It's interesting to note that the White House was finally, successfully pressured to reveal its "plan" for withdrawal from Iraq. As expected, it's no plan for withdrawal at all. It's a plan to justify staying there indefinitely, until "the war is over" with what Rumsfeld called Eligs.

The problem is that now that Eligs are in Iraq in significant numbers (they weren't before Saddam), they are never likely to be wiped out. Thus, Bush now has his justification to stay in Iraq indefinitely (or at least until the end of his administration).

I predicted this would happen on these blogs before, and I stand by my prediction now even more than before.

Eligs? Sounds like a Star Wars race.

I think it's an undoubleplusgood sign when the government tries to change the language.

Newspeak is newspeak, the propaganda wing of the Bush Administration bumbles on. Wish Rummy was unemployed, or as they might say "vocationally displaced".

How about ADAS - Agents of Deferred American Success?

Oh, I got it SMERSH - Subversive Maniacs Engaded in Revolutional Sabotash and Highjinks

This reminds me of when Fox News started calling Suicide Bombers "Homicide Bombers".

These "insurgents" should be called what they really are: terrorists. These terrorists are not patriotic, nor are they, to use Micheal Moore's term, "minute men" or resistors. These are killers who are associated with Al-Quieda and are the former regime members of Saddam Hussein. They want nothing more than to do away with Iraq's new Democratic Government and return the Iraqi people to tyranny and misery.

As for using the term "homicide" instead of "suicide bombers," when one commits suicide he or she is killing him or herself, where as a homicide bomber kills him/herself and takes hostages and innocents along with him or her. Thus, homicide bombers, to me, is an appropriate term to name these savages.

These terrorists believe they are dying for a great cause. Dying for God. In reality, they are dying for nothing more than to inflict misery, pain, oppression and hate not only on Muslims but on all people regardless of race, color or creed around the globe.

I do not believe that we are fighting a war on terror. I know we are fighting one. This is going to be a long war. No question. It is a war we have to win. We will win it. Once we do, once we declare victory, my hope is that all our soliders will come home from every nook and cranny of the globe. It will be then that we will tend to our own affairs and the affairs of the homeland, and live with peace toward all.

Alex, as long as there is more than one religion or government system in the world, terrorism will exist. A war on terrorism will always be about as fruitless as a war on drugs. Thinking that we're out there fighting it will make us feel better, sure, but in the long run will effect nothing.

There is a major difference, though. Drugs by themselves are not harmful(except for a few major ones that can send people into crazy rages or kill them from one dosage), the things surrounding drugs, the market, and the war against it is harmful.

Terrorists actually are harmful, more so than the things surrounding them and the reasons they exist. They have to be fought, for justice. You fight terrorists, but you can't fight terrorism. You can destroy tangible things, evil people, their weapons, their strongholds, but you can't destroy ideas, it's impossible. Especially something as broad as terrorism.

So I call it a war on terrorists. When you find a terrorist, when someone attacks you, or you know for a fact someone will attack them, you take them out, but that's about as much as you can do.

Alex Pugliese wrote:

"...Once we do, once we declare victory, my hope is that all our soldiers will come home from every nook and cranny of the globe. It will be then that we will tend to our own affairs and the affairs of the homeland, and live with peace toward all."

And we all lived happily ever after... Right

Alex, as long as politics continues to exist, politicians will continue to invent or create new enemies for our progeny to fight. We will always need a new enemy.

Wars are won and lost nothing is ever accomplished, and nothing ever changes. We created these "terrorists" to fight our Soviet "enemies" by proxy 20 years ago. We are now a conquering/occupying foreign power in Iraq. We are desperately trying to make the fighting force there native as we did in Vietnam, we are trying to establish a government there friendly to our interests as we did in Vietnam. We will stay as long as our national pride will allow as we did in Vietnam. In the end, the result will be the same as Vietnam.

Why? Because the morons running this government did not listen to those who understood the basic lesson of Vietnam which is this: Revolutions against oppressive dictators must flourish and begin from within the country, with the support of the people of that country. That is why it worked here in the 18th Century, the French didn't cross the Atlantic with a fleet of ships and thousands of soldiers to "liberate" us. That would have made them an invading army. At that point we would have probably reconciled with the British, joined forces and kicked them out as we did in the French and Indian War. They joined us at our invitation as allies after our revolution was well underway. Otherwise you simply have a conqueror (the US of A)resented by both the oppressed and the oppressor. As soon as we leave, the propped up government collapses. In Nam we had the Communists, in Iraq you will end up with a fractured country reduced back to tribalism or the establishment of another Taliban.

"Those who forget the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them."

All the faux patriotic, jingoistic official Administration propaganda language in creation won't change that.

The insurgency in Iraq won't go away until every young Muslim man has died.

I don't think anyone wants to go that far. Let's stop the killing.

I know I’ll get some flak from a lot of people, and believe me when I say that I have been opposed to the war from the get-go, but I’ve come to the following conclusion:

The President is right about staying in Iraq, but for the wrong reasons.
The democratic opposition is wrong about getting out, but for the right reasons.

We can debate and whine and cry foul until we’re blue in the face, and it still will not change the fact that the US is in Iraq, and al-Quaeda is there to fight us. And it’s my belief that if we pull out too soon, Iraq will fall into the sort of chaos that allowed al-Quaeda to flourish in Afghanistan. While it is my wholehearted belief that Iraq needs to take care of itself, it is now a matter of self-defense to ensure that al-Quaeda does not have a free base of operations in Iraq. Iraq may not be an enemy of the US, but al-Quaeda most definitely is. But unfortunately, it does not appear that the Iraqi defense forces are quite ready yet.

It may seem like a Catch-22 in that the insurgency is fighting because we are there, while the administration claims we are still there because of the insurgency. But most people fail to see that the insurgency is composed of two factions, Iraqi nationalists and al-Quaeda fanatics. It is my humble belief that a change in strategy is needed; a strategy to divide and conquer. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in the Iraqi theater are targeted at civilians. We must find a way to instill a great deal of national pride in the Iraqis so that attacks on the civilians push the nationalists away from the insurgency. The attacks are currently tolerated to some extent because it looks more like Sunni-Shiite violence, but if the Iraqis actually come together, then the nationalists break away from the fanatics. Once that break happens, it will be easy for the US to pull out and let the Iraqis handle the fanatics. But it is my belief now, that to withdraw before that break happens is a mistake.

In my opinion, the Bush administration has created a hornets nest, but to leave now will only increase the threat to our security.

Bull. Iraq will never end. The best way to increase our security is to stop pissing everybody else off.

Iraq has much in common with the former Yugoslavia. Both countries were made up of different cultures that were only held together by a strong dictator. Once the dictator is no longer in power, the country falls apart.

Once the U.S. gets out of Iraq, the country will erupt into civil war, and will eventually split into three countries, one run by Kurds, one run by Shiites, and one run by Sunnis. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Alex wrote: "I do not believe that we are fighting a war on terror. I know we are fighting one. This is going to be a long war. No question. It is a war we have to win. We will win it."

Terrorism has been around for millenia. Only the term is new. The phenomenon punctuates all of history. Those who believe we must and will win it are ignoring history. This is not a war that can be won.

Instead, what must be done is twofold: (1) As Nigel said, stop pissing them off, and (2) Start treating terrorism as crime rather than war. Treating it as war only guarantees that it will get worse.

Let's put the Iraq thing to bed, guys. We're all libertarians here. Whether you agree with the war or not, we all acknowledge that the ultimate goal should be to bring our military forces home from the 130 foreign nations in which they are currently stationed. Of course we should maintain the strongest military force in the world- for national defense, not national offense. In short, yes, let's "stop pissing everybody off".

Now, instead of arguing the details of a subject that we generally agree on, or making the same points over and over with those who are already on the same page, let's focus on engaging our friends, co-workers, and whoever else will listen, in conversations (that is, OPTIMISTIC, PERSUASIVE, NON-ARGUMENTATIVE conversations) about matters such as this. Everyone here recognizes the benefits of libertarianism. Enough preaching to the choir. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats whose souls need saving.

Alex Pugliese

My main problem with you argument is that you believe the United States is in Iraq to fight terrorism. This is untrue. The United States is currently at war in Iraq for three reasons: 1) Secure oil contracts for friends of Bush; 2) Because "They tried to kill his daddy"; and 3) Because God told him to.

We allowed a dug addicted religious zealot to assume power in this country. We sowed the wind, now we must reap the whirlwind.

There are some that have this belief that the U.S. went to war with Iraq because of oil and because, at one time, Saddam Hussein tried to have President Bush forty-one killed. I strongly and totally disagree.

The evidence and the intelligence shown to President Bush and other members of Congress showed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction. George Tenent, CIA director, presented all this and said it it was a "slam dunk." The Congress and the President acted on that intelligence and evidence. They also acted on the fact that Saddam Hussein violated seventeen U.N. resolutions (which, by the way, the United Nation's failed to enforce) that Hussein violated a ceasefire agreement, as well as the fact that Saddam Hussein was associating himself with Al-Quieda terrorists. Because of all this, the United States and its allies had no choice but to act.

We now know that the intelligence and evidence was faulty at best. British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted to this. Nevertheless, despite it all, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Furthermore, let me just say, desite the evidence and intelligence, I believe U.S. troops have not fought and died for nothing. Those soldiers fought, died and are still fighting for something greater than them: Freedom. Ours and those of the Iraqi people.

I want the soldiers to come home. In the process though, I want them to leave a free people and free democratic government behind. I believe they will succeed in that endevor, and the world will be better for it.

Alex wrote: "The evidence and the intelligence shown to President Bush and other members of Congress showed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction."

Yes, but those persons from the CIA who showed that evidence to Bush were Bush's own appointees who replaced career CIA officers who were previously forced out by the Bush administration. This is well documented fact. I think it's inappropriate to believe that Bush wasn't ultimately responsible for that intelligence. In fact, it is likely that his appointees gave him exactly what he wanted them to give him.

Unfortunately, there is no way to prove they gave Bush what he secretly requested. Bush certainly won't admit it, and his cronies won't either. Nevertheless there is ample grounds for inferring that's what they did. So assuming that the Bush administration was an innocent victim in the whole WMD affair is highly suspect.

From the platform:

The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.

This is the core of Libertarian belief. This nation was not created to be the worlds policeman. There are those who feel that oppressive governments need to be taken down so our boarders cannot be threatened. I do not agree with that position, but do understand it. To these people I offer the following advice; hire out as mercenaries and fight the good fight in Iraq, Iran, Lybia, North Korea, Canada or anywhere else you so desire. Take the neo-con's with you. I think a little taste of real war will pluck the feathers off of these chicken-hawks soon enough and perhaps sour their appetite for conquest. Do not volunteer me or my children to fight your fights. This Iraq adventure has nothing to do with liberating anyone, it is about establishing a permanent beachhead in the region by establishing a government friendly to our "interests". The business of the US Military should be strictly defensive. Please spare me the 9/11 crap, we created and trained Osama to fight the Russians in the 80's. Our never ending interventionism in this part of the world has returned to haunt us. If we minded our own business to begin with we would be as threatened as the Swiss, whom we should go back to emulating.

Alex, please... you are still buying into the administration's story that the administration doesn't even believe any more. GET EDUCATED!

Chuck, the platform really needs to be changed.
Putting our head in the sand without common sense is not going to work.
Saddam broke the treaty agreement. He had the means for WMD. WE DO NOT WAIT UNTIL WE ARE ATTACKED because we think leaving this massive nutcases alone will make it that they will not bother us. WRONG. I think the war should have been handled better, however.
THESE PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE their way, want this whole planet to live according to there rules and way just like NAZI GERMANY. Get a clue.

The platform on the LP should be changed. Sticking the head in the sand and thinking if we do not bother doing anything is going to keep us safe. While I do not agree how the war was handled. I disagree that doing nothing was not going to keep these people from destroying us and anyone who thinks that is living in a glass box.
The treaty was broken. They had the means for WMD. These people if they have their way will make this planet one big islam. Just the same way like Nazi Germany.

Trouble posting.

Here is my prediction on what will occur in Iraq:

1) The Kurdish provinces in Northern Iraq will secede and try to encourage other Kurdish provinces to join them in forming the Republic of Kurdistan.

2) The Shi'ite provinces in Southern Iraq will secede and call to be annexed by Iran.

3) The Sunni provinces in Central Iraq will be all that's left of Iraq and will be right back where it started: being under the rule of a Baathist dictator.

We need to bring our troops home from over 130 countries and assign them the task of only defending the 50 states and the District of Columbia from attack and invasion.

As far as I'm concerned, we're worse off with Saddam Hussein out of power. Now, we've opened the door to a real threat from the likes of Iran.

Forgive me for saying this, but there are times where I think that we would have been far better off if Saddam Hussein had occupied Iran, Kuwait (which was ready to become Iraq's 19th province in 1990 and was acknowledged by the U.S. State Department), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Besides, he was the only real counterbalance to the Islamic terrorists ruling that region.

The U.S. needs to adopt a foreign policy of armed neutrality, bring all of our troops stateside from the rest of the world, and cut off all foreign aid to all other nations.

Alex - There is no such thing as a war for liberation unless you seek to liberate yourself.
The only legitimate wars that are fought revolve around defense and retaliation against invasions and attacks. It isn't our job to help the Iraqi people overthrow their dictator. It's their job.
The U.S. has fought too many useless wars throughout our history, and this one is no exception. The only necessary wars we fought were the American Revolution, the undeclared naval war with France from 1797-1800, and the War of 1812 (1812-14) with Britain. Nearly all other wars that followed were unnecessary.

Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists never worked together. In fact, the Islamists tried to kill Hussein on several occasions because he was a secular dictator. Why would anybody, especially a dictator, want to align himself with people who want to kill him? They don't.

If by some miracle that the democratic government in Iraq does survive, then this will happen:

The Kurds and the Shi'ites will join together to pass legislation that would relegate the Sunnis to second-class status.

In addition, the Kurds and Shi'ites would join together and make a strong case that they deserve all of Iraq's oil revenue since all of the country's oil fields are located in the Kurdish north and Shi'ite south.

Alex seems to conveniently forget the Downing Street memo.

like I said, discussing how we got into the war or even why we are there does nothing to change the fact that we ARE there.

and unfortunately, at this point I feel that leaving to soon does more to harm our security than our continued, albeit absolutely temporary, presence. we have to separate the zealots from the nationalist factions of the insurgency so that the nationalists will actually fight the zealots. at that point we leave post haste.

ELIG? Here's my version of the new Rumsfeld acronym:
E- Endlessly
L- Limiting
I- Iraqi
G- Governance

True American: the platform does not need to be changed. Instead, the minority of libertarians (like you) who keep calling for such changes need to take THEIR heads out of the sand and recognize that our continued presence in Iraq and other countries will NOT keep us safe. The truth is exactly the reverse. It will make our country less and less safe over time. That's the lesson you have failed to learn from 9/11.

True American

We went to war because he had the MEANS to create weapons of mass destruction?

I have the means to create a biological weapon using the cleaning chemicals under my kitchen sink. Should I be considered a potential enemy combatant and sent to gitmo?

It has been the constant unwillingness of the United States to mind its own business that has created all these problems. We propped up Hussein and supported his government overtly and covertly for many years. I recall seeing a photograph just a few months ago of Saddam having tea with none other than Gerald Fords Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Great buddies back then when he did our bidding. Hussein had the capacity for WMD's, so what? So does Iran, Syria, North Korea and probably a few other middle kingdom dictatorships. Want to go into each and every one of them to disarm and then spread the Gospel of Democracy at gunpoint?The Russian Mafia amongst others has had these items on sale in the Back Market since the fall of th Soviet Union. We are 15 years or so too late to worry about that now. Saddam broke the treaty, so what? We break treaties whenever it suits us with impunity.

Head in the sand, hardly, I have experienced these "dirty little wars" first hand, in a way I doubt many of those arm chair Generals out there have. Governments change, alliances shift, enemies and friends invert - but the lies and hypocrisy stay the same.

Every single major power throughout history that has tried the approach of pre-emptive warfare has met with eventual destruction or reduction to third class status. The Roman Empire, Spain during the period of the Conquistadors, France under Napoleon, the British Empire of the 19th Century.

Mr. True American, with all due respect, you are buying into the neocon's Propaganda Machine hook, line and sinker. Their "Chicken Little, the Sky is Falling" rants are not supported by the evidence and are designed for one purpose; to keep the American public in a state of perpetual panic. This is manipulated by such things as "elevated terror levels" and an all too pliant media whoring for ratings. Terrorists are not enemy combatants loyal to one flag; they are religious fanatics or mercenaries hiring out for god or gold. All the neocons are doing is refighting the crusades. This facilitates the gradual depletion of our Civil and Constitutional rights and the ultimate establishment of a police state. The terrorists win anyway by successfully destroying our way of life. Libertarians do not live in fear or a state of panic. We are guided by reason.

You cannot engage in wars of conquest on the assumption that someone, someday may attack us. In spite of the Administrations protestations to the contrary Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were not allies. Hussein's regime was secular; remember that little war he had with Iran? By the way, guess who supported the Iraqi's in that war?? Osama would be natural allies with other Islamic states such as Iran.

Unfortunately, we can't just pull out and come home. We cannot destroy the government of a nation of 27 Million people and simply leave them in anarchy. We have to re-establish a government of some sort, train and turn authority over to their own military and police and then hope for the best. To do otherwise would be morally reprehensible.

But when we do finish up over there, should Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney still be in office, Articles of Impeachment should be drawn up in the House of Representatives followed by their trial in the Senate and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors for cooking the evidence in the first place; Congress should re-locate its intestines and repeal the War Powers Act and assume its Constitutional duties; we should withdraw our military globally to the confines of the United States and its territories; we should immediately end Foreign Aid everywhere; seal our borders; withdraw from the United Nations and throw them out of the country; Repeal the Patriot Act in total and restore the Republic as it was created to be. The land of the FREE.

that's funny, bagpipe, I distinctly remember the President and Colin Powell saying they HAD them. not the MEANS to make them.

selective memories get us nowhere.

sorry bagpipe... I directed that response to the wrong writter.

LTV actually you are living in a fantasy. Maybe you should experience it yourself by going to the country first hand. Those who live in glass houses wake up when it is to late. Just like what happened in Nazi Germany. Those who are smart who see the big picture truly knows what is happening. There was a news article with talk of a missle being fired at American Airlines. Sorry pretending to ignore the facts, that can lead up to invading this country by not doing nothing is very stupid. Again unless certain things in this platform are changed the people are not going to put Libertarias in office such as President, and other high status. The greens are getting more news media then us. So something is wrong with this picture. You can be stubborn as you like and ignore reality because you want what can never be and we shall be left behind or you can wake up and see the reality of what really going on and not what you choose to think that is going on.

The answer is yes, SADDAM SIGNED A TREATY AND BROKE THE TREATY. What part of this do you not understand.

Mr. True American:

If you want to see the embryonic beginnings of Nazi Germany, you need not travel to the middle east. Let's look no further than our own back yard. Home of the obscenely named "Patriot Act" and "Free Speech Zones" around conferences of political leaders and the conventions of the Republicrats; goons like Dick Cheney silencing critics by branding them "traitors" the ominous specter of National ID's ("vere are your PAPERS?!!") the list is growing. Could it be that 9/11 was our Reichstag fire? If so who really set it and for what purpose?

Compromising on principle is the ultimate act of moral cowardice and spiritual suicide. It is how we got from the great Republic we were for our first 100 years or so to the pitiful condition we are in now as a growing police state. The platform requires no changes. I do see the big picture and it sucks.

xxxxxxx

I wonder how the people in the Police Force feel about this?

True American: congratulations on writing an entire paragraph of cliches that says absolutely nothing.

Mr. TV You really are an idiot.

Do not bother with Libertarian TV. He seems to spend more time on here blogging then getting the real stories out there. If he really knew what was going on, he wouldn't be on here that much.

Why not call them "varmints".

And the war on terror could be called "The whole shootin' match" .

Sheesh. . .

Hey bagpipe Johnny!

'How about ADAS - Agents of Deferred American Success? Oh, I got it SMERSH - Subversive Maniacs Engaged in Revolutional Sabotash and Highjinks'

This one is weak but I'm working on it. JERKS -Jingoistic evangelical repugnican killer sociopaths.

ehh. maybe not