Censure for Bush - Military Families

[pinkeye]

now all you liberal-haters have one more reason to huff and puff...


Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq Anniversary

Coalition Critical of White House Deceptions
Delivers 560,340 Petition Signatures to House Offices
As Members Debate Resolution on the War

Win Without War Announces New Phase of Censure Campaign

WASHINGTON, March 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Families of soldiers serving, as well
as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to
Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure President
George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, volunteers carried petitions that filled 18 large boxes, signed
so far by 560,340 members of MoveOn.org from every congressional district, to
each office in the House of Representatives, reinforcing the demand for a
censure resolution. The groups also displayed print and TV ads that will
begin running this week.
"My son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, who died last month while serving in Iraq,
met his responsibility to the nation he loved," said Sue Niederer of
Pennington, NJ. "As his mother, I am joining hundreds of thousands of
Americans today in asking that the Congress of the United States meet its
responsibility, as well."
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said the combined
activities represent an escalation of efforts that will continue. "The truth
matters. By not holding the President accountable, the Congress is saying it
doesn't. This is unacceptable," said Andrews, a former congressman and member
of the Armed Services Committee.
"The resolution now before Congress is silent on the many ways Bush
betrayed our trust, misleading us to make the case for this war," said Peter
Schurman, executive director of MoveOn.org, an Internet issues organization
with more than two million members.
Also participating in the news conference were Joseph Cirincione, director
of non-proliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace; Richard Torgerson, a principal with Progressive Asset Management in
Maryland and a leader of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, and several
military families.
The ongoing campaign for censure of the President is led by Win Without
War, a national coalition of 42 membership organizations, and MoveOn.org, True
Majority, Working Assets and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.
Richard Torgerson, a financial services executive in Maryland, represented
Business Leaders and unveiled their new print ad, which will run this week in
The New York Times.
Cirincione is an author of the Carnegie Endowment's critical study on the
Bush Administration's distortion of intelligence and other evidence leading up
to the war. Entitled "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications," it found that
Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons programs "did not pose an immediate threat
to the United States," or to regional or global security. It also said "there
was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's
government and Al Qaeda."
"The President and the Administration systematically misrepresented the
threat from Iraq," Cirincione said. "President Bush didn't have the facts, so
he made them up."
"We are honored to be joined in our nationwide campaign for accountability
by a growing number of families whose sons and daughters have served or are
serving our nation in uniform," Andrews said. Mildred Mortillo, whose son is
serving in Iraq, accompanied Ms. Niederer.
Speaking for herself and other military families, Ms. Niederer said: "Our
message to Congress today is clear: spare us the platitudes, the pious
rhetoric, the empty slogans. Give us the truth. Do your job and hold those
accountable who have denied us the truth. Censure President Bush for the
deceptions and manipulations that led our nation to war. You owe the American
people, my son and all those patriots who have sacrificed for their nation no
less."



SOURCE MoveOn.org; Win Without War

[EvanL]

Be prepared to get jumped on. Ducimus posted a moveon.org site before and everyone dog piled on him.
You have the right to post this stuff though. EVen if i dont agree with it.
So keep on posting what you believe is right.

[Trigger]

signed so far by 560,340 members of MoveOn.org
rofl

[SeanAshi]

I hope they don't turn into another pro-terrorist orginazation like ISM - International Solidarity Movement.

[pinkeye]

Be prepared to get jumped on. Ducimus posted a moveon.org site before and everyone dog piled on him.
You have the right to post this stuff though. EVen if i dont agree with it.
So keep on posting what you believe is right.

don't worry, i am not intimidated by the intellectually-deficient thugs on this messageboard. however, my intention was not to start a flame war but simply to post an article on the actions of a number of military families. i did not sign any petition, nor have i taken to the streets to protest the war in iraq. you know people are idiotic when they get all hot and bothered over an article by an organisation such as moveon.org that advocates peace (how dare they want to live in peace and harmony!!!).

[Trigger]

Pinkeye wrote:

you know people are idiotic when they get all hot and bothered over an article by an organisation such as moveon.org that advocates peace (how dare they want to live in peace and harmony!!!).
Personally, I'm not hot and bothered by the article. Just amused.

By the way, do you know why MoveOn.org was founded in the first place?

[usa320]

HERE WE GO....THATS RIGHT...TIME TO CHECK THE METER...

http://www.wakularacing.com/BULL****-O-METER.gif

[Truthsayer]

usa320 is rating his next post.

[EvanL]

HERE WE GO....THATS RIGHT...TIME TO CHECK THE METER...

http://www.wakularacing.com/BULL****-O-METER.gif
Shouldnt you be stocking some shelves or scanning items?
You know that spill over on aisle 3 still needs to be cleaned up.
p-)

[wholagun]

why is this bull**** if 500 000 some of people think its wrong includeing families of fallen soliders then its clearly not bull**** and is a big enough problem that they feel needs to be adressed.

Why does everyone on this forum have to totally cast aside anything that goes against what they believe in, just because you don't agree iwth it does not make untrue. There are things I do not agree with but I still belive in them, I keep an open mind. I find people here do not do that. People on this site always say ah its left wing stuff it gotta be BS, that so ignorant.

[pinkeye]

why is this bull**** if 500 000 some of people think its wrong includeing families of fallen soliders then its clearly not bull**** and is a big enough problem that they feel needs to be adressed.

Why does everyone on this forum have to totally cast aside anything that goes against what they believe in, just because you don't agree iwth it does not make untrue. There are things I do not agree with but I still belive in them, I keep an open mind. I find people here do not do that. People on this site always say ah its left wing stuff it gotta be BS, that so ignorant.

precisely. too many people on this site are narrow-minded and refuse to see beyond their noses.

[Cpl Stumps]

I'm not here to attack anybody but I'd like to voice an opinion.

Pinkeye remarked "you know people are idiotic when they get all hot and bothered over an article by an organisation such as moveon.org that advocates peace (how dare they want to live in peace and harmony!!!)."

And I agree that people should live in peace. Unfortunately the world is filled with people who don't want to live in peace. They murder, rape and destroy with their goals in mind. The day there are no threats in the world is the day we'll all live in peace. What bothers me is that you have these Peace Organizations that have this belief that (IMHO) that if we talk reasonably to the dictators and despots of the world everything will be ok. That the 'bad' men will see the errors of their ways. I honestly think these people live in a dream world. To honestly think that we can solve every international problem without the use of force is a fallacy because there are people out there who came to power by force, control by force and will only go away by force.

Maybe I don't understand these Peace Groups, because it seems to me that they would rather leave a dictator or despot in power if it means not going to war. But the reality is that sometimes war is necessary, sometimes good men and women have to give their lives in order to see a wrong corrected.

The simplest test I've thought of to see how strong a belief a "Peace" person has is this.

If I walk up to you and dope slap across the head, what will you do? Will you call the police and have me arrested (equal to having the U.S. Military take action) Will you hit me back (clearly an unpeaceful action) or will you let me beat the tar out of you once I've seen that you'll do nothing. To add to that what if you knew I was coming over to dope slap you, would you again call the police to stop me from attacking you, would you take action before I could hit you or would you stand there knowing full well that I'm going to kick the living crap out of you and just take it.

If you can tell me that you'll just take the beatin' then your a Peace Lover, if you call the cops or take action yourself, your a hypocrite.

Just my opinion

[usa320]

I didnt say the whole idea of opposing the war is bull****, but what i am saying is that Moveon.org and this article are.

[Argyll]

If I walk up to you and dope slap across the head, what will you do? Will you call the police and have me arrested (equal to having the U.S. Military take action) Will you hit me back (clearly an unpeaceful action) or will you let me beat the tar out of you once I've seen that you'll do nothing. To add to that what if you knew I was coming over to dope slap you, would you again call the police to stop me from attacking you, would you take action before I could hit you or would you stand there knowing full well that I'm going to kick the living crap out of you and just take it.

If you can tell me that you'll just take the beatin' then your a Peace Lover, if you call the cops or take action yourself, your a hypocrite.

Just my opinion

An interesting dilemma........hmmm ,ok this is the Scots way,I'd let you beat me as whilst you were doing it,the rest of my hommies would be stealing all the **** out your house,and pissing in yer fridge ;)

see I can relate to this coz when I was a fokin nut job,I used to be the guy who would start a fight with all the civvies,take a bit of a pastin,only to have like 20-30 of my mates all come from nowhere and kick the fok out of them!!...........just for something to do on a Saturday night

A very interesting dilemma indeed!! ;)

[wholagun]

I didnt say the whole idea of opposing the war is bull****, but what i am saying is that Moveon.org and this article are.

Does the same apply when a right wing organization like the NCAA ( think thats what its called) or any other right wing organization that publishes an article based on its right wing agenda is that acceptable? If so, why isn't the left wing organizations?

[Bootneck]

The NCAA is probably not the group you're looking for.

;)


MoveOn.org; Win Without War

Can someone please explain to me MoveOn's take on how you "win" against the likes of Al Qaeda without war?

[Dave the Dawg]

why is this bull**** if 500 000 some of people think its wrong includeing families of fallen soliders then its clearly not bull**** and is a big enough problem that they feel needs to be adressed.

Why does everyone on this forum have to totally cast aside anything that goes against what they believe in, just because you don't agree iwth it does not make untrue. There are things I do not agree with but I still belive in them, I keep an open mind. I find people here do not do that. People on this site always say ah its left wing stuff it gotta be BS, that so ignorant.The document posted is a press release from an antiwar advocacy group. Are you expecting some sort of impartial analysis therein?

BTW, "560,340 members of MoveOn.org", assuming that there are no duplicate or false names on the list (and MoveOn would hardly be the first advocacy group to fail to ensure that didn't happen) and assuming no foreigners signed the list, constitutes 0.19% of the US population.

As for the substance of the press release:

Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq AnniversaryExactly two military family members are identified. How many actually signed the petition? What percentage are they of all military family members? Does any objective polling data or similar research corroborate the notion that "Military Families Urge Censure" and not that some military family members urge censure?

Speaking for herself and other military families, Ms. Niederer said... And who exactly appointed her to speak for other military families?

[Beowulf]

why is this bull**** if 500 000 some of people think its wrong includeing families of fallen soliders then its clearly not bull**** and is a big enough problem that they feel needs to be adressed.

Why does everyone on this forum have to totally cast aside anything that goes against what they believe in, just because you don't agree iwth it does not make untrue. There are things I do not agree with but I still belive in them, I keep an open mind. I find people here do not do that. People on this site always say ah its left wing stuff it gotta be BS, that so ignorant.The document posted is a press release from an antiwar advocacy group. Are you expecting some sort of impartial analysis therein?

BTW, "560,340 members of MoveOn.org", assuming that there are no duplicate or false names on the list (and MoveOn would hardly be the first advocacy group to fail to ensure that didn't happen) and assuming no foreigners signed the list, constitutes 0.19% of the US population.

As for the substance of the press release:

Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq AnniversaryExactly two military family members are identified. How many actually signed the petition? What percentage are they of all military family members? Does any objective polling data or similar research corroborate the notion that "Military Families Urge Censure" and not that some military family members urge censure?

Speaking for herself and other military families, Ms. Niederer said... And who exactly appointed her to speak for other military families?

excellent post, no flaming, and a good critical analysis of the article. You get a cyber cookie. :D

[wholagun]

The document posted is a press release from an antiwar advocacy group. Are you expecting some sort of impartial analysis therein?


In an earlier post I hinted at the fact that I do not think its partial and that right wing material should be treated with the same degree of caution as everyone here treats left wing publications.

[Bootneck]

In many cases right wing material posted here is subject to the same scrutiny. Just look at the reaction Sixgun gets to his posts (shall I point you to the threads?). A crank he may be, but he's no worse than Mustamoto, Ducimus or Pinkeye - just the other end of the spectrum.



In an earlier post I hinted at the fact that I do not think its partial and that right wing material should be treated with the same degree of caution as everyone here treats left wing publications.

[Haiw]

In many cases right wing material posted here is subject to the same scrutiny. Just look at the reaction Sixgun gets to his posts (shall I point you to the threads?). A crank he may be, but he's no worse than Mustamoto, Ducimus or Pinkeye - just the other end of the spectrum.



In an earlier post I hinted at the fact that I do not think its partial and that right wing material should be treated with the same degree of caution as everyone here treats left wing publications.
Calling Sixgun 'rightwing' is an insult to every sane right-winger out there...

[mocking_loudly_died]

Calling Sixgun 'rightwing' is an insult to every sane right-winger out there...

I'd call him loony wing.

[wholagun]

Calling Sixgun 'rightwing' is an insult to every sane right-winger out there...

I'd call him loony wing.

no you can't call a right wing person loony its already taken by the loony left

Thats why I like being moderate, a bit of colum A and a bit of colum B. Left is too liberal for me and right is too conservative.

[wholagun]

In many cases right wing material posted here is subject to the same scrutiny. Just look at the reaction Sixgun gets to his posts (shall I point you to the threads?). A crank he may be, but he's no worse than Mustamoto, Ducimus or Pinkeye - just the other end of the spectrum.

point taken. All I am saying is that you can't discard all material that goes against what you believe, even if you have to swallow your pride for standing behind it. For example, you have to keep an open mind that you war in iraq was started under false pretenses and that the WMDs will never be found. If after 15 years one still believes that WMDs will be found then your that the person i am refering to.

[Dave the Dawg]

To show how little value I would feel should be put on petitions like this, I would note that the petition in support of the troops at DefendAmerica has 11 million names. While I do believe that supporters for Bush Administration national security policies outnumber opponents of such policies (most recent Democratic gains in polls have indicated economic concerns as being foremost for Democratic voters), I doubt that support is 20 times as great. One could argue that the DefendAmerica petition is fairly generic and apolitical, as opposed to MoveOn's, but it is hosted on a dot mil website, so I doubt many opponents of the Administration would be inclined to sign it and thus be seen as giving their imprimatur to a policy they oppose.

BTW, while I personally could not be described as left wing on most issues, I have many friends and colleagues that are. Few of them would want to be associated with a group as rabidly partisan and vitriolic as MoveOn.

I am especially saddened to see Joseph Cirincione, previously a rational war opponent, joining the MoveOn crowd. He always opposed military action, but here he is before the war, in January 2003:
Iraq must persuade the United Nations that it has indeed destroyed all of the weapons it built. There is no excuse for not providing such an explanation. Until Saddam does, there should be no question of removing sanctions or trusting Iraqi claims. But this is not sufficient reason to go to war. It is a simple calculation. We can gain more benefits at less cost by letting the inspection process continue through the year than we would from going to war now.
Back in September 2002, he said, unequivocally:
Iraq almost certainly does not have nuclear weapons. But it almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons — and some biological weapons or agents.

[Haiw]

Calling Sixgun 'rightwing' is an insult to every sane right-winger out there...

I'd call him loony wing.

no you can't call a right wing person loony its already taken by the loony left

Thats why I like being moderate, a bit of colum A and a bit of colum B. Left is too liberal for me and right is too conservative.
I think most people do that in a way, I mean...no one agrees with every statement from one side (ie. 100% left or right on all things)

[Trigger]

point taken. All I am saying is that you can't discard all material that goes against what you believe, even if you have to swallow your pride for standing behind it. For example, you have to keep an open mind that you war in iraq was started under false pretenses and that the WMDs will never be found. If after 15 years one still believes that WMDs will be found then your that the person i am refering to.

Does this also hold true to yourself? Are you open minded enough to accept the fact that WMDs may still be found and that the war was justified?
Or will you just discard it?
Not a flame, just a question.

[Whistler]

Moveon.org was founded to tell people to MOVE ON and stop whining about the blatant lies and controversy over Bill Clinton a few years back.

I think its about time we turn around and tell them to MOVE ON and stop whining about everything the Bush administration does.

I mean, we wouldn't want them to be hypocritical would we?

[Trigger]

^Thank you.

[the_spec]

Moveon.org was founded to tell people to MOVE ON and stop whining about the blatant lies and controversy over Bill Clinton a few years back.

I think its about time we turn around and tell them to MOVE ON and stop whining about everything the Bush administration does.
Having an affair with an intern and starting a war on false pretenses is of course completely the same. :roll:

[Truthsayer]

*** is worse then killing people. Didn't you know?

[Whistler]

Moveon.org was founded to tell people to MOVE ON and stop whining about the blatant lies and controversy over Bill Clinton a few years back.

I think its about time we turn around and tell them to MOVE ON and stop whining about everything the Bush administration does.
Having an affair with an intern and starting a war on false pretenses is of course completely the same. :roll:

I suppose it was just a coincidence that Desert Fox or Kosovo always happened to pop up every time the media got on his back rofl .

[WARPIG]

Just a little perspective...again.
I am a soldier.. possibly on the way to Afghanistan. My family may or may not agree. If I went to Iraq.. I also would have many family members with different opinions of the war. Some would support it.. even if they don't support Bush. Some would outright bad mouth Bush, the war in Iraq, and anything remotely smacking of Bush's influence.
It means absolutely nothing. ****, if you don't have family in the service... you probably know someone over there.

More rhetoric trying to beat a dead horse. Why we went there will likely kill Bush's election hopes.. why we are still there is only questioned by the ignorant. It is all more political poo flinging. Thanks for posting it.. I am sure we all appreciate the stench.

[pinkeye]

sheesh, god forbid anyone post an article that presents the other side of the coin.

i did not write that i agreed with the article. i do not believe the u.s. military should leave iraq. i do believe, however, that any intelligent discussion requires diverse point of views.

and i'm sick of reading that peace advocates are "commie cowards". last time i checked there were no large protests against the military presence in afghanistan.
despite the idiotic rhetoric coming from the white house, military intervention in iraq had little to do with the "war on terrorism", hence the global resistance to the largely unilateral approach of uncle sam.

[WARPIG]

I definately agree that multiple perspectives are needed.. and welcome.
I can understand the discontent with the Bush admin. I do think that most of the opposition's language has been extremely rhetorical. That is the nature of politics though.

You seem to be discontent with White House rhetoric Pinkeye... but doesn't this...

military intervention in iraq had little to do with the "war on terrorism", hence the global resistance to the largely unilateral approach of uncle sam.
seem a bit like rhetoric?

No worries pink eye. I get that you are disenchanted with the current administration. I am as well. I don't remit to pissing all over everything they are involved in however. You have to see that a campaign of " Anyone but Bush" is a bit idiotic? I mean.. even if the potential competition is even weaker than he is? I would rather deal with Bush and put his feet to the coals than to gamble on an unknown with weak potential. Maybe I am reading into this a bit. None the less.. the poo flinging from either side smells like ****.

[pinkeye]

I definately agree that multiple perspectives are needed.. and welcome.
I can understand the discontent with the Bush admin. I do think that most of the opposition's language has been extremely rhetorical. That is the nature of politics though.

You seem to be discontent with White House rhetoric Pinkeye... but doesn't this...

military intervention in iraq had little to do with the "war on terrorism", hence the global resistance to the largely unilateral approach of uncle sam.
seem a bit like rhetoric?

No worries pink eye. I get that you are disenchanted with the current administration. I am as well. I don't remit to pissing all over everything they are involved in however. You have to see that a campaign of " Anyone but Bush" is a bit idiotic? I mean.. even if the potential competition is even weaker than he is? I would rather deal with Bush and put his feet to the coals than to gamble on an unknown with weak potential. Maybe I am reading into this a bit. None the less.. the poo flinging from either side smells like ****.

weak potential? wasn't that a problem in 2000 with bush? i wish the american public would put bush's stinky feet to the coals. his administration's record on everything from energy to foreign policy is incredibly reckless and dangerous. much has been written about the bush administration, yet he still has support? hell, he'll probably win in november. frightening... but i digress...

when i mention rhetoric, i am referring to statements about iraq being the frontline in the war on terrorism, that every act of insurgence in iraq is the work of terrorism, etc., etc. utter bs. i don't know a single educated person that actually buys this crap. i work for a federal government, i know how the machinery of government works. i provide speaking points, etc., for my government, so i know all about spin. and the rhetoric that comes out of the white house leaves me speechless. how these morons constitute your government definitely proves that miracles do happen, and/or that many americans are incredibly gullible.

[WARPIG]

Without looking at the White house rhetoric.. look at how the bombings and attacks in Iraq have become more advanced. Did a bunch of pissed off Iraqi's just get smarter? Or are more advanced tactics coming from the outside. Even the democrats see that Iraq has become the battleground for terrorists. They want Bush to hold Saudia Arabia accountable. No denying that Bush has botched some pretty big issues. Big things happened during his term. Calling people stupid because they believe that a War on Terror is going on in Iraq is just unjustified. Of course there is a war on terror there. The confusion and discontent of the arabs in the region, the Iraqi people, insurgents, and the painful occupation of the US forces.. is just the type of situation that terrorists seek. It doesn't matter if a dozen terrorists are killed in a gun fight.. but if one bomber infiltrates a stronghold... kills a missionary...etc. Terror seems to prevail. Funny how terrorists seek to plant terror in thier enemies. The war on terror is not just the US against Al Queda... it is the war we all wage against those who use fear to control us. Bush took the fight to them. Was it the right decision? Don't know. We can't really back up can we? Bush is trying to justify this his decisions. We know not all of them were justified. Is it rhetoric? OK. Not any more than what you spit out.

[pinkeye]

Without looking at the White house rhetoric.. look at how the bombings and attacks in Iraq have become more advanced. Did a bunch of pissed off Iraqi's just get smarter? Or are more advanced tactics coming from the outside. Even the democrats see that Iraq has become the battleground for terrorists. They want Bush to hold Saudia Arabia accountable. No denying that Bush has botched some pretty big issues. Big things happened during his term. Calling people stupid because they believe that a War on Terror is going on in Iraq is just unjustified. Of course there is a war on terror there. The confusion and discontent of the arabs in the region, the Iraqi people, insurgents, and the painful occupation of the US forces.. is just the type of situation that terrorists seek. It doesn't matter if a dozen terrorists are killed in a gun fight.. but if one bomber infiltrates a stronghold... kills a missionary...etc. Terror seems to prevail. Funny how terrorists seek to plant terror in thier enemies. The war on terror is not just the US against Al Queda... it is the war we all wage against those who use fear to control us. Bush took the fight to them. Was it the right decision? Don't know. We can't really back up can we? Bush is trying to justify this his decisions. We know not all of them were justified. Is it rhetoric? OK. Not any more than what you spit out.

to put the issue of rhetoric to bed, i am not the government. accordingly, my word is not law. thus, you cannot define nor compare my personal opinion with official government policy.

regarding the issue of terrorism in iraq, first of all, we are using a western-centric definition. i personally believe that deliberately targeting civilians is a terrorist act. others, however, obviously do not share this view. therefore we have to be careful when discussing "terrorism".

second, the current iraqi insurgency is linked by the bush administration to the larger war on terrorism. since there is no apparent credible evidence to suggest that the saddam regime was actively engaged in the kind of terrorism the west is combatting (as defined by 9-11), it would be logical to conclude that military intervention is largely responsible for the current wave of terrorism in iraq. saddam was supporting terrorism, just ask the israelis, but the u.s. was not terribly concerned with this sad reality prior to 9-11 because it did not affect the u.s. directly.

third, terrorism, as defined by the bush administration, is often limited to al qaeda. we have heard reports that al qaeda may be active in iraq. but then again, 99% of the attacks may be the work of iraqi nationalists. thus, unless the bush administration is withholding information, the public cannot know the truth. in addition, since anyone can claim to be al qaeda, especially after your country has been invaded by a foreign power, the issue of iraqi insurgency=terrorism à la al qaeda loses its credibility.

moreover, a government cannot change its tune and not be held accountable. the war in iraq was sold on the premise that iraq was somehow linked to al qaeda and that nuclear mushrooms would soon rise above american cities. polls indicated that the majority of the american people believed saddam was involved in 9-11. turns out the intelligence was way off base. fine, these things happen. but the bush administration subsequently adopted the liberation of iraq angle and the imminent threat bs was swept under the rug. now we hear that iraq is the frontline of the war on terrorism. this is unacceptable. afghanistan is still a basketcase, so why did the u.s. not dedicate the necessary resources to take care of that mess first? and now iraq is a basketcase as well. the overwhelming consensus in academic and policy circles is that the bush administration blew it big time in iraq. this is a fact. the american approach certainly violated every lesson i learned on the matter courtesy of many years of graduate and post-graduate studies in international relations and security studies. american officials at the state department and other branches of the government have voiced the same concerns and frustration.

having said this, i firmly believe the international community has a responsibility to fix the mess in iraq. but i stress the international community, not the u.s. in other words, iraq cannot be abandoned. i do not have any respect for the bush administration, but the same goes for those advocating military withdrawal.