but the initial drawdown will not happen as quickly as the president originally envisioned.

Exactly right. Obama met with the generals and revised his plan. Isn't that what we want. Someone who listens to the experts on a given situation and uses their input to formulate a plan.

Re: "Isn't that what we want."

What you mean "we", white man?

Merkley having "reservations" is not taking personal responsibility (like defunding the occupation would be, or like calling for the impeachment of Obama, who became a war criminal on his third day in office, would be. [Of course Obama's killing is less evil than Bush's.])

What right do we have to occupy a nation that has not attacked us? By standards of international law, not to mention human decency, we should be begging forgiveness from the Iraqi people for the destruction we have wrought, bringing all personnel home (not "redeployed" "combat troops"), and paying reparations for the millions of Iraqis we have caused to die since 1991.

On foreign policy, there is little or no difference between Obama and Bush. Let the worship begin.

I'm afraid to ask, but... huh?

I assume he is referring to the missile strikes in Pakistan that killed 18.

Kari asked, "I'm afraid to ask, but... huh?"

Your fear is understandable. If you believe, as Obama advisor Madelyn Albright does, that Clinton was not guilty of war crimes because, "We think it (500,000 dead children) was worth the price," then you probably will dismiss this as well, since Democrats only see the crimes of the other:

a war criminal by any other name

"The Bush regime was a lawless regime. This makes it difficult for the Obama regime to be a lawful one. A torture inquiry would lead naturally into a war crimes inquiry. General Taguba said that the Bush regime committed war crimes. President Obama was a war criminal by his third day in office when he ordered illegal cross-border drone attacks on Pakistan that murdered 20 people, including 3 children. The bombing and strafing of homes and villages in Afghanistan by US forces and America’s NATO puppets are also war crimes. Obama cannot enforce the law, because he himself has already violated it..."

or: Change (in Rhetoric) We Can Believe In?

"The Obamania bubble should already have begun to lose some air with the multiple US bombings of Pakistan within the first few days following the inauguration. The Pentagon briefed the White House of its plans, and the White House had no objection. So bombs away — Barack Obama's first war crime...

"Stop patrolling the waters surrounding Iran with American warships. Stop halting Iranian ships to check for arms shipments to Hamas. (That's generally regarded as an act of war.) Stop using Iranian dissident groups to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran. Stop kidnaping Iranian diplomats. Stop the continual spying and recruiting within Iran....

Adam said, "Seems that opinions on this issue hinge on whether you think our troops are helping to maintain stability in Iraq, or are contributing to the instability, or are having little to no effect either way."

No. There is an issue of morality here that is more important (to people who care about morality) than whether or not our crimes can "maintain stability" in Iraq. American Exceptionalists may believe that we have the right to commit these crimes because of our moral and political superiority, but we have no more right to invade and occupy Iraq than Russia would have to invade and occupy us.

Would you argue that Russia, having invaded and occupied the U.S., should then cease its crimes only if it could be proven that it would "increase stability" here?

"Authentic opposition begins by applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others. It therefore would have condemned the war as a crime, in fact "the supreme international crime" that encompasses all the evil that follows, in the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Much of the public did take that position, but it was, and remains, inexpressible in the media or the corridors of power." (Gaza And Its Aftermath)

For the record in his speech he said 30-50 thousand after Aug. 2010 and all troops out by 2011. For the handwringers out there, including Jeff Merkley, I say we give this Commander in Chief the benefit of the doubt, and stop the left wing attack machine tactics of the Sirota crowd. He is doing as he said he would in the campaign.

When the left wing relies on name calling, and overuses terminology of "war criminal" for every military action they disagree with, it simply cheapens the charge and reduces it to leftist rhetoric that no one believes any more. Al Qaeda are the ones who did 9/11. They are alive and well in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if leftists here believe we need to sing Kumbaya, dismantle our military, and Al Qaeda will have a conversion experience, then Americans will rightly distrust that any president on the left is going to defend them from harm. Obama has it right. Iraq was a diversion, the real enemies are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need to leave Iraq responsibly. When Jeff Merkley wants to be Commander in Chief he can explain himself. Until then he's just another handwringer.

Exactly right. Obama met with the generals and revised his plan. Isn't that what we want. Someone who listens to the experts on a given situation and uses their input to formulate a plan.

This naive opinion is typical of the millions of people who don't know their history. Rank is not always a guarantee of competence. Too often it is a reward for knowing how to play the system and suck up to the right people.

Generals throughout the world, which includes the United States, have been guilty of incompetence and moral cowardice for centuries continuing to the present.

General McClellan was a failure in the Civil War. General Jack Pershing, General Haig and Marshal Foch ordered their men at dawn on 11/11/18 to continue to fight and die up to the last few minutes of the First World War despite the fact they knew an armistice would be signed at 11:00 am. (The Germans laid down their arms when they learned about the armistice but had to pick them up again when they were attacked by Allied Forces.) When he assumed command of the United States Army in World War II, General Marshall fired more than 30 fellow generals for incompetence. Recent histories have not been kind to General Dahlquist of "Lost Battalion" (World War II) fame nor to General Westmoreland of Vietnam infamy.

And what about the generals who led our troops into the war on Iraq? They knew, or should have known, this war was illegal. (See Note 1) When it came to sending their troops into a war zone with limited protective armor moral courage appears not to have inspired any general to protest this indifference to the lives of the men and women under their command. I have, however, read of men of lower rank (officers and non-commissioned officers) who had a better sense of responsibility towards the people in their units. Subsequently, generals authorized the abusive treatment at Abu Ghraib that has indelibly tarnished the reputation of the United States and its army in countries where people have longer historical memories than Americans.

Note 1: It is interesting to note that the general and others pushing charges against Lt. Ehren Watada refused to allow the defense to raise the question of the Iraq war's legality.

What Harry is avoiding is that an occupying power has a moral responsibility towards those who are occupied.

There is some truth to this point, but how does an immoral aggressor switch to a moral occupier?

Except Predator drones which patrol for Al Qeda targets are stationed in Pakistan. So on what basis do you claim that Predator drone strikes are illegal cross-border missions?

One of the Geneva Conventions makes it a violation to attack a location where there is a reasonable risk of killing civilians. Regardless of borders.

Do you think the stimulus and the housing plan will work? I wonder. The deficit is going up and inflation may be just around the corner. I saw a good article on this on

http://www.recessioninfocenter.com

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Feb 27, 2009 7:35:46 PM

Exactly right. Obama met with the generals and revised his plan. Isn't that what we want. Someone who listens to the experts on a given situation and uses their input to formulate a plan.

This naive opinion is typical of the millions of people who don't know their history.

So what does your self serving inane diatribe have to do with the topic of this post?

I love the left (not!). I hate the right even more. But when will the left get the message that eating your own is not a winning strategy. Jeff Merkeley is, IMO, an idiot for going on record stating that he doesn't think the drawdown is enough or fast enough. Why not just pull them out tomorrow and let havoc reign. Why not just ignore the advice of the military advisers who might have some more experience than Jeff Merkeley in knowing how to draw troops down. Obama has his own Joint Chiefs of Staff who are, presumably, more philosophically in line with his point of view about the war. The war shouldn't have been fought at all, but now that we're there, it would create utter chaos to draw the troops down too quickly and without planning for the aftermath carefully. I think Obama is approaching this in a wise and deliberate way. This spoken by someone who wasn't one of Obama's biggest fan until McCain appointed Caribou Barbie as his running mate. That secured my vote for Obama. I'm quite happy with his approach so far. The left is a bunch of pampered weenies sucking on their own thumbs rather than contributing anything useful to civil discourse.

But when will the left get the message that eating your own is not a winning strategy. Jeff Merkeley is, IMO, an idiot for going on record stating that he doesn't think the drawdown is enough or fast enough.

Mr Fearless (cough,chough):

Whether Sen Merkley is right or not, maybe you didn't notice the results of Congressional Rs being GWB's cheerleaders and no more? How about that is the damn job we elected him to do?

I like Pres Obama, but I sure didn't vote for Emperor, I voted for President. I have less than no problem with getting an explanation regarding a 50K number and that will happen if questions are asked. As for the military mind...that's a real mixed bag there isn't it? Anybody who thinks a General isn't also a politician had better do a bit of a re-think on that.

IslamOnline.net & News Agencies-10/18/08

"An occupying power has certain moral obligations to the occupied which can't just be ignored or wished away, especially in the name of "morality" as Harry is doing"

Can't you get it through your heads: THEY DON"T WANT US THERE!WE DESTROYED THEIR LIVES!

Thousands of protestors demanded an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq

BAGHDAD — Thousands of Iraqis took to the streets on Saturday, October 18, to demand an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq and to protest a planned security deal that would prolong the US troop presence in the oil-rich country. "We are marching to reject the occupation," Karim Kadhim, a Shiite from the southern holy city of Najaf, told Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"Would America like to be occupied by any other country? Would America like its sons to be attacked? Why are they occupying our country?" he asked.

I grew up in Europe after WW2. I can assure you: No one wanted the Germans to stay behind out of moral obligation. They wanted them to get the hell out of their countries and their lives!

But the plain fact is that the previous President's immorality in getting us in there in the first place doesn't absolve the current President from his moral obligation to the occupied.

Kevin: Your point is valid, but the situation isn't as simple as immoral invader Bush being replaced by moral occupier Obama. There are still pro-invaders (McCain, the various neocons, etc.) filling the Washington swamp that Obama has to negotiate. Not to mention his campaign donations from the war armaments industries.

One of the Geneva Conventions makes it a violation to attack a location where there is a reasonable risk of killing civilians. Regardless of borders.

Quote/link/citation please.

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION

If the civilians are not the object of the attack, the Geneva Convention does not apply:

The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: those which are not directed at a specific military objective; those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

I got one word for you, Fallujah, or as we used to say "We had to destroy the village to save it."

Here's just a few examples of the Geneva Convention (IV) that we have violated.

Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties. Art. 34. The taking of hostages is prohibited. Art. 50. The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children. The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it. Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend. Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. Art. 54. The Occupying Power may not alter the status of public officials or judges in the occupied territories, or in any way apply sanctions to or take any measures of coercion or discrimination against them, should they abstain from fulfilling their functions for reasons of conscience.

Now if the President was to use the remaining forces to actually implement the obligation of an "occupying power" and clearly state that was the purpose, maybe we could get our honor back. I won't be holding my breath.

Finally! Get after him tiger!

mp, why do you trust the generals? Why does your cynicism for gov evaporate when they have a uniform on? As you would say about the stimulus plan, "nice, but until folks think the system works they aren't going to want to pay in", I would say, "nice, but after Abu-Graib and the various examples of their being a law unto themselves, why should we believe the generals"?

I take it from your past comments that you don't believe the US military can be guilty of war crimes, or that, in the rare case, courts martial have provided satisfactory justice.

I would like to see Senator Merkley introduce legislation to repeal legislation passed in 2002 that authorizes the President to use military force to recover any US personnel or "internationally protected persons" on trial before the World Court. Why do we need standing permission to attack the Netherlands?

mrgutless69 represents the BO, Dem position perfectly! Talk progressive, but, you would do that sh*t. Man, how are we ever going to be a major political force with all these nuts that can't get real.

Progressives are just a political skin suit for you, so that you appear human to the electorate.

mp97303: So what does your self serving inane diatribe have to do with the topic of this post?

What you refer to as my "self serving inane diatribe" was a rejection of a dangerous point you tried to make; that is, that we (and President Obama) should accept whatever words come out of generals' mouths since they are the experts. Because you didn't refute my point I'll take the liberty of assuming you couldn't defend your own.

I didn't want to belabor the point above, but consider this. There are many other examples in history of lower-ranking generals disagreeing with their superiors in rank and eventually having events prove the former right. General Billy Mitchell was one. He advocated for airplanes becoming weapons for fighting wars and was court-martialed for opposing his "superiors." British General Mike Jackson refused an order from General Wesley Clark to force a Russian unit out of Serbia with the argument he didn't want to start World War III. Many people believe the Brit was right. In Afghanistan at this time there are generals who disagree with continued and increased militarization advocated by the American high command, and many scholars familiar with this region agree with the former.

As Chuck Butcher said above, generals are a mixed bag.

Some "experts" also known as The Best and the Brightest Led America Off a Cliff

Jenni,

When you start with "Bush wasn't going to pull any troops out of Iraq."

It's easy to pre-conclude Obama is already better at "Foreign policy". Truth is Obama is and will be using the exact same post-surge approach Bush was using. But Obama with his 2 more years time line leaves open any outcome.

With his pretense, that you interpret so admirably, President Obama can do anything and make any adjustsmants at all and have you still claiming it is a huge difference than the Bush military.

This is a similar approach to Obama closing GITMO. He's says he is planning on closing it sometime in the next yeart or so? Wow! Impressive.

How is that an acheivement of any kind? Honestly it seems all he need do is say he wants to do something and it's as if it has already happened.

I guess when you're limited only by your own imagination anything is possible.

How is it that you assume Bush didn't consult experts, considers what they say, and then comes to his own conclusions?

You're "sure" about what Obama does? How are you sure?

He's listening to the same military as Bush. He's hearing from the same experts.

But Obama is the great compromiser finding just the right numbers?

(1.) Being to the left of ideologically challenged BO posters does not make one a leftist. I am not a leftist, although I am not an apologist for fascists either.

(2.) Iris's experience in Europe is germane to this discussion. Science is complex; politics is not. If you think the Nazis needed to stay in France because their leaving would have caused civil war (for the history-ignorant: It did), then at least you're being consistent and not an American Exceptionalist. So how many of the fascist-apologists think the Nazis should have stayed?

(3.) Richard tells it like it is. The Obama worship is discouraging for anyone who cares about morality.

...but we have no evidence to think that the President is accepting of any and all words out of the Generals mouths, ...

Then who is Obama listening to to build his case for an increase in the military option for Afghanistan? There is a very responsible body of opinion highly critical of this risk Obama appears prepared to take.

In any case, we would do well to pay attention, and we and, especially, others who are more thoroughly versed on the issues should express our opinions if we disagree with the advice Obama is given and taking.

In the preamble to the war on Iraq many of us with comparatively limited knowledge of matters related to Iraq were nevertheless able to compare differing opinions and got it right when we concluded Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and their accomplices were wrong and the likes of General Shinseki, Robert Fisk, Counterpunch and people in the anti-war movement presented a more honest and credible argument.

You do realize that there are a large amount of the upper ranks in the DoD who have wanted us out of Iraq for years now.

I don't know about "a large amount," but the impression I have is that the preponderance of power in the Pentagon appears to be held by those in favor of staying in Iraq. I would be very happy to have evidence to disabuse me of this view. And let's not forget McCain, Hoyer and their cohorts in Congress who have been pro-war and remain pro-occupation in Iraq.

The Obama worship is discouraging for anyone who cares about morality.

It is also dangerous. Obama has already demonstrated that political expediency trumps morality and ethics. This is unfortunate because he has demonstrated admirable personal qualities. His "race" speech in Philadelphia provides evidence supporting both of these points. On the issue of race, Obama was justly praised, but the speech was tarnished by his tossing his former friend and pastor, the Rev. Wright, overboard in an obvious gesture to political "reality." Then there was the AIPAC speech in which he sold the Palestinians down the River Jordan.

Our political system is corrupt to the core, and Obama has shown a willingness to compromise himself for political "success." If this nation is to change course, it will have to depend on a skeptical public - not on any politician promising change no matter how eloquent he or she might be. Frankly, I suspect we are more likely to see the Second Coming before we see the American public abandon its immersion in consumerism to assume its proper role of citizenship.

Re: "The Nazis went through Europe, killing an untold number of people..."

It was told, Jenni.

What's not told, because "we don't count them", is how many we've slaughtered, tortured, and ethnically cleansed in Iraq and eleswhere (e.g., estimates of civilian deaths in Vietnam even now range from 500,000 to 2 million or more).

A study by doctors from Johns Hopkins, published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006, estimated the number of excess deaths as a result of the occupation at above 655,000. Just Foreign Policy, an independent organization "dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy" offered an updated total of 1,213,716 in June of 2008. On Sep. 14, 2007, Opinion Research Business (ORB) produced a figure of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the invasion.

So your point seems to be that the Nazis killed more people than we did. We, therefore, are less evil than the Nazis because we kill less people?

Re: "...with the goal of ruling as much of the world as one could"

Imperial powers, including most of Europe, always have had "a goal of ruling as much of the world as one could". So it is with us. We are not the Exceptions, as DP/RP hacks would have it. We are doing the same thing that every imperialist does.

"...putting huge amounts of people into concentration camps.."

Perhaps you've never heard of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the black CIA sites. Perhaps you've never heard of the camps in South Vietnam.

"Anyone who isn't 100% your way is just wrong. You'll never compromise."

There are things on which moral people will not compromise. That's not the same thing as saying that compromise is always wrong.

Let me repeat: If you think the Nazis needed to stay in France because their leaving would have caused civil war (for the history-ignorant: It did), then at least you're being consistent and not an American Exceptionalist. If you, on the other hand, believe that we are history's lone exception, and that we have a (god-given?) right to invade, occupy and slaughter anyone we want, then why won't you come out and say it? We are not the Germans, and the Germans were not the British, and the British were not the French, but the crimes of empire committed by us all are the same.

Forget the Germans, Brits, French, etc. The questions are:

Was the war on Iraq legal?

If it was illegal, then what does that make the deaths of Iraqis? Murder? War crimes? Crimes against humanity?

The same questions apply to Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Cuba, the Philippines, Central America, etc.

The fact that I'm able to see some things that others here don't appear to comprehend is due to the ideological blinders worn by the members of both zombi (dead but they think they're still alive) parties.

I feel compassion for the blind. So let me go through this slowly and carefully.

There is a thing called "The Golden Rule" in Christianity. (It's my understanding that most other religions profess something similar.) So, as Chomsky said, "Authentic opposