Regardless of what you think of the war, I'm not sure 500 signatures constitutes a reason to leave (and neither does 2,000). I've never been a fan of petititon politics (on either side).

If the majority of those who are fighting, or have fought, in Iraq believe we should follow through with our mission, would that mean we should continue?>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 27, 2006 10:47 PM

Well, I thought Chomsky's response to B.F. Skinner was cogent, but I can't recall antyhing else he's written (that I've read) that made a lto of sense.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 12:54 AM

Kevin, "Regardless of what you think of the war, I'm not sure 500 signatures constitutes a reason to leave (and neither does 2,000). I've never been a fan of petititon politics (on either side)."

I admit I haven't read this petition, but I think they are asking for a serious review of Iraq policy, instead of more "stay the course" rhetoric.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 2:31 AM

I first wrote this in regard to the Darfur discussion but received no response. Still I think it answers the last question with some thoughts that this Blog has inspired me to elaborate.
As a Quaker I am trying to follow the example of Jesus in confronting violence without the sword. But I cannot deny the personal, tribal, and national right to self defense, nor do I deny the nobility of those who sincerely put their lives on the line to maintain civil order in the world and defend the weak. The trouble with warfare is that it tends to aggravate the cycle of vengeance and animosity and reward the cult of raw power where might makes right.

If I were to put different kinds of force/violence/ warfare(this could also apply to individual force/voiolence) on a moral scale I think a defensive force imposed to protect people and negotiate a settlement or bring criminal behavior to lawful judgement is better and far different than invading a country which is not engaged in aggression to depose a government and establish a new form of government.

But let me return to my scale which ranges from turn the other cheek, to an eye for an eye, to might makes right.
1)Some think turning the other cheek is foolish and nonviolent resistance is without power to confront evil. But historically, when combined with a purposeful vision of justice it has accomplished great things. When black southerners sang songs of freedom in jails, and were beaten without fighting back, their actions appealed to the conscience of a nation deeply tainted by racism and a history of slavery and Jim Crow. Civil rights in this instance were won with very little violence compared to the civil war, most of it suffered by those who lead the way toward peace. In South Africa apartheid was brought down by the nonviolence of the black South Africans, and the shaming judgement and symbolic trade sanctions of the world community. In the Soviet Union, Poland and Czeckoslovakia the internal nonviolent demand for democratic reform combined with the impoverishment of a pointless arms race made for an amazingly peaceful transition from totalitarianism. The power of this first way is the greatest because eyes are opened to the humanity and courage and intelligence of the other and hearts and minds are called to repentance and change. People with differences realize they must share power with others under shared and equally applied laws established through negotiation.
2)Next on my scale is defensive use of the minimal force necessary to re-establish a peaceable order. This is the essence of the rule of Law. The recent Yugoslavian conflict between Serbs and Croats comes to mind in which as soon as the UN decided to defend and arm the Croats the More powerful Serbs negotiated a peace. A large American contingent entered the region and I am fairly sure no American peacekeepers were killed.

3) A full scale defensive war with the object of overthrowing an oppressive or aggressive or rogue state and establishing a more just civil order. WW2 is such a case but one can see that massive nonviolent resistance against Hitler, Mussolini, or The Japanese State would have been far preferable and potentially could have stopped the development of an aggressive and massively armed state. The idea here is to confront early racism, social inequities, and delusional myths of an idealized golden age of power , purity ,and prestige. Also the other western nations might have drawn the line earlier, preparing early for defensive war and allowing no acquisitions by violence. The trouble with this kind of defensive war is the temptation to keep going after the initial victory. One thinks of Russia subjugating the east europeans they had helped liberate, the French revolution leading to a war to dominate europe, the Russian revolution leading to their pursuit of an empire. The American Revolution leading to the invasion of the remaining native lands of North America, then the Spanish American war, and our current imperial attempt to dominate the globe not via the appeal of our values or our willingness to be honest traders on the open market, but increasingly since WW2 via coups, death squads, muja hadeen fighters etc.

4) Wars of aggression for noble purposes. It's theoretically possible, but I am sincerely hard pressed to find a single example except in Hollywood movies untainted by a huge moral stench. Iraq is a more typical example and a lesson America should have learned in Vietnam or our experiences with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Some revolutions, particularly against colonial powers could be thought of this way, but it's a bit of a stretch and often ends badly. Some say Rome brought peace and good roads to the world, but the scale of violence, theft and corruption is typical of the great imperial Babylons of history. It simply is not noble to kill and destroy multitudes of non-combatants in order to impose an unwanted "order".

