any more. It's the Republicans who have lost all semblance of seriousness on national security. The Democrats are offering a plan: tell the Iraqis we're losing patience and we're going to leave. You may not like that plan. But your party offers nothing except some lame argument over whether they want to "stay the course" or "adapt to win."

There's only one party that is even remotely serious on national security: The Democrats. If you don't like their national-security ideas, come up with some of your own. But stop advocating that we do nothing except stay in Iraq forever.

One thing I am sure of. We must be involved militarily in the Middle East indefinitely.

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to stay forever. Of course, this is the very definition of why only Democrats are serious on national security: too many Republicans really believe that we need to be at war forever, but they don't have the nerve to state this nonsense out loud (instead they use fake meaningless language about "victory").

The Republicans are the party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld -- which is to say, the party that no longer cares about America's national security interests. The Democrats, for all their faults, are the only serious national-security party left.

M.A. writes "Your argument might have some merit if we could actually prevent genocide in Iraq by staying. Unfortunately, genocide has already taken place in Iraq, unless you have some other word for 600,000 dead Iraqis"

MA, even assuming 600,000 over 3+ years is true, if we leave, it is likely millions will die.

Guess to people like you, 600,000 Arabs down ain't too much different than, say, 3,000,000. Once the 600,000 threshold was reached, it doesn't really matter if a few million more bite the dust in your malignant-narcissistic, amoral world view.

They all look the same to you, no?

M.A. writes "America by any standard is worse off now than it was in 2002"

I applaud M.A. for being the world's Owner and Master of Standards. He's certainly considered all the alternative standards, and judged accordingly.

Bow to the master! Hail the intellect and expertise of M.A.! Hail Caesar!

MA, even assuming 600,000 over 3+ years is true, if we leave, it is likely millions will die.

Even assuming this is true -- and I would point out that a phased, gradual withdrawal by U.S. troops could help prevent that from happening; we wouldn't just pull everyone out at once -- what's your alternative? If we have to stay until Iraq is at peace, then we have to stay forever. And we cannot do that. Do you have an alternative plan that will allow us to a) stop millions from dying and b) not commit to staying in the country forever?

As for "they all look the same," I'm not the one who wanted to invade a secular Arab Muslim dictatorship because its people looked the same as the people who blew up the WTC....

I applaud M.A. for being the world's Owner and Master of Standards. He's certainly considered all the alternative standards, and judged accordingly.

Cute. But that I'm right is proven by one thing: conservatives cannot, do not, will not argue for the rightness of the Iraq war without citing things that aren't true. They say that Saddam was a threat to America, that he wouldn't let the U.N. inspectors in, that he really did have WMDs, that he was not an enemy of Bin Laden -- all untrue, but all things you have to believe to pretend that the invasion has been helpful, not harmful, to America's national security interests.

I have heard just one plan from the Dems. It's to re-deploy to Okinowa. You can call that a "serious plan" but anyone with a ounce of commensense knows thats a complete joke. You can claim " by any standard where worse off then 2002". Thats just more Dem and MSM hyper-pol. Tell that to the 4000 dead terrorists they themselves claim.

Many experts predicted attacks where going to increase before this election. Yes they want to affect this election but why? It's obvious they want Bush to look bad and get Dems elected. Only a fool needs to ask why.

M.A. writes "Also, here's a debunking of the "debunkers" of the Lancet study."

M.A., Johns Hopkins caused the demise of patients a few years back because they didn't do the required research showing their "new" lung treatment had been found fatal in the 1950's.

Do a google search on "johns hopkins deaths pulmonary medline librarians"

So, how come you trust this politically-motivated "study" released by a leftward leaning professor and school a few weeks before an election?

See this professor's profile "Les Roberts" at Discover the Networks.org.

TitanTrader, if you don't like Murtha's plan (where the word "Okinawa" only came up once), come up with a plan of your own that doesn't involve staying in Iraq forever.

As to the ramping up of attacks "before the elections," this is typical GOP narcissism -- assuming that everything that goes on in the world is all about what's good or bad for the GOP -- but it's also wrong on the merits. Bin Laden appeared in a video before the 2004 election because he knew it would help Bush. This was the judgment of the CIA, in any case, and it makes sense, since Bush has done exactly what Bin Laden wanted -- invade a Muslim country for no reason and confirm the bad things Bin Laden says about America. The last thing Bin Laden wants is a U.S. President who's serious about the terrorist threat, which is why he helped Kerry lose: Bin Laden knew that Kerry would be a more formidable enemy than the feckless Bush.

M.A. writes "Cute. But that I'm right is proven by one thing: conservatives cannot, do not, will not argue for the rightness of the Iraq war without citing things that aren't true. They say that Saddam was a threat to America, that he wouldn't let the U.N. inspectors in, that he really did have WMDs, that he was not an enemy of Bin Laden -- all untrue, but all things you have to believe to pretend that the invasion has been helpful, not harmful, to America's national security interests."

I apologize to other readers for the pronounced arrogance of M.A.

I've been to Saudi. The Saudis themselves have deformed children in their provinces bordering Iraq from Saddam's chemical warfare.

Sir, all the things you claim as untrue in your capacity to do the required investigations of easily-available material to confirm it.

I think you're in a panic because your leftist worldview is crumbling. I feel really sorry for you.

ErislDysnomia, you claim that my "worldview is crumbling," yet you merely confirm my worldview: you cannot cite any truthful evidence in support of the Iraq war. (Instead you cite the fact that Saddam was evil and that he once had chemical weapons, both of which are true and both of which are irrelevant to America's security interests as of 2003.) The fact remains that Saddam was not a threat to America, that more Iraqis have died since the invasion than were dying in the last years of Saddam's reign, that Saddam had no WMDs and that the U.N. inspectors would have found this out if Bush hadn't kicked the inspectors out. Only by denying these facts can you justify the Iraq war -- but denial of basic facts is the reason why conservatives/Republicans are so weak on national security.

MA writes "but all things you have to believe to pretend that the invasion has been helpful, not harmful, to America's national security interests."

I see a lot of terrorists being killed in Baghdad, not Americans being killed in NYC as they were in london, spain etc. And none of the other attacks such as extensively catalogued on "the religion of peace.com"

I'd say on the face your argument is risible.

You need to learn how to argue rationally, not emotionally. Do your emotional venting on a street corner and spare us your babble.

M.A. writes "ErislDysnomia, you claim that my "worldview is crumbling," yet you merely confirm my worldview"

M.A., your belief that what I write confirms your worldview is proof that your worldview is inded crumbling. The left s exposed for the amoral, malignantly narcissistic, nihilistic mental illness that it is.

You think too relativistically and postmodernistically to understand the profound nature of this message, but think about it some before replying. Thanks.

Oh the old Bush lied meme. I guess when all else fails you can allways jump back on that one. I guess you know we are all sick of listing all of what the dems said about WMD. Face it most Dems voted for the war. When the going got tough the Summer Soliders rebuffed. You can claim retreat and defeat is a plan will find out soon enough if the American people believe its a plan.

As I have now won the argument with MA, who persists in arguing from the emotions rather than from logic, I now am going to bed.

Good night all!

I see a lot of terrorists being killed in Baghdad, not Americans being killed in NYC as they were in london, spain etc.

Again, you show why conservatives aren't serious about national security: you talk as if "terrorists" are a fixed pool, a finite resource, and if they're in Iraq they can't be anywhere else. Liberals understand the concept that there are many different kinds of terrorists and that they must be a) turned against each other and b) kept from recruiting more. Conservatives pretend that terrorists are all one group, like an army, and console themselves with the false belief that a terrorist killed in Iraq would otherwise have been a terrorist killing in America...

Face it most Dems voted for the war.

Even that's not true. A slim majority of Senate Democrats voted for the use of force resolution, to their shame. But most House Democrats didn't vote for it, 21 Senate Democrats voted against it, and most rank-and-file Democrats were against the war. Here's what Barack Obama said in 2002:

"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

So while some Democrats were for the war, most of the people who were against the war -- and therefore in favor of America's best national security interests -- were Democrats.

Oh the rock star speaks while he was in the state senate no less. If "most of the people where against the war" why did most of the people re-elect GWB and increase Republican control thru-out the nation?

TitanTrader, I didn't say "most of the people were against the war." I said that of the people who were against the war, most of those people were Democrats. Nearly all Republicans were so weak on national security that they blindly supported the Iraq war. Not all Democrats opposed the war, but most Democrats did, and that proves that the Democrats are more serious than the Republicans on national security.

No thats what you said I suggest you re-read it. Regardless just because the MSM and the Dems continue to cry about the war doesnt make them stronger on NAT SEC. It just make em a bunch of whimps. Just as their continued crying about the econ dosen't make them stronger on the econ. It just makes em a bunch of socailist, redistributing commies. And with that good night and good luck.

> Unfortunately, genocide has already taken place in Iraq, unless you have some other word for 600,000 dead Iraqis (if you want to dispute the figure, please go do your own peer-reviewed study).

600,000 is a propaganda figure, and easily recognizable as such. No one else has come up with a figure anywhere close to it.

> Iraq gets worse the more we stay, not better.

Debatable at best. And that's being kind. Much of Iraq's infrastructure has been rebuilt, free elections have been held, most of Iraq is realitvely peaceful, the Iraqi army has been substantially rebuilt and trained by our troops, the economy is growing by leaps and bounds, and much more. Sure, there's a lot that weighs against all that, but ... it's only been 3 years. You sound like the press trying to call the Iraq war a quagmire at the 3-week point.

> We destroyed the country, made it worse off than under Saddam (it's un-PC to say that, but it's undeniably true).

I deny it's true. Can't be very undeniable. It's not America that is destroying Iraq now, if you understand the concept of "civil war".

> We at least owe it to them not to continue an occupation that is fueling a genocidal war.

Again, an assertion, not an argument.

> And Dawnfire82? You might want to look at how many troops Nixon had pulled out of Vietnam by the 1972 election. If Bush was as much of a cut-and-runner as Nixon was, I'd be ecstatic.

That statement demonstrates either ignorance of the history or deliberate obtuseness. Nixon pulled Americans out of Vietnam by gradually standing up the South Vietnamese army, and promising to support them financially and with air support. This approach didn't collapse until Congress deliberately cut off all that funding and support. Which led almost immediately to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands.

> More than that, though, nobody ever explains how we could have helped matters by staying longer. Fewer Vietnamese died at the hands of the Communists (horrible as they were) than as a result of the actual war, and while Pol Pot was a genocidal madman it's not clear that we could have stopped him simply by remaining in Vietnam (unless we stayed forever).

Given the record of worldwide communism for global murder in the last century, it's shameless to claim fewer would have died if we hadn't been there. Ever hear of the "killing fields" of Cambodia? The killing of millions was a part of every successful communist revolution. Again, it's absolutely shameless to try to blame this on the US.

But it is at least on topic. Here is the one real comparison between Iraq and Vietnam: that willingness of so many to argue in favor of the enemy and against their own.

It's possible to argue seriously that Iraq was a mistake, but by now the die is cast, and we are at war. War has a way of reducing complex issues to a very simple dynamic: us or them. It is unconscionable to suggest that we just pull out with a mumbled apology and let some of the most heartless and wicked killers in the world destroy an entire nation.

> The fact is this: committing to stay in Iraq until it is a stable, peaceful, pro-American democracy is the same as committing to stay until monkeys can fly. It means staying forever.

Two problems with that statement: 1) What you say is not a fact, just an opinion with scant reason. 2) What you say is also a logical fallacy: a false dilemma. There are more choices than, "Leave now" or "Stay forever". For example, a) stay another year, b) another 2 years, c) another 3 years, d) until the Iraqi army reaches 95% e) until all militias have disbanded or been placed under control of the central government, and so on.

> If you can come up with an alternative between staying forever and telling them we have to go, let's hear it. And don't say "win" because we can't "win" another country's civil war.

Done. See above.

It's easy to come up with alernatives. The hard part is to pick the best alternative and stick with it, because there will be opposition dedicated to trying to make you fail.

If self-rule was easy, there wouldn't have been so many banana republics in South America. And yet, the Germans do it, the Italians, do it, the Japanese do it. 60 years ago, a lot of people doubted that any of them were capable of it, based on their own history. Who's to say the Iraqi's can't manage it?

Oh, that's right. You.

What's wrong with staying forever?

We've had bases in England, Germany, Italy and Japan for 60 years. We've closed some, but we'll probably have some there for another 100 years. It's a pretty good deal all around.

If we leave now and Iraq falls to complete civil war, Iran gets the south. That increases their part of the world supply of oil from about 11% to 18%. It means we no longer have them surrounded, and they can press their nuke development as fast as they want.

(It also means we give up on North Korea, and they can sell their fissile material and technology to Iran, giving them a leg up)

Once Iran has nukes, their internal politics will force them to use them. After all, the only justification the mullahs have to stay in power is the evil of Israel and the US.

So we save a couple of thousand US troops, and pay for it with New York, DC, Chicago and Los Angeles. And Tel Aviv, of course. Then we reply with a nuke launch that kills about 8 million Iranians.

After that, things get ugly.

a Democratic Congress that abandoned Iraq will have committed itself to a policy of non-intervention worldwide.

That's obvious election-time bullshit. Dems won't have opposed intervention, but stupid & counterproductive intervention. The Dems' categorical opposition to feckless intervention commits them to being opposed to Iraq, but doesn't foreclose action in, say, Darfur.

unless you have some other word for 600,000 dead Iraqis

Until such time as Al-Jazeera shows some substantial fraction of those fresh graves on video, I'm forced to conclude the "study" is crap.

Are you effectively alleging that perhaps Al-Jazeera is engaging in a coverup too?

You can't hide 600,000 fresh graves in this age of video cell phones.

As the old Burger King ocmmercial said: "where's the beef?"

Really, jpe? I'd say it's bullshit that the Dems would agree to "action" (as you put it) in Darfur. Oh yeah it sounds great in principle, but it'd get messy real quick.

How long after any deployment of US ground forces do you think it would be before the first teary eyed Sudanese woman went on CNN/BBC/al-Jazeera to claim the US forces killed her son and destroyed her house? 1, maybe 2 hours? And how long after that before ANSWER and Code Pink hold their first "stop the war" protest in Washington DC? 1, maybe 2, days?

As I said, any intervention in Darfur would get messy. We'd be chasing those Janjaweed militias, who like guerillas everywhere would be hard to find. Further, just like Iraq it would "create terrorists", because Jihadists would sign up to go fight us - again, just like Iraq.