Tony,
It seems the average Iraqi posses something Democrats do not: perspective.
And a true appreciation of freedom.

Please remove me from your mailing list. I'm a Democrat.

God bless the Americans that go into harm's way for the sake of a better future.

God bless the Iraqis as they learn how to pull up their own bootstraps, after years of being ground down by Saddam's boot.

God bless Sandee with wisdom and peace, that she can be an agent of change for the better in the Democratic party and that more Democrats will support a successful campaign in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Thanks for your blessings, MarcV. It is amazing to me that there are people in this world who still think because you are of one party or another (of one color or another, one something or another), that you cannot think outside that box. While I am a democrat, I happen to believe quite strongly that it was imperative to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. I was overjoyed when it happened. I really don't appreciate the stereotype, however, that all democrats think and feel only one way, or that republicans do also.

Sandee,
This is a free-fire zone. Consider yourself fully licensed to say something about Republicans here, too. I concur with Mencken's observation:

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."

My girlfriend's hairdresser is Iraqi (well call him A). He came to this country when he surrendered (he was a soldier in the Iraqi army) during the first gulf war. Our reputation as respectful of our POWs was helpful of this, since no one was in favor of invading Kuwait. And they all hated Saddam. He considers himself lucky to be in this country and appreciates what he has. Plenty of them laid down their arms without a shot being fired.

However he still had family living in Iraq, his mother and father, siblings. So someone who hates Saddam, someone who served in his army would love to see Saddam go, right? Truth is, while he would have loved to see Saddam dead and gone (sons included), he felt the cost of a war was not worth it not when his family was in danger. While there was still rape rooms and torture his family kept a low enough profile that they were not in danger, and many people were in that situation. I'd rather not make excuses for the guy, and I would agree Saddam is an evil bastard but to do what we did....

Funny thing was Saddam was an evil bastard before the invasion of Kuwait and everyone knew it but that didn't stop Reagan and Bush Sr. from giving him help. We even loaned him money to buy chemical weapons which of course was never paid back. To be fair we weren't alone - The Germans, French, Russians and British did the same. Those soft centered liberal human rights groups complained about it then, but were obviously brushed off by the likes of Bob Dole among many others. Damn liberals, always getting in the way of commerce and trade... even if was for chemical weapons.

Anyway to continue the story, A's family survived the bombing of Baghdad. His family, while glad they did not lose their lives, still felt the war was not worth it. They were more fortunate than the estimated nearly 10,000 killed and countless injured. But they were committed to make the best of things, hoping that Democracy would be established, even if they were more than a little suspicious of the US occupation.

Baghdad was a mess with the power vacuum. No police, no plumbing, no reliable electricity, crime shot up bigtime. About 6 months ago his family was car jacked while driving thru the streets of Baghdad. There was some kind of scuffle, and his father was shot. He died on the way to the hospital.

The reason I write on this website is to learn from you, and hopefully educate. I catch myself stereotyping conservatives or republicans and do my best to stop it. Some times I slip up, but I do my best. I don’t like doing it and sticking all of you in the same box. I hate living like this where either side is so galvanized and completely lacking in dialogue.

We disagree on plenty of things, I expect that when I come here. However nothing makes me more aggravated than when someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum (or really anyone for that matter) starts filing in the blanks of what you think liberals think/feel/want, without talking to more than one liberal that you saw on TV or read posting on some lefty site like indymedia.

They think those who opposed the war are clueless. … The Iraqis know more than 49% of the American population (Democrats). Amazing."

I have no idea how many people your friend M has spoken to, but his take on things certainly differs from A who I’ve spoken to and met, and the recent polls they did in Iraq. Is it possible that the people he speaks to are more understanding to his viewpoint which is why they all feel that way? Is it possible that the people who don’t see things M’s way or disagree with him might, I dunno, not talk to him because they don’t like Americans?

And you really have no idea what liberals want. Plenty of liberals didn't want to see the US fund Iraq's chemical weapons. I know, the US was an ally against Iran, and the Ayotollah, who overthrew the Shah, who was first placed as head of state after a US led coup against a democratically elected communist party leader, blah blah blah. If you want to justify overthrowing a democratically elected official because he was a communist at least admit it.

I myself was deeply split about the war before hand. I knew that Saddam wasn't going away by himself and that only a military like the US could come in and remove him from power. Something gnawed at me every time I thought about the possibility of a democratic & Saddam-free Iraq. Something that made me pause when I'd have the urge to go all Christopher Hitchens “let's finish it and bring these people freedom”.

When I saw John McCain on Nightline you could tell this man cared not just about the imposing threat to our safety (a now very suspect accusation) but he wanted to see a free Iraq without the torture and repression that Saddam had inflicted on the Iraqi people. Same for Joseph Lieberman. Same for the former Iraqis on C-Span calling for this war. Same for some of the conservatives and moderates who were in favor of the war. Not all of them mind you. The ones who suggest we nuke the country we just liberated after the Nick Berg incident, I never believed them for one second (as in the angry neo-con posters on sites like Little Green Footballs or many others).

It took me a while but I figured it out. You know what it was? It's that I never believed for one stinking second that Bush or Cheney or any of those people in power gave a crap about liberating these people. The ever shifting justification for the war only confirmed it. First it was the yellow cake in Niger (false), then the aluminum tubes (suspect), the 45 minutes and they could nuke us (false), the failing of Iraq to live up to the UN agreement (completely true and we wouldn't have all these questions regarding WMD if the prez said "we're not 100% sure but he is not comlying, but I think most Americans would have thought twice about going in on this condition). When no WMD were found the President talked about liberation and freedom. Never mind that Kuwait still doesn’t have democracy, remember that one? The justifications would change on a regular basis.

I believe you do care about Democracy and freedom and a life free of tyranny Tony. I believe my parents cared as well. They aren’t officially part of either party, but I’d be lying if I said the didn’t lean liberal Democratic. Their support might have something to do with the fact that we’re Jewish, and we have Holocaust survivors on both sides. But I don’t think our President or anyone in this administration gave 2 turds worth of genuine heartfelt concern for these people. Ultimately this is why I found myself leaning against this conflict as opposed to being in favor of it.

I hope these people have freedom one day. A real democracy that will last as long as ours. I hope all this bloodshed produces something good. I hope our attention span lasts longer than it did in Afghanistan, which surprise the Taliban is back! I hope that after all this I am wrong. Do you hear that, every conservative who accuses me, and anyone else who dare question this president, as "hating America" and being unpatriotic. I hope I am wrong! I really hope your friend is right Tony.

Because as a liberal I want these people to have at least something close to the freedom I have here in the US. I even felt that the blood shed, ours and theirs, might make it worth it. It’s easy for me to say since the blood was not my own. History will be the true judge of that. Let’s just hope our President’s “optimism and faith” in a piss poor plan doesn't blow this opportunity. I hope his fundamental lack of understanding what the full gravity of a war really means teaches us a lesson, it certainly has taught me. And because if it doesn't, every liberal to the left of me (gross oversimplification of political opinions,, but it will do for now) will conclude in their not so nuanced binary logic mindset that “war is bad” and violence to dislodge a dictator is a lost cause and we can’t bring freedom to the oppressed. I’ll know better, but I won’t have much evidence to back it up if we f*ck this up.

Palmer -

Try some Iraqi weblogs, here is a good place to start.

Of course Iraqis overwhelmingly wanted Saddam gone, and they know it takes war to accomplish such things. Only those who profited from his reign, and who are now expending their final breaths courtesy of our fighting forces, veered from this.

Iraq now has improvements in the electric power grid, clean water, better phone service, cell phones for the first time, the country is being wired for internet service, hospitals are supplied and in working order, schools have been fixed up and school supplies donated by Americans and distributed by American troops, local governments and councils are working (which is where democracy really starts), they have an interim constitution with freedom of the press and freedom to worship, etc. It is simply untrue to say "there was no plan", and it is untrue to imply that nothing good is going on there.

Losers and scumbags hang on in Fallujah and a few other places, yes. These people are criminals, warlords, ex-Baathists, and imported foreign terrorists and trouble makers from Iran and Syria. They are not honorable locals who are upset with American motives or planning. They have no future in Iraq and they know it. Sunnis have been abusing their power over the Shiite majority for 35 years, it may finally be payback time. Don't shed crocodile tears for them.

Moktada Al-Sadr has almost no support among Shiites or Iraqis in general. He is a punk, and everybody knows it, except the world's media.

The UN Oil for Food scandal is much more important in the big picture than Abu Ghraib, but it gets almost no coverage outside of the New York Post and a few others. Roger L Simon. covers it well, go to his site and search it for UNSCAM.

So all in all things are going according to plan. Iraqi ministries are slowly taking control over various aspects of the government, and we are funding and directing rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. Clean water is the single most important factor in preventing disease, and we have put lots of time and money into it. Don't believe for a second that local Iraqis don't notice and appreciate such things. Wouldn't you?

We will leave the governing to the Iraqis in 6 weeks, and will stay on to provide security. Thanks to the Marines, bad guys are dying on a regular basis. It will be dicey, this battle for hearts and minds between nogood-niks and honorable citizens, but numbers and popular opinion are on our side. Too bad Americans are so quick to give up.

Liberty is worth fighting and dying for. How quickly we forget, with our pampered and privileged lives.

Update: I meant to say "It is simply untrue to say there was no plan or not enough planning ..."

Besides, an obsession with planning is silly; no plan is so good that it never needs changes.

So you mean to tell me if the most powerful and experienced military in the world, the war college, and the joint chiefs of staff all say "150,000 troops is not sufficient" (not to mention "this war is unnecessary") and a bunch of idealoges who've never seen battle say we're going anyway, you don't think that is the epitome of poor planning?!?!? You're gonna tell me with a straight face that if the President asks the experts, arguably the best in the world, for their opinion what they think, and when he doesn't hear what he wants to he ignores them? All of them? Are you kidding me?

Every plan has to be adjusted in the field, but this is ridiculous. WAKE UP ALREADY for god sakes.... Stop seeing what you want to see and start seeing what actually is going on here.

Moktada Al-Sadr has almost no support among Shiites or Iraqis in general. He is a punk, and everybody knows it, except the world's media.

Go here and click on the audio link

reporter in Iraq @ 2:46 in NPR report from above: "(Sadr) he is an extremists, not a religious leader"

And I've also heard on NPR and other sources that there are Clerics who are speaking out against Sadr. The world media does know it, but that doesn't change the fact that he has indoctrinated or brainwashed people into taking up guns against US service people.

Another example of where you fill in the blanks of what you think Liberals think because you want to believe it, rather than do any research....

"Clearly, the images are serving the political agenda of many newspapers," sniffed Col Allen, editor-in-chief of the New York Post, to the New York Times. Until this past Saturday Abu Ghraib was kept off Page One of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Post, proving that the Post's loyalty to right-wing politics is greater than its not-inconsiderable loyalty to Fleet Street-style tabloid journalism. Murdoch publications have downplayed Abu Ghraib even more than the rest of the conservative press.

Yeah, please tell me how great the quality of coverage by the New York Post is. This is the same paper that puts Donald Trump on the cover because of his girlfriend.... It's an f@%&ing tabloid that gives you exactly what you want to hear.

There is a UN Oil for Food scandal... NPR and others have covered it. I find it strange that the NYP which would put just about anything on it's cover to sell papers managed to find other important news stories, but wouldn't put a bunch of prisoners being humiliated by our troops and our tax dollars because of POLTITCS! The response by the terrorists (the beheading of Nick Berg) somehow managed to find it's way onto the cover. That's real media ethics for you.

P.H. -

How would more troops have delivered Iraq any faster than we already did? How would more troops have delivered post-war Fallujah and Tikrit and Najaf? We were afraid of killing innocents so we let criminals live. Having more troops around, who have to be fed and supplied (think $$$$$), doesn't help that problem, but it does cost money.

Manpower is not the problem; we need a better commitment to action. We need a war footing at home. We need to stop dithering and defeat the scum and then go home. We needed less State Dept. and Colin Powell and more Rumsfeld and the Marines. My $.02 anyway.

One NPR report (or three or five) admitting Sadr is a punk doesn't negate the scores of other media reports calling him a "cleric" or "insurgent". Recently this is changing, but only in baby steps and begrudgingly. And I never said anything about "what liberals think"; I was making a statement of fact about moral relativism spin that the media applies to punks and losers like al-Sadr on a regular basis. This is not a new charge, nor a false one.

My point on UNSCAM stands. I made no claim about the overall quality of any newspaper. UNSCAM is a story that deserves the full scandal treatment; it is not receiving such treatment by the media at large, which imagines Abu Ghraib to be My Lai 35 years later.

My general point remains untouched by your arguments; I'll restate it here. Things are much better there than the media would like us to believe. Nearly all of Iraq is in good shape for a place that suffered under 35 years of a murdering dictator and was a war zone only 13 months ago. The handover to a sovereign Iraqi government with a constitution and elections is proceeding apace. People there are generally glad we came, but would prefer that we leave now so they can run their own country thankyouverymuch. And so we will -- check one more terror-supporting dictator off the list.

The handover to a sovereign Iraqi government with a constitution and elections is proceeding apace. People there are generally glad we came, but would prefer that we leave now so they can run their own country thankyouverymuch.

prove this assertion...

There are people who are happy we did what we did. Especially the kurds, although they were pretty leary of us coming in to begin with since (a) we let them down the first time and (b)things were okay pre invasion and didn't want things to change. But I think your assertion that MOST is inaccurate.

Truth be told Jeff I think you're projecting your own beliefs on to these people. Your news sources seem biased.

So all in all things are going according to plan.

Oh really?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june04/duty_04-15.html ">

DONALD RUMSFELD: I don't know that we've got time here to run through all of the things that one would have wished were different. But, obviously, we did a great deal of planning for things that did not go wrong. They may not have gone wrong because of the planning and because of the work that was done in anticipation. Conversely, if someone had said, "Would you, a year ago, have expected you would be where you are at the present time?" Obviously one would not have said that -- one would not have described where we are. And is it possible to have described it? I don't know. Maybe someone could have.

SPOKESMAN: I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you conceding that you didn't anticipate that the level of violence that's going on in Iraq now, the level of the insurgency, the fact that you're taking more casualties now than you were a year ago when you were still in major combat, are you conceding that you didn't anticipate that?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I am saying that if you had said to me a year ago, "describe the situation you'll be in today one year later," I don't know many people who would have described it. I would not have described it the way it happens to be today.

***************************************

"I guess if you asked me a year ago, I would have expected that the word 'occupation' and the negative aspects of that would not have been assigned to us to the extent it has been," Rumsfeld said.

PH:

It's time for one of my favorite cliches: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That's my view of Iraq. We are now in the process of seeing whether this country can handle the downside of being an Empire.

Also, keep the up the heat. Even if I disagree with most of your arguments, they are generally points on which reasonable minds can differ, and your passion is commendable. I am a big Bush supporter, but let's face it, if the commander in chief screws something like this up as bad as you say, that's a major problem, no matter how much one is inclined to root for the guy. Nobody should be afraid of hard-nosed debate on such an important issue. This country and its ideals is more important than George Bush, and if we conservatives cannot stand the heat...(another favorite cliche).

Finally, who questioned your patriotism, as opposed to your judgment? I think liberals tend to be a little over-sensitive on that point. I doubt anybody who visits this site questions your patriotism at all.

PH:

My assertion is backed up by countless emails and articles and blog entries written by people who live in Iraq, have been to Iraq, or are serving there now. A friend of mine personally knows two people over there. Just today I looked at tons of pictures one of them took, many with crowds of smiling kids fighting over candy and soccer balls and clothes being handed out by our troops. Oh, the humanity! Pictures like this exist all over the internet. I've personally seen well over 200. I've never seen one with kids flipping off the troops. Draw your own conclusions.

Did you even read the Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com post I pointed you to earlier? It will confirm what I'm saying. I don't just make stuff up and post it on comment threads.

Look, I don't much care what you want to believe. As Patty Loveless sings, "you can feel bad if it makes you feel better". Iraq is in decent shape, whether you care to recognize it or not; I have no interest in belaboring the point. Just because it is imperfect, just because Rumsfeld or anybody else couldn't predict what was going to happen a year out, well, what type of indictment is that? If that is the worst thing we can say, we are doing pretty good.

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

That's a great cliche, I'll have to remember that one.

Manpower is not the problem; we need a better commitment to action. We need a war footing at home. We need to stop dithering and defeat the scum and then go home. We needed less State Dept. and Colin Powell and more Rumsfeld and the Marines. My $.02 anyway.

This doesn't explain why the heavy handed tactics of the US has been less successful and more bloody than the British. And this is a perfect example of seeing what you want to see. I don't know anyone who would say this.

Jeff, you're unshakeable. I have not spent a lot of time on the website you told me to check out, but this was quite literaly the very first post I read;

With all our military might, with our extremely effective bombers, artillery, tanks, infantrymen, it seems we are still losing this war. Not in a military sense, but in a political sense. Me and other grunts I talk to think we should leave. We are upset that we worry so much about other nations when the USA needs to worry about herself. Why spend a trillion dollars in Iraq, when we can use that money to make better schools and hospitals and send more kids to college. We believe that money would be better used for us. To hell with the Iraqis and the rest of the world. However, as a super power, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Me and a few other grunts are talking about probably voting for Kerry.

I know there is some good news in Iraq, maybe more than I've heard. I am not disputing that. I just dont think things are peachy. And I maintain that the planning was horrendous. If it weren't then why are we extending the tour of duty for thousands of soldiers. That is part of planning.

I can't remember the exact exiperiment but there is a parallel in this... anybody remember the science experiment in England (I think) where in a particular forest there were 2 types of moths, white and grey. Before a factory had opened in the area the white moths were greater in number, while after the factory that produced smoke opened the grey spotted moth increased in population. The unscientific analysis was that the polution was killing the white moths.

Of course this was not true. The pollution itself was not killing the white moths. The trees in the adjacent forest was white, but the pollution turned it grey. The birds, who fed on the moths, had an easier time locating the grey moths pre factory, white mothhs post factory. This is the difference between causational and correlative.

May I suggest a theory Jeff? The reason that you get all these emails and letter from people with a positive take on Iraq is because they (a) more likely to agree with you since they are your friends (b) even if you did not know them or their communication is unsolicited it is less likely that someone who either fears you or hates you is likely to reach out to you? You are seeing a specific angle because of who you are, no? Apparently Sadr undoctirnates and brainwashes his followers who tend to be the poor, meaning less likely to email you how much they hate the US or something like that. Is it even conceivable to you that this scenario is possible?

If I believe only what I saw around me I'd think that the 2000 election would have come down to Gore and Nader, not Gore and Bush. Obviously that is a very skewed viewpoint because of who I surround myself with.

I was going to post something else like your "less Powell more Rumsfeld" but it's getting late and I am getting too emotionally stressed from this. I keep hoping that I can show at lest one little thing where you will concede even the slightest sense not all things are well, or more so it is far more serious than what you seem to believe. I thought a personal story of someone dying in Iraq from an Iraqi, connected to someone I actually knew might help. I thought quoting Rumsfeld might help. I can't do this right now.

Stop blaming the media.... My next post on my blog will regard that, although it might be a day or two before I get it up on my site.

one more thing - after reading the story to my girlfriend she corrected one thing, added another;

The car was in the driveway, not on the street. A's father tried to defend his property while at home. I don't even think they got on their way to the hospital, she thinks he died on his front lawn.

It was so bad that A's family has since left Iraq a few moths ago, and now lives in Syria.