The Case For Facing Facts

I am a Democrat and have been for several years. I did not agree with the means by which we were taken into this conflict but once we were in I understood we were obligated and that our withdrawal must be well planned. I am concerned with the polarization I have witnessed over the past several years in our political arena. I believe part of the problem can be attributed to the talking heads from both sides (liberal and conservative) - Rush, Bill, Sean, etc. We are in a serious time which requires serious people to review the facts and make intelligent decisions. Mr. Peters article is well timed and should be taken as a breath of fresh air by everyone, no matter what political affiliation. It is time we dealty with facts as a populace and hope that somewhere in this web of politics we can find a true statesman.

I understand why the war critics don't want to acknowledge the good news. Because no one knows where this trend will stop. Will it bring Iraq all the way to democracy, peace and prosperity envisioned by the neocons? And if it will happen, does it mean that the war was worth it?

I think it great that things are getting better over in Iraq. When can we leave? If we are going to establish an eternal presence in Iraq how can we do it as inexpensively as possible? Will we ever hold the fools who put us in this hell hole responsible for it? Will we ever pay the bills for this war or will it stay on the credit card without a limit that we have issued to President Bush? Where will we get the unending supply of troops for this unending war? Nobody prepaired us for this "long, hard slog" and it should now be time for them to come clean, figure out what the real future costs will be and plan for the future rather than viewing the long term as the next "emergency" budget request.

APPLAUSE !! While I don't share Peters' favored Iraq policy or his underlying assumption that announcing our departure by a date certain is most conducive to political reconciliation, I applaud his general message of less knee-jerk partisanship and more serious consideration of a variety of views. SEE "Real Debate: An Endangered Species" at http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/03/real_debate_an_endangered_species

it is encouraging to see a balanced viewpoint in the current environment of extremist rightious dialog that seems to be so prevalent. With the exception of the phrase "which he has replaced the previous strategy of banging down doors and shooting first." which I beleive is not factual, it is true that bothconservative and liberal sides have contributed to an environment that has nnot been helpful. as a conservative, I agree that in hind sight, this was not a well executed plan for eliminating world terroism. It is pleasing to see a liberal face the facts that the surge has brought positive results. It is reciprocally fair to ask why we didn't pursue this policy some time ago.

Liberals should admit that Saddam Hussein was clearly a dictator that commited mass murder, and used gas ( a form of WMD) on his own people. I personally beleive that Bush believed in what he has done, based on the advise he was given. ( I haven't seen that he intentionally lied) (Even Hillary stated at the authorization for the war that there were 23 reasons stated for supporting bush and plenty of reason even if there wasn't WMD. Nevertheless, the execution of the post war effort left room for legitimate criticism.

I hope such articles will be more evident in the moths to come so that we can begin a more meaningful dialog on the correct path forward. we desparately need to strive for more civil dialog in dealing with foreign policy and issues.

We have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 50 million people. Its not all we hoped for, but who among us would rather live under the old regimes versus the current?

As a "fellow liberal" who opposed the war from the start, I reluctantly agree with Peters that I am as much to blame for the Iraq mess as the rightwingers who actually conceived and executed the war in the first place and who all along tried to equate dissent with treason. With casualty rates roughly where they were 18 months ago (the good ol' days), I admit finding 20 decapitated corpses every day instead of 40 means we are winning. Winning what? Permanent stewardship over a failed Islamic state at the cost of 2 billion a week. I promise to abandon the rigidity of my poorly reasoned positions and vote Republican.

Your heart's in the right place, but you have a childishly simplistic view of history. Your current events knowledge is rather weak as well--"banging down doors and shooting first", indeed. It is extremely dishonorable to snipe at people who have more courage than you could fathom, and have done more for their countrymen than you would ever consider doing. Have a nice day, and thank whatever pseudogod you worship that brave men and women stand ready to die for freedoms that you take for granted.

A careful tip of the hat. Years into it and this is the first we are seeing something good. I hope we have learned the true cost of war.

I hope the peace in Bagdad will be lasting and the troops can go back. I don't know what Petraeus have or have not done, but it is more of the reduction in insurgencies rather than the success of the American army. What about the rest of Iraq?

If only the efforts of Petraeus and the troops were matched by state, treasury, HHS, etc. This has been all on the Army, and not all on America. Every facet of national power and every organ of government could have had a full hand in the effort. You have to wage peace with the same fierocity that you wage war. They left the details to contractors and the State Department just cut checks. Rumsfield never had a plan for order. He fired Shinseki for estimating a correct force requirement.

Our own Congress is disfunctional for very good reasons. It was designed by people that feared
government power run amok. Well maybe the same is good for Iraq. We do know that local and
provincial governments are moving forward with good results. Local government works well here
too. We also know that iraq has approved a budget, which is something our Congress can't do.

As a Vietnam Vet I still hate the likes of democrats - Kennedy, Dodd, Biden - who voted to stop aide
to South Vietnam and created the shame of Saigon and Vietnam. Today they are attempting the same illogical solutions for political expediency. That is shameful as well. Fortunately we have a focused determined President Bush who will not bow to political expediency or polls to do the right thing. OurCongress

The Iraqi government will start feeling like a government and an able system only if the Americans start pulling out leaving behind their friendliness and good memory. what the people think is not important for the time being because the people of Iraq hardly know what is going on in their country except the feeling of bring occupied. Make the Maliki team feel self sufficient by bringing home some fifty thousand troops by March 2008.

As a lifelong progressive now age 71, and a 50 year careful observer of politics and all the wars we have ever been involved in, I think it is just a bit too soon to say that Petraeus' surge has been the medicine that saved the sick baby. Let us wait a few more months while we begin to bring some, perhaps 10,000 great soldiers home. Bush absolutely must tell Maliki that he needs to double his effort at reconciliation, top down, versus the labored, too slow bottoms up stalagmite that appears to be ongoing.

You ask why? It is very simple: Hate overwhelms reason.