This is not a conservative war. This is certainly not a liberal war. This is a senseless war. Heck, the first time I actually didn't agree with the president and started siding with the left was when he hinted at declaring war with Iraq. I appreciated how Afghanistan was freed from the Taliban and women were free to go outside for once, but I didn't think a war with Iraq was necessary.
     It's amazing how the Republicans have the chutzpah to taunt Support our Troops and surrender to the Dems in their speeches on the House floor. To them, supporting the troops was only when it served their own interests. Militarily, in countries like Kosovo, we needed one soldier for every fifteen civilians. If we seriously want to finish the job, we'll need well over 400,000 troops, staying in Iraq continously with what we have is baseless.
     It's ridiculous to assume that we didn't fight the war for oil. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, whose leader Bush has great respect for. He didn't tell us that we had to end out addiction to oil after the attacks, even though it's the single best way to eliminate terrorism (terrorists grow back but oil is their money supply). Cheney's Halliburton (which still pays him hundreds of thousands) got the contract for oil drilling in the nation. Even the Senate Intelligence Report and the IEA report (both under Republicans) conceded that there were no WMDs and Iraq is now a major cause of terrorism, as well as the country where most terrorist attacks occur. (As much as we hate Saddam, at least he thought Al Qaeda was a threat and kept them out.) The list goes on and on. The latest: the Dems want to pass an anti-price gouging bill on oil (as one Congressman noted, the price of a barrel in $7 less in April 2007 than April 2006, yet gas prices rose 50 cents-all while profits boomed, so gouging is obviously happening). The president promises a veto. So he has to have a, wait for it, dumb excuse. Why of course- there will be oil shortages if we prevent the oil companies from price gouging. Is there anymore doubt why we went into Iraq?
     Maybe the president shouldn't have told the military to ignore Al Sadr in 2003 (once we leave, he is virtually assured to be dictator of the country). Maybe he should have fired Rumfield and Sanchez much earlier and replace them with more competent people sooner. The list goes on.
     I don't want anarchy in Iraq, genocide,...but I think our leaders need the political courage to realize we need to get out before more damage is done. Yes, we've lost much, I don't want any soldier to die in vain, but as Warren Buffet put it, you've got to know when to stop digging when you're in a hole.
     The cost of this war is 100 billion away from the cost of Vietnam (adjusted to inflation). Add a few billion more and we would have fixed Social Security. By simply having a war that lasts this long, haven't we already lost?
     Yes, I'm disapointed the Dems took out the withdrawal language. I felt that they should have at least stuck in a bunch of goodies (that are being stuck in the Senate) into the bill before they give it to the president (like lower college tuition and alternative energy funding). But, if I have correct, the minimum wage increase is in there.
    So, the debate will come up in September and the Dems vow a renewed fight then. It's incredible how you can't pass needed Immigration reform and compromise, but you can pass a $120 billion bill that doesn't solve anything. Until then, I'll continue lobbying the Dems, but I'm not supporting any Moveon (I am a member, by the way) ads that attack them. If it's any relief I get from this debate, it's that the left isn't as politically slavish to their party as the right- we question whether our pols are doing a heckuva job.