5) Might makes Right. Genghis Khan, Cortez, the Anglo Saxon Celt Killers, Mussolini, The Turkish annihilation of the Armenians, The Mafia, it's a long, long list with multitudes of victims for every king or mighty warrior who carved his name in history on the bloody backs of men, women and children who were of far greater value than the resulting palaces and toys. This idea bears a strong connection to the social darwinism which deeply underlies the "triumph of The West" and Christians take its self righteous pride into their heads only through the perilous mechanisms by which they distance themselves from the core teachings of Jesus.
Joseph |>

Posted by: Joseph | October 28, 2006 8:30 AM

Very thoughtful statement, Joseph.
Thanks.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 2:58 PM

The stand these G.I. s are making is very courageous as their personal freedom is at stake. ever hear of Leavenworth? I applaud their efforts as I once again "Support our troops" GOD Bless them Amen>

Posted by: Deno Reno | October 28, 2006 4:22 PM

Interesting comments to my post. Thanks.

Joseph's spectrum of the possible uses of force is very helpful. As a pacifist, I struggle with the fact that in a fallen world, the use of force may sometimes be necessary. In that case, as Walter Wink has written, a "violence reduction" strategy may be the best we can hope for.

The difference between Darfur and Iraq, as Tenoch noted, is the difference between a unilateral military invasion of a country and a UN-mandated multilateral force that has a policing/peacekeeping mission. It may still involve using force, but the minimum necessary for peacekeeping, rather than the "shock and awe" of a military invasion.

And Hal is correct that the question now is "Regardless of whether the war is just or not, we now have to figure out what the best action is in our current circumstance." That is the question that will require a bipartisan solution rather than election-driven rhetoric by both sides.

Duane>

Posted by: Duane | October 28, 2006 7:59 PM

Hal, Is there a link for the petition?

I didn't see the Shank article and didn't know that a 20,000 troop UN force was awaiting Sudanese Gov. approval.
Do you know which nations will be supplying the troops?
Does Sudan suspect the UN force may be a front for Western petroleum interests?
I remember 2 weeks back that a 1,200 man African Union force was on its way to Darfur to reinforce the 7,000 man AU force.
The civil war is heating up again?
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 9:18 PM

First of all, there are more than 120,000 troops in Iraq. 500 want to leave, and that means everyone does? If there were 120 people involved in something and 2 of them said they didn't want to anymore, does that mean the whole group should quit? It's ridiculous to think that it's a legitimate sample of the active military.

I'm sure most of them would rather be at home with their families than overseas, but I also know a number of vets who want to go back for a second tour and tell me stories of the good things that are happening.

Second, the war in Iraq is totally different now than it was 3 years ago. It's no longer a fight against a government. In that sense the war is over. We're fighting a poorly organized foreign enemy in the midst of a civil war. And that enemy's only goal is to kill people. Not necessarily our people, just people. So we need to stop looking at it the same as we did in late '03.

And yes, I agree that if we go into Darfur, we have to stay in Iraq, because what's going on now is basically sectarian cleansing. It's six of one, a half dozen of the other.>

Posted by: Elmo | October 28, 2006 10:44 PM

My appologies, I placed the the following links in the text when I wrote it in word, but they didn't transfer over when I pasted my comments.

I am not aware of which nations are offering troops to support a U.N. force in Darfur. But the trouble getting forces to secure Southern Lebanon doesn't bode well for a force in Darfur.

"Voices" http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=060906#4

"Soldiers Ready to Come Home" http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/duane-shank-soldiers-are-ready-to-come.html

"Petition" http://www.appealforredress.org/

"Military Action" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100871.html


Some random thoughts:

I am not saying that action in Darfur is not needed and plan to volunteer for the mission if given the opportunity. I also understand that there are substantive differences between Darfur and Iraq. I am merely skeptical because those making the most noise for action don't appear to be willing to endure the hardships of the mission.

Several months back my wife and a freind were attending a local university. A student approached them and asked if they would sign a petition asking the the U.S. Government take action to stop the genocide in Darfur. My wife's friend, who is a veteran of Iraq and whose husband serves in the reserves, refused to sign the petition because U.S. action there could mean someplace else for her husband to deploy. The young man with the petition had not nor was he planning on entering the military. He had no answer for who was going to go except that it wasn't going to be him.

