12 Comments

• 1. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:47 pm

  This will not set well with the lunatic fringe. I guarantee he will be personally attacked and marginalized by the the parent company of the Democratic party; MoveOn.org.

• 2. GOP4ME  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  I am curious if we have ever had one of our resident loonies every say anything positive about a conservative.

  A big difference between us and them is we support logical, sane thought regardless if the politician hasan (R), (D) or (I) next to their name.

• 3. Sunny  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

  GOP4ME | November 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

  A big difference between us and them is we support logical, sane thought regardless if the politician hasan (R), (D) or (I) next to their name.

  Lets be honest here GOP4ME, you will only support someone with a D or I next to their name if they support your views or the views of the GOP. Neither logic nor sane thought has anything to do with it. I have read many logican and sane statements that have been attacked by this group of bloggers.
  BTW, it should be “has a (R), (D), or (i)”; you only use “an” when the next work begins with a vowel.

• 4. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  C’mon Sunny

  While Joe Lieberman may agree with conservatives in terms of the war, he is diametrically opposed with conservatives in terms of social policies, yet he still is very well respected because of his determination and professionalism.

  The same can be said for Evan Bayh, John Tester, etc. I respect them, and while I politically disagree with them, I would never personally attack them.
  John Murtha on the other hand…….

  However, most liberals personally attack anyone with “a (R)”. Was I punctually correct?

• 5. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm

  Is there hope for the Democratic Party yet?- Matt

  0-40.

• 6. Bull  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

  actually sunny, GOP4ME is correct. you use “an” when the next sound is a vowel sound. because R is a consonant doesn’t make it “a”. if you were to spell the sound of the letter R, it begins with a vowel.

• 7. Rabble Rouser  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

  While progress is being made, why don’t we turn Iraq into one big glass factory with a few nukes. We could have all their oil, and end this thing once and for all!

• 8. Almiranta  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

  Will someone please get Sunny a saucer of milk?

  There are people who start with a deeply held personal philosophy, and who then choose their political affiliations based on this philosphy. Therefore, one whose personal philosphy is based on hard work and enterprise, on personal responsibility, on the belief that the Constitution of the United States of America must be the rule of the land, on love of and respect for country, on putting objective truths before peersonal wishes, is likely to be a political conservative.

  One who thinks that the role of government is to guarantee equal outcome instead of equal opportunity, one who feels the Constitution is a fluid and ever-changing guideline for the country but not a rigid set of rules, one who has few if any rigid rules but tends to see everything as relative to something else, is probably going to be a political liberal.

  One whose political orientation is based primarily on FEELING—feeling superior to others, feeling hatred and distrust for those with whom he does not agree, feeling justified in saying whatever will cause the most harm to those with whom he does not agree, is probably going to be what I call an “unexamined radical Lefty”. (The true ideologues of the radical Left are truly and deeply intellectually committed to hard-core Socialism, but they prey upon, recruit, and use those who are just emotional train wrecks looking for someone to accept their hostility and validate their negativity.)

  I respect both of the first two groups I described. I think it is possible to have a different world view than mine and still be a friend, a loved relative, a respected political opponent.

  But the radical Left has no tolerance for ANYONE who does not agree with their skewed view of the world.

  Lieberman was savaged by his party, which has been to a large degree hijacked by the Loony Left, for simply having and stating ideas which were far from outrageous but which did not hew to the radical Leftist line. Now we can expect Baird, who appears to be a man of conscience and of principle, to be equally savaged by the radicals. I’m sure he knows this, and I respect him for having the moral courage to go against the inmates who are now running the Dem asylum.

• 9. LewWaters  |  November 15th, 2007 at 10:41 pm

  On the 8th, I received the following email from Baird (he is my Representative) explaining his change of heart;

  November 8, 2007

  Dear Mr. Waters :

  Thank you for writing to express your interest and thoughts about my recent statements regarding the situation in Iraq . I appreciate hearing your views and would like to take just a moment to explain how I reached my decision and what I believe is the best course of action for our country given the present circumstances.

  I should begin by noting that there is no way to summarize in a letter all of the information or input that went into this decision. The most recent trip to Iraq in August was my fifth to the region in the past four years and my second to Iraq in the past four months. On all of my recent and prior visits to Iraq and the surrounding region, I specifically sought meetings with individuals I chose, not those “chosen for us” by the Pentagon or State Department. In addition, on each visit to Iraq , I specifically insisted on getting beyond the Green Zone. On our last two trips, this included visits to Ramadi , Yusifiyeh , and Taji . Both in Iraq and in surrounding nations, we purposefully sought meetings with people on different sides of the issue, including elected civilian leaders, military leaders, cabinet members, and civilians.

  With regard to meetings with our military and diplomatic personnel, we of course met with Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus and General Odierno , as well as regional and local commanders, but we also met with soldiers from our own communities, specifically the 104th Reserve Division, the Timberwolves . I know the division well personally because it is based in my home town of Vancouver Washington . I had met with members and officers of the 104 th many times before their deployment. I observed their training at Fort Riley Kansas, met with many of the soldiers in Iraq in May and again in August. These were not “hand picked” spokesmen sent out to give members of Congress a “dog and pony” show, as some have suggested. Rather, they were people from my hometown who I know personally and who I respect and trust. They are serving our nation with great honor and integrity.

  By and large, the soldiers with whom I met in Iraq , from the top brass to the privates, felt good about their mission, believed they were making progress, and wanted to see us complete the work and leave a more stable Iraq before withdrawing. To be sure, there are those who see things differently, but I remember well a battle-scarred colonel and his troops who told me that, in prior months, they had taken heavy incoming and suffered casualties on a weekly basis, but that had changed and conditions had improved dramatically. It also left a strong impression when we met on the street with Sunni and Shia Sheiks who literally embraced our local troops and commanders in an area that had been a death zone for our soldiers previously.

  So too, it had a powerful impact on me when I met with a Sheik in Ramadi who said to me directly, “When you talk about withdrawal as we are trying to fight against Al Qaeda, it makes our job much more difficult. Our people are getting killed every day and we are trying to stop it but we need your help.” The day after this conversation, one of that Sheik’s closest associates was in fact assassinated by Al Qaeda which then, that very afternoon, hit the funeral procession with a car bomb.

  It also had a profound effect on me when I met with Iraqi civilians, including a physician who said he would be dead if it were not for U.S. troops protecting him from insurgents. So too, I met with a young college educated woman who said she and her family will almost certainly be killed if the U.S. withdraws. Similar concerns were voiced by progressive civilians and government officials in surrounding regions. One woman who is a prominent figure in a neighboring government said to me, “You have to understand what happens to people like us if Al Qaeda or the Iranian extremists take over in Iraq and destabilize our nation as well. Everything we’ve worked for and everything we have achieved will be lost.”

  One other set of meetings that left a strong impression involved members and leaders of the Iraqi military. The key point from these meetings was that it is not realistic for us to expect the Iraqis to take over full security responsibilities now given the short time they have had to build their military virtually from scratch. As one leader said to me, “Your armed forces are the best in the world, but you have been building them for two hundred years and have the best equipment and best training in history. Our military was completely destroyed and disbanded. You cannot train, equip and battle test a military, including all the officers at all levels, all the specialists, all the technicians like pilots and air mechanics etc. in just three years. It just cannot be done that quickly, especially while you’re under constant attack from insurgents.”

  Many who have written to me or spoken up at town halls have expressed deep frustration at feeling deceived about the reasons for invading Iraq . There are also concerns and anger about the flaws in the post-invasion management. Others have asked what is different now and why we shouldn’t assume there is deception or unrealistic optimism today. Those are fair and understandable questions that deserve to be addressed.

  First, let me say that I share the frustration and think it is reasonable, given the history of this conflict, to have such questions. But there are real differences in what is happening now and those differences should be acknowledged.

  The most significant and important change of all is that, in many areas, the Iraqi people themselves are starting to pull together to fight against the terrorists of Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups. This has made a tremendous difference in regions like Al Anbar province, which I visited. The reason this is so important is that ultimately the security of Iraq must depend on the Iraqis themselves. Their increased willingness to join in the security forces and fight against extremists is showing measurable success. That success, in turn, will encourage further progress and help the Iraqi army gain greater confidence and competence.

  Corresponding with this development, our strategies on the ground have also changed. It has helped in key areas to have additional troops. This was shared with me by the Iraqis themselves and by our own soldiers and diplomats. Our troops are also now better trained to deal with such things as cultural and linguistic differences and other unique aspects of this mission. I saw some of that training firsthand during my visit to Fort Riley Kansas earlier this year. What is more, our military leadership in Iraq is different than it has been. I and many others believe General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are two of the very best we have. They bring unique knowledge of the region and this type of conflict and combat to their tasks. I would urge people to look at the distinguished record of these two individuals, particularly with regard to their knowledge of and experience in the region.

  On the economic front, though it gets almost no attention in the media, people are at long last starting to go back to work. We are helping reopen key industries that were closed after the invasion. This means tens of thousands of people are now earning paychecks again and now have a vested interest in seeing things improve. Clearly there is much that needs to be done to further improve the infrastructure and economy, but some of our past mistakes are now being corrected. It is also worth noting here that, as grave as some of the infrastructure problems are, it is hard to understand how our withdrawal, and the potential further destabilization, would make any of those already daunting problems any better. In fact, it is only by restoring some sense of security and stability that many of the most technologically competent Iraqis who have fled to other regions will feel safe in returning to help rebuild their country.

  Based on these factors, my personal visits, and multiple meetings in the region and here at home, I reached a conclusion that progress is being made in Iraq, that it would be a mistake to withdraw forces in large numbers immediately, and that we will bear a profound moral burden and strategic threat if our withdrawal resulted in genocide and destabilization of the region. Accordingly, I also believe it would be irresponsible to withhold funding at this time while we have so many troops on the ground in the area.

  I fully recognize that there are enormous challenges and the situation on the ground varies dramatically from one region to another. I also know well that the more one learns about the region and the situation, the more one realizes how complex it really is and how little one actually knows. I also recognize that other interpretations are possible and my own position may well be in error. Frankly, while some may see this acknowledgement of uncertainty as a weakness, I have far more concerns about anyone on either extreme who expresses certainty about their preferred course or who is glib about what the outcome will be one way or another.

  With that awareness, I have taken this stand because I believe it is in the best interest of our nation, our troops, the Iraqi people and the region. Speaking personally, as someone who cares deeply for progressive values and human rights, who has immense respect for our soldiers, and who takes the integrity, responsibility and security of our nation with the utmost seriousness, I do not believe it is consistent with our highest values or our security interests to leave the Iraqi people and surrounding nations to the chaos and slaughter that would likely follow if we left prematurely. Anyone who has followed my long record in Congress of fighting for basic rights for all peoples should not find this position surprising or inconsistent.

  Before closing, I want to emphasize two things. First, I have said often that I believe this invasion has been a terrible tragedy and I voted against authorizing it. But the task before us now is the task before us now, and we have to deal with that reality as realistically and responsibly as we can. Political posturing on either side or simplistic slogans will not serve us well in this difficult circumstance.

  Second, I want to stress that, in opposing an immediate withdrawal, I am in no way suggesting we should have a large presence for the indefinite future in Iraq . I have voted in Congress against permanent bases, I have helped lead efforts to stop corruption, I have publicly stated that I believe the current Embassy plans, set now to be the largest in the entire world, are a mistake, and I have said repeatedly that we should work vigorously to address diplomatic and political solutions and to seek greater involvement from other nations and multinational institutions such as the United Nations. I also fully recognize that this mission is terribly expensive and, as a member of the House Budget Committee, I have argued since before this war began that we must pay for it now rather than passing the resulting debt on to our children.

  To summarize, what I have stated is that given the current positive signs in parts of Iraq, aware that we must begin a gradual withdrawal sometime next year, and recognizing that there is a need for political progress, I believe it makes sense to maintain current levels of forces in Iraq through early next year, with perhaps some withdrawals beginning soon as security conditions permit. This should be followed by larger, gradual reductions in troop strength next year as Iraqi and, hopefully, multinational forces can fill in to sustain the security gains that have been made.

  We will have to withdraw our forces eventually and I hope that can begin relatively soon. However, when we withdraw, how we withdraw, and why we withdraw are tremendously important to our national security and to the lives of the people who have been so profoundly impacted by our nation’s actions.

  Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I may be of further assistance. In addition, I invite you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/baird/IMA/email.shtml and sign up for periodic email updates about my work in Congress.

• 10. 1H8L1B5  |  November 16th, 2007 at 6:04 am

  Sunny, leave the editing to those who know WTF they’re talking about. Also, leave the debate to those who know what they’re talking about.

  Why are all you old “Hillarys” so angry? Go knit a sweater or something…

  Baird is probably toast next year, Lew. MorOn gonna “Lieberman” this guy, because he grew a spine and a brain…

• 11. LewWaters  |  November 16th, 2007 at 10:17 am

  1H8L1B5, MorOn has already been targeting Baird. Our local papers ‘Letter to the Editor’ section was overflowing right after he made his announcement of he switch.

  Some friends of mine met with him, to show support, and he told them, “I can always get another job. I can’t get another country.”

• 12. Interesting Findings of t&hellip  |  November 26th, 2007 at 5:06 am

  [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]