Friday, May 05, 2006

It's the Oil Stupid

I saw this article in today's Hartford Courant.

Democrats view the high price of oil as the elusive political gold the party has sought all year.

"This issue alone will determine the election this fall," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., explained why: "Oil is a metaphor for what's wrong with the people in charge. It's cronyism, it's incompetence."

Local Democrats are taking initiative .

For now, Democrats are eagerly oil-dependent. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., Thursday joined with colleagues to present a comprehensive package of reforms, including a requirement to cut in half by 2036 U.S. dependence on oil and to provide federal tax incentives for fuel efficiency. The plan, which has some GOP backing, is expected to be debated in the full Senate next week.

In the House, Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, is pushing legislation requiring oil firms to open their books to government investigators, and Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, has three bills to help consumers.

But most notably, Democrats plan to keep talking about how much they care about consumers. "People want to know you get it," Dodd said.

But Republicans are jumping on the oil bandwagon as well.

In Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, has called for Congress to immediately suspend the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax.

Schlesinger said he even would consider supporting a refinery in Connecticut, an unlikely development, if one were proposed.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has taken a different approach, calling on Exxon to return some profits to consumers.

The article doesn't say much about specific races for House seats which is where I see oil having the most impact locally. I'm not sure how much can be done about this at the state level and the Senate race seems more about ideals rather one specific issue. Even post-primary I can't see the Senate seat being decided on just one issue. But if you're running for the house oil is something you could win on, especially for Democrat challengers.


Lightman, David. Big Oil Could Be Big Issue. Hartford Courant 5/5/06


DeanFan84 said...

Dear Senator Lieberman--

Why did you vote FOR the Bush Energy bill?

Why did Dodd, Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Chafee-R, Corzine, Lautenburg, Biden, Carper, Leahy, Jeffords, Gregg-R, & Sununu all vote against it?

Based upon what did you depart from all those other Senators from our region?


Your Democratic constituents.

Mmmm Jodi Rell said...

Jodi Rell . . . shocked and saddened at gas prices.

BRubenstein said...


ctkeith said...

I'm sure the parents of Lance Cpl. Stephen Bixler are happy this is all Sen Dodd could come up with to talk about today.

Is there nothing the Ct Democratic insiders won't do to make sure Liebermans "just one issue" is knocked off the front burner?

cgg said...

CTKeith, my guess is that no one called Dodd to comment. Frankly even if they did I'm not sure that it would be appropriate today.

ctkeith said...


For Dodd to say Energy prices were THE issue in this Election was Stupid at best and Dodd ain't stupid.

This was a calculated statement to try and help Lieberman with his "It's only one issue Campaign".

The only thing we know with certainty about 06 is that none of our congressional delegations houses will get the visit from two guys in dress uniforms that are bound to happen to other families in Ct before November.

Sorry Senator Dodd but noones kid got killed today because gas was $3.00 a gallon and your attempt to help Lieberman by trying to make Gas prices the top issue of 06 is laughable.

MikeCT said...

Diane Farrell rallies round the gas pumps, while kissing the local reporters.

Agreed that calling this the major issue is wrong and calculated.

TrueBlueCT said...

Mike, good article. thanks.

The sad thing is that in the face of her Lieberman endorsement, everything out of Diane's mouth about Iraq and the Bush/Cheney energy policy rings hollow.

If Farrell is principled, and if these are the big issues of the day, how can she hug Lieberman?

Please Diane, please Adam Wood. Take two giant steps back from Bush's favorite Democrat.

Also, the rumor that the entire Westport Dem delegation is voting for Lieberman better be untrue. Is this about insider, power politics, or real issues that matter to real people?

Some of us are watching. Closely.

cgg said...

CTKeith, you'll have to call me stupid too then. I think oil is going to be a big deal this November, and yes I think it's importance will trump the war. The American public is past being upset about Iraq. They're burnt out on Iraq, and no Democrat is offering a good solution because at this point there just isn't one.

GMR said...

So what solutions are the Democrats going to offer at the federal level to bring down the price of gasoline? Or any energy?

Democrats, and many Republicans as well, seem to be against about every project to imrpove the energy infrastructure. Broadwater, which would be 11 miles offshore, is fiercely opposed. I'm not a technical engineer, so I don't really have an opinion on it, but it seems that the people against it don't really have any viable alternative either. Every refinery, nuclear plant, even windfarm (Nantucket) is opposed by someone.

The only thing that the serial opposers seem to offer is conservation without any sort of detailed plan on how to get there.

Look at Fairfield County. Even if people could conserve more, you've got some major construction projects coming on board. Royal Bank of Scotland will have the biggest trading floor in the world. Trump Tower will be a 37 floor building with about 180 condominiums.

The Republicans are for increasing supply. ANWR is sort of demonized by both sides: the Republicans more or less claim it'll stop energy dependence, when in reality it's about 6 months of oil. The Democrats seem to imply that this would destroy the pristine Alaskan wilderness, when in reality, it's a matter of acres.

It may be good politics to bitch about the high price of gasoline, but there's not really that much we can do about it. We can do a few things: 1) build more refineries or at least insist that there be fewer types of gasoline; 2) eliminate the tariff on ethanol, which is 57 cents a gallon. This would make our gas cheaper, but the midwest farmers and predominately Republican Senators from the midwest will have none of it; 3) build more nuclear plants, hydro plants and windfarms to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Well, at least the government should not discourage these from being built. All three of these power sources make sense (obviously, windfarms require wind and hydro requires running water).

You can improve the CAFE standards, but it takes years for the US auto fleet to turn over, and several studies have indicated that lighter weight cars cause more deaths on the highways...

ctkeith said...


7 more American Kids died today in Iraq.

If the people of this country are 'burned out" on Iraq how the hell do you think the troops doing their third tour in Fallujah or Ramadi are feeling.

Rummy has the US troops in Iraq hiding now and there still getting killed an an increased number.

The oil Co's and the Saudis will lower oil prices for the Republicans in Sept and Oct like they always do but the coffins coming home with our Kids is going to increase because our military is now broke

It wasn't a coincidence that Lieberman,Dodd ,Farrell and the rest were all talking about energy and oil prices when CT had it's 19th victim of the Bush/Lieberman war announced publicly it was part of their coordinated strategy of Hide the Dead and talk about anything but Joes "Just One Issue" problem.

I'm embarassed for all of them.

cgg said...

I'm not disputing the horrific death toll. I am however disputing the public's interest in the war, at least as far as the election is concerned.

MikeCT said...

Do you think Bush's favorability rating has been in such a long decline because of energy prices? Energy is a serious issue, but Joe and Dems like him are looking to that as a diversion from the war, since they can't articulate more than a tactical difference from Bush on Iraq (ie, the main argument of Kerry, Lieberman, et al has been that they would be more effective imperialists).

ctkeith said...

Mike gets it,

You don't even have to be as much of a cynic as me to see it.Even Hamlet,Sorry I mean Blummy took up the "look over here(energy) instead of over Here(war)" theme that Sean Smith tried to pull today for those "low information Voters" he's so fond of.

If you're willing to play along cgg, go right ahead but this Dem has learned to smell bullshit no matter which party is serving it up.

cgg said...

What Democrat running in '06 has a solution to the war in Iraq? That's the problem. There isn't one which is why the war makes for such a lousy campaign issue.

ctkeith said...

Murtha.It really is that simple.

Of course you're too young to remember that last helicopter leaving Vietnam but I'm not.

Genghis Conn said...

Let me go out on a limb, here.

Iraq is not Vietnam. There are superficial similarities, but the Vietnam generation's obsession with refighting both the military and cultural wars from that era are not helping us deal with the current problem.

We can't leave Iraq. We can't pull out. We just can't. If what was happening in Iraq was, as in Vietnam, a war of national independence from colonial powers, then withdrawal would make more sense. But it isn't. It's a sectarian/ethnic civil war--or it's fast becoming one.

The solution isn't fewer troops, it's more. The Iraqi Army is less than useless--they're torn by sectarian and ethnic division, too. Sunni troops won't serve in Shi'ite areas, and vice versa. Worse, their government is weak and lacks leadership. American troops are the only ones keeping the peace right now--we leave, the place explodes.

Let's try what worked in Bosnia and Kosovo, and start acting like peacekeepers. If we're lucky, the government will get it together. If it comes to it, let's take a page from the Dayton accords and negotiate a partition of Iraq into Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish areas.

But let's not leave, not yet. I don't think a stable and peaceful Iraq, which should be the onjective at this point, is a lost cause, and it's cowardly of us to run from the mess we made.

As stupid as it was for us to get involved in Iraq in the first place, we're there now, and we need to do our best to accomplish the mission. Whatever it is.

Senator Harry Reid said...

Dear Mr. CTKeith,

As someone who has been lauded here by you or your allies (I apologize for not having the time to keep up with things here as much as I would like), I must ask you to try to look beyond the difficult truth of our invasion of Iraq, and consider the situation as it stands.

While I wholeheartedly wish we could depart tomorrow, nobody here in Washington believes that we can simply walk away. You are, to paraphrase myself, alone, just really alone out there on this. Even Democrats don't agree with you.

Again, as a Democratic leader, I ask you to focus on what unites us a Party, not what divides us.

Every best wish for a relaxing evening,

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Leader

DeanFan84 said...

Cum-by-yah, oh Genghis, Cum-by-yah.

What you just wrote is so effing naive. Real politics, real divisions. You just threw them out the window in act of wishful, hopeful, truthy, BLIND, foolishness that will sadly be reckoned in the blood and sorrow of god knows how many more American families.

I'm too tired to make all the arguments. But why don't you Google up what the experts have said about the practicality of dividing up the country. (hint: it ain't practicable.)

And the fact that you still want to accomplish the "mission", but don't even know what the f-ck it is, speaks volumes.

P.S. The Crusades happened. As Americans we might be ignorant of history. Arabic peoples are not.

P.S.S. The Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds aren't going to live "Happy Together". A Sunni minority abused the heck out of a Shi'ite majority, and the Kurds, and it will take at least a generation for differences to be settled.

DeanFan84 said...

Can somone please boot the Lieberman troll, otherwise known as GoVOTE, who keeps posting illegitimately as Senator Harry Reid?

Genghis Conn said...

We need to be responsible for our actions, DeanFan. It doesn't matter if you agree with them: we did it, we need to deal with it. We can't leave.

And they also said Bosnia couldn't be divided. What we have there ain't great--but it works. There's been peace there for a decade.

Hopefully, it won't come to that. But we need to think of practical ways to deal with the situation. We need to start planning alternatives to a nasty, bloody civil war.

So let me get this straight: we can't divide the country, but the three main groups can't live together? Then what do you propose we do?

In the end, I say trying something beats trying nothing and complaining about it.

disgruntled_republican said...

I think Genghis hit the nail on the head...we need to try something. We need to try and make these sides come together first and if it doesnt work go to plan b.

I fully admit that I supported military action in the beginning. Now I am not so certain it was the right thing to do but we must stay the coarse. We cannot leave Iraq a mess and its people with nothing.

Someone mentioned Murtha...his plan is hollow...There is no way we can put a timeline on would speculative at best. We do need a plan for withdrawl but with no timeline on it.

As for those who still think Iraq is THE issue of this campaign (I don't, but don't think oil is either)...I am so thankful you aren't working on campaigns I want to see win...I dont want to get into a back and forth over it but we'll talk in November...see who's right then.

DeanFan84 said...

will you guys please Google Turks and Kurds? Thanks.

Then will you please Google Sunni and Shi'ites?

READ. Then get back to me.

Reality insists it is far more likely that the Israelis and Palestinians join together in Peace, than these fueding peoples settle their differences via western-imposed democracy.

Further, I'm going to suggest that our American troops shouldn't be used as policemen in a country whose language we don't speak. Send someone you know and love, OVER THERE, before you disagree with me.

At the heart of the problem is the corrupt Saudi regime. (who do you think is paying for the insurgency, the suiciders, and the bombs?) Yet we aren't addressing them. Instead, we participate in their game of deflection...

Frankly, if your gut is saying we are on the right track, your head is buried in the sand. Ex-Reagan NSA director Gen. William Odom said it best. Someone is laying on the ground, accidentally shot and bleeding to death. People can stand around the body talking about how awful it is. But the fundamental reality is that the guy is dying, nothing can be done, and the moral of the story is solely: BE CAREFUL BEFORE PULLING THE DAMN TRIGGER.

disgruntled_republican said...

and you are missing the point...

The TRIGGER HAS BEEN PULLED...there is no turning back and we must live with the consequences of our actions...leaving is not dealing with it.

Perhaps it is you that should pull your head out of the sand...or do you have an alternatve to DEALING WITH WHAT WE CREATED?

DeanFan84 said...

ADMIT OUR OWN HUBRIS. ACCEPT THE "HUMPTY-DUMPTY" CONSEQUENCES. (yeah, he's splattered all over the sidewalk. Amd all your king's horses, and all your king's men..)

The way to deal with that which the Neo-Con assholes created is to vote them out of office. Then, and only then might the world come together on behalf of the Iraqi people.

And to you who so blindly marched America off to this idiotic war, --get your sorry asses over there. Be at least as brave and resolute as our American men and women in uniform. But whoops, that's right. They all volunteered for this stupid, idiotic, unnecessary and potentially unwinnable, ELECTIVE WAR.

DISGRUNTLED-- Please tell us more about your envisioned happy ending. At $250 Million a day, America wants to here more.

disgruntled_republican said...


I know 4 people who have gone over there...I cannot serve in the military just for the record...I was set to go into the Navy out of high school but for reasons I will not discuss with you, I could not so don't try to pin non-service on me. i was willing to serve however i had to.

I did not "blindly march America off to this idiotic war" as I am not 1. President 2. a member of congress or 3. a General.

This is not a goddamned nursery rhyme, it is real life and real people lives, not some made up egg on the sidewalk...there is no comparison.

I don't have a happy ending bucko. Nor is it my job to come up with one. I am merely saying we have to try something and cutting and running is NOT IT said...

This looks mean, just remember:

Friends don't let friends drink and blog.

disgruntled_republican said...


MikeCT said...

We can't leave Iraq. We can't pull out. We just can't.

Sorry to say this, but this is essentially the same white supremacist argument that imperial powers have used for centuries. Europeans invade on a manufactured pretext or bald-faced imperial hubris, and then claim that our poor brown brothers are incapable of governing themselves and need our eternal occupation whether they want it or not. In case you hadn't noticed, the Iraqis don't want us there. The occupation is does not help.

We had no right to invade. We have no right to stay. The occupation is wrong. We need to leave, yesterday.

No, at a surface level, Southeast Asia is not Iraq is not Central America. But some things never change, particularly the arrogance of Westerners.

ctkeith said...

When we leave,and we will,the Sunni will again rule and, within a year, there will be no Alquiada or foreign fighters in Iraq,period,because it's just not good for buisness which the Sunni were always better at than the US army.


There ain't no way MORE SOLDIERS are going to Iraq.Show me one person in DC who's saying they're willing to spend MORE blood and money than the 400 million a day and 3 kids a day we're spending now.

stomv said...

The Democrats seem to imply that this would destroy the pristine Alaskan wilderness, when in reality, it's a matter of acres.

This is a common misunderstanding. My office at work has a desk, chair, two bookcases, table, and two other chairs. All of the furniture has legs -- that is, the bulk of the surface areas don't have corresponding bits that touch the floor.

So, by the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve measurement, my office furniture takes up 28 square inches of space. Each leg is about 1" x 1", and the only thing touching the ground are the legs of 7 pieces of furniture.

Of course, this is foolish. My furniture takes up more than 28 square inches of room in my office. Likewise, the idea that the ANWR installation takes up only a few acres is asinine.

bluecoat said...

The Broadwater LNG proposal is to serve the NYC market; it has nothing to do with supplying the CT or Long Island market.

There is no such military strategy as "cut and run" so I wish both sides would stop saying there is.

bluecoat said...

And I forgot to mention that CT's economic development policies - like RBS and Trump Tower noted above - are inconsistent with promoting a sustainable energy policy for CT. It is said that a dog will eat iself to death and that is CTY's approach once again articulated in its budget BTW. This is where I go back to policy wonk JDS who apears to fathom this stuff but has no idea how to articulate the answer.

And soon obno DA will chime in and tell me to go to Vermont.

turfgrrl said...

We can't leave Iraq the way it is. More importantly, we can't leave this current republican administration in charge of what needs to be a Marshall-plan in scope of rebuilding both Afghanistan and Iraq into sustainable independent economies.

The rhetoric from the anti-war people on this list is childish. This isn't Vietnam or Korea. There is no nation-state we are fighting. This is a devastated region that is largely the result of cold war politics vis a vis the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and our later meddling in the Sunni/Shi'ite conflict between Iraq and iran, and the later economic sanctions inflicted on Iraq.

This administration can't even mobilize federal resources to rebuild New Orleans. Eight months after the floods, there are still piles of rotting garbage, listing houses that are uninhabitable, and roads impassable. This administration, and the lackeys who enable this stratospheric level of incompetence has to be held accountable. And that is not going to happen if the democrats remain as the minority party in the house and senate.

TrueBlueCT said...

Don't call me childish. You are the naive one here.

"Marshall Plan" to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq??

You said it yourself, we can't even re-build New Orleans. Yet you insist on Utopian plans for the Mid-East!!!

It was Utopian thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Iraq is like a failed marriage, the sooner we get out, the better it will be for both sides. We just spent $1,000,000,000,000 to get rid of Saddam. Do we owe them anything more? Why not let the Iraqis re-build their own country? (with the help of the U.N.)

turfgrrl said...


Last I looked rhetoric was not a poster here, and you might want to look up the definition of rhetoric in a dictionary.

I said, this administration can't rebuild a country let alone new orleans. I have the utmost confidence, and historical precedents galore that a democratic administration can. But we can't get there, we can't get to a stable and thriving region, with this administration. And we won't get anywhere without doing everything humanely possible as Connecticut voters to get the house of representatives flipped to democratic control, and restore the oversight of congress. Subpoena power rests with the majority.

bluecoat said...

turffgrrrl: You said the rhetoric was childish not the people using it - and I agree.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...calling the rhetoric of us anti-war folks "childish" is dismissive,patronizing and one of the designatted chat topic leaders here we expect more than personal insults and attacks from you. GROW UP !!!

bluecoat said...

It is also ridiculous how DF takes a few comments from William Odom an then puts out a goofy policy as if it were Odom's also - it ain't.

TrueBlueCT said...

Your line of reasoning is just stupid. I guess your full argument is that a Democratic administration in Iraq would get done what the Bush administration can't? Pretty simplistic, and of course Bush will be in office for another 32 months, regardless.

And Bluecoat--
What goofy policy are you talking about? Odom did say what I quoted. The milk has been spilt. What he did suggest was that it was time to start negotiating with Iran... and that NATO would have to step in if we started stepping out.

GMR said...

If RBS and Trump Tower are against the policy of making Connecticut energy dependent, do you propose that there exist a moratorium on development?

If you do, then it would be intellectually dishonest to be against a two child policy (i.e., forbid people from having three or more children) and of course you would also have to be against all immigration. Because a growing population has to work somewhere and it has to live somewhere. The Trump Tower condominiums will of course be expensive, but they will also be located in downtown Stamford near jobs and public transportation to NYC. And the tower will only occupy a half acre or so of land.

I don't understand how the anti-sprawl people can be against Trump Tower. If you don't build out, you've got to build up. Because we have a growing population, and we need to house the new people. And RBS wlll provide jobs.

Of course, I don't like that these entities are getting tax breaks to build: I think that's totally unfair. But I'm not against the buildings being built simply because I want to maintain the status quo.

turfgrrl said...


Yes, of course my larger argument is that the Bush administration is incompetent and incapable for rebuilding Iraq, or even sustaining any reasonable foreign policy. This is an administration that rather rattle sabres then engage in diplomacy (Iran, Venezuela).

As long as our economy and thus our national security depends on oil, we have a strategic interest in what transpires in the middle east. The fact that we've blundered into the occupation of Iraq on false pretenses doesn't negate our obligation to the world, and to the Iraqi's whose country we've turned into a quagmire of theocratic insurgency.

Genghis Conn said...

A Marshall Plan for Iraq and Afghanistan may be just the ticket. The Marshall Plan is a good example of successful Democratic foreign policy--Democrats shouldn't run away from it.

I don't trust this administration to actually do it, of course. But perhaps the next Congress can force their hands.

Look, I know you guys hate the war, and hate Bush for it. Me, too. It burns me up. But we need to take responsibility for what our nation did there. That's the adult thing to do. It's definitely not going to be easy, but we owe it to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to try and set things right. To leave, to say "Sorry for all the bombs, you're on your own!" would be a lousy, dishonorable thing to do.

TrueBlueCT said...

Marshall plan? Great, more money for Islamic countries and Halliburton!!!

What are you guys smoking? There is nothing wrong with a gradual withdrawl from Iraq. At some point the Iraqis are going to have to figure out if they want a Republic, or civil war. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.

ctkeith said...


When are you and turfy signing up?

You can go in on the buddy system.

It's awful easy for you guys to say "stay the course" or even "increase the military presence" when it's only others skin you're so willing to committ.

If you believe your rhetoric then you should also be demanding a draft because our military CANNOT even sustain our current troop strength for another year.

Senator Harry Reid said...

Dear Ms. Deanfan84,

Demanding that dissenters be run off this blog echoes your puritanical demands for adherence to an orthodoxy that leaves a great deal to be desired.

As I said in my letter your state Party's convention delegates, we Democrats represent people from all walks of life and points of view. It's that diversity that's our strength. Our Party's diversity reflects the diversity of the American people.

As a leader of national standing, I reject your narrow interpretation of what it means to be a true blue partisan. If you have a vote at your convention, please cast it for the good man, the committed Democrat, the man who has devoted his life to good, principled government - and my friend and ally - Joe Lieberman.

I understand the weather is beautiful up there today, and hope you are enjoying it.

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Leader

TrueBlueCT said...

Joe is as phony as you are.

bluecoat said...

GMR said:Of course, I don't like that these entities are getting tax breaks to build: I think that's totally unfair. But I'm not against the buildings being built simply because I want to maintain the status quo. OK so maybe you agree with me; if RBS didn't get tax breaks and Trump wasn't getting zoning exemptions - both of which are granted based on irrational hype - all of this crap wouldn't happen. The roads are clogged, the trains are overflowing and it's all thanks to the CT Dept. of corporate welfare and lax and naive local zoning people. It's time to level the playing field and stop building on top of each other.

As for DF: what war college did you attend?

ctkeith said...


First you make stupid remarks about the "Vietnam generation" and then you use Nixons "peace with Honor" Argument as a rationalization for staying in Iraq?

You truly are clueless.

bluecoat said...

ctkeith: we can't maintain the troop strength for another year you say. WOW, I didn't know we had a guy from the Pentagon on here; I am impressed.

ctkeith said...


Perhaps you should watch Meet the press since Gen.Pace admitted we can't keep the same troop levels without major redeployment of our troops and significant lowering of our troop levels in other areas.

You don't have to work at the pentagon to know these things you just have to care enough and invest the time instead of just saying "I believe my Comander and Cheif" like you and most of the posters here did before we invaded Iraq.

I know it irks most of you that those you called "crazy lefties" and dismissed over the last few years proved to be right on WMD,Osama bin Laden,Bush and Cheney cherrypicking intel,the Plame affair and every other thing that really matters in the world but thats the way it worked out.You were wrong and we were right on every count.

Why on earth you can't figure out the same is true on how to get out of this mess just proves you haven't learned a thing from your mistakes.

disgruntled_republican said...

Someone mentioned turning things over to the UN...who is the UN when it comes to troops? Oh, thats's the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GREAT BRITAN. Who has troops there now? Oh, once again, its the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and GREAT BRITAN.

Someone else said the Iraqi's want us out. Some may...most just want a stable country. Can you please refer me to an article where the President or Prime Minister of Iraq has said they want us to leave? Because until that happens, and it has not, don't use a blanket statement like that.

turfgrrl said...


I don't think either GC or I said "stay the course". In fact just the opposite; fixing Iraq is not sending more tropps armed but unarmoured into harms way. There's an insurgency because of the Bush sent over twenty year old GOP staffers to plan and implement an occupation based on delusional forecasts pulled out of the Cheney's nether regions. Only congress has the power to fund operations in Iraq, and thus it is up to all of us to restore congress to a governing body instead of it's current Bush rubber-stamp like cult status.

TrueBlueCT said...

There is an insurgency because:
1) We don't speak their language.
2) Dating to the Crusades, there is a long history of foreign invaders and conquering armies in the Islamic world.

One of the biggest reason they don't trust US is that we have made every sign of having a permanent presence in Iraq. Go Google up the massive embassy we are building there. And the military bases.

If you honestly think Iraqi peoples believe we are there for their benefit... I don't know what to say. The whole enterprise is one big LIE.

Our continued presence there is making things worse, not better. No one is saying pull out all together. Instead, re-deploy to Kuwait and the periphery.

Anonymous said...


[chuckling] "[...]the Cheney's nether regions." "Nether regions" -- I'm stealing that'n.

But, shouldn't it be "_T_he Bush" and "_T_he Cheney"? Just a stylistic question. ;-)


Ya know, I'm more or less with you right up until you reduce about two thousand years of history to "

Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris MC said...

True Blue CT:

I am pretty much following you right up until:
"Dating to the Crusades, there is a long history of foreign invaders and conquering armies in the Islamic world."

What are you, some kinda imam now?

Repeat after me:
Armenian Genocide

You, my friend, don't get to be this ignorant, nor make reductive arguments. If I want that, I can vote Republican.

Pulling back and providing air support? That is Cheney's thinking on the subject at this point.

Chris MC said...

Blogger is doing some wierd stuff - sorry for the multiple attempts/deletions.

Genghis Conn said...

Actually, post-Crusades, the Islamic world did a lot of the invading. Ask a Serb about the battle of Kosova, the few Greeks remaining in Constantinople about the fall of the Byzantine Empire or the Indians about the Mughals. And yes, bring up the Turks to an Armenian. This intermittant war between the Islamic and the Christian/Western world goes back a long ways, and it has gone back and forth many, many times. For every Kingdom of Jerusalem, there's an Andulusia.

If you mean Iraq, you have something of a point. The Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and then the Brits took turns invading Mesopotamia. But it seems that there's two forces at work, here: one a reaction against an invading force, the other tensions erupting between the three major ethnic/religious groups.