2007.10.30
Iran is not Iraq
For Wednesday: Sen. Jim Webb says he plans to reintroduce a resolution that would make it clear to the president: He cannot invade Iran without Congressional authorization. It should go without saying, but this president and his stepped-up rhetoric against Iran needs a stern reminder.
RSS feed 
Someone mention the word "Cambodia" to Sen Webb. How many people need to die from Iran-sponsored terrorism before Webb wakes up? The senator should refrain from writing blank checks to Iran.
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Then what's next Henry? Syria? Pakistan? North Korea? In case you haven't noticed, our military is strung out to the breaking point. They cannot handle another conflict until we finish the first two. They are exhausted, hurting, and demoralized, and you want to throw them into another unwinnable conflict?
Wouldn't it be a brighter idea to figure out what the heck pissed all these people off at us, and work on that while we're trying to find a way out of Iraq? Sounds much better to me than continuing down the Imperialist control-everything line until the entire world hates us, including our own military.
Comment by DT — October 30, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
If only it were that simple and easy DT. Unfortunately, the folks that keep trying to kill us and our troops are not going to be swayed by any goodwill gestures we make. It might be different if we were dealing with an actual country with an organized central government that could be reasoned with in a rational way. But we are dealing with factions, organizations, and individuals who have no central authority they fall under so there is no way to appeal to them and end what is going on. The sad thing is, if we continue to fight them then they likely stay angry and keep on fighting. If we quit fighting then they sense weakness and they continue fighting. Either way, the fight is going to continue for quite a long time. The only question is does the fight occur overseas with the U.S. mainland mostly safe, or do we pull back all of our troops and let the fight come to our shores?
Comment by Other John — October 30, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Ask the British if fighting in Iraq kept terrorists from their shores. Ask the Spanish.
Two things: Most Iraqis don't give a damn about the U.S. They're not mad at us; they're mad at each other.
Al-Qaida, on the other hand, is using Iraq as a training ground and a rallying cry to inspire more jihadis.
The battle in Iraq is doing nothing - absolutely nothing - to keep the fight from coming to our shores.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
That's a good point Dan, which brings me to one I've thought about for a really long time. Why don't we pull our troops back from overseas and station them along the borders of our country? We'd effectively end several problems with that move: no more illegal immigration, no more terrorists sneaking into the country through our wide-open borders, and we'd get out of places we needed to leave long ago. Now in terms of Iraq, I'd prefer that we fix the mess that was made between the 2 wars we participated in and got the country standing on it's own feet. But given how long it took us to get Germany and Japan righted, that could be a really long time.
Comment by Other John — October 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
AQ will try to kill us no matter what. We are better off killing them over there.
Iran is already killing our people. It's not like we will make them mad. They are terrorists. If the Iranians won't respect the Iraqi border, we shouldn't respect their border. What are they going to do; declare war on us? We should tell the Iramians: If you come over and kill our people, we'll go over and kill your people. We don't say "Do whatever you want because we will never respond".
If you want our troops to come home, tell Iran to quit supporting terrorism.
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Go through Congress? Why? The Democrats have proven they have no understanding of the terrorist threat and have politicized the war at every turn, trying to underhandedly cut funding and calling the effort lost. The president's build-up of forces has worked by EVERY SINGLE MEASURE. So why the hell should he even consult Congress, much less ask permission to invade Iran if he deems it fit. Bush has been the one who has been right all along.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
"The battle in Iraq is doing nothing - absolutely nothing - to keep the fight from coming to our shores."
How do you know that? Iraq hasn't attacked our shores since the war started, despite numerous threats of jihad. It would seem the evidence is more against your statement.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Iraq hasn't attacked our shores since the war started? No kidding. Guess what, Josh? Iraq NEVER attacked our shores, not even before the war.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even Bush admits that. Certainly, you know that. Don't you, Josh?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 30, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Josh: "So why the hell should he even consult Congress, much less ask permission to invade Iran if he deems it fit."
Josh, who does the Constitution grant sole authority to declare war to? Hint: It ain't the president.
Why the hell should Bush consult Congress? Because that's what the Constitution demands.
Josh: "The Democrats have proven they have no understanding of the terrorist threat and have politicized the war at every turn, trying to underhandedly cut funding and calling the effort lost. The president's build-up of forces has worked by EVERY SINGLE MEASURE."
Yeah? How is the Iraqi government doing on those benchmarks again? One out of 18? Is that a passing grade where you come from, Josh?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 30, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Sorry, I obviously meant Al Queda; not Iraq. Our ally wouldn't attack us.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Dan, You're changing the story now. You never said "declare war" you said "invade." When was the last time America declared war, Dan? How many times have we invaded countries without war declarations?
Of course Bush got the congressional blessing to invade Iraq, but given the Democrat Congress' complete irresponsibility, even obstruction concerning the war against terrorism, they have forfeited their right to have a say next time.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Oh, and Dan, I notice you haven't had a column on the progress of the war for about two months. That's when you blasted Petraeus for lying about the war. Turns out he was right. Ooopsie.
So I noticed the cat's got your tongue now that we had casualties way down in the 30s for October.
Comment by Josh — October 30, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Henry; Josh; Other John,
I invite you guys to take a ride to Wash. DC and drive up 16th St. to Alaska Ave., park your car and walk back to the 16th St. gate at Walter Reed Hospital where you will see a small track inside the fence. Wait there until you see some of the wounded soldiers that come to the track with no legs, that are developing upper body strength by pedaling recumbent bicycles with their hands. When these folks leave, hang around until the lucky ones that have artifical limbs come and learn to walk again. If you want to be inspired, kill some time until the groups with artificial limbs that have mastered their prosthesis come out and run - yes run - around the track. These are the LUCKY ones. Think about the wounded that are alive, but bedridden for the rest of their lives inside the hospital.
After watching this awhile, you just might not be so quick to align yourselves with another invasion in the middle east, or anywhere else for that matter.
Comment by Blue John — October 30, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. "
If I could show a connection, would you change your mind?
Comment by Henry — October 30, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Blue John,
War is Hell and similar sayings don't do justice to what war brings upon individuals/families. A decision to go after IRAN won't be done in haste. But you raise a thought... What percentage of the injuries and death we've seen come from Iran sponsored armaments?/terrorists/planning and support?
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2007 @ 6:12 am
Hey Blue John, I never was quick to support another invasion or war, I am completely against either one if we have absolutely no reason to do them. I've had several, and still have several, family members serve in all branches of the military, not to mention quite a lot of friends. I grew up in Hampton Roads surrounded by the military and I never want to see fellow people go to war and come back wounded, missing limbs, incapacitated, bedridden, or dead. All I was pointing out is that our current enemies are mostly made up of rogue groups, and we're likely to be engaged with them for a very long time regardless of how we as a country act. We can play nice, or we can lob tomahawks at their camps, or we can storm through their host countries and destroy their training facilties...and none of it will likely change a thing. They will still hate us and want to kill us. Perhaps the extremists may not want to kill us quite as much as they want to kill moderate Muslims since in their eyes they tend to see moderate Muslims as a greater threat to their fanatical idealism...or their greatest support system if they can use their fight with them to turn more of them into fanatics. Regardless, this current state of world warfare that we are in is not going away quickly or easily, and I just hope that the human casualty toll can be kept down as much as possible while it goes on.
Comment by Other John — October 31, 2007 @ 7:02 am
The battle in Iraq is doing nothing - absolutely nothing - to keep the fight from coming to our shores.
This is utter unsupported bunk.
What we are fighting is the forces of tyranny. Tyranny is now so battered and on the run that it cannot even occupy any country with power and wealth, save Iran. It can't put a military into the field that can challenge the U.S. All it can do is run around like rats planting bombs, murdering civilians, killing children, blowing itself up in suicide attacks a la the Japanese when they were losing. The U.S. isn't losing, we're winning. (Which means that the Democrats are losing, of course, which would explain your pessimism and general despondency).
Comment by james — October 31, 2007 @ 8:28 am
Other John,
What kind of gory carnage would have you seen in Manhattan emergency rooms on 9-11-01? If you had those images burnished in your mind, I am sure you would want to check terrorism and terrorist nations long before they could inflict that kind of suffering ever again.
Comment by Josh — October 31, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Why did it meet with world wide approval when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuclear operations 25 years ago and Syria's a few months ago and yet the US is to be comdemned if it takes similar measures to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb? The US in the only power that can prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Don't you think if Iran used the bomb on Isreal, WW III would surely follow? Sen. Webb may have been a Vietnam hero but he is a middle east whimp. Or maybe his hatred of President Bush fogs his thinking. The world would be a safer place if Iran never gets the bomb.
Comment by John — October 31, 2007 @ 8:47 am
A comment above reminded me of Dan Radmacher's well written column on 9/16 six and half weeks ago. I remember that I encouraged commenters in the Augusta (GA) Chronicle (a real right wing nut leaning paper in my opinion) to the link and see another side to their thinking. But, I don't think they bothered, which is typical of the right with their rose colored glasses.
Comment by Gary — October 31, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Henry:"Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. "
If I could show a connection, would you change your mind?
I'm interested in that connection, however, I feel as Howard Dean put it that went something like, ...attacking Iraq for 9/11 would have been like attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Comment by Gary — October 31, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
So your mind is already made up. I think you see the basic problem here. The problem isn't the lack of evidence. The problem is that people don't want to see the evidence because it interferes with their belief.
Not only that, Bush didn't say Iraq was directly connected to 9/11 so it is a strawman.
Comment by Henry — October 31, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
quoting Howard Dean?? good luck with that.
Comment by BUD — October 31, 2007 @ 7:46 pm