Redstate

The airlifter world is at break neck pace right now trying to make sure things like this occur.  What an incredible validation for them and all those sacrificing so much for a free and democratic Iraq.

Oh yes, about 8 months ago when the Iraqi's last went to the polls.  Since then about 500 more brave American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, thousands of Iraqis have since died in a civil war that no one seems to admit is happening.

Please don't suggest I'm one of those wishing the worst in Iraq.  I truly want a strong, democratic society in Iraq.  But I'm not myopic and, despite today's election, I find it hard to be optimistic that the final outcome will be a democratic Iraq.  

The goal of bringing democracy to Iraq is noble and if the strategy was successful it would have had positive impact on the region.

But the strategy was poorly planned and incompetently executed, not by the military, but by the civilian leaders in our government.  (Although one can argue that the Generals who have never complain--or resigned--about only having 150,000 troops to secure Iraq, share equally in the blame.)

We are 2 and 1/2 years into this war and, at best, we are hoping for a positive outcome.  We should not be at this point.  Had our leaders executed this war properly we would have been long past the daily death and destruction that is occurring.

Daily I hope and pray for a positive long-term outcome in Iraq.  But despite occasional days like this, we just seem to be staying a course that will drive us off a bridge and the result maybe a true calamity for the security of America.

Of course I haven't read the Constitution that is being voted on (as far as I can tell no one voting has actually read it either).

So I have no way of judging whether the news reports I've heard are true or not.  They include items such as the constitution guaranteeing government supplied medical care to everyone, that children will respect and care for their parents, a signficant role for Islam in creating the code of laws, guaranteed quotas for representation by ethnicity and religion, and a role back of women's rights as they existed under Saddam.

If any of these are true, I'm surprised to see this document celebrated at RedState.

well informed and reasonable update, courtesy of the MSM and various dem talking points.

*snark off*

...with not one iota of substance.  Just the same hot air that keeps trying to make this folly look like a victory.

substance on to you.  You have obviously drank of the kool-aid and no amount of good measure from me will change your mind.

Harold echoes my sentiments here and says it in far fewer words than I.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/15/13356/981/4#4

...how much effort I have spent supporting our troops.  That to me amounts to an unfounded personal attack on me.

And it is sp warped to suggest that is we "lose" the war it is because people like me and the socalled "anti-war" movement.  

I'm very much "pro war".  It just has to be done right.  Like maybe Iraq would be stable and realatively peaceful today if we:

Sent more troops to secure Iraq instead of the arbitary number of 150, 000 that Rumsfeld was fixated on.

Let the State Department do what it is paid to do and have them plan for a post-war Iraq, instead of letting Rumsfeld screw things up.

Did not dissolve the Iraq army and create a pool of 400,000 unemployed men whose only skills was killing.  What a wonderful job pool this created for the insurgents.

Realized that at some point US soldiers would be viewed as occupiers (Bush's words, not mine) and we needed to "legitimize" the process by creating a international interim government instead on one controlled by `occupiers"

But I understand, you don't want facts that will confuse your happy little world.

I have read the document.

It does lean statist, but not horribly.

Also, it has a structural limit on state interference, assuming the law is followed.

No law can be passed that violates the tennets of sharia

No law can be passed that violates the (currently) internationally understood human rights.

The two of those together limit the states domain, because the intersection is small. Will it be followed? I don't know.

Regardless of how good the constitution is, it's better than any others in the region. If the people are behind it, it will work.

Lastly, you have apparrently not been looking at whats accually happening. The people have had A LOT of time and ability to look at the document, and the civil society and press in the country - TV, Radio, Newspapers, conferences, have all been talking about it.

Too bad the american people don't know that.

"known facts" is what I find so disturbing.

Believe me, my world is far from happy.  And I am no supporter of Rumsfeld.

Folks like you wrap yourselves in your "support the troops" mantra, then you deliver a slap in the face anytime one tries to point out the successes and gains we are indeed making in that country.  That is what I take issue with.  And I'm quite tired of it.

My husband flies in and out of Iraq on a very regular basis.  He talks to troops, he sees what is happening.  Iraq is a better place now than it was two years ago.  That is something you simply can not dispute.  It is not perfect and we are not done yet, but it is definitely better.