Soldiers don't get to pick their wars. Civilians do that for them. It is up to civilians to weigh the consequences of engaging and disengaging military force. I fear we are rashly running toward a decision to withdraw from Iraq without weighing the potential consequences of that action, in the same manner that we initiated the war in Iraq. At the same time it appears we are rushing toward military action in another part of the world with the same amount of forthought.>

Posted by: Anonymous | October 28, 2006 11:37 PM

Thanks for the links, Hal.

The petition was organized under a formal "Appeal for Redress", allowing troops to contact their Congressional Representatives publicly and directly.

"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."

They will be delivering this Appeal with messages to Congress on Martin Luther King Day, January, 2007. It will be interesting to see what happens to it.
If I were eligible to sign this, I would.

When we talked about Darfur 2 weeks ago, the best option looked like backing up the African Union force already on the ground and approved by Sudan.
But the African Union force has its hands full with another civil war in the Ivory Coast. They were going to send 1200 troops to reinforce the 7200 already there in Darfur.
Sudan is a big place and transportation a big problem.
Someone outside of the AU will probably have to step up and solve the logistics problem.

Last week things really heated up on the Darfur diplomatic front. Here is a link to 10 articles in the Sudan Times last week:

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?mot76.

It looks like there is a dispute between Sudan and the UN authorities. Sudan expelled the UN rep because of a letter he posted on his private website. The UN second is taking over.
Sending US troops to the Sudan would be an even worse mistake than Iraq, I fear. Sudan doesn't even want the UN.
I think they're worried about Western oil messing up their China deal and they see the UN as a trojan horse.
US troops are out of the question, I'm sure.

A 'think tank' headed up by James Baker, former Sec State under Bush I, is working on plans for exiting Iraq, but the recomendations won't come out until after the election.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 12:56 AM

"... I wonder how many will sign the petition?"

The post from Rick indicates that military persons serving in Iraq are much more willing to respond to a Zogby poll (which protects anonymity) asking their views about "staying the course" than are willing to sign a petition challenging whether that policy might eventually prove successful.

PS: Rick: the link you provided isn't working as of 8:20 PM CDT on October 28.>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 29, 2006 1:23 AM

Regarding several comments such as:

** Kevin S: Regardless of what you think of the war, I'm not sure 500 signatures constitutes a reason to leave (and neither does 2,000).

** Hal: Do they really believe that 2000 soldiers signing a petition to end the war will really communicate anything to congress? There are over 1 million full time members of the armed forces, not to mention reserve and National Guard members. If they reach the 2000 mark, the petition will represent about 1/10 of 1% of all service members.

** Elmo: First of all, there are more than 120,000 troops in Iraq. 500 want to leave, and that means everyone does? If there were 120 people involved in something and 2 of them said they didn't want to anymore, does that mean the whole group should quit?

The following is an article from Feb 28,2006 --

Most US troops in Iraq want American exit within a year: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A wide-ranging poll of US troops serving in Iraq made public found that 72 percent believe the United States should exit Iraq within a year.

At the same time, 53 percent of the respondents said the number of US troops and bombing missions should be doubled to control the insurgency, according to the poll results.

Le Moyne College and Zogby International conducted the survey at several locations inside Iraq, polling 944 soldiers in face-to-face encounters. The pollsters said the survey had a margin of error of 3.3 percent.

It found that only 23 percent of those surveyed believe that US troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes," President George W. Bush's formulation for how long US forces will remain in the country.

In contrast, 29 percent of the respondents said US troops should leave immediately, 22 percent within six months, and 21 percent within six months to a year.

Support for an exit within a year was highest among reserve and national guard troops -- 89 and 82 percent respectively. It was lower among regular army troops (70 percent) and lowest among marines (58 percent).

Ref: ">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060228/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarypoll_060228215953;_ylt=AibVlZ7PSpdiCQGE65pUgKNa24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw-->

Posted by: Rick | October 29, 2006 1:33 AM

I wonder how many will sign the petition?
.>

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2006 1:46 AM

I still can't access the poll from the link Rick provided.

I'll wait until I can to comment further, except to repeat part of Rick's quote:

"...WASHINGTON (AFP) - A wide-ranging poll of US troops serving in Iraq made public found that 72 percent believe the United States should exit Iraq within a year.

At the same time, 53 percent of the respondents said the number of US troops and bombing missions should be doubled to control the insurgency, according to the poll results.

Le Moyne College and Zogby International conducted the survey at several locations inside Iraq, polling 944 soldiers in face-to-face encounters. The pollsters said the survey had a margin of error of 3.3 percent.

