Storm Bear

"Unseat Reid and Pelosi" Says Olbermann

Filed By Storm Bear | May 27, 2007 7:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Congress, Democrats, gay cartoons and comics, George W. Bush, Harry Reid, humorous blog post, iraq, Nancy Pelosi, politics, war, webcomics


click to enlarge

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night pretty much summed up my feelings on the Democrats idiotic move to continue to fund the war.

We worked our fingers to the bone to get Dems into Congress for one MAJOR thing - to bring our troops home. Immigration, the national debt, the spotted owl all took a back seat to this most pressing issue.

The Dems held all the cards, the President they are facing is the WORST IN HISTORY and wildly unpopular. Plus the Dems had the support of the people - a huge swath of We The People in fact.

So what do they do? Cave.

They capitulated.

They threw the troops under the bus. God knows, the Dems in Congress don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


A. J. Lopp | May 28, 2007 1:54 PM

Oh my god ... oh my god ... Storm, Bil, Alex ... the last thing in the world I want to do is sound like a war-mongering Repug, but I do have a nasty, politically incorrect question to ask about bringing the troops home: Are we going to pull them out, come Hell or high water, and let the Sunni's slaughter the Shi'ites, or the Shi'ites slaughter the Sunni's, whichever way it happens to work out? Do we just pull out and let the now-natively-Iraqi civil war play itself out, even if it is carnage that rivals The Holocaust in scope and human lives lost?

If we "just pull out" isn't it true we might end up having another Kosovo-style or Rwanda-style bloodbath to the credit of the wonderful, freedom-loving U.S. of A.?

Don't get me wrong ... I despise this war as much as everyone else ... it was pure idiocy for Bush to go into Iraq in the first place ... but I fear that Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" is now seen to be painfully correct: We broke it, and now we own it. And moreover, we also own whatever happens immediately after we pull out, too.

At this point, establishing an American-style democracy in Iraq is total pie-in-the-sky. It just ain't gonna happen, Mr. President. (And Bush knows it.) But if we want to avoid a bloodbath, a bloodbath that the USA is totally responsible for precipitating, then we have to institute some type of adequately strong Iraqi government which is capable of maintaining at least a rough approximation of law and order, even if said government is another Islamic "theo-democracy" --- which is probably what most of the Iraqi population really wants, even now --- and we might have to settle for even another "theo-dictatorship" that is not at all to the liking of the US.

Sorry to be the one to speak heresy, but this is reality we are dealing with, here. If you are saying that you are willing to allow an Iraqi bloodbath in order to bring the loss of American soldiers to an end, well, that's a possible position for one to take. But let's be honest with ourselves about what the aftermath is going to be: it will be dreadful, and the US will get blamed for it.

Comments? I only wish that I had an answer to this mess ... but I don't.

Hi ya! No need to apologize about political correctness. One thing I hope these strips will do is to initiate conversations about our mutual problem of Iraq.

If I were President (and no, I am not running) I would split the country into three pieces - similar to the way it was before Great Britain started redrawing borders. Once that is done, I would pull the troops back to the border areas (Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria) and keep the flow of weapons out of Iraq. That would mean pulling out of Baghdad and let them have their civil war. There is simply nothing we can do about that.

The three areas would be "Sunnistan" to the southwest sharing a border with Saudi Arabia, "Sh'iastan" to the northeast sharing a border with Iran and Kurdistan to the north and sharing a border with Turkey.

Kurdistan has been damn near autonomous since the first Gulf war. They had a Parliament and a military all of their own for about 15 years - THAT should have been the model for Iraqi democracy, not the Charlotte Accords. Our presence there would be to keep Turkey from invading and keep the Kurds from doing the same to Turkey.

Sunnistan and Sh'iastan are mostly PIC areas (Provinces under Iraqi Control) and there is very little insurgent activity in these areas and the US military is not seen as an occupier in these areas. Our presence in these two new states would be the same as what we are doing in Kurdistan.

It would still be a bad situation, but in reality, Iraq is not the problem, it is Baghdad and everything with 200 miles of it that is the problem.

No matter what we or the Iraqis do, in the near future, Baghdad will fall into utter destruction and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

This is a plan for withdrawing from Iraq. The crap Bush is shoveling "we will leave when we have victory" is utter bullshit and makes no sense.

A. J. Lopp | May 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Well, that's one approach, and it isn't bad, I don't have a better plan to suggest.

Your approach basically amounts to a "balkanization" of Iraq --- and this is 20/20 hindsight, but we could have opted for this years ago, had our leaders (executive and military) been willing to get real about projecting American-style government structure and principles onto an Arabic/Islamic populace that simply isn't ready for it, and won't have a citizenry-majority who is ready probably anytime during the next 50 years.

The concern I have about balkanization is that it might lead to a re-invention of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, specifically two (or more) factions fighting ad infinituum over the same areas of land. But it appears we have to take that chance.

And balkanization is a form of ethnic/religious segregation, which is a temporary solution in a globalizing world --- but this is a bloody war we are trying to bring an end to, and the end does justify the means. (At least I would agree it does.)

I conclude, and it sounds as if you would agree, that Bush, knowing in the privacy of his own mind and heart that there is no good resolution possible, is dragging this thing out until his term expires --- so that some other president gets the blame for the imperfect aftermath, which is, as you say, inevitable.

And if this is the case, after all this painful analysis, all I can say is: What a selfish, egotistical dumbf*ck!! --- that he is not willing to admit, without delay once it is obvious, what he considers to be "defeat" and is instead willing to let twenty or fifty soldiers die every day, so that his place in history will be, supposedly, less tarnished.

I am tempted to add, "May his soul burn in Hell!" ... but, thankfully, it is not mine to control the gates of either Heaven or Hell.