$nbsp;

President's plan won’t help us

 
LOADING
Jan 20, 2007 - 08:54:45 CST
By EARL POMEROY
Washington
As I listened to President Bush’s address announcing that more troops would be sent to Iraq, I thought of the wise words a soldier told me during one of my visits to this war-torn place.

He said, “We can stand up an Iraqi army, but we cannot create a country for the army to defend.”

This simple truth exposes the flaw in the president’s plan. Without the commitment between the warring parties in Iraq to stop the killing and create the political agreements upon which a national government can exist, 20,000 more U.S. soldiers are not likely to bring about a lasting peace.

I have had the opportunity to visit our soldiers in Iraq, and I will never forget their courage and selfless commitment as they have carried out orders under the most challenging conditions imaginable. They are disciplined and determined, and they have superbly performed what has been asked of them.

However, the United States can’t create a democracy in Iraq. Only the Iraqi people can achieve that. The deadly civil war now under way is daily tragic evidence that progress on this worthy goal has come to a stop. 

A broad, bipartisan group of experts ” including the Iraq Study Group members, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the senior military commander in the region, Gen. John Abizaid ” have all rejected the strategy of escalating U.S. troop numbers as a means to bring the factions of Iraq together.

So what do we do? We need to focus our efforts on getting the warring sides to find a political solution that ends sectarian killing and brings hope for a peaceful coexistence going forward.

During my most recent trip to Iraq, I concluded that the longer the United States continues to provide policing and security for Iraq, the less likely it becomes that the Iraqis themselves will take steps to end the violence.

While prospects for success are remote, the costs are immediate and real: more frequent and longer National Guard deployments and shorter time back home for active duty soldiers ” many who are now on their third deployment. The toll on equipment will deepen the problems already existing in military infrastructure, and the overall cost of the war will jump, pushing total expenditures past $400 billion. 

Four years ago, when the president sat across the table and asked for my vote in support of the resolution to authorize this war, I supported him because the information he provided led to the conclusion that Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation’s security.

Since that time, I have made every possible effort to assess the situation on the ground with fresh eyes as our nation has worked through this war.

These efforts have now led me to the inescapable conclusion that the president’s plan for more troops will not bring us closer to achieving our goal of a peaceful, stable Iraq. 

In fact, it will only lead to further bloodshed and chaos while postponing the inevitable day of reckoning the warring factions must face.

Only when Iraqi leaders face this day of reckoning will they find out, as that soldier observed, if they can create a country for their army to defend.

(Pomeroy, a Democrat, is in his eighth term representing North Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives. ” Editor)

 
News > Opinion
   Printer friendly version
President's plan won’t help us
Comments

Stepper wrote on Feb 1, 2007 9:57 AM:

" I think you make very good points here. The next coming in president is going to be so very important because by that time, our country's situation will be such that either we make it or not and yes I really do think it will be that critical. I certainly do not want to see Hiliary in and I am still not decided about McCain. I do not want the young guy Obama in for heaven sakes, he has no experience and would be a very weak president. So far, no one stands out as presidential material to me. I think at this point we have no choice but to see if Bush's plan works...I think giving it one more chance with more troops might work but we better see something definite resolved or else this will go on and on. The one thing that has to happen is that the Shiites and Sunni agree to peace otherwise they will just tear the country apart again. They all want the whole world to be muslim but what they are fighting over is which muslim sect they want in power. There would be a chance for peace in the middle east if these two factions would agree to stop their competition with each other but do you really think that will happen? I don't. Thousands of years of tradition is hard to put away. I do not believe the Shiites or Sunni are interested in "democracy", they just want their particular sect to be in control of a muslim world. Therein lies the whole problem of the middle east. The sooner our government undertands that, the better off we will be in figuring out how to deal with this war. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 31, 2007 11:09 PM:

" Stepper, sorry bud, I did mis read or mis interpet what you wrote. I don't know what happens next when the Whitehouse changes presidents. I do hope how ever that whoever is in there will do whatever it takes to keep our country save and does not wait for another 911. I don't know who i will be voting for yet but if it is a dem or a rep, i just hope they do the right thing. I do think Bushy is doing the right thing, I just think he is going about it all wrong. I sure hope his plan will work and the people will give it a chance to work. Iraq better step up and start doing what they have agreed to and take more of a role to get our troops home. I think it we come home now, I hope it is because Iraq shows that they want us out by proving they can do it. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 31, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Jim, I never said we were done in Iraq..I just said to keep the cheering going as we will go to Iran next, syria, etc. etc not that we are done in Iraq, but that he will get us in to Iran yet too...are you reading what I wrote or are you reading what you think I said. geez....the Iraq thing and the rest to come is scheduled to continue until the end of 2008, you know, when georgie leaves office. I don't know how it goes after that, do you? I am awake and believe me, the nightmare is not over, far from it. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 31, 2007 4:01 PM:

" Steeper. Here ya go again sounding like someone who just crawled out from under a rock. If you now just realizing that we are done after Iraq you have been sleeping since 911. If the next President cuts and runs and drops the ball on terrorism, then we have surely failed and we will get attacked again. Wake UP brother. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 31, 2007 1:56 PM:

" You keep on thinking that Beesh because you will need to keep that "rah rah Bush" thing going for when we go into Iran, Syria, Pakistan and god knows where else. This train is on an oiled downhill track until about the end of 2008. Your constant blaming the democrats and whatever entities you name is boring, boorish and tiring. That is the only comment you ever make. You back nothing up with facts.Nothing anyone who is not in the "loop" of your politics says makes any difference to you, you just blame and spew the same mud. But, you have that right, so sling on Beesh... "

Beesh wrote on Jan 31, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Congress granted President Bush control over decisions concerning this war. I don't think Bush has drifted away from the people and his party. The Lame Stream Media and Left-biased alpha news networks who do not report the whole story is coercing the public away from their previously held support of this conflict. The Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans are dumping on the president and scrambling to protect their political careers rather than do what is best for the nation. I credit the President for keeping to his guns and readjusting his aim to defeat this enemy. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 29, 2007 2:52 PM:

" Stepper, Now you are making sence. You are on the same page that I have been on sice day one with a few exceptions. I still don't think Bush lied and i don't believe he is doing that bad of a job. At least not as bad as the media is making it out to be. I will still say that he has made plenty of mistakes. But who hasn't? Our teoops want to be there to finish this, we are there so we can't pull out (which would be wrong anyway). I hope that with the use of more troops that we will do there what we are there for, be offensive and get this thing done and not let it drag out more than it already has. "

What is the other option? wrote on Jan 29, 2007 10:20 AM:

" I agree that he is not making an educated decision on Iraq, but what is the other option? If we pull out now, what will become of Iraq? It's too late to debate right or wrong of being there. We are there, now we need to figure out what will happen if we leave and what the other option or options are "

Observer wrote on Jan 29, 2007 10:00 AM:

" You have valid points, thanks. What a mess. I feel no matter how we got there, if we cut and run now,we are going to loose all over again, we will be sitting ducks for everyone in the world now. They all see what a divided nation we are and probably have always been. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 29, 2007 12:21 AM:

" Observer..yes I think he would have gone to war with Iraq no matter what. Look at him now, is he even listening to the people? No. Is he listening to people of his own party? No. Is he listening to advisers? No. He threw out the Iraq study group report. All of his cronies and his dad's cronies are making money on this war and money is what motivates the workings of this world. The more you have the more you control things. I know I have changed my mind about troops being in Iraq and mostly because of CW4's comments, but now I think I was right to begin with because when you think about it, if we left Iraq today, what do you think will happen....I think they will go back immediately to their in-fighting and war ways as they have done for thousands of years. I predict the war will finish when Bush leaves office. Eight years of lies, scandal, sending the national debt to unimaginable heights, putting us in debt to foreign countries to back our dollar, aleinating us from the rest of the world and making Bush and his cronies billionaires over and over will bring this country down to its knees and there will still be people who think he is some kind of hero. I don't pretend to understand that but then each of us is unique and different and free to think what we want......at least for now. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 29, 2007 12:01 AM:

" To Observer...have you seen these? "U.S. News and World Report recently reported that during a rehearsal for a Feb. 2003 report to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Secretary of State Colin Powell became so frustrated with the information that had been prepared for him that he reportedly tossed several pages in the air and declared, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." The original report, crafted primarily by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and pushed strongly by the White House and Pentagon, alleged that Iraqi intelligence officers were linked to the suspected leader of the 9/11 hijackers and that Iraq had procured computer software that would enable it to plan an attack on the U.S.claims unsupported by American and European intelligence agencies. The Washington Post reported that senior intelligence officials indicated that the allegations against Iraq may have been compiled by CIA officials who "felt they were being pressured to make their assessments (of Iraq's weapons) fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives" due to multiple visits to the CIA by Dick Cheney and his chief of staff." Sources: U.S. News and World Report, "Truth and Consequences: New Questions About U.S. Intelligence Regarding Iraq's Weapons of Mass Terror," Bruce B. Auster, Mark Mazzetti and Edward T. Pound, June 9, 2003; Washington Post, "Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits," Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, June 5, 2003. Bush Makes False and Misleading Statements about Iraqi Threat Some of the most important charges Bush has levied against Iraq have turned out to be false or misleading. After first exaggerating and then downplaying allegations of a supposed partnership between al Qaeda and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Bush and other administration officials-including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer-are again claiming that there is a link between Hussein and al Qaeda. But intelligence officials have not yet found proof to back these allegations, according to the Washington Post, and former CIA agents say there is no evidence a "partnership" emerged from known contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi officials in the 1990s. Bush has also tried to galvanize support for a war against Iraq by charging that Hussein's government offered medical treatment to a senior al Qaeda leader. However, intercepted telephone communications "did not mention any cooperation with the Iraqi government." Sources: The Guardian, "White House 'Exaggerating Iraqi Threat'," Julian Borger, Oct. 9, 2002; Washington Post, "Bush Asserts Al Qaeda Has Links to Iraq's Hussein," Mike Allen, Sept. 26, 2002. CIA, FBI Agents Baffled by the dministration's Attempts to Link Iraq, al Qaeda Analysts at the CIA and FBI have expressed bafflement over the Bush administration's determination to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. According to the New York Times, FBI investigators have said that despite attempts to find such a link, "we just don't think it's there." In his speech to the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell accused Iraq of collaborating with al Qaeda. Source: New York Times, "Threats and Responses: Terror Links," James Risen and David Johnston, Feb. 2, 2003 Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. ~ George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002-10-07. These tubes turned out to be nothing more threatening than the tubing used to construct playground equipment. "

Observer wrote on Jan 28, 2007 9:50 PM:

" Stepper, You have been unwavering in your opinion from the get go that the president lied and I respect that. CW4 Retired lists many quotes mostly from Democrats in support of going to Iraq in the forum "Defeatist talk is intolerable". I know it really doesn't matter anymore, but in a hypothetical, If all those senators and more had not supported the Iraq theory, or what they obviously believed was true, of WMD's, Do you think Bush would have went there without support? Hind site is always 20-20. Nobody could predict this tragedy that has happened in Iraq. If there is one thing Bush is, it's arrogant. If he knew 100% there were no WMD's I do not believe for a moment he would have jeopardized his term ending in utter failure. I believe he truly believed there were WMD's, and other than they havent been found, have I missed a quotable reference they were not there? "

Stepper wrote on Jan 28, 2007 6:25 PM:

" To Obesrvaer...she was so very wrong to do what she did in Vietnam. It is one thing to protest and another to bring harm in the manner she did. She should have been charged with treason (my opinion). The "truth" is, no politician has any real control by themselves as to what happens in this country or the world, everyone knows that. They are in the positions they are because we voted for them to be there and they are all supposed to work TOGETHER in solving problems and running things. When they entered office they ALL swore to be honest, truthful, etc. etc. However, there is a difference beween them and the president. The president represents us in our country and to the world. He bears the responsibility of our country by the very nature of the office, same as any other country's leaders. We have never had a perfect president and never will have. We have had various degres of "honest" presidents in that not all of them got caught (as did nixon, clinton, reagon). This whole Iraq thing will be going on for years and it does not matter what you think or I think or what we say here...this war was started based on lies about what the objective was and will continue to run in that manner. Of all things a president lies about, war should not be one of them because the cost of it is more than the blood money made from it (war if very profitable), the cost is the lives of American troops. That is too high of a price for lies. This is how I see it and this is my opinion. "

Observer wrote on Jan 28, 2007 3:18 PM:

" So what does everybody think about Hanoi Jane being back on the scene? On 20/20 in 1998 with Barbara Walters She said" I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did," she began. "I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm . . . very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families." I hope she puts more thought into her words and actions this time or our troops won't have a prayer if she shows up in Iraq! "

dante wrote on Jan 28, 2007 9:23 AM:

" links, thank you, i will take that as a compliment. have a nice day, everybody. "

Links wrote on Jan 28, 2007 5:14 AM:

" Dante we all know what you are but we cannot say it in this forum. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 28, 2007 1:23 AM:

" "But we will bring the weapons and, of coursewe will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end upend all this speculation. I understand there has been a lot of speculation over in Great Britain, we've got a little bit of it here, about whether or not thewhether or not the actions were based upon valid information. We can debate that all day long, until the truth shows up." Bush, unwavering in his certainty that one way or another WMDs will appear in Iraq Source: The White House, "President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism," July 17, 2003 " "

Stepper wrote on Jan 28, 2007 1:21 AM:

" Here are some words from the pres..... "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001 "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. Sept. 19, 2001 "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 "Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country." --George W. Bush, interview with Al Arabiya Television, May 5, 2004 "We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capabilities to cause great harm. We know he was a great danger….What we don't know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. Feb. 2, 2004 "Can we win? I don't think you can win it." after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004 " "

dante wrote on Jan 28, 2007 1:12 AM:

" bush has run this war like it was a pizza house, his arrogance does not even come close to reality. i am fuctually amazed that antyone even follows this madman. wave the flag blindly as much as you wish, but this is insane. "

dante wrote on Jan 28, 2007 12:46 AM:

" i dont really care what what politicians do any more, its just show on the outside, but outwardly its money, influence, its time we all wake up. kerry actually did serve in the military-WAR(imagine that), and was vilified for it. he had a conscience (imagine that again, if you can!) but, any way, to actually speak to anyone about peace. if i didnt do that with my wife, we's have ben toast years ago! "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 11:44 PM:

" thanks , jim, but im not a democrat, im not a warmonger, and i dont accept what the millionaire elite in washington send my way after they have had their way. jimmie dude, we are pawns. think for yourself, my friend, before its too late. "

Support our troops wrote on Jan 27, 2007 11:25 PM:

" That is NOT true"if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." I have lost faith in this purpose, and yet I pray, love and support the troops. They do not have a choice to be mobalized or not, they are doing a job that they risked may come there way when signing on the dotted line. Not everyone signs up for the army thinking they will have to go to Iraq, it is a risk and they bravely are taking it. God Bless the troops! "

BlahBlahBlah wrote on Jan 27, 2007 10:52 PM:

" Did anyone watch John Kerry (democrat) giving his speech in Davos, Switzerland and telling his audience that the United States has become "a sort of international periah". He was sharing the stage with some Iranians leaders discussing the US foreign policy. I guess its true when they say, "you are the company that you keep". Kerry must be in the running for an Iranian medal of honor...since he threw his US military medals away when he came back from Vietnam. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 27, 2007 10:45 PM:

" further to BlahBlah: that is another thing that the right is trying to do, spreading the blame around saying that the congress voted for the war. True enough, there was an authorization vote in the Senate. But, they didn't know all of the blunders the administration was going to commit in the name of politics and war. The congress didn't know that Bush was going to claim that he would listen to the Generals on the ground but get rid of ones that didn't say what he wanted to hear. Before going in, Shinseki said that it would take about 350,000 to 450,000 US troops to invade and secure Iraq. Bush didn't want to do it that way so he found people that would say that we just needed 150,000, and used them as the Generals that he would listen to. Congress didn't know that Bush would have the Iraqi army disbanded. They became a major force in the insurgency. I could go on, but the point is, yes alot of people in congress are very sorry that they gave this commander in chief its blessing, and are right to publicly oppose the further prosecution of this mess of what has become Iraq's civil war. They cannot absolve themselves from their original vote, but are within their rights to say it is time to go in a different direction. For instance they can wonder why not to take the Iraq Study Group's report seriously, and implement that. It was authored by a bi-partisan group of patriotic statesmen. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 27, 2007 6:07 PM:

" Dante, you never seem to amaze me with your ever so closed mind. Shame on all of you who are not supporting our troops. If you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops. In all respect to your son and thanks to him for his service to our country, he has the more right than any of us to state his claims and feelings on OUR war. He was there, twice as you say, and is doing the work and risking his life so am ill informed, closed mined persons like most dems can sit back here and spout off at will only thinking they are so so right and everyone else is so wrong. Like or just like it, we are going to stay there we are going to finish this thing. PERIOD!!!! "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 5:48 PM:

" smedley, good luck my friend, wherever you may be now. come home alive and whole and bring all your fellow soldiers back home in the same way. "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

" when the best laid plans(wet dreams) of the elected elite fail in a military venture, nothing is lost to them, except stature. the rest means nothing to them. in the end they walk away, in shame (at least outgoing from us to them), but with everything else they can steal. they make the rules. we pay in lives, money, and personal loss. life is cool----for them. "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 3:20 PM:

" ...and yes, it IS sad, very sad.... "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

" i saw the same news. it was ONE soldier that said that, and not those same words. ...shame on bush and the warpigs. another soldier said... "im glad im out of that hellhole".... my son. 2 tours...26 months...in iraq. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 27, 2007 2:59 PM:

" to it's sad: with all respect to those in harms way, it is our right and responsiblity as citizens to oppose an ill-thought out policy which uses the troops in a way contrary to smart stratagy for our nation. Those in opposition to the escalation of the war stand in good company including newly elected Senator Jim Webb and former Senator Max Cleland, who if you recall lost his last election after Rovian political ads had his face and Osama bin Laden's face morphing to and fro. "

It's sad wrote on Jan 27, 2007 1:55 PM:

" Watched the news.- first time I saw a news cast showing the positive side of Iraq. Very said to listen to soldiers say to the American public "quit saying you support us if you don't support our mission- it's a slap in the face to the US Military"- They see what all of you are really made of, shame on you! "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 12:42 PM:

" i did not vote for that man. nor his war of greed and opportunity. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 27, 2007 12:24 PM:

" to BlahBlahBlah: can you tell me what President Bush's solution is for resolving the war? There have been many proposals offered for other courses to pursue. "

BlahBlahBlah wrote on Jan 27, 2007 11:07 AM:

" Yes Mr. Pomeroy and the rest of the anti Bush posse. You are all about finding everything wrong with this President, but you NEVER have a solution and always spin when asked what YOU would do. None of you have an answer either. This is not President Bush's war alone, you also voted to support it, and then turned your backs. You don't have a solution either and am tired of listening to your side of what our President is doing wrong, especially when you don't have an answer to resolve this war either. CUT and RUN is not a solution. "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 10:50 AM:

" again, for your information... www.impeachbush.org check it out... its at 849,348 last i checked. "

dante wrote on Jan 27, 2007 9:52 AM:

" bush is a true champion of the common man, his uncle DICK is fast approsaching sainthood. the gods of greed and war are surely smiling DOWN upon us. "

jake wrote on Jan 27, 2007 2:13 AM:

" Like we would listen to Pomeroy, Bush is a true leader. "

herbie Zimplecks II wrote on Jan 26, 2007 11:17 AM:

" fred: ok, I'll drive to ft yates, but i will have to use those socialism roads. But seriously, what do you propose I read? I want to understand your viewpoint. I happen to think that having a social saftey net is a good thing. Life doesn't run in a staight line. Myself, I had 2 seriously ill kids this past year, one of which will have a life time of medical costs until there is a cure for his illness. I did not have to declare bancruptcy or go on food stamps, but things got extremly tight. We live in a society, and I believe that some things are more efficiently taken care of collectivly. Do I think there is waste in the government? Absolutely, and it is initiated on both sides of the political spectrum. Waste should be exposed and eliminated. But, as a people, we need each other, and we all have a common interest in everyone else's well being. "

Disagreeable wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:12 AM:

" "Jim S wrote on January 24, 2007 8:24 PM:"To disagreable, Bush gave the UN plenty of time to get their job done. They dilly dallied around long enuff. Bush gave them plenty of time. This is probably the mojority of the time Saddam used to get the remaining WMD out of Iraq. Stepper, I also wanna know, before I go to Iraq, congress is not voting to pull us out of Iraq but they are not going to sign to approve the 20,000 troops. Does this mean that if congress allows for people like us to go, will they approve funding for the things that I need?" You're slipping and sliding around the question. The UN inspectors WERE ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ. Bush told them to get out so he could invade the country. Why not wait a couple of weeks until they could find there were no WMDS? There is no sign that Saddam sent WMDs out of the country. That's simply a conspiracy theory of the hard core Bush supporters. (Who are getting to be fewer and fewer) He did NOT have the support of the UN or most of our long time allies in the invasion of Iraq. That's why we're so isolated now. Why should Germany, France, Canada, send their military into the meat grinder just because Bush CHOSE to go to war with Iraq? Answer: they won't. But they are supporting us in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Osama Bin Ladin? 9/11? The Democratic Congress has said they will provide the troops in Iraq what they need. But they plan to make the Administration put the war in the budget. The Pentegon (under Rumsfeld) has said for years that they don't know what it will cost, so they've used special appropriation requests to pay for it. The rubber stamp Republican Congress went along with that; Dems say they won't. They will certainly look at funding requests for GitMo and civilian contractors. Billions of dollars have been lost, unaccounted for, in Iraq. It's time someone was made accoutable for those losses and, more importantly, be sure money being spent now is spent wisely. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 26, 2007 9:35 AM:

" Great point Fred! "

fred wrote on Jan 26, 2007 8:25 AM:

" hey herbie,you might want to read more about socalism than just doing a "google" search. if you want more government in your life, take a drive to ft. yates and look around. if you like what you see, please, please demand more government in your life, cradle to grave. enjoy the view. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 26, 2007 12:34 AM:

" There are many many things that go on in our government that we don't know, don't want to know or don't need to know. Some of it maybe we should and a lot of it i am glad we don't. Some of what we don't know is for our own good and the security of our country and safety of our troops and civilians in percarious situations. There are so many things going on right under our noses that if we knew about them, our stomacks would turn. Right or wrong, it is the people we put in office to do the right thing and we need to trust that they are doing the right things. Otherwise we need not elect them. Regarding the national budget, for some reason it does not even concern me that much right now. Who do we owe that money to? If I borrow 10 bucks from my right pocket and put it in my left pocket, it is still mine. As long as the unemployment rate is low, interest rates are good, and people are able to spend some, invest some and save some, I am not concerned. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:50 PM:

" Fred: I hope you aren't really charging that I am giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You are right, since we have been at war, there have not been any attacks on our soil. Before the attacks on 9.11.01, the previous terrorist attack in America was in Feb of 1993. (That was the bombing of the wtc, which was meant to bring the building down with a truck bomb in the parking structure.) The perpetrators of that attack were captured, put on trial, convicted, sentenced and are still serving their sentences. So that was 8 years without a terror attack. Why didn't the Bush administration honor the dead American civilians by keeping after the perpetrators of the 9.11.01 attacks? We were ALL behind him going into Afghanistan and ripping those monsters a new one. I would still be behind him even if it took all this time and we were giving it our all to find him. But, that is not the case. When Bush took office, Dick Cheney was in charge of the terror committee. How many times did they meet to discuss al queda in the 9 months before 9.11? "

John wrote on Jan 25, 2007 9:01 AM:

" During the past few years, there have been so many times that the president's administration proposed to cut benefits for troops and veterans, for health care, for lower increases in pay levels, for needed equipment, and more. Members of Congress stepped in and improved things against the original wishes of the administration. Sometimes the president is good at show, but the substance is not as good. "

Joe wrote on Jan 25, 2007 8:57 AM:

" I am not saying we should change the division of responsibilities betw the pres and congress. It is a good idea for the commander in chief to have the ability to run the war. However, people should understand what Congress can and can not do in this situation. Yes, the Democrats have control of Congress, but that does not mean they can perform a miricle and change the direction of the president. Today, Congress is much closer to the opinion of the American people. The real power comes from us. The president can not fight a war if the people refuse to support it. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 25, 2007 8:11 AM:

" Jim S...I am not sure about who has the power to do what. The pres did say in his speech that he authorized congress to do something about getting the military numbers up but what congress can do I am not sure either. I would think that the draft would not be the only option. Perhaps more incentives regarding after service benefits would encourage more to enlist. The president does have the final say on a lot about the military but he does have advisors and whether he listens to them or not has been a problem I think and hopefully he will be listening now. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:29 AM:

" I am not sure if a draft is a good idea. I don't remember which congressman said it but a dem wanted to start the draft thinking it would detour the president from adding more troops. Is it Japan or China that has made it mandatory for ALL men to served the armed forces? I remember congress not approving moneys for better armour, not Bushy. I beleive that over all, our Comander and chief has final say in what goes on in the millatary. If that is a problem then maybe we need to split the job up. Like in the NFL, it is proved more times than not that one person acting as General Manager and Headcoach doesn't work so well. Maybe too much for one person todo. At one time it was OK but maybe we need to change that. I agree that Clinton made too many cuts regarding the millitary. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 24, 2007 9:22 PM:

" Fred.... have you looked at the current national budget the Bush administration has? Trillions, Fred. Can you wrap your mind around those numbers? Is Mr Pomeroy in charge of the national budget? "

Stepper wrote on Jan 24, 2007 9:17 PM:

" Jim S....are the answers George and Ann gave okay? I agree with them. I think it has been a problem that the troops do not have all that they need over there; and....(hold onto your hat) I think Clinton's administration let the military appropriations and supplies, etc. etc.. down and did not keep them up like they should have been. But, after the golf war..things were supposed to be okay because Bush Sr said they were so perhaps Clinton mistakenly took it that the military did not need so much attention anymore. It is only a guess on my part, conjecture, if you will. At any rate, the military should be kept at readiness level at all times (my opinion) and this was not so during the Clinton administration. Last night Bush called for 90,000 some troops be in place in another five years (maybe a higher number? not sure) and he authorized congress to see that it happens. Jim, do you think that a draft will be enacted to get those numbers in line? I would appreciate your thoughts on that. I told a friend of mine two years ago that there would be a draft before Bush was out of office and he laughed at me and said Bush would never do anything like that. My friend is an avid republican. "

Ann wrote on Jan 24, 2007 8:45 PM:

" As Joe pointed out earlier, Congress does not have to approve what the president is doing. Bush is already spending money on the war without appropriations...he has authority to do so. Now that the other party has control of Congress, the president will be even less likely to consult or care what Congress thinks. The Congress will certainly look out for the safety and support of the troops, but they will have a tough time making any headway in getting this president to listen to the will of the American people on this. "

George wrote on Jan 24, 2007 8:40 PM:

" Congress is much more likely to make sure troops have what they need than the Bush Administration are - if past history is our guide. Countless times, I have heard about our troops not having what they need. And, that was a big part of what the Democrats were saying in the 2006 campaign and one reason why they did so well with military people. I am not a party person, but I did notice that distinction the past few years. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 24, 2007 8:24 PM:

" To disagreable, Bush gave the UN plenty of time to get their job done. They dilly dallied around long enuff. Bush gave them plenty of time. This is probably the mojority of the time Saddam used to get the remaining WMD out of Iraq. Stepper, I also wanna know, before I go to Iraq, congress is not voting to pull us out of Iraq but they are not going to sign to approve the 20,000 troops. Does this mean that if congress allows for people like us to go, will they approve funding for the things that I need? "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 24, 2007 5:33 PM:

" fred: you might want to get on "the google" and check out the definition of socialism "

fred wrote on Jan 24, 2007 5:15 PM:

" herbie, since we have been at war, how many attacks has the us had on our soil? one other question, what part of aid and comfort to the enemy don't you understand> earl's a socalist, look at his voting record; his answers to problems is more and bigger government, that sir is socalism. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 24, 2007 5:00 PM:

" Clarification..I parenthesized that it was my opinion and I still think you have posted here under a different name. Call it instinct or voodoo, doesn't matter anyways. I never called you replubican or democrat. You stated that you did not think the democrats were offering anything but you thought the republicans were...ok..that is not fence sitting, that is leaning. Are you leaving the comment blog? Why? I am neither party either..I do my own thinking. It is just that in the situtation of Iraq I disagree with what the president has done. so shoot me. You are absolutely correct about CW4. He is one of the reasons I may be changing my mind. Is that okay with you? It is one thing to post on here and some agree with you, then you continue to state your beliefs. It is another to post on here and when the majority are not buying what you say, you leave...which says you can dish but cannot take it. Now this is where you will cry foul and say you can't waste any more time on people who will not listen and follow your path. I have heard this before in this post...... "

Clarification wrote on Jan 24, 2007 4:26 PM:

" Wow Stepper, I am a disguised previous poster? Now isn't that just like a mud-slinger? I have always been courteous. I have said nothing to give a view point except that I did like what CW4 had to say! I believe even you liked what he had to say. That makes me Republican? Sorry, I am Independent, I have voted all ways. To your dissmay, I want our troops out of harms way, period. Unfortunately that is emotion talking so I haven't shared that until now. Now I suppose somebody on here will call me a Democrat. Before I leave for good- nobody on here will compare to CW4's logic or facts- Herbie, I suppose that makes me sittin a little to the right for the moment. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 24, 2007 3:25 PM:

" Herbie..thanks for those comments. I had not thought of thngs in that manner. This is what I enjoy about these comments is that new ideas, old ideas in a new light, new information, etc. are being freely exchanged. No, no big solution will come of it but by exchanging ideas and information, can influence how you think about things and give different perspectives which is always good. You believe what you believe and you defend that belief but at the same time you get material for new ways of thinking about things. That is when a good comment forum such as these the Tribune provides works right. We are all guilty of slinging at each other and that is called emotion but I have seen some good stuff come through this blog and some of it has given me some insight that I am seriously considering. Meanwhile I pray for our troops, our country and yes even the pres as he needs prayer very much. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 24, 2007 3:11 PM:

" Stepper: I am not convinced that more of our guys should be there to get shot and blown up until the other things actually happen. I would rather see the Maliki government show us that they are going to do the tough political things before we commit more troops. If they pass the oil share provisions and other important things first, then if they still need help, maybe. But I think they should show us theirs before we show them ours this time. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 24, 2007 2:50 PM:

" Herbie don't sweat the small stuff..clarification is a disguised previous poster (my opinion) who is throwing in a red herring to bait the people who do not support this administration. ignore it. I watched the speech last night and I was impressed by some things he said and liked those things about health care and renewable energy. He even had a good idea for having non-military people go into Iraq who have special skills that could be useful...there is the chance for Jim, Southpark, Wait, clarification, etc. to go win one for the (gipper) pres. Now they can go back up their country and president, provided they have some sort of skill that would be useful in the war. How about it guys? Sounds fair enough to me. I hope he can work with congress to get some of the good things he talked about (other than the war) enacted. That would be great. I have sort of changed my mind about sending more troops but only this one time and then make sure Maliki does his part and delivers what he promised with a stable government in place. If that were to happen, then out come our troops and let peace keeping troops come in from Britain who train the best in that genre. "

DISAGREEABLE wrote on Jan 24, 2007 2:21 PM:

" I didn't see anyone mention that there were UN weapons inspectors ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ. President Bush told them to get out; we were coming in. Why not wait a couple of weeks and they would have confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq? I believe it's because Bush wanted a war with Saddam. It was his chance to prove himself a better man than George HW. Too bad it's cost so many American and Iraqi lives to show that he's not the better man. "

Joe wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:52 PM:

" To Clar - You are asking Congress to do something that they do not have Constitutional authority to do. The Congress does not have the power to stop the war. The President is the Commander in Chief. The only power the Congress has now is to intervene somehow in funding. However, even that power is limited. For example, the $400 billion already spent on the Iraq War has been spent by the President without Congressional approval. So, rather than criticizing the Democrats, I see them using about the only thing they have - to make sure troops have what they need - Congress has always been strong on that - and to continue to represent the majority of people in the country who oppose the war. Hopefully, we will have a different president who will have a much better strategy and way to end this tragic mistake in the best way possible. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:42 PM:

" Furthermore...this plan of Bush's. The "Surge" has been tried in Iraq before. It is being opposed by congressional Democrats and Republicans. I know there are differences this time. Here are the differences as I have heard. Political and Military. The Iraq army will deploy forces from the northern part of the country (Kurdish forces). The thought being that they wouldn't be partial to Sunni or Shia. Problem is, many of those troops are defecting know so that they don't have to go. Political: I don't have so much faith in the Iraq government that I want to gamble 20,000 of our troops. It wasn't long ago that that government oversaw the hanging of SH that looked like a lynching because of the sectarian chanting going on. Plus, out of almost 300 Iraqi parlimentarians, the largest showing in months has been 65. No quorum. When asked what happens if this doesn't work the military has said that then we will have to look at it again.. I don't know, I am underwhelmed by this plan. OUr forces will be living out in and amongst the neighborhoods, more subject to attack, as well as supply lines also. "

lw wrote on Jan 24, 2007 1:41 PM:

" To herbie - when you say "I can go to my party and discuss things with them..." Either your connected or you have a secret I'd like you to share on how you go about getting ANYONE in EITHER party to listen to the average joe or average herbie. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:47 AM:

" clar: your rhetoric seems to be right out of the republican talking points play book, which is what made me question your claim of being a fence rider. With only 28% of the US population (according to a cbs poll)favoring Bush right now, I would suppose that you are a very rare fence rider that is leaning towards bush's policies. I am a democrat. I hold certain beliefs and the basic tenants of the DemocratIC party mesh with those. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything about the party, but if I don't like something I can go to my party and discuss it with them, and perhaps come away with something. It is the way the political system is set up in this country. "

Clarification wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:50 AM:

" Herbie, I think my post shows that the Democrats aren't saying anything to sway me. In my mind they have shown no solutions, That is just an opinion. You seem like a very nice person and have answered some questions but most have (not true) - (he lied) behind them- "just because I said so" doesn't work for me. I have however went to some of the websites CW4 has stated. He appears to be very informed on the subject. Your emotional response and attack to my opinion also says a lot. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:14 AM:

" clar: yeah, you're a real fence sitter "

Clarification wrote on Jan 24, 2007 9:58 AM:

" I watched the President's speech last night. I have said before I am a fence rider. I am trying to make an informed decision on the war. CW4 has helped a lot. I was so confused last night. The Democrats are obviously going to oppose the troop surge, that is obviously the will of the majority of the people. But if I understood it right the media has said point blank the Dems will vote against it but wont stop the surge? What is the point? They wont bring our military home but they will cut off funding that I believe will directly have an effect on our soldiers welfare. Help Me- am I wrong to summarize that Dems are only going to add to the problem because they dont have the backbone it takes to state a solution? What I saw last night was the president is trying to do something...and the Democrates and going to do nothing, I don't think that is why they were voted into power. "

Joe wrote on Jan 24, 2007 9:00 AM:

" The Bush plan is wrong. When you're digging a hole and sinking farther away from your goal, more of the same failed efforts will not turn it around. It is time for a different course that is BETTER, SMARTER and will work. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 11:02 PM:

" Jim S., when we were "flexing our muscles" there was an actual opposing government and (pretty crummy) military force. There is no longer an opposing government or military force. Ask England how it went fighting the IRA for years and years and years, and they were right next door. That conflict is mostly resolved now, and resolution came about by bringing people together, giving them a stake in stability and talking. Actually sounds sort of like a tea party to me. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:48 PM:

" CW4 for President!!! Nice answers. I agree 100%.I too have many many friends and family members seving right now, they all are so very disquisted with our news reporting. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:34 PM:

" Herbie, No i don't think that killing is the total answer BUT, this is war. HE who has the biggest gun should win. War is about forcing your will on the enemy. They took us seriously when we were flexing our muscles. if you are gonna be in a war, play way like it is the real deal, not a tea party. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:00 PM:

" To CW4..thank you for your fine answer and I now understand more than I did. I do not take back my assertion that our country was lied to by our president and his cronies. That is totally inexcusable for a Commander in Chief..He promised to uphold our constitution and I do not think I am wrong in thinking he also promised to honor the office of the presidency. You don't honor it by lying. Americans need to stand up and demand their representative, both parties, be held accountable to the truth, not half-truths or pretty coating..but the truth. I have another question for you CW4...would it have been better when we went into Iraq and got things going and Saddam was neutralized and then captured, to have brought in a peace keeping force from Britain? They are well trained especially in peace keeping. Could that have made a difference and...could it make a difference now if we do send more troops in? What would it take to learn from our mistakes immediately rather than 30 years later like vietnam? You are right, we do not hear enough of the good stuff and hopefully that will change. Maybe tonight's state of the union address with have some good answers for us. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 4:34 PM:

" fred- shortly after 911 we were going after the people that did 911. We were going into Afghanistan. We didn't get the people that did 911, but quickly moved onto Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 911. ps I don't think Mr Pomeroy is a socialist. "

fred wrote on Jan 23, 2007 4:21 PM:

" earl, i remember shortly after 911 you appeared on the tvnews, with your angry face on and stated "by god, we are going to get the people that did this to us! well you and rest of the socalists and your major media buddies have made sure that you have under mined the effots to kill all those terrorists. now you sit back in your comfortable office and play quarterback using 20 20 hindsight. what a joke. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 3:18 PM:

" We will see how the Scooter Libby trial pans out. Even the opening statements have been interesting. In fact the trial might shed light on how the politics in the white house influenced the use of the intelligence. Like, I said, it will be interesting to see where it goes. Going into Afghanistan had a lot of support becuase that it where the people that did 9.11.01 were. Going into Iraq did not have the support, and it was through political manipulation (convincing people that SH was involved with 9.11 and would make a mushroom cloud in your childrens' diapers) that we ended up invading a country even though no other major powers (except Britian) agreed with us. They thought that waiting was a better course, and it turns out that they were right since there were indeed no WMD found. From Mr. Pomeroy's letter it sounds like the administration made presentations to congressmen/women convincing them of the way that they saw the intel. They sent C Powell into hearings with that goofy computer animation of the mobile bio-weapons lab that turned out to not actually exist. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Jan 23, 2007 3:08 PM:

" Hi Stepper. Great question! That's the one concern we all have. I think there are several reasons that progress is so slow. The first reason is poor planning by politicians and top military leaders. During my 20 years of military service I came to realize that the success of any mission is the result of detailed planning and preparation. We didn't go in with the "shock and awe" that we advertised so boldly before the war. We did more of a surgical strike on key locations and followed it up with far too few troops. We also failed to predict the level of resistance by terrorists. We failed to consider what steps might need to be taken to bring the religious factions together as one government following the invasion. The problem is that we think like Americans; not like terrorists or Muslims. We can't think like them. Our cultures and ideologies are centuries apart. Another problem stems again from the fact that we think like Americans. We have fast food, instant credit, instant coffee, microwave meals, etc. Since we didn't oust Saddam, put a stable government in place, stabilize the Iraqi economy, and pull all the troops out within the first year, people get impatient and want it fixed now. We tend to look for quick solutions, like pulling all the troops out right now, without considering long-term effects. We just see the short term benefits. I think President Bush and his administration are some of the worst communicators in the history of this country. They still don't advertise the progress we are making on a daily basis nor do they offer any definitive plan for success. I don't believe in a timeline for pull outs, but I do believe in establishing benchmarks on a proposed timeline that should remain somewhat flexible. Troops should be pulled out based on specific goals accomplished at each benchmark. Adjust the timeline as required, but make it happen. I also think the media is to blame for their biased reporting. Most news broadcasts seem to lean to the left with Fox News leaning right. I keep in touch with some friends who are serving or have served in Iraq and they are so upset that the media never shows when schools or shops are reopened, or when Iraqis come out to greet them and thank them, or when power stations or water stations are made operational, or places where Iraqis can walk down the street with some cetainty that they won't be shot or taken into custody under false charges. Maybe there is more bad news than there is good news, but we will never know, because the media will always give us body counts after a bombing while ignoring shcool children who are able to walk to school every day. The media will always talk about how hard it is to get recruits now, but they won't show my best friend who just rejoined so he could do his part. He's 53 yo. Hi daughter just finished the Naval academy and Naval flight school so she could do her part, and his son is on a Special Forces A Team back from Afgahnistan waiting to go to Iraq to do his part. You won't see NBC showing the young soldier who blasted John Murtha in a public question an answer session on C-Span for saying the soldiers' morale was low. I can give many more examples. Probably the last issue that has slowed us down in Iraq is the lack of support from the world community. If our allies would have put boots on the ground from day one to total 600,000 troops on our side, I think stability would come much sooner. I think war against terrorism will last for generations. Iraq is just one front on that war, and I don't think we can afford to retreat. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Jan 23, 2007 2:21 PM:

" Hi Herbie. I'm not aware of anyone in this administration who has been charged with revealing Valerie Plame's name. Scooter Libby is charged with making false statements to the FBI and Grand Jury. These statements were construed as obstruction of justice for which he is also charged, but their have been no charges related to the original purpose of the investigation. As far as your assessment of how this administration KNEW about nuclear WMDs, I think you may be minimizing our reliance on intelligence. I was on a Special Forces A Team during the Vietnam Era and worked with the CIA. They are not perfect by any standard, but they are normally pretty reliable. But other world intel agencies supported this belief. Lastly, if it was so obvious that there were no WMDs or Saddam was making no effort to acquire them, why did so many Democrats who despise President Bush make statements confirming the presence of WMDs and vote to go to war? If they did it without examining the evidence and relied only on the President's word, then they share the blame. If they saw the same evidence as the President and still believed there were WMDs, then they must have lied just like President Bush did. If you search the net you can find quotes by Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Tom Daschle and others who believed there were WMDs and who voted for the war. Others who believed this were in Bill Clinton's administration. Besides himself, Sandy Berger and others were certain Saddam had WMD capability and may use it. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 23, 2007 12:35 PM:

" To CW4..would you please give your analysis of why it is taking so long to get the deal done in Iraq? Three years is a long time and not much to show for it. Thanks. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 12:06 PM:

" The administration sold the public on the fact that they KNEW based on the intel that they had, that Iraq POSSESSED weapons of Mass Destruction. The intel that they chose to weigh as better was not conclusive nor accurate. Remember they went public with the nuclear stuff...mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes and the uranium from africa. Mr. Bush went with the yellowcake in a State of the Union Address. Donald Rumsfeld KNEW exactly where the wmd were. (In Tikrit and north south east and west of there.) That was totally not the case. It is obvious that Saddam had wmd at one point, the monster deployed them on civilians. But that is not why we invaded Iraq, we went because Iraq was supposedly an imminent threat to US security. Also not true. "

lw wrote on Jan 23, 2007 10:59 AM:

" To CW4RETIRED - Thank you, thank you, thank you! Keep posting - I'll just sit back and read - and learn a few things too. It's good to hear from someone who has been there - thank you for that too. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Well, if the administration didn't do anything wrong with the handling of "Mrs. Wilson" Scooter libby is on trial for what? Also, I think that if someone referred to my wife whether by her name, or as "Mrs. zimplecks II" we would know who they were referring to. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 23, 2007 8:06 AM:

" Jim S: Do you really think it is just a matter of us killing enough and the right people and then we will win the "war of terror?" "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Jan 23, 2007 7:15 AM:

" Thanks Herbie and Stepper for your respectful counterpoints. You are partially right about the INR. The INR agreed that Iraq was pursuing nuclear capability, but not to the extent other intel agengies suspected. But nuclear capabilities are only one type of WMD. The INR did not dispute the suspected existence of chemical or biological weapons. You mentioned "the administration's" efforts to out Valerie Plame. The facts revealed by the investigation was that Richard Armitage told Novak about Plame. By his own admision quoted by CBS News, he did not use her name, but may have called her Mrs. Wilson. Unless I'm mistaken, the law states that no one will knowingly identify a covert agent who is involved in covert operations that the government is trying to conceal. Valerie Plame was an Ex-CIA covert operative at the time her name was supposedly leaked. Thanks Jim S and Clarification for your suporting comments. I'm pretty big on evaluating the facts and vote for candidates instead of blind loyalty to any party. I agree with you that there are tons of emotional outbursts on these blogs, but few facts. References tend to come in the form of "everybody knows" or "it's a well known fact", but most just spout opinions as accepted facts without any supporting evidence. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 22, 2007 11:25 PM:

" Stepper, what are we still doing there? That is a really good question. I know we have had this discussion about this but I will say it again for those just tuning in. I don't like this war and I too was all for it when it started. I am against just uprootin and leaving. The biggest mistake that I feel Bush is making IS, not by being there, but what we ARE doing while we are there. I say the majority of the troops want to stay, we stay and finish it. What gets me is that I personally don't see what is being accomplished over there. Of course we are not BEING reported all that goes on. If we did, we would see our troops swarmed by Iraqis for their attention. I have faith that we are going to treat this like the war it is and show the muscle we have. Shock and aww if you will. If it were me running this baby, I would be attacking from the air and then send in the ground troops, just like we did when this started. Seems to me we had our best success and less deaths while we were in full combat mode as oppossed to peace keeping mode. In short I would say, "GIT-R-DONE." If we would pull all the reporters and cameras out of there, I think we would be better off. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 22, 2007 5:18 PM:

" CW4..good post and lots of good information and good perspective. I liked your post even if I don't quite go along with all of it, it is still a good one. The part I do not go along with is that I know the WMDs were taken out of Iraq before the war and have stated that in previous blogs. Gosh, that was evident all over the news clips including the rough handling by the Iraqi against the UN investigators. If the WMDs were no longer in Iraq how could they have been causing a major doomsday for the US? No one aspoused that Saddam should be trusted (athough he was our golden boy against Iran). He was a horrible person and he is rightfully dead. If as you say, we are doing the right thing over there, what is taking so long? "

Jim S wrote on Jan 22, 2007 3:07 PM:

" Hey observer, don't forget about the weatherman. Other than never having to worry about losing his job because he is always wrong about the weather, but he can only win about 1/2 the time. To CW4retired, Ty for your service to our country. I am glad one of our troops responded on here to help shead some light on what a lot of our troops think. Like I said before, most of our troops do beleive in what they are doing and do beleive that we are doing the right thing and need to finish this. This post is the best one posted on any of these blogs. Thanks again CW4! "

Observer wrote on Jan 22, 2007 12:32 PM:

" I'll give you two facts. 1)There are two jobs in this world that are darned if you do, darned if you don't- The President and referee. No matter what you say or do, half the crowd is always mad! 2)Mr Pomeroy voted for this war-that is a fact. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 22, 2007 12:13 PM:

" FYI...to clear up the Ollie North and Osama thing. Here is a web site that should help. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp. Check out the time line, 1987. Some were claiming Ollie warned about Osama and that Bill Clinton or Al Gore laughed about it, there were not even in on that trial. For those who do not know, Snopes debunks myths and urban legends and stuff that we all get in our Emails every day which turn out to be downright wrong or misquoted..etc. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 22, 2007 11:15 AM:

" To LW...so go already. You only retaliate because not eveyone agrees with you. If I am shooting off my mouth so are you. You are portraying yourself as a kid pitching a fit cuz he/she did not get their own way. People are voicing their opinions on these blogs..no one is forcing you to comment. How can one "hide" behind freedom of speech...when you freely speak your comments are you "hiding" as well? If you were riding a horse in a race and it dropped dead under you, I bet you would continue to beat it to keep going..same is what Bush is doing. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 22, 2007 11:01 AM:

" to CW4RETIRED the website you sited, http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html INCLUDED some reports (alternate views from intelligence agencies)that cast serious doubts on the intelligence that said that saddam was moments away from armagedon. Turns out that the alternate view was much more accurate and true to the facts on the ground. The administration went to great lengths to suppress the alternate view. Including outing a CIA person Valerie P? who was married to someone who went to Africa to investigate the claims of the sale of uranium to saddam (the claims turned out to be false). Again, not saying that SH was a swell guy, but going to Iraq when we did was a distraction from our legitimate operation in Afghanistan to get Osama, who was responsible for the attacks on 9.11.01 "

Clarification wrote on Jan 22, 2007 10:39 AM:

" To:CW4Retired Thank you for your factual assessment. Thank you for serving in the military. There really aren't very many actual facts on any of these blogs, just a lot of emotion. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:43 AM:

" I am not satisfied with all aspects of how the war in Iraq is going, but I do believe it is a necessary conflict that must be won. Many opposed to the war are so emotional that they will never accept the facts that justify this war. Instead, they resort to calling President Bush a liar. They label supporters as idiots, neocons, bushcos, wingnuts, etc. but they offer no real facts to support their claims. Even Mr. Pomeroy uses a veiled approach to blame President Bush by saying he voted for the war "because the information he (Bush) provided led to the conclusion that Iraq was an imminent threat to our nation’s security." Well, here are some facts that critics always ignore. 1. There were WMDs during and immediately following Desert Storm. I know because I was there. 2. UN weapons inspectors confirmed the existence of WMDs following Desert Storm (source UN website) 3. Saddam's soldiers physically man-handled UN inspectors and moved them off inspection sights as they saw truck loads of material being hauled away (source: UN Website) 4. There was no oversight for destruction of WMDs or discontinuing pursuit of WMDs from 1998 to 2003 (source UN website) 5. The National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 stated with "high confidence" that "Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles, and Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material." This estimate is composed by the CIA and includes input from the DIA, NSA, NRO, NGIA, and others. (source: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html) 6. Saddam violated at least a dozen UN resolutions following Destert Storm. Any one of those violations gave us the justification to go in and take him out, regardless of WMDs. (source: UN website) In spite of these and other facts, the far left will still insist that "Bush lied". They will say there were no WMDs. They will never consider that Saddam moved them to Syria just prior to the war, even though he was a master of deceipt, ruled with terror and executed anyone suspected of challenging him. The far left will ignore all the facts and insist I should believe Saddam destroyed the WMDs following Desert Storm out of the goodness of his heart. They want me to trust Saddam before trusting normally reliable intelligence agencies and my own government. President Bush did not make this decision alone. Congress was given the same intel. If anyone can dispute any of the facts I presented here, please give specifics with reliable references. Politicians will usually provide general criticism without any specific solutions to gain support from those who share their views. This is what Mr. Pomeroy has done. "

lw wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:36 AM:

" To Stepper - what you call free speech is what I call "shootin' off at the mouth". And don't duck behind your freedom of speech unless your willing to give everyone else the same right. If you have chosen to be a liberal puppet, that's your deal. But to take a situation (the war) and pluck out what information you deem useful to promote the views of your own political party doesn't automatically make you a person with a good point. And to throw in information that you have pulled out of your "you know what", doesn't make it fact. It just makes you part of the problem. These comment boards are pointless. They are a waste of time unless people are willing to see things from another's perspective but the Bush-haters will have none of it. The possibility of getting the Bush haters to even respect the opinions of those that aren't is completely non-existent. That's why I wanted to step out - I spent too much time on here already and it's a WASTE OF TIME! "

Beesh wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:31 AM:

" to Beesch (This is not me, it is some huckster using a variation of my name), You are a HYPOCRITE! You slap Haliburton around for corruption yet you admit, "I own stock in Haliburton, and I can tell you it was one of my best performers last year."!! If you hate Haliburton, SELL YOUR STOCK. You are just riding the wave for your own profit. YOU ARE A LEECH on the body of capitalism. "

Beesh wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:26 AM:

" To Ezra Gaseech wrote on January 20, 2007 10:31 AM:"It is wonderful that we are represented by someone who is willing to admit mistakes and take a president to task who will not admit mistakes." Ezra, you need to get out more. The escalation comes after George Bush admitted his plan wasn't working. I have one question. What is Pomeroy or the other nay-sayers plan? They have none. What LEADERSHIP!!! "

dante wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:22 AM:

" again, i ask, was there ever a plan to begin with? other than swift victory, and outpouring of peace, love, and gratitude from the "liberated " iraqis thereafter? is than meaningful enough? "

dante wrote on Jan 22, 2007 8:05 AM:

" barney, old friend, how have you been? find a girlfriend yet? i dont hate the president, i just think hes stupid, greedy, and lies a lot, other than that.... "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Jan 22, 2007 7:52 AM:

" As a retired veteran who served on a Special Forces A Team during the Vietnam era and as a combat helicopter pilot during Desert Storm, I have a couple of comments. Your solution is to "focus our efforts on getting the warring sides to find a political solution", but you give no details on how to do it. If you will recall, the Iraqis have had free elections, put a government in place and are working toward a political solution. I do agree that a surge alone is not the solution. We need to employ them effectively, but our military is still an essential part of that solution. This conflict will not be resolved with either military efforts or political efforts. It will take both. If we pull out now, "the day of reconing" you speak of will come, with Iran and Syria determining the outcome. It is a very short-sighted solution with potentially devastating long-term results. If we pull our soldiers back now I am convinced 9/11 will look like a firecracker compared to the punch terrorists will deliver in the US next. "

barney wrote on Jan 21, 2007 10:50 PM:

" Stepper - was in Junion high when Nixon was in office. dante - whatever is said you will disagree with because of your hatred and venom for the President - nothing will ever satisfy you when it comes to Pres Bush - you have made that perfectly clear. Perhaps if you would show you would be open to meaningful dialogue you could get something out of these posts. "

dante wrote on Jan 21, 2007 7:37 PM:

" was there ever a plan to begin with? other than swift victory. still waiting on that. "

Clarification wrote on Jan 21, 2007 7:37 PM:

" To Herbie: Thank you for your explanation. "

Clarification wrote on Jan 21, 2007 6:29 PM:

" In fact, I would like to ask Mr. Pomeroy, are you 100% absolutely positive with proof there were NEVER any WMD'S in Iraq ever??? "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 21, 2007 6:17 PM:

" to Clar: yeah it is obvious he had and used chemical weapons. He was "our guy" when he did. It was related to the Iraq-Iran war. The Kurds, with Iranian help, staged an uprising, and it was suppressed in a disgusting way. Like I said, I don't pose that Saddam was a swell guy. But, we did not go into Iraq to avenge the deaths of Kurdish people or to punish saddam for using wmd on the Kurds. We went because the administration convinced enough people that Iraq was involved with 9.11 (not true) POSSESSED wmd (not true). Remember Donald Rumsfeld knew right where the wmd were...."in the area of Tikrit and north , south, east, and west or there." Iraq supposedely represented a clear and present danger to our security (not true then, their military was crap for the most part). "

Clarification wrote on Jan 21, 2007 5:37 PM:

" To Herbie: Thank you. You see, I am a fence rider- If he at one time possessed WMD'S could he have possibly trucked them out before we got there? Just asking if there is 100% proof they never had them. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 21, 2007 5:23 PM:

" further to clarification: actually, since you asked for help, saddam was not tried for gassing the Kurds. The trial that ended with his hanging was because of the killing of 140 or so people because of an assasination attempt on his life. No gas was used for that one. I do not traffic in conspiracy theories generally but I have heard some propose that he was rushed to the gallows in order to not have all of the information about the gassing of the Kurds come to light... "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 21, 2007 4:43 PM:

" to clarification: you are right, sadamm gassed the Kurds. However, we did not go into Iraq to avenge the death of the Kurds. We went into Iraq because Iraq was supposedly a clear and PRESENT danger to the US' security. Remember, the US armed sadamm for quite awhile during the Iraq-Iran war. I am not defending sadamm's career in any way. Although, he was at one point a US ally who we provided arms to. Maybe he was a "good guy" then? "

Clarification wrote on Jan 21, 2007 3:38 PM:

" To:herbie zimplecks II I don't remember the name of the people- help me, was it the "Kurds" that Saddam attacked and didn't he use WMD'S? Some kind of Chemical??? In fact, isn't that why he's dead now?? "

Stepper wrote on Jan 21, 2007 2:01 PM:

" To Barney...good answer. I had not thought of the idea of the costly selling of products to the military might be a cover up to fund some intelligent covert operation. Interesting thought. Your plan is not far off from the one I offered. I think it is time to tell Iraq either/or and if they do not meet the conditions, then we need to leave there and not risk any more American lives on a country that will not help itself. As for Team ND, I think they do a pretty good job but I think term limits would be good too. There are good people on both sides of the aisle in ND and fresh ideas and approaches are healthy for everyone. Just out of idle curiosity Barney, what was your take on Nixon? Did you support him after Watergate came out? (I voted for him and Bush Sr). Do not infer I am drawing a parallel with him and Bush, just curious of what you thought of that. You don't have to answer as it is not an issue to the subject of this forum. I still feel Bush lied to us and congress and he is still covering up (along with his pals cheney, etc). I would think him a better man and president if he would own up to it. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 21, 2007 1:40 PM:

" To LW..disagreeing with tired old rhetoric of a political party that has no conscious is not being an idiot, it it called free speech. That is the beauty of this country...the right to disagree. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 21, 2007 11:43 AM:

" I think the 98-2 vote back then and where we are now is a reflection on where the country was then and where it is now. As Mr Pomeroy said in his letter, his support came as a result of sitting across from the President and being assured that Iraq possessed WMD. The administration managed the intelligence in such a way as to exagerate and mislead. I remember the computer generated cartoons that they sent Colin Powell into hearings with to convince congress that Iraq had mobile weapons labs. They were ridiculous, and looked like something out of the Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote cartoons. Back then, the administration had the country's and congress' support because of the attacks on 9.11.01. Going to AFGHANISTAN had overwhelming national and international support. Going to IRAQ did not. There was alot of dissent about going there, and many democratic senators risked the anger of their base by voting for it EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE. See back then, the administration used the capitol that it acquired on 9.11, and spent it by convincing congress that Iraq was a clear and present danger. That capitol is all gone now. The facts didn't back up the administration's claims. "

Barney wrote on Jan 21, 2007 10:46 AM:

" My comment on Pelosi should have been for the minimum wage, not Soc. Sec. My comment for Sadr should say once and for all - during my editing to cut it down to the 350 limit, I erased some words by mistake. "

Jim S wrote on Jan 21, 2007 10:38 AM:

" The reason why we republicans ask for a plan or an answer on this situation is because they are the ones screaming the loudest. If you are a bird and you chirp the loudest with your mouth wide open, you just might be the first to get the worm. Well said Barney. "

lw wrote on Jan 21, 2007 10:10 AM:

" A wise person said "Don't waste your time arguing with idiots. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Couldn't resist. "

Barney wrote on Jan 21, 2007 9:54 AM:

" Stepper - I don't think a 98-2 vote in the Senate makes this a Republican war. Granted they may have controlled Congress but there were plenty Dems on their side. My plan would be for Pres Bush to tell the Iraq govt to go after everyone one including Sadr militias and if the dont we will clean up the mess once. Im not sure if more troops are the answer but will defer to the President who has more reports on this than I do but I know this cant be forever. But one thing I dont do is go and criticize the president w/o a plan (like Team ND does). People seem to forget the long drawn out battle we in the US had for our freedom and it didnt happen overnight heck almost 90 years after freedom we were still fighting (i.e. the Civil War) but with the media now 24/7 people want things wrapped up as quickly as they are on TV shows or in movie halls it just doesnt happen that fast. As for the $45 case of Coke, that is an extreme example, remember the $1000 toilet seats when the Dems were in control in the early 1980s. I think those are covers for secret CIA missions where the money cant be allocated directly to a secret project so they cover it up in these types of operations not saying its right but people seem to forget this has been going on for many many many years and neither party is willing to do anything about it. At this point in my career, I dont have the ability to run for Congress but that wont stop me from speaking out. I have criticized Team ND on things such as tax cuts, soc. sec. reform, etc but have always offered suggestions or things I would like to see done - that is the difference - Team ND are called and told to criticize w/o offering alternatives. Deb - Will Pomeroy be in ND on Tuesday? If so, so much for the Dem promise of a 5 day work week - what a bunch of hypocritical liars we have running Congress. First Queen Pelosi exempts 2 companies from her district from Soc. Sec which she later had to rescind and lo and behold no criticism from CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS or even Deb. Then the first day of the 5 day week, they are out of session to go to a football game - granted the request came from a Republican but the Dems control and could have said no. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 20, 2007 10:56 PM:

" Barney, please refer to Beesh's comment to me about the exploitations of Haliburton and others. I gave my idea of a plan in my first post. What is the democrats plan? No idea..I ain't one and I would say they don't have any plan either any more than Pomeroy. It is hard to make a plan out of nonsense. What is your plan? Bush does not even have a plan. Robert Gates was asked at a senate hearing the day after the Bush's last speech, what is the plan if the "surge" does not work and his answer is chilling...he said, "Then we will have to re-think our strategy." They are playing it by ear...now your turn, why don't you run for office as one of our reps, if possible? Seriously, you seem to be well informed and very knowledgable, maybe give it some thought? One thing I have noticed, republicans keep asking for plans from democrats or liberals but seem to forget it was a republican controlled congress which started the war along with the republican president and now that things are hopelessly messed up, they want democrats or liberals to have the answers and bail them out. Sad. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 20, 2007 8:51 PM:

" Actually there are MANY varied solutions that various democrats have proposed. Since we have already tried the surge idea several times before, why should it be taken with anything more than another regurgitaion of that same old same old? The difference THIS time is that the Iraq government is supposed to not act in a sectarian manner. How about implementing the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group's report where we involve the regional powers in talks to solve the regional problems. The republicans don't have any more a plan than the democrats do. I am not sure why that has become such an insistent claim from the right. "

Barney wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:57 PM:

" Stepper - what do you mean by explotations? Specific instead of generalities would be nice. You also dind't answer my question about what is Pomeroy's plan?? Or for that matter - what is the Democrats plan? "

Stepper wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:04 PM:

" Poor LW...picks up his/her toys and goes home. Us mean ol' anti-war horrible monsters won't buy his flimsy explanations and statements. I think you should contact the pres and tell him "they won't let me play in any reindeer games" and maybe he will pat you on the poo-poo and make it all better. What a wimp. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:01 PM:

" To Barney...no I did not say for you to shut up..I would not do that...you have every right to speak your mind. I was pointing out that as much you think it is awful to bash Bush, you do the same to our reps from ND. Why don't you run for their office? You seem to know a lot about everything and a fresh approach from you might be good for a change. I would like your answer that I misdirected at Beesh (who did not answer it btw) and that is this, can you explain why the exploitation that Haliburton and other companies are doing in Iraq is okay? Only Bush approved companies could get contracts for Iraq? What is that about? I am sure you will explain it to me...seriously I wish to know. "

Iran Syria Next wrote on Jan 20, 2007 6:43 PM:

" Deb is correct. The Bush admin has now given approval of the oil contracts last week giving 70% of the profits to US oil companies for 30 years. When construction is finished US will grab 20% of oil revenues. Worst Oil contract (for Iraq) laregest Oil companies in in world's history. history according to experts! The army declared the war lost in March 2005 and stated we should have the troops home by December 2005. 89% of Iraq think US soildiers deserve to be killed. "

Rumadumadingdong wrote on Jan 20, 2007 6:16 PM:

" To do well our country should be following Dubya off a cliff? If you recognize a mistake apparrently you should not admit it, if you want the country to do well. It is now anti American to admit you were wrong. It seems old Dubya admitted he was WRONG when he told old Rummy to hit the trail. Was George anti American when he would not follow Rummy until the bitter end? "

Barney wrote on Jan 20, 2007 6:10 PM:

" Stepper - so you are saying I can't criticize our do nothing but only say hateful things about the Pres Congressional Delegation. Because I dont' agree w/ them I am suppose to stay quiet - OK I'll give you that - they were elected so I will shut up about them when everyone who disagrees with President Bush who was also elected shuts up - you want me to give Team ND a pass for criticism w/o a plan but you and the Dems don't give the President a pass - why are Dems the only ones who can't be criticized in your mind? What plan does Pomeroy offer in this letter???? I don't like Pomeroy, Conrad or Dorgan and will continue to criticize them until they either die in office or leave. "

Hemroid for the factoid wrote on Jan 20, 2007 5:35 PM:

" IW reminds me of my neighbor, facts are only the things that you agree with. If something is contrary to your belief it is manufactured by the liberal media. If it is on Fox, it is a fact, if it is on NBC, or CNN the whole thing is fabricated. In the conservative world things are very simple, find some such as Rush Limbaugh, that agress with you and worship at his feet. No need to go any farther. Never check the "facts" against reality. In IW case, if you don't like the facts take your ball and go home. "

Smedley Butler wrote on Jan 20, 2007 5:22 PM:

" Deb, I agree with you. Everyone should view "Iraq for Sale" to get a better understanding of Bush's debacle. "

lw wrote on Jan 20, 2007 4:46 PM:

" To Iran Syria Next - Do you believe EVERYTHING you read???????? Man - the anti-American, anti-military, anti-anything-to-do-with-anyone-but-themselves liberals have got a lot of you eating right out of the palms of their hands. I'm going to say "so long" to you all - I can't take part in this stuff anymore. There's just too many people who can't see why it's a bad, bad, bad idea to give in to the terrorists. So long and tah-tah, cream puffs! It's been real. Good luck to the non-cream puffs. You have more hope in these other guys than I do. I have to go work on something where people actually WANT our country to do well. "

lw wrote on Jan 20, 2007 4:29 PM:

" To Deb - You are part of the problem - don't encourage people to go rent a DVD that was, without a doubt, put together by the defeatists who don't want us to win this war. Any idiot can put a DVD out - it doesn't make it accurate. "

lw wrote on Jan 20, 2007 4:26 PM:

" To Deb - I wasn't saying that he said it AFTER the war - he said it BEFORE the war - you didn't understand what I was saying and he DID say it. "

Iran Syria Next wrote on Jan 20, 2007 2:43 PM:

" I am very concerned about the planned Bush Iran Nuclear attacked. Seymour Hersh has been reporting in the New Yorker which he stated Pentagon is against and Nuclear scientists have stated our men would be exposed to harmful radiation exposure. Powell's assistant secretary stated that Iran had made two proposals to US in 2001 & 2003 with cooperating with US after it helped us in Afganistan and Bush admin. refused. There is no evidence of EID being supplied by Iran as proclaimed by State Dept., Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield. UK Observer stated Brits commanders have no evidence Iran is responsible and US commander Pace stated same thing. Arab news has printed articles that US is planing attacks before April 07 when Blair retires. Have sent 25 jets Turkey, 3 battleships, anti-ballistic missiles surrounding countries. There is no evidence Iran is building a bomb IAEI. It's time congress pass a resolution Bush cannot declare war without congress "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 20, 2007 2:33 PM:

" Actually there are many varied solutions that the democrats have proposed. Since we have already tried the surge idea several times before, why should it be taken with anything more than it being stay the course? The difference this time is that the Iraq government is supposed to not act in a sectarian manner. That is sad that that should actually be a difference after 4 years. How about implementing the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group's report where we involve the regional powers in talks to solve the regional problems. What we have done there has affected more than just Iraq. The ISG, which was run by extremely well respected statesmen from many different backgrounds, also recommended the redeployment of our troops out of combat. We should stop making this about the United States manliness, and instead about trying to solve the problems that are there now. We can't do it by killing everyone there. Everytime we kill or maim we create more who are willing to fight us. It really is not the way to show the world about freedom and democracy. "

Deb wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:39 PM:

" For everyone - pro-Bush and otherwise. A great movie is "Iraq For Sale" - if you can't rent it, you can buy a copy on the internet. It is based in fact supported by public record. You will have trouble sleeping the night you see it. It may help you see more clearly as to why this war's sole purpose is to line the pockets of the wartime profiteers, whom Bush calls his "base." "

Stepper wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:39 PM:

" My apologies to Beesh...it was Barney I was speaking to in my post and typed in the wrong name. Again, my sincerest applogies to Beesh. "

Deb wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

" lw- your information and interpretation of Colin Powell's quote is incorrect. He said that to Pres. W BEFORE any act of war was commited upon Iraq. His was a pre-emptive attempt to knock a little sense into the idiot who is at the top of the hill these days. And, notice how he used little words, so that Shrub could understand him. It didn't do any good and after Powell was cooerced into lying to the American people to garner support for this baseless war, he resigned. Again, BEFORE the war. And good for him. He knew the end to this hideous operation. And he didn't want the blood on his hands. I'd vote for him for pres any day. Stepper- you mean Barney, right? Not Beesh? Although, I'm sure if Beesh were on his soapbox today, he'd agree with Barney. Oh, and I agree with everything you said to Barney - I was going to write the same thing. So, thank you:) "

Beesch wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:29 PM:

" An explaination: Do you think you could make money selling Coke to the U.S. Army at 45$ a case? Do you think you could make money charging The U.S. Goverment $50 to do a bag of laundry that you pay an Iraqi six dollars to run in a washing machine? Do you think Haliburton has done quite well since the war in Iraq? I own stock in Haliburton, and I can tell you it was one of my best performers last year. If you recently watched Frontline on PBS (I am sure it is liberal propaganda, so it doesn't count) you would have found out how every contractor was asked a series of questions about their support of the Republican party before they were issued contracts in Iraq. I don't know what your definition of explotation is, but in my mind if a company is making excess profits because they have and exclusive contract in Iraq, which Haliburton does, that is exploitation. What else do they have to do to meet your definition. If you actually do your homework you will find out high ranking people were fired in the Pentagone for trying to force competitive bidding in Iraq. Also if you follow the news carefully you will find that the Israllies have developed a successful system to protect tanks from RPG's. Our military refuses to buy it and install it because Rayetheon wants to sell the Army a system in five years. Meanwhile Americans die. Do your homework, do some research. Did I answer your question? "

lw wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

" The average American has no way of knowing how things are going because we have to rely on the media and the politicians and that's like getting your information from the town gossip. Talk to a soldier - the opinions you get will be mixed but at least it hasn't gone through the media mill or become part of the politician sqare dance. Shut the TV off and talk to the active military. Too many Americans have become dependant upon the media and politicians to explain things and have forgotten how to think for themselves. Don't look to the Pomeroy's for information - they learned this dance a LONG time ago and have only gotten better at it. "

Stepper wrote on Jan 20, 2007 1:03 PM:

" Mr Pomeroy is correct when he says the Iraqi people will not stop the inbred fighting until they want to. They have no concept what a demoncracy is, they need to be educated in this, IF this is what they want. Evidently not as they have had 4 years to step up and stand on their own. What will more troops being sent over there do other than give them more targets? Their children are taught from toddler age to be terrorists, how are 20,000 troops going to fight that? How about Bush go to the Maliki and his people meets with their people and they negoiate some kind of settlement where Iraq takes over its own government.Bush could show his cahooneys (if he has any) and tell them..Look, either get your government in power and responsible by (fill in time frame) or we stop every type of support to you. Perhaps then some result will happen other that this stagnate exchange of weaponry. To Beesh..why don't you run for office so that you can show our current reps the light? All you do is bash and criticize. Most cowards want other people to fix their messes. They talk big and have these cute little slogans that stirs the flag wavers hearts but when it gets down to cases, they cower in the basement of the white house and with the look of a deer caught in headlights tell the people the job ain't getting done and he needs more lives to sacrifice so he can look good. This mess will continue until he is out of office so he won't have to take the responsiblity for it. He will leave it to the next unfortunate person who becomes president. Beesh, explain why Haliburton is exploiting our troops? You won't explain it but thought I would ask anyway. "

George wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

" Is Pomeroy French??? Let's run and hide instead of solving the problems that are ahead of us. Chicken Man! "

Jim S wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:28 PM:

" YES, Pomeroy, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? Everyone wants to know. Typical Dem responce, never any solutions. "

Chavez wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:22 PM:

" God bless you, Representative Pomeroy for your courage to stand against this additional insanity perpetrated by the Bush administration! Bring all of the troops home, now! The uprising in Iraq is tantamount to the Tet Offensive in 1968, and should tell us that we are in the midst of a civil war. Bad as Saddam was, his rule beats the hell out of the madness and destruction we are seeing every day now! "

Wardog wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:10 PM:

" Sending more troops will accomplish nothing unless they are allowed to treat this as a war intended to make Iraq submit to our will. Send the journalists and reporters out of the country, and start fighting this war. Our troops can and will win this war if the Generals and Politicians allow them to, instead of worrying about how the public perceives them. War isn't pretty, and if the public want's us to win, they should realize it needs to be all or nothing, or we will fall short of our goal. Take off the kid-gloves and put on the gauntlets! "

lw wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:07 PM:

" I don't know if the surge is going to work and neither do any of you, including Pomeroy or the 911 Commission. I highly doubt we're even getting the right information about what the surge all involves? Pomeroy's letter does say some things that make sense, but it's the same opinion coming from Bush and others. No one is saying that we don't need the Iraqi government to start pulling it's own weight. This isn't new news. Just because Pomeroy says it, doesn't mean Bush isn't say the same thing. Furthermore, if it does work, who's going to tell us about it? If it's going well, we'll hear about Lohan or Spears before any good news out of Iraq! That's why there are no options offered - because if the option offered doesn't work, the offerer will be pounded into the ground like our President is right now. Powell said, "you break it, you own it." Well, isn't that a noble stand to take! In other words, if it goes well, I'll sit with you, if it doesn't, I'll resign. Pomeroy and the rest of his bunch are no different. They are going to protect their political butts first and walk the line that puts them on both sides of the issue. That way, they can jump either way and claim to have been there the whole time. There is no way for people to discuss the war because we don't have access to the real picture - and taking Pomeroy's word for it is no different than watching the news, mainstream or not. "

Deb wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:00 PM:

" Great letter, Mr. Pomeroy! See you Tuesday! "

Broken Promises wrote on Jan 20, 2007 11:44 AM:

" Gaseech, you are right. Bush promised us he would pay for his little war with the oil under Iraq. What happened to that plan. The BBC recently did a story on corruption in the Iraqi Army. American soldiers fighting with the Iraq soldiers estimate that 30% of the soldiers being paid don't exist. The money is pocketed by the higher ranking personnel. Haliburton is charging the U.S. Goverment $50 to do one bag of laundry for our soldiers. Haliburton is also selling Coke to the U.S. Army for $45 a case. Remember Dick Cheney? Dick Cheney used to be president of Haliburton and walked off with 600 million in severance pay. If one were to do some research one would find out that not contracts were awarded for services in Iraq to any company that did not profess loyalty to the Bush regime. It goes on and on. Bush will not raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for this war. Bush will not force the other countries in the Middle East to help or anti up. Only one group has benifited from the blunders of our president, and you can be sure they will continue to pump vast sums into the Republican party. "

Ezra Gaseech wrote on Jan 20, 2007 10:31 AM:

" It is wonderful that we are represented by someone who is willing to admit mistakes and take a president to task who will not admit mistakes. George Bush has managed to take a situation where 3,000 people lost their live in the World Trade Center and parlay that into the loss of 3,000 additional Americans. This must bring great pleasure to the terrorist. By attacking a country that had nothing to do with the 911 situation George Bush has also done untold damage to our economy. The cost of the War in Iraq is estimated to go over two trillion dollars. Our children will be burdened with this fools mistakes for generations to come. Two trillion dollars would assure every American Social Security for 75 years. When a president sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured, then finds out later the person was innocent in the first place, we have a real problem. Thank God some people are willing to stand up against this idiot. "

Observer wrote on Jan 20, 2007 10:18 AM:

" Mr Pomeroy, Thank you for admitting you are part of the problem that started this mess- (VOTE), but you aren't saying anything- WHAT is the Democrats solution?????? WHAT is your PLAN!? "

irritated wrote on Jan 20, 2007 10:04 AM:

" I completely agree with what Pomeroy said this plan will not work. There has been a civil war going on over there for hundreds of years. We are losing troops left and right for what people that are not stepping up to take control of their own country. We are not responsible to every other country out there period. I support the troops but I DO NOT support the governments plan at this point at all. I have friends and family that are over there and they just want to come home because they do not see the end of the bloodshed anytime soon between these people. We cannot force our way of life onto others that would not be free now would it. Just starat bringing our troops home and let these other countries chips fall where they may. "

SE Forty wrote on Jan 20, 2007 9:23 AM:

" Mr. Pomeroy, Excellent letter. I would hope you would do your part to help solve this situation the president and his "filled with lies" administration have gotten us into. I would like to see the president Impeached for his Lies which have caused the needless deaths of over three thousand Heroic young americans. We live in the Greatest country in the world and in order to keep it that way we need to hold politicians accountable for their LIES. "

Barney wrote on Jan 20, 2007 8:49 AM:

" And Mr. Pomeroy just what is your plan? You criticize, criticize and criticize but offer no alternatives - you are a sad excuse for a leader because you can't come up with solutions. I am ashamed to have you represent ND. Its time for people who offer no plans of anything (not just the war in Iraq) to step up and become true leaders or leave. I'm sure to hear some response from critics - but ask yourself before you criticize what solutions Mr. Pomeroy has put forth and how to make those solutions successful - he offers nothing and I'm embarassed that the people of ND keep sending this poor pathetic excuse for a leader back to DC. "

superpower? wrote on Jan 20, 2007 8:38 AM:

" I guess the thing to do is bringem home and send a message that we are cowards. Some much for being a super power. Don't you think that if we send more troops there, we show that we are done messing asround and that we intend to put a quick stop to this? We never had enuff troops to begin with, the liberals wanted more troops but Bush said no and now Bush is finally going with was the Dems said and now the dems don't support this. Who's side r u dems on? "

dante wrote on Jan 20, 2007 8:28 AM:

" in the meantime, bush may want to make himself usefull at last, in this venture. if he can actually pilot a plane, he could fly caskets and embalming items into iraq. "

Smedley Butler wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:53 AM:

" I agree with Mr. Pomeroy on this issue. Now let's see if Congress will stop this escalation. "

herbie zimplecks II wrote on Jan 20, 2007 7:26 AM:

" Thank you Mr. Pomeroy. I agree 100%. "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

North Dakota News

Bismarck News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY