Comment by RUCerious — August 28, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

I think they believe in following daddy (Bush) no matter what.

Right-wing trolls are authoritarian i.e. anti-democracy.

And they love simple direct action like shooting people and dropping bombs like bin Laden and co. None of that fancy nuanced thinking for them.

The anti-war crowd play along by employing equally simplistic thinking like “bring the troops home.”

LISTEN to someone who has been there and seen for himself, rather than bowing to others with NO boots on the ground experience.

Baird spent nearly four hours listening patiently and respectfully to his constituents (plus one non-constituent activist) who expresed their concerns about not withdrawing immediately or at least introducing a timeline. While many raised valid points none offered a substantial refutation of the case laid out by Baird for delaying troop drawdown. Baird was a model of dignity and grace as he faced ad hominems, false accusations, and ultimatums from shouting participants.

For 4 1/2 years I had to listen to Bushie sloganeering that said to oppose the Iraq invasion/occupation was to oppose our troops. Now the anti-occupation crowd claims that to oppose immediate withdrawal/timetables is to be nothing more than a shill for Bush. Both statements are blatantly dishonest and a convenient dodge of substantive debate on the issues.

On another note it was great to see how many attendees of the town hall were pro-impeachment, and disappointing that Baird does not make the issue a higher priority. Hopefully this will change.

Thanks for the response (well written).

It seems that the debate is framed too much at the extremes. Walk away completely or stay there indefinitely (the 40-50 year variety). What about a strategy that sends the right message in terms of (non) occupation to the Iraqi people and shows that we have the courage to do the right thing over the long term.

To that end:

1. Immediately cease construction of the new embassy compound.
2. Immediately cease construction of all military bases in Iraq.
3. Immediately begin a slow draw down/redeployment of troops.
4. Aggressively negotiate with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Syrian, Iran and Iraq to find common ground (including shared expense) with the sole objective of a stable country that is secure and self governing. We only hear about Syria and Iran, but they are only 2 of 6 bordering countries (if I’ve got my geography correct).
5. If we manage to get no. 4 to actually happen, then pay the majority of the reconstruction costs.
6. If we cannot get no. 4 to happen, then I see no other alternative, but to throw in the towell.

Yes, this will take a courageous Congress and President, neither of which we have (yet). Yes, this will require tax increases (and again courageous leadership to make them stick). And yes, this does not even begin to be an option until we have a real leader as President; but that possibility is there beginning in 200 if we do not let apathy control the outcome.

I know I am over simplifying, but as long as we keep the debate at the extremes I believe we are doomed to fail in Iraq and probably as a nation.

Since Iraq is just slightly larger in land area than California, and has a slightly larger population than Texas, then perhaps an extended layover at LAX or DFW would be sufficient for the frustrated traveler to submit a definitive, detailed statement about the current conditions of that entire state.

The only difference is, you could venture out into the countryside on your own in either state and have a reasonably good chance of returning alive.

we’ve got 233 Democrats;

40 of them are Blue Dogs, that is, conservative Democrats that frequently vote Republican.

And then we have another group that are new to the Congress in their first term elected from red state

[Proud of 8 months of accomplishing...WHAT? Seriously, what? Put an election in jeopardy? Are you serious? With 80% of Democrats and 55% of Americans wanting impeachment before you even start? With the post-Nixon and post-Reagan election results known to you? With your own book in the stores arguing that the Constitution is in jeopardy? Legislative attempts to reverse things??? People don't want another 18 months of staged "attempts" while knowing that any good bill will be vetoed, and knowing that you know it, and knowing that you know that we know that you know it. You have 18 months. Nixon took 3. Clinton took 4 with a Senate trial included. Gonzales took only the threat.]

Don’t fall for that ‘I’m just following my conscience spiel”

Baird has been paid off to carry water for the pro-war position that if we just stay a few months more, and a few months more, and do the right thing, stay a few months more.

DO the right thing??? THe right thing for everyone is to withdraw now. Not wait a few more months and let hundreds more die for a lie. That is what takes more courage.

He represents them all by using the information at his disposal and reason to form opinions. Representation is not simply a matter of regurgitating the opinion of the majority.

In 2000 nearly half of those eligible to vote chose not too. A small percentage chose to vote for a 3rd party candidate that could only play the role of spoiler.

In 2004 at least a third of us chose not to vote.

Apathy is the opportunity power and corruption take advantage of (i.e. Florida 2000, Ohio 2004).

Choice and consequence. We as a country have to bear the consequences. In this case in blood and national treasure. I cannot look my children in the eye and tell them it is morally okay to start a war, take a country and its people to the brink of ruin and then walk away; regardless of whether it was morally wrong to begin the war.

I do not know whether we can ever fix what we have broken. And it is we. George W. Bush may have pulled the trigger, but we put the gun in his hand. Congressman Baird at least has the moral courage to raise the issue of national responsibility and take the heat for it.

Comment by bilbobaggins — August 28, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

That 72% do not necessarily embrace a quick exit from Iraq. They agree that Bush has screwed it up.

Oh really. Please explain how what he is saying is representing ALL the constituents in his district. Your logic escapes me. If 72% of his district thinks we should get out of Iraq and 28% says we should stay and he says we should stay, HOW IN THE HELL is that representing ALL of the constituents. It is impossible to represent all your constituents, therefore it is up to them to represent the majority opinion in their district.

To all the resident trolls here. Just because you say it doesn’t make it the truth. It may the your truth, but it isn’t our truth. The 72% of Americans who think Bush is wrong on Iraq know the truth.