Leon was attempting to point out a success on the road to democracy and you attempted to piss all over it.  I, for one, am tired of those tactics, therefore you got my snark.

Again, no amount of good news would be good enough for you.

And the most important one of all is that the Iraqi people have developed this constitution and it is the Iraqi people that will either accept or defeat it.  That in and of itself is a victory for democracy, despite what the MSM and dem talking points will tell you.

that you really don't understand that most of us are not trying to create a colony in Iraq.

The country is theirs, not ours. It would seem, at least from a conservative viewpoint, that they are rather entitled to govern themselves. So I'm surprise that you are surprised that we are celebrating millions of Iraqis braving threats of violence and actual attacks to participate in deciding their future.

history and it is apparent that your sole purpose here is to wield pointy sticks, so consider this my last post to your talking points.  I gave up wrestling pigs a while back.

That is all.

day to be a defeatist. Much easier that than actually stepping past your talking points and thinking.

You have all the answers.

How many more than 150,000. Give me the number and explain why your number is right.

Read the history of State Department's total abrogation of responsibility dealing with anything that vaguely resembles work. You realize that just last month State finally admitted that it didn't have the skills to provide advisors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry, not the troops or the cops on the street but to the policymaking headquarters and gave that responsibility to DoD?

Great idea keeping the Iraqi army under arms. Heck, why didn't we just keep the Wehrmacht under arms in 1945. I'm sure the Kurds and Shi'a would really have been impressed by seeing Saddam's thugs lose a war and still kept in power. This is the most profoundly stupid idea that has been put forward on Iraq by people from Buchanan to Dean.

Guess you missed the transitional authority that was established in June of last year and the elections that established the provisional government on January 31, 2001. I've had blackouts before but the never extended to months.

And we all understand your real issue. You are terrified that this is going to work and you and your fellow travelers are going to have to deal with a cognitive dissonance you haven't experienced since the fall of the Berlin Wall revealed you last set of beliefs to be a fraud.

I have read the Iraqi constitution as well. It does guarantee equal rights to all citizens (including women--very important in a Muslim country), and it sets up a "federal" system in which the union of three provinces can have quite a lot of autonomy.

But in order to prevent the Sunnis from being tempted to secede, it also grants a per capita share in Iraq's oil wealth, which would be lost by anyone who secedes. Although this a rather socialist idea by Western standards, it could help keep the country together in the short run, until everyone there learns to get along and stop shooting each other.

If this constitution is approved (which I believe it will be), it will go a LONG way toward ending the war in Iraq, and bringing the troops home. Besides, once a new parliament is elected in December, the new Iraqi government might at some future date believe that its own army can stamp out the insurgency, and ask our troops to leave.

This might be the light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq. Inch'Allah!

By the way, I am not Muslim, but a friend from Morocco told me that means "God willing". As a Christian, I can go along with that.

We're hearing the same platitudes today that we heard last January during the last Election Day.  Has the situation in Iraq gotten any better since then?  No, we have spiraled down-ward into more civil strife and chaos.  

Fine, criticize what I say as "talking points".  But I'm hearing nothing here except delusional hysteria that everything is fine in Iraq.  One good day can not make up for the scores of bad days we see in Iraq.  (And one could argue that an election where people defy death to vote, where the only mode of transportation is to walk because everything else has been banned for safety reasons is not a way elections should be run.)

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the truth often hurts.

To add to Streiff's point, we are NOT creating a colony in Iraq, but if the Iraqis are grateful to us for getting rid of their butcher (Saddam), we will probably have an ALLY in Iraq.

Allies are hard to come by in that part of the world, so this WOULD be a great achievement.

As for the level of troops that were sent there, this was a consensus among all the generals consulted. One said much higher, one said much lower, but most wanted troop levels approximately equal to what was sent. If you're President, you go with what most military leaders say, not with the outliers.

You have to be kidding about your statement "as far as I can tell no one voting has actually read it either".  The Iraqi government has been passing out millions of copies of the document.  How insulting to suggest that either their people are either too stupid or just don't care enough to review their own country's constitution, a document that will have a significant impact on the rest of their lives, before voting on it.

Why not instead praise the fact that a brave and intelligent people came out to vote in unbelievable numbers.  Even with the possibility of death, parents went to the polls to vote, and many times brought their children to witness such a historic event in their lives.

How about some congratulations to these people.

from your writing, that you could pick truth out of a line up.

If you ignore the Iraqi parliament making their own laws, if you ignore the Iraqi Army now controlling security in Najaf and Karbala and most of Baghdad, if you ignore the 30%+ GDP growth in Iraq and the triple digit growth in the non-oil sectors of the economy, if you ignore inflation cut in half, if you ignore politicians of all religions and ethnicities working together, if you ignore the fact that the insurgents can't claim to control any territory, if you ignore that the country has experienced one election when "informed commentators" said violence would prevent it from happening, sure it's a mess.

If you don't ignore the facts, then you can continue to bleat about the dystopia you'd like to see.

the subtext here is they are just stupid Arabs and they couldn't possibly be interested in their own future. There is quite honestly no other way to interpret that statement in my view.

And the fact that we have a 200 year headstart on them and are still wrestling with difficult issues is meaningless. If they don't do it the way these nimrods want it done, its a failure.

Well in terms of how many more troops...I don't know, but I certainly would have listened to the Army Chief of Staff, who recommended, I believe, around 300,000 total troops strength.

So you suggest that the State Department is incapable of coming up with a plan?  Well I'll let Colin Powell and all argue that point, but a bad plan from the State Department is better than the LACK of a plan from Rumsfeld and his yes men.

But when all else fails in your arguments you fall back on calling your fellow American a Communist who wants America to fail.  Is that how you describe the majority of Americans that feel this war was mishandled?  

But there really is no point carrying this thread any further...according to you, I'm just a pinko who hates America...just like the former Army Chief of Staff, Pat Buchanan and scores of highly decorated veterans who have questioned the implementation of this war by the Bush Administration.

us 7 Billion dollars a month paid for by US taxdollars to see Iraqi purple Iraqi fingers.

If you want US welfare, go ahead and let the US invade your country and promote Democracy. We pay for the bombs and the bullets, then we pay their hospital bills and rebuild their cities.

Good news for Iraqi's, bad news for taxpayers.

That is one darn expensive constitution. Let's hope it works.

No Army Chief of Staff recommended 300,000.

Not me. They are the ones who have admitted they can't do it. I know, I know another of your cute fuzzy little beliefs is wounded.

A fellow American? Who? Clearly you, specifically, and you, the anti-war movement and those most vociferously criticizing the political process in Iraq, would much rather see a howling wasteland there than give Bush credit for succeeding. There is just no other way to interpret it, you protestations notwithstanding. Can't you even feel a modicum of shame at the fact that you guys have been wrong at every single step of the way and the worst you can do is make unsupportable statements, like your first sentence, or fall back on "there was no plan" when everyone who can read knows there was a plan.

So, no, I don't consider the people opposing the war, the people calling for a withdrawal of any kind under any circumstance short of the terms of victory that Bush mentions in virtually every public appearance to be fellow Americans. We share the same geography but the people voting in Iraq today are much more my fellow Americans than you will ever be.

Everyone save your fingers, I'll rebut this post...Freemarket, you're a commie loving anti American who does not support our troops.

So there, I took care of you!

But the strategy was poorly planned and incompetently executed, not by the
military, but by the civilian leaders in our government. (Although one can
argue that the Generals who have never complain--or resigned--about only having
150,000 troops to secure Iraq, share equally in the blame.)

Democrats are by far the best Monday morning quarter backs I have ever seen.
I wish I had the time to dismantle your flabby argument, but let me take this
one point apart for you. You obviously have never studied history.

• When we entered WWII we sent our tanks into North Africa to fight Rommel
  and his high tech Panzers. Our guys went into battle with tanks that were
  left overs from WWI.
• We lost 1,500 hundred men just rehearsing for D-Day.
• Oh yes there's the matter of the shocking casualty rate in Iraq. At the
  current rate of under 900 casualties per year we would have to be in Iraq
  for more than 50 years to equal the number of casualties we suffered in Vietnam.

I could go on , but supper's getting cold. The point is that there have been
miscalculations in every war. I think that taken in context, the mistakes of
the Iraq war have been minimal in comparison.

in Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium in 1945 and it worked out pretty well.

It seems to me that free people are good news for the taxpayer regardless of the price.

This is your tax dollars at work.

Celebrate democracy and free speech.

...in my postings in this thread did I say i opposed invading Iraq?  Where in my posting did I say we should withdraw?  You want to read things into my comments that don't exist.

But you are right about one thing, former Army Cheif of Staff Eric Shinseki did not recommend a post invasion force of 300,000.  He recommneded "several hundreed thousand".  So I interpet that as maybe 400 to 500,000.  The link:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0
228pentagoncontra.htm

the question is why you guys on the left can't. Oh, wait, I know the reason.

an American citizen, and I can't wait to have a blue finger in 06.

than that.

Considering that the Army in 2003 only had about 200,000 troops in combat units it makes his commentary pretty worthless doesn't it. And the fact that we overthrew Saddam with 150,000 doesn't make him look terribly prescient.

May the Iraqi's at last have Peace.

    Our country has done a great and noble thing in giving a chance to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, it has been tough, but achieving something of value is always that way. It's hard for most people to understand how difficult it really is to break through the shadows and into the light. If you spent just a few months of your life watching people get pistol-whipped in the bus seat in front of you, or wake up to find someone hanged outside your window or any one of the other endless and cruel humiliations suffered by the innocent at the hands of people like Saddam you'd know what this means to the people of Iraq. And they've had it for 30 years. It's not easy to walk upright after you've learned to cringe your whole life, but thanks to the efforts of our servicemen and women, people in Iraq have met the next challenge with some of their own elán. For the defeatists, a word from the Sufi tradition: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes on.  

    I'm always proud to be an American, but on days like today, just a little bit more. I can only imagine how tough it has been for our people over there and their families back home and to them I can only say thank you.  

for those Diebold machines

anything in Iraq over to State.  I think Bremmer did a crappy job, and things would have been better had the military stayed in charge.

 I don't get how that relates.

There is no need to go on posting...we all won't agree and why waste our energy.

Only time will tell.  Despite what people assert on this thread, I hope in 10 years Iraq will represent the first Democratic domino in the Middle East.  The region will be stable, prosperous and friendly to the West and the US.

I'm sure I'll be ridiculed for my next comment, but so be it.  The Middle East is an extremely complex place and to achieve our goals (see above) we only have a small margin of error.  I fear we are well outside that margin of error and I fear a less than ideal scenario which will make us less secure.

Fine call that a talking point.  History will prove one of us right.  I hope I'm wrong.  But why do I think that if I'm right...you will blame me for the problems created because I won't support policies that I thought were wrong and ill conceived?  In ten years I hope to admit I was wrong.  I doubt some of the folks posting here will have the same intellectual honesty and will just continue with the same character assassination doled out today.

Until Bush had him report to Condi.  Bremmer never reported into State.

I didn't realize you were more qualified than the Army Chief of Staff...wow, I guess I really am out of my league...gee I guess I really did advocate withdrwal and opposed invading Iraq...thanks for setting me straight about what I wrote and didn't write.

and the thinking in state and defense are different.

Not smarter, it's just that everyone in that particular hearing knew what Shinseki's agenda was: to stick a finger in Rumsfeld's eye.

Shinseki had been a lame duck for some months as Rumsfeld had named his replacement a year before he was due to retire. He'd tried to roll Rumsfeld on the Crusader, lost, and managed to destroy a very good Army Secretary in the process.

If you think good advice is recommending a number of troops that you don't have, then I guess you're baffled when the bank bounces your checks.

Quite honestly, I really don't care what you were in favor of 2 1/2 years ago. I know what you're in favor of today.

won't count. You know. The Bush family is tight with the guys who own Diebold.

He was out of Kissinger Inc, which I'm sure thrilled both the left and the right.  Facts are facts...State was never involved...sure Bremmer worked for State years ago, but Rumsfeld ran the show and to suggest otherwise is pourly revisionist history.

Okay, if you say so.

starting to sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist!

My vote counted last time, and I am sure it will count this time!

To not post again but you just keep serving up half truths...sure the army had 200,000 active.  But throw in the Marines and our reserves and we can muster several hundred thousand combat troops.  Even Gen. Franks initially requested 300,000 troops (Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 231) before Rumsfeld told him to revise it.  According to you Franks can't balance his check book also.

Lastly (I really hope so), I ask you one final time...where in today's postings do I advocate withdrawal?  Again you've created a world regarding what my opinions are with out any facts.  Keep living in your fantasy world.

I'm tired of his claptrap.  He doesn't think.  He merely regurgitates the false meme of "Iraqi's are too stupid to sacrifice for."

Get rid of KBowe please.  He's not here to make meaningful contributions.

I guarantee you he's been banned before.

If you ban his IP address, he can't come back as "KBowe2" (the Revenge of KBowe).

How about right here:

But despite occasional days like this, we just seem to be staying a course that will drive us off a bridge and the result maybe a true calamity for the security of America.

Either you're advocating a withdrawal or you're in full support of "staying a course that will drive us off a bridge".

Go ahead and admit it: you'd love for a repeat of September 11th.  Then you and all of your "hate America" friends can try to "pin the blame on the President" like you did with Hurricane Katrina (nice dry run by the way; fooled the mainstream media, didn't fool me though).

You go ahead and keep praying for disaster in Iraq and American lives to be lost so that your hopeless party can try to come up with a message that resonates with Americans other than "Bush is a dummy."

As for me, I will say, "Hoorah for Iraq!  Hoorah for the Iraqi people!"  They risked their lives to vote for a Constitution that is "by Iraqis and for Iraqis".  I salute them for their commitment to freedom.

You, my friend, are a two-bit coward whose mind works about as well as a parrot's.

"pourly revisionist history" do you mean to say "purely revisionist history"?

If so, you need to slow down and start thinking before you post.

today's vote on the Constitution was a HUGE victory.  It means that we're one step closer to allowing Iraq to run its own affairs.

I guess despite all of your tough talk about this administration's "big screw-up" in Iraq, you really don't want to see Iraqis living in freedom and democracy.

Admit it, you just want to see your side win.  And because your side doesn't know how to win, you'll settle for being thrilled at every event that your side can spin into "a big screw-up" or a "folly" or whatever else you want to call it.

It's a lot harder to be fighting a war then to be a clucking chicken sitting on the fence waiting to criticize those who are actually fighting the war.

He wants this to be his final post.

You can help him out with that, can't you?

You accuse me of saying/writing things I never said.  I can't help how you interpret my writings, but what an incredible leap you take to suggest I'm saying "Iraqi's are too stupid to sacrifice for".  It just is not happen.  

Do what you want with me.  If banning is punishment for simple dissent than so be it.  I never disparaged our country and our troops.  I did not advocate for withdrawal (as charged, but never substantiated).  I just had the fool-heartiness to suggest the administration has mishandled this war and one good day does not make up for all the bad days that have occurred and I feel will, regretfully, continue.  

If that is my crime, I await my punishment from the elders.  But for now I'm heading out for the evening.  When I return I will learn my fate.

Here's a modest proposal:

Anyone you want to say "I support the troops but our civilian leadership has botched the job and it's time to acknowledge our defeat," then just say:

Iraq Talking Point 1 n/t

If instead you want to say "Seeing a bunch of blue fingers on television every few months is not worth the cost, and we should keep the dollars home to help the poor/oppressed/cold/hungry/whatever," then just say:

Iraq Talking Point 2 n/t

We'll get the idea and it will save a lot of time.

Come to think of it, we should come with a canned list of all the other talking points too.

I never did get to hear your response.

If I could ban you myself, you'd be gone.

Not just "KBowe" either.  I'd ban your whole IP address so you can't come back again under a different alias.

You're a usurper.  You're afraid of what RedState is becoming and you want to stir up dissent using half-truths and defeatism.

Go whine on dkurse.  There's lots of whiners there.  They're forming a whining choir there.

but, if you know what you are doing you can change your IP address at will.  

He hasn't passed the "too stupid to post" test, he just wants the other side to win.

before but he groveled his way into reinstatement

I just had the fool-heartiness to suggest ...

OK, now you've done it. This is completely over the top. The word is foolhardy. I am reporting you to Sister Mary Yardstick, who will rap your knuckles when she gets back.

KBowe is being pretty abrasive, and I doubt he'll be here much longer.  But I would point out that there are more than two options in Iraq.  

I guess it really depends on what you mean by "stay the course".  Personally, I think withdrawal would be disasterous-- I've been pretty consistent in saying so.  But to me, "stay the course" is synonomous with simply ignoring bad news while refusing to change our tactics and planning.  In this sense, to "stay the course" is just as poor of an option as withdrawal, IMO.

The Iraqi government has been passing out millions of copies of the document.  How insulting to suggest that either their people are either too stupid or just don't care enough to review their own country's constitution, a document that will have a significant impact on the rest of their lives, before voting on it.

as of last weekend copies were in fact not available to the general population, although they had been promised for some time.  That agrees with the fact that the document itself wasn't finalized until, I believe, early this week.  My understanding that the constitution was not widely read is based on my understanding that it wasn't available until shortly before the vote, if at all.

If you are reporting differently based on factual information then I stand corrected.  I would be interested to hear what your report is based on.

Regardless of how good the constitution is, it's better than any others in the region.

. . . that you are not including Israel's in that comparison.

Lastly, you have apparrently not been looking at whats accually happening. The people have had A LOT of time and ability to look at the document, and the civil society and press in the country - TV, Radio, Newspapers, conferences, have all been talking about it.

Well, I have been looking at what has been happening, at least as best I can not having any direct access to the country, and the impression I've gotten is that, in fact, no one is really familiar with the document's 400 pages.  My impression is that people are essentially voting in blocks as suggested by community and religious leaders.

I'm certainly happy to look at any reports that suggest otherwise if you care to post links.

It does guarantee equal rights to all citizens (including women--very important in a Muslim country),

I heard a report earlier in the process that it would specifically subject women to Sharia law (under some version of which they have a vastly dimished legal status).  I notice another poster said that the Constituion also guarantees no laws that contradict Sharia law -- which seems to be in conflict with the first clause you mentioned.

I guess that will be one for the SCOTIRI when it meets.

Hey -- I just thought of a solution to a whole bunch of problems.  The President could nominate Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court of Iraq!

Also -- where did you get hold of a copy of the Iraqi Constitution?  Has it been translated into English?  I doubt I have the fortitude to the read the whole thing, but I'd certainly like to have a gander.

I don't think anyone wants to create a colony in Iraq, although we do need something to replace the Saudi airbases we removed in 2002, so I think a client state may be on some people's agenda -- although, admittedly, that is harder to achieve from the World Bank than from the Defense Department.

I just thought it was odd that a document that, to the best of my understanding, contains promises of socialized medicine and children respecting their parents didn't receive some comment here.  Just my way of asking -- so, what do people think of the actual Constitution?

It's possible to celebrate the fact that the Iraqis have a Constitution while at the same time pointing out that the Constitution is hardly a paen (too lazy to hit dictionary.com) to the values generally espoused here.

. . . and not recently -- as I pointed out in the comment you're replying to, I have no access to the country.

Why?  I simply said that all the reports I've seen indicate the Constitution was not widely promulgated before the vote.  I've also made it clear I'd be happy to read reports to the contrary and stand corrected if I'm wrong.

This seems to me to be the sort of matter than can be decided factually rather than based on opinion or snark.

Come on, it's been all over the news.  The United Nations printed up the copies.  This took me 3 minutes to Google:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&am
p;slug=UN%20Iraqi%20Constitution

this is a red herring nit pick even if

there is nothing wrong with people voting based on the advice of a trusted leader

the parameters have been discussed for months in the media in iraq

americans vote party w/o reading the platform

some voters make an x

they are consenting to be governed  by themselves

it is one of america's finest hours

agree?

From the United Nations Website: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=16122&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

You are correct about there being a last minute agreement to make a change in favor of the Sunnis.  So are you saying that because there was a last minute change, your comments are justified?  I guess we'll just have to hope that the last minute change did make it out the to Iraqis prior to voting on it.

Btw, you think that if the Iraqi people didn't have access to the constitution prior to voting on it that the MSM wouldn't have shouted it from the mountain tops?

you linked to, about 2 million copies of the Constitution were entering the distribution stream last weekend -- which is about what I had read.  It seems to me likely that the vast minority of voters read the Consititution before voting on it.

That issue aside -- what do you think of the Constitution as a document?

I think we agree that your comment "as far as I can tell no one voting has actually read it either" was not quite right then.

I'm afraid that as a single full time dad of two (one of which is an autistic and diabetic 4 year old), I haven't the time to read the document myself.  My job and full-time fathering keep me just a little too busy to read through such a document at this time.  I'm barely able to keep up with the news, but this particular situation is pretty important to me.  I'll leave the rest of this discussion to someone who has had the time to review the document.  Feel free to post your own thoughts about it though.  I'm interested.

Slightly rambling reply

". . . that you are not including Israel's in that comparison."

You are correct from the standpoint of me ignoring a functional government in Israel that manages reasonably. However, more strictly, Israel does not have a particularly formalized constitution (less so than GB).

In my personal opinion, if Israel was not under constant attack, its government structure would be insufficient to maintain liberty, though I am guessing.

If my response seemed snarky (a later reply from you), I appologize. The truth is that I have had to dig for information, and have not recorded my sourcing (as I have started to do for eminent domain issues).

But then, that is what many of us feel is part of the problem. The institutional media is currently disfunctional, both in how they report issues, and what they choose not report. If you have not been really trying to find on the ground, localized information, coupled with a wide variety of analysis, you're missing the boat.

It is possible that the right side blogosphere is picking and choosing what they want to hear, but I don't think so. Here is why.

First, at the broadest view, the left has given up on the idea of individual liberty. I find this extremely painful, as do most non corporatists on the right. The left does not institutionally understand the appeal of freedom, and I see their bias.

From the beginning of the Iraq war build up, I thought that democracy promotion was the most import reason. I have verified with my extended family that we all came to that conclusion. The MSM would not get off of WMD.

The MSM constanty frames the issue as "we need to get Iraq stabilized so we can leave." Most conservatives see it as "We need to stabilize Iraq so they are free, for humanitarian and security reasons." I recognize this frame, and look for facts outside the MSM analysis.

I thought Bagdad would fall in a matter of weeks, but I thought building the country would take a long time. Bush said as much OVER AND OVER.

I thought the flypaper meme was sound. The MSM has discarded it as nonsense, when in fact we see evidence of it every day.

I may have doubts about the high levels of the miitary, but I trust the foot soldiers. Military blogs from the region all have indicated progress.

I knew before the election that Bush was waiting to hit Felluga, because he had to for political reasons, and it made me sick. Felluga is now marginally fundtional. It went exactly as the military blogs said it would, and how I thought it would in my own analysis.

Military blogs have been describing the emerging capabilities of the Iraqi army, and the synthesis that will result from having Iraqis be the interface to the public. They described military tactics and strategies before they were implemented. Those strategies and tactics are playing out as they described.

If you would like an expansion here, I can give you one from memory.

Glen at Instapundit and others described how negotiations on the constitution would look, including Sunnis holding out until the last minute. Those have proven true.

At the core of conservatism (classic liberal) is the premise that people WILL look out for their own best interest, so lets build a system that harnesses that truth. The left can not admit to this truth, or their world view would collapse.

The trick in Iraq is to set up a system where there is advantage in cooperation. I see that happening.

I don't have the references for the distribution of the constitution. However, it was mentioned in MSM, and Iraqi blogs, and military blogs.

Please ask yourself why YOU don't know about it.

Regards,

Josh Davenport

Yes, I am fool hardy enough to believe there are more than two options...stay the course or withdrawal.  Both are no win moves.  I can only hope for leadership that will give us an alternative, successful, strategy.

To slightly change the subject and raise the temperature a bit, I do wonder how steadfast President Bush is in maintaining troop levels until "victory".  I mean, he can use today's election and the Parliamentary election, which will also be a good day in Iraq, as "success posts" where he can tell the American people that we've attained certain levels of a victory in Iraq and begin a draw down of troops next Spring.  This of course will coincide with the upcoming fall elections.

What if such a move weakens the Iraqi government's ability to fight their enemy?  Do you trust President Bush to fulfill his promise and give us a victory in Iraq?  Or will he do the politically convenient thing and prematurely withdraw for political reasons?  

Don't kill the messenger, I just wondering.

...I guess...

how about "foolhardiness"?

Just corrupt.

Aren't we supposed to get angry about corruption these days?

I have a friend who told me that this was the best way to ban people.

constitution, we may be close to a troop reduction.

I don't see the point in keeping troops there indefinitely.

Iraq was a tinderbox waiting to blow up before we invaded.

We know now that Saddam was trying to purchase materials to build nuclear warheads.  

We couldn't allow Iraq to become a nuclear power.

We also couldn't allow Iraq to harbor terrorist groups like Ansar-al-Islam, which cavorted with al-Qaeda.

Now that Iraq is a democracy, we should be able to gradually reduce our troop strength there with the option of returning if the need should arise.  More than anything else, the new Iraqi government needs counter-terrorism and police training.  They also need to know that, just like Israel, we are going to support them no matter what.

The voting is over and all of the rumors about suicide bombings and massive Sunni boycotts turned out to be bogus.

Oh well, I'm sure Armando on dKurse will think of something to kvetch about.

Maybe because their new constitution doesn't have a Value-Added Tax in it.

Maybe because homosexuals still can't get marry each other in Iraq.

You watch, he'll find something.

Be an idiot, get banned, grovel, get reinstated, repeat.

There should be a "cooling-off" period of at least one month before reinstatement.  And that's for the first screw up.

The next one should result in a permanent ban of the user's IP address.

Make them change their IP address.  That takes a little more work and know-how than changing a user name.

In trying to discern the valid points of both sides here, here's what I'm seeing:

Conservatives are not claiming "everything in Iraq is peachy."  Instead, virtually all seem to agree that 1) bringing freedom/democracy/self-government to any nation that hasn't had it is a very difficult process; 2) nevertheless, if we and they can pull it off, it will almost surely be a huge plus.

Blue-state posters point out--with good reason--that 1) the odds of bringing both freedom and peace to Iraq are pretty long; 2) that even if we and they can manage to pull it off, it won't be worth the huge cost in American lives and money; 3) that regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the U.S. invasion is a great recruiting tool for new terrorists, and that in the long term the invasion is simply going to produce more of them.

Red-staters point out--accurately--that a number of nations that have zero troops in Iraq and never declared their support for the Coalition action have been bombed by Islamic fanatics, so it's nuts to believe that we'd be at peace if only we'd sat on our hands about Saddam.

Both sides seem to agree that 1) the venture was and is highly risky; 2) the results won't be known for several more years; and 3) that war is a deadly, misery-filled, costly, wretched experience.  However, Conservatives also point out--accurately--that sometimes war is the only way to stop the other guy from doing something one deems intolerable.

No conclusions here, just a raised eyebrow.

CNN's reporting is apparently in error. Certainly this wasn't possible without former President Carter's election supervision (and in light of all the predictions).

Someone had better email the editors. We can't let good news like this escape to US publications, or posts like the former will lack foundation.

scoove

This posting sounds remarkably similar to Russ Feingold's plan for gradual withdrawal.

Interestingly, I don't see you establishing any security goals before drawing down troops.  Like making sure Falluh (sp) or Tal Afar (agian Sp, to lazy to check) are securely in the hands of the governemnt.

if you can't read:

Feingold Urges Troop Withdrawal By End of '06

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) called on the White House yesterday to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year and criticized fellow Democrats for being too "timid" in challenging the Bush administration's war policy.

Sure it is a "gradual withdrawal" in the sense that the Union Army made a "gradual withdrawal" from First Bull Run. By any other standard it is a stampede for the exit.