Webb: Democrats Will Provide Iraq Remedy

ESPECIALLY after the Mark Foley incident... What kind of man sits around dreaming this stuff up and then has it published. This stuff is X-rated. Please provide me some context.

Nothing that was said in those passages is worse than what you can find in "classic" literature and taking a scene of father/son oral sex out of a war novel without providing a context of who those characters were is just absurd.

Please! Help me! Clear up the absurdity. I see it as obscene.

Here's more: Something to Die For:

"...Fogarty watched a young naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly, her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar and left the banana on the bar cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina...."

And: A Country Such as This:

"[He] could see Jawbone and Ashley Asthmatic [two guards at a Vietnamese prison camp] napping together in the grass. They faced inward, their arms entwined. It looked like they were masturbating each other. It didn't surprise him … It was common to see men holding hands, embracing, playing with each other.

"Some of them [the guards] had wanted him. He could tell in those evanescent moments between his bao cao bow, the obligatory deference when a guard entered his cell, and the first word or blow that followed it… Quick, grinding voices, turgid with repressed passion. An exploratory reaching of the hand near his groin…"

Let's see, incest, homosexuality, and perversions abound. Please provide some context, so that I can understand.

I hope he doesn't have pages or interns working for him.

Let's see, incest, homosexuality, and perversions abound. Please provide some context, so that I can understand.

The context is that all of those things happen in times of war. (Though, bonus points to you for throwing homosexuality between incest and perversions -- lets us know that you stand firmly on the side of absurd.)

Why don't you go ahead and go read the user reviews of his books on Amazon.com and see if people think that he's an awful person or some sort of sick personality. What you'll find is that most people find his books to be gripping (fictional) accounts of wartime.

Allen is hoping to reach people like you -- people who would just as soon ban a book as read one. It's a shame that his tactics will probably work. (They seem to have worked in your case.)

I hope he doesn't have pages or interns working for him.

Why? Care to elaborate? Or, do you just prefer to slander him with baseless accusations. I could do the same of you, based on your absurd statements about the nature of homosexuality, but I won't.

So what you are saying that during war, perversions happen...but not after? Perverted people do perverted things. The war didn't do the acts, and didn't write the books.

These acts did not have to be included in these books. He wrote the books after he was home.

He fantasizes about this stuff. He is not to be trusted. And yes the interns and pages should be protected from him.

So what you are saying that during war, perversions happen...but not after?

Um. No. It's not surprising that you're putting words into my mouth, though -- as you seem to make a habit of doing so. (Not to mention making baseless assumptions.)

Could you pretty please point me to where I say that or what I say that would lead any thinking individual to your conclusion?

These acts did not have to be included in these books. He wrote the books after he was home.

So don't read the book. As I've said, thousands of others will and won't feel as though censoring out certain aspects of the story is necessary.

He fantasizes about this stuff.

Again with the slander.

He is not to be trusted.

And the baseless accusations.

And yes the interns and pages should be protected from him.

Funny, I would think maybe we should focus on protecting them from those we know are taking advantage of the system. You know, people like Foley. (People who have actually demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.) Somehow I suspect that you find ways to defend that situation.

It is called electability.

I don't want to vote for some guy that writes smut to be my representative. I feel that there is no excuse for it. Apparently you think there are excuses for it, because you are excusing him all over this page.

Mark Foley was a predator. Foley left when he was discovered. NOW HE IS GONE! GOOD RIDDANCE!

This guy, Webb, has warped things in his brain, but he won't leave. Like that Studds guy. Webb won't leave.

During the Foley story, everyone was talking about how bad things are in DC and we should clean it up. The way you clean things up is to get rid of problems as you find them. Studds and William Jefferson (D - La.) WERE PROTECTED. Now this guy with the perverted books is being PROTECTED.

We need smart strong people, that don't write pornographic materials or other sexual perversions, to run this country!

This guy cannot spend another 20 years influencing laws for our country.

His brain is twisted. He should not hold office.

So, mrcg, what do you think of Bob Dole and his Viagra commercial? His Pepsi / Britney Spears commercial?

I'd bet solid money that Republicans frequent strip clubs more than Democrats. Apparently RNC conventions increase local strip club business.

Anyway, you're entitled to your views, mrcg. Fortunately this is a constitutional democratic republic, and I don't have to live by your rules.

Did Bob Dole win?

You didn't answer the question.

Doesn't matter. I don't care for your puritanical morals anyway.

You had better get used to morality in politics. The majority of the electorate thinks more like me than like you.

BTW, I did not like the Dole add, and he didn't deserve to win the election. He had no leadership qualities.

Spoken just like someone on the Webb campaign payroll.

Spoken just like someone on the Webb campaign payroll.

Spoken just like someone on the Allen campaign payroll.

If I was, don't you think I'd have something to say for Allen?

What exactly do you have to say about Webb? Accusing someone of working on his campaign is one thing -- but it's somewhat hollow if you don't intend to rebut his points.

One might say it adds...no value.

How is he supposed to get to work if he's not -in- office?

It was a general comment towards the democrats in general, not just this hopeful. There are many democrats in office NOW. If they really had some magic solution to all our problems, why aren't they working hard NOW to step up and help instead of moaning and complaining all the time whilst keeping their big solution in the wings. Step up or shut up.

Agreed.

They are moving away from the fantasy world of this administration, toward real solutions,"

What are the real solutions?

"A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the president find a real way forward in Iraq. We'll work with the administration and other Republicans to develop a concrete plan, but none of us are ready to settle for empty rhetoric, or the same old unacceptable results," Webb said.

Find a real way forward into Iraq. Explain, PLEASE! GIVE US SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS A PLAN! Bush HAS a plan, at least. If a Democrat OR Republican candidate that hates Bush ACTUALLY HAS A PLAN, I just might vote for him. But he also has to have a good history behind him that he CAN ACTUALLY FOLLOW THROUGH.

Sticking to a plan that doesn't work isn't much of a plan.

What is the plan?

Yeah, seriously. What is the plan?

I think the plan is to work with the Iraqi government to create an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq and stabalizing the internal sectatian and political strife. To kill terrorists, disarm militias, gain control of the territories of Iraq and establish order in Bagdad where most of the violence occurs. As the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.

Whether or not that plan is being executed as well as it could or will even work is debatable, but they do have a plan.

I don't think the Iraqi people are capable of working together for democracy.

I don't think the Iraqi people are capable of working together for democracy.

I think you are wrong about that. The Iraqi people have been working together for years and even built a fairly strong state under Saddam. Obviously that wasn't democratic but if they can do it under a dictator I think they could do it under a democracy as well.

There are minority, but powerful, elements on both sides of the sectarian divide who want the country to remain divided. And part of me thinks that's what the US military wants as well. I think if someone were able to bridge the divide between the two sides Iraq would have a good shot at becoming a democracy. But I don't know who could do that short of the messainic coming of the 12th Imam.

Doesn't Ahmadinejad consider himself to be the heir to the 12 Imam? Plus, Iran is funding a lot of the insurgency and is positioning itself to take over (by proxy) by making sure the southern Shiites have considerable control after the coalition pulls out.

Q/ When you have done yourself into a hole whats the first thing you should do to get out of it.

A/ Stop digging.

Iraq is a hole we dug ourselves into. Bush keeps digging.

That's nice, it's still not a plan to actually fix anything.

yes it is. Its the most important first step.
Any plan must start with "stop digging"

Stop digging means stop handing out no-bid no-oversight contracts in Iraq.
If its important enough mission to get our people killed than its important enough to get the right civilian people in there doing the job right and with accountability

Stop digging means telling the Iraqis we're getting the hell out of dodge in date X so they better be ready to run their own country. No need for a thank you ceremony as we leave the country. Just earn what we gave you. all parties can take Date X and do whatever they want with it. Insurgents will plan for it, @!$%#es, Sunnies will all try to take advantage but who cares?
The point is we can close the book on the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
If some oil contracts get lost in the shuffle who cares Exxon can take the hit on their 10billion in prohits last quarter.
All the more reason to expidite alt fuels.

reminder: Democracy takes centuries. America didn't become a true democracy in 1776.
Half of our citizens did not even have the right to vote until 1920. 144 YEARS LATER!!!

It was naive to think we could drop a few bombs, pull a dictator out of a spider-hole, torture a few prisoners and think Iraq would become a "shining light of democracy" in the middle east.

What's the second part in the Republican plan?

Profit!

The U.S. is not profiting from the war in Iraq. Its costing us billions of dollars a month. And the companies that are contracting there are threatened daily by militants with an instant death by roadside bombs, suicide bombers, Islamic militants and death squads. All of which Izhang and others probably applaud in their sick fantasies.

The US as a whole isn't profiting, but weapons and defense contracters are. Many politicians have ties to these companies.

I think that both parties need to start coming up with ideas. I have not heard anything new from either the Democrats or Republicans in years.

Both seem to have been saying the same things over and over again. What new strategy or policy have we seen from either of these parties since 2003?

It's either stay the course or get out now. Neither of those are really new ideas, neither of those really say how it will be done.

Two bad choices.

One says stay and try to win, the other says leave, we can not win.
History will tell which is correct.

Today I have been thinking about what it means to "win". Right now, I am not even entirely sure what constitutes a win. I know that there are vague notions of having the Iraqi people be able to govern themselves, but I never really see what the practical requirements of that are. Does that mean that Iraqi law enforcement agencies have a certain number of trained and equipped personnel? Does that mean that for instance electricity is reliable 80% of the time? That unemployment is less than 10%? Etc. I guess I just like to see numbers, rather than vague statements. Some numbers would help me feel at least a little more comfortable with the situation in Iraq.

A second question that I ask is how much damage seeking this win does to our national interests? At what point do we decide that the expense in lives, reputation and money are just too much for the goal that we are trying to achieve.

I sort of think of this: let's say someone stole five hundred bucks from me. Yes, I would be pissed, yes I would want it back. So I decided that I am going to go to his house and beat the crap out of him and get that money back.

I go over there and I attack him. His family sees this and are outraged. Now they want to attack me. His neighbors see this and now they want to attack me. My friends see this and think I am a jackass for going off the handle, even though the guy was clearly wrong for stealing the money. They wish that I had tried a better way of solving the problem.

Finally, someone calls the cops. The cops take me in and charge me with assault. Now I have to go to court, spending a good deal of money on my legal fees. But I keep fighting because dammit I want my money back.

Meanwhile, everyone else just knows me as "that psycho who kicked Jerry's ass", which makes it hard for me to get support for my case. The money no longer becomes the issue to those observing the situation.

Then I find out that the friend who told me that this guy took my money was lying. Someone else took my money. But now I have this mess, and instead of just leaving the matter alone, apologizing, and helping to pay for the guy's hospital bills and trying to make amends with his family I continue to fight them. When they give me dirty looks I start screaming epithets at them. When my friends tell me to calm down, I call them traitors. No matter what I won't back down.

How can I win here?

--- hm. I am not sure if that analogy was over the top or not, but I think the kernel of meaning is in there somewhere. The whole point is: How much is it worth to our country to win?

Hex

The "kernel of meaning" is there and in fact the answer to the problem is in your comment also - very good.

You made some very good points.

But I think a win is defined as a stable, self governing government.

But I think a win is defined as a stable, self governing government.

How will we know when we have that? How is it defined? At what point will it be best to cut our losses because pursuit of this mission hurts our own national interests? I believe there is wisdom in knowing when the costs outweight the benefits.

that plan is titled "Retreat".

"Retreat" is your word not the actual word of any plans be they dem or rep. I prefer redeploy but whatever. All the plans are get the troops out now, later or down the road later. To stand down does not sound like victory to me. In fact, our present plan is an offensive plan but I really don't see much offense going on for the past year.

There might be a reason for all this slow/shallow offensive. Maybe the rules we are now under (we ARE under rules) do not allow us to go on a true offense, like finding and blow up all supply routes and ammo dumps of the bad guys. They create so many IED's there has to be a supply trail. Why we do not have the Iraqis lay down their weapons? That should be the first thing to do but it is not done. Why not?

I think the fact that Iraq is now a sovereign state plays into what we can do and what we can not do with respect to offensive plans and any Iraq plans from either party. I have no idea, international law is not my thing, maybe someone else can answer this part of the problem. I do know that the Iraqi PM did not like it when our planes hit a few targets a few days ago, also I believe we caught a leader of the bad guys but we had to release him, also a few days ago. We may not have the freedom to do things as we may think we do or in fact should do. This area might be another "ooops" by the W/H. I think there was a rush to get "sovereign rights" to Iraq because we got Saddam and the Iraqis could hold him for specific reasons and the US had nothing on him. Saddam did not attack the US and we could not find the WMD's so what would be our charge? I do not think the international courts would see our side at the time so that was no answer either. The job was to rush the sovereign right to Iraq. I don't think we even have any interregnum authority over Iraq. Bottom line, we are in a deep hole.

Wow...Cut and Run Tactics.

Wow...talking point tactics.

Are you throwing your vote away because Allen has not lived up to your expectations, or you just do not care to vote for him?

Except that all the newly voted in congressmen would just be assimilated into the congressional machinery and become exactly what you sought to destroy. They only way to truly get them to get back in line with voter issues over their major financial contributers would be through drastic changes in the current system.

Campaign finance reform, lobbyist/congressional conflict of interest reforms, PAC reforms and special interest reforms. We now have a system where corporations are basically writing their own laws and policing themselves, which is not how it is supposed to work.

agreed but I think an all new congress of freshman would have a very clear idea that they got their job because their predecessors were such corrupt bastards.

Hopefully this would inspire them to change the system in all the ways you mentioned instead of just maintaining the status quo.

And if they don't, 2 years isn't very long to do it again.