It found that only 23 percent of those surveyed believe that US troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes," President George W. Bush's formulation for how long US forces will remain in the country.

In contrast, 29 percent of the respondents said US troops should leave immediately, 22 percent within six months, and 21 percent within six months to a year.

Support for an exit within a year was highest among reserve and national guard troops -- 89 and 82 percent respectively. It was lower among regular army troops (70 percent) and lowest among marines (58 percent)...".>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 29, 2006 3:26 AM

Bringing troops home is stupid and idiotic. The main reason we "lost" Vietnam is that the American public didn't get behind our military, and there was no honor or pride in serving over there. If some want to come home, send me over. But more Americans need to start supporing our troops, for goodness sake! You can't support our troops and actively oppose the war they're fighting.>

Posted by: HAC | October 29, 2006 6:15 AM

As a Brit I feel that I'm intruding on a local argument. But we have troops there so I suppose I can have a view! Firstly it is not correct that the Vietnam war ended because of public opinion.

That sounds like a chicken and egg argument. My understanding was that as long ago as 1968 when Lyndon Johnson pullled out of the presidential race one reason was that he was advised that the war was militarily unwinnable.

Almost no International Lawyers support the legality of the Iraq invasion. On resigning from Blair's government Robin Cook - one of the greatest intellectuals in the cabinet and former Foreign Secretary - questioned the existence of WMDs and predicted the chaos that we now see. We went into this war too quickly and without a sensible long term plan. In simple terms our troops should not be there. It is not the fault of those troops but their political masters.

Our continued presence is manifestly aggravating the situation. Immediate withdrawl would admittedly result in further chaos - but there must be a clear exit strategy now. For the sake of the Iraqi people and our own troops.>

Posted by: steve cornforth - uk | October 29, 2006 11:57 AM

"
Our continued presence is manifestly aggravating the situation. Immediate withdrawl would admittedly result in further chaos"

These statements are materially dissonant. If withdrawal would enhance the chaos, then our presence must, by definition, serve to quell chaos.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 29, 2006 4:35 PM

I read your post. I maintain that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say that our presence is maintaining instability in the region, but then go on to say that if we leave there will be immediate chaos. Your attempt to nuance your position does not change the fact that it is self-contradictory.

I agree with you that, if we leave, chaos will reign (I disagree on the duration). As such, if we establish an exit plan, we are merely determining when the chaos begins. Those who vehemntly oppose freedom and democracy will simply wait us out. Whatever our exit stratedy is, it should include a plan to achieve victory, irrespective of how many petititions are signed.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 29, 2006 6:19 PM

Steve,

Your comments are welcome here.
I agree with what you've said about Vietnam and Iraq.
Bush's botched Iraq war is unwinnable, as most military experts and leaders in Congress have conceded.
A 'think tank' headed up by James Baker, former Sec State under Bush I, is working on plans for exiting Iraq, but the recommendations won't come out until after our election.
It will take someone else besides Bush to get us out of Iraq.
I don't think he's capable of admitting he has ever made any mistakes in his life.

Kevin has no plan for exiting Iraq.
He just likes to argue.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 6:49 PM

Kevin - i don't say that at all. Read the post.

Thanks justintime - intersting discussions here.>

Posted by: steve cornforth - uk | October 29, 2006 8:33 PM

justintime,

Thank you for the excellent summary the international and regional strategic concerns in Sudan. It succenctly explains why a stabilization force is necessary in that region, and articulates the imense challenges to diplomats and military forces working to bring stability and peace to the region.

I would still like to hear from a pacifist regarding my last question though.

Here it is again: I am still not clear how those who hold pacifist views and are unwilling to bear arms themselves can advocate for the use of military force, no matter how well meaning or benign the intentions. A multi-national security force under the United Nations, even if U.S. forces are not involved is still a military force. Why is it ok for you to ask someone else to carry a weapon and make life and death decisions regarding its employment, when you are unwilling to do so yourself?>

Posted by: Hal | October 29, 2006 10:29 PM

Mike,

Even Rumsfeld has asked for his resignation (by offering it... twice). Anyway, there is a difference between thinking the civilian leadership made errors (a critique of past decisions) and calling for the complete withdrawal of troops (a future act).>

Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 12:44 AM

Steve,

I don't know if this question was for me or someone else:

"So are you saying that there is moral equivalence? Iraq was a unilateral and illegal invasion with hardly any support in the rest of the world. A United Nations force in Darfur is entirely that - one with a legal mandate to save thousands from genocide."

If it is for me, I am not attempting to make a hard comparison regarding the morality of military involvement Iraq and Darfur, I understand the difference. All I am trying to understand is how pacifists can advocate for any military action when they are unwilling to be a part of that force. It seems to me, that even with a legal mandate, pacifists cannot, in good conscience, support the Darfur mission since they aren't willing to bear the burden of life and death decisions that are necessarily a part of such action.

Sojourners supports action in Darfur, and supports denying military recruiters access to high schools, the primary means through which the U.S. will man any contingent it provides to a U.N. force in Darfur.

Is there a pacifist who can explain how they reconcile the dilemma described above?>

Posted by: Hal | October 30, 2006 3:39 AM

Hal - sorry for the slow response but we are at least 5 hours ahead! Surely we have a collective responsibility as members of democracies. It is entirely reasonable to support a peace keeping force with a mandate from the rest of the world and, at the same time, oppose our nations' military aggression elsewhere.

In an age of modern professional armies I don't think that only those who physically take up arms can have an opinion. Although their views are hugely important.>

Posted by: stevecornforth - uk | October 30, 2006 7:59 AM

But our nation is no better than Nazi Germany. We're actually worse, remember?>

Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 3:41 PM

I think the decision to invade Iraq was based on false assumptions. I also think the lack of security in Iraq resulted from the subsequent decision to not allow the top four levels of the government there to continue, together with the decision to disband the military and police.

Subsequent to that, there has been little if any progress to restore order in Iraq.

And restoration of order seems unlikely to occur, under "stay the course".

I wonder if countries which advised against the invasion would lend support to internationalizing the restoration of order in Iraq and a broader effort to bring stability to the region?

Trying to bring that about seems better than continuing what has already been tried and hoping for a better outcome.>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 30, 2006 4:17 PM

"I am better than the Nazi's therefor I have the right to fill your country with radioactive dust, rip your power and water systems to shreds and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Well of course you do, because you are so much better than the Nazis. "

So, you're official position is that we are on the same moral platform as the nazis. Got it.

"Read the UN charter, Read the Geneva accords, America is signatory to these documents. They are easy to understand."

Then, you surely understand that they do not apply to international terrorist organizations.

" The constitution is also very clear about habeus corpus"

Ditto.

"The current Constitutional position of the Supreme Court on wiretapping is equally unambiguous."

On domestic wiretapping, yes. Regarding international communications during wartime, no.

"Right now it seems that a few are driving away the new voices that join in, not with careful and thoughtful faith based arguments"

Your argument was pulled whole-cloth from the misleading talking points we hear on dailykos over and over again. You have just created a moral equivalency between the United States and Hitler's Germany, and YOU are positioned to discern what constitutes a thoughtful, faith-based argument?

There is disagreement as to how we should pursue a faith-based foreign policy. Those disagreements might be troubling to you, but that does not render them irrelevant to the conversation.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 5:42 PM

Kevin says,

"There is disagreement as to how we should pursue a faith-based foreign policy. Those disagreements might be troubling to you, but that does not render them irrelevant to the conversation."

What is "faith-based foreign policy", Kevin?

Is this the foreign policy advanced by George Bush, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Richard Land or what is it, anyway?

Is "faith-based foreign policy" what got us into the Iraq mess and made enemies out of our friends?

If it is, faith-based foreign policy must be a product of faith-based logic.
And faith based foreign policy deserves to end up in the junkpile of failed experiments and the sooner the better.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 6:47 PM

Me: But our nation is no better than Nazi Germany. We're actually worse, remember?

Joseph (with sarcasm): I am better than the Nazi's therefor I have the right to fill your country with radioactive dust, rip your power and water systems to shreds and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.
...

See? I told you so.

All sarcasm aside. I find this amusing:

Right now it seems that a few are driving away the new voices that join in, not with careful and thoughtful faith based arguments, but with a spiteful tone that is continuous and wearing

Sort of like... uh... calling America worse than Nazi Germany?>

Posted by: HAC | October 30, 2006 9:31 PM

"...WASHINGTON (AFP) - A wide-ranging poll of US troops serving in Iraq made public found that 72 percent believe the United States should exit Iraq within a year.

At the same time, 53 percent of the respondents said the number of US troops and bombing missions should be doubled to control the insurgency, according to the poll results.

Le Moyne College and Zogby International conducted the survey at several locations inside Iraq, polling 944 soldiers in face-to-face encounters. The pollsters said the survey had a margin of error of 3.3 percent.

It found that only 23 percent of those surveyed believe that US troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes," President George W. Bush's formulation for how long US forces will remain in the country.

In contrast, 29 percent of the respondents said US troops should leave immediately, 22 percent within six months, and 21 percent within six months to a year.

Support for an exit within a year was highest among reserve and national guard troops -- 89 and 82 percent respectively. It was lower among regular army troops (70 percent) and lowest among marines (58 percent)...".

This article was provided earlier by Rick.>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 30, 2006 9:51 PM

Joseph,
Thanks for trying to explain the pacifist position again. I think I understand your personal perspective.


Steve,
I am not saying that only those who take up arms can have an opinion. But I do wonder why those who don't take up arms as a matter of conscience would ask someone else to do so.




I m afraid I either haven t framed my question well, or I do not comprehend the answers.

I m going to bow out of this blog. I m seeing some mean spirited comments and don t want to sift through them. I hope I didn t do anything to incite them.>

Posted by: Hal | October 31, 2006 12:16 AM

Hal, "I m going to bow out of this blog. I m seeing some mean spirited comments and don t want to sift through them. I hope I didn t do anything to incite them."

Sorry to see you leave us.
I thought you raised a good point.
Yes there are mean spirited comments occasionally.
Don't blame yourself for it.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:15 AM

Mike,

Yes the system is broken.
When one party has all the marbles, they refuse to investigate each other.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 3:59 AM

HAC,

Just a habit I guess.
Each sentence is a separate thought.
My thoughts follow one after the other.
Is it any easier to follow my thinking if I do a "hard return" for each new thought?
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 31, 2006 6:51 AM

I think there is no comparison between the bi-partisan investigation after the 1972 election and what is occurring now following the realization that the US invaded Iraq on false assumptions.

Checks and balances are not working.>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 1, 2006 1:35 AM

Mike,

If it's broken, what specifically do you propose to fix checks and balances? To ammend a previous statement, I do believe the courts have overstepped their bounds. But that's not what you raised, so I'm curious as to your thoughts for fixing the problems you perceive.>

Posted by: HAC | November 1, 2006 3:42 AM

HAC, The immediate solution to the lack of checks and balances is to elect a Democratic Congress.
When one party has all the power, they ignore the minority party and will not investigate each other.
Power corrupts.
.>

Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 2:43 PM

If we can get a Democratic Congress elected, we could begin to put some real pressure on the Bush Cheney Rumsfeld triumverate to resign.
And hope a caretaker Presidency is appointed to keep America calm and peaceful for long enough to sort out this mess and start fixing it.

I agree impeachment would be a tedious distraction for America when it's urgent that we begin to fix the Bush legacy of war and corruption.

I think America must expose this corrupt Presidency, indict the kingpins, and keep them out of politics for life.
I'm tired of seeing government corruption covered up.
Because this corrupted cabal keeps coming back to haunt America again and again.
.>

Posted by: justintime | November 1, 2006 7:42 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/27/72-us-soldiers-in-iraq-t_n_16489.html indicates that a majority of US troops want the US to leave.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1 indicates that a majority of Iraqi citizens want the US to leave.>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | November 3, 2006 1:48 AM

Kelly,

I think you have reflected the view of most of the military: sure, we'd like to leave, but doing so would be bad, and we signed up to fight, not to be coddled.

Justin,

Checks and balances in its designed intent has nothing to do with political parties. It has to do with branches of government. Politicians are elected by the people, and if the majority of politicians are of one party, it probably means that that party reflects the people the most, or the other party(/ies) are more off base. Bush got reelected, remember?>

Posted by: HAC | November 3, 2006 3:52 AM

In response to Mike's statistics... do you know how many people are actively in the United States military right now? Do you know how many people would need to be polled for accurate statistics? You can't just throw a statistic out there and it's meaningful.

As of June 2006, according to a report put out by the Department of Defense, there were just a little over 1 million enlisted in the armed forces. That's NOT including, reserves, etc. The survey you referred to surveyed just under 1,000 people.... do you know what kind of percentage that is? Less than 1%- not very good for an accurate statistic.

I hear statistics saying that the majority of service men and women want an immediate pull out. Funny thing, I hear it from people who don't even know any soliders. My fiance served in the Middle East twice in the past 4 years, and while he knew people that felt that way, it was never the majority. Funny how reporting works isn't it??>

Posted by: Kelly | November 7, 2006 8:13 PM