When all is said and done both party's are powerless with Bush, the people are the key to getting...

When all is said and done both party's are powerless with Bush, the people are the key to getting action on Iraq! Bush won't like it, but the people will pressure Congress to act, do the right thing, and go against him!
We look for interesting ideas on what to do in Iraq! First, There aren't any good ideas. As I have said from the beginning, there is no winning in Iraq. Bush knows that. I won't get into details now but he knows there is no winning in Iraq. He screwed up. I am sorry primarily because 2 of my sons are in this and I tried to tell them.
Bush guaranteed a loss across the board when he ignored all advice to the contrary and attacked Iraq too destabilize the middle east in order to establish so he thought, his new order. He will listen to no one. He must stay the course now. He has everything in place for the ultimate goal, Iran.
There have been some good suggestions from both party's but of course they do not coincide with Bush's plan so every single one of them are dismissed off the cuff and will continue to be unless Congress and the Senate feel the pressure of the people and override Bush and his terrible plan.
I just have to say that there are many who look adversely at anti war protests but it has its place. Myself I couldn't do it in good conscience but I do speak me mind because as I said 2 of my 4 sons are in this and the other two are draft age. I was though against it from conception because I saw the false pretences and know why it was done and where it is going.
That said, In American history in particular, wartime dissent has a venerable lineage. Even during that most mythic of causes, the Revolution, fully one third of Americans opposed independence, in John Adams' famous estimate, while an equal third favored it. Only in retrospect did the Revolution become an unambiguously glorious endeavor.
Dissenters spoke out against virtually every subsequent conflict. The humiliating defeats of the War of 1812 made that fight so unpopular that the states of New England considered seceding from the Union. A generation later, many Americans viewed the Mexican-American War (not unreasonably) as an act of naked U.S. aggression. In 1848, shortly after the war's conclusion, Congress censured President James Polk for "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally" commencing hostilities. Supporting the rebuke was Illinois Rep. Abraham Lincoln, who attacked Polk as "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man."

popular support for the Spanish-American War waned as the relatively easy fight for a free (i.e., pro-American) Cuba gave way to a more controversial program of wresting away Spain's other colonies, particularly the Philippines. When President William McKinley opted to annex the Philippines—he wanted, he said, "to educate the Filipinos and uplift and Christianize them"—a motley array of critics from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Twain objected. William Jennings Bryan used his dissenting stance as the centerpiece of his (losing) 1900 presidential campaign.
World War I, critics excoriated Woodrow Wilson—who had run for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war"—for entangling America in a bloody European conflict. Political leaders from Wisconsin Sen. Robert LaFollette to Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs spoke out. ("I had supposed until recently that it was the duty of senators ... to vote and act according to their convictions," LaFollette sardonically told the Senate. "Quite another doctrine has recently been promulgated by certain newspapers ... and that is the doctrine of 'standing back of the president' without inquiring whether the president is right or wrong.") The majority of Congress, however, passed a series of repressive laws that let the government imprison or deport thousands of critics of the president, including Debs. Vigilante groups ostracized, assaulted, and even lynched countless more.
In fact the only war that lacked an organized bloc of dissenters was World War II: Pearl Harbor had made an isolationist stance untenable, and as Americans learned more and more about Nazi Germany, most anti-war activists decided the defeat of fascism was worth fighting for.
I beg to differ a bit from conventional thought. I say all the time that 9/11 was Bush's Pearl Harbor. I happen to think they were both allowed to happen in order to get the people behind the war, Even in WW@ they were not until after Pearl Harbor. http://www.slate.com/id/2080735/
The problem is Bush is no FDR and his ultimate goal was not for the country but for his personal agenda which at the outset had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Terrorism was only the excuse to prosecute his new order.
I understand that there were 1/2 a million protesters in Washington yesterday. Locally I had no idea but protests were also in Fitchburg, Boston, Salem, and Brockton, Mass. They must have been all around the country. Mass demonstrations are the only thing that will force a policy change in Iraq. Not because Bush will listen because he will not. As I said, he has to stay the course.
The pressure though is on Congress and the Senate and forcing them to override Bush and Snidely (Cheney) is the only thing that will bring about a change if it isn't too late and we are dragged into this further. That would play into Bush's plan and make his day! In the end if Congress is lucky enough to intervene before it is too late I believe their will be a unanimous decision to follow the advice of the Iraq Study Group.


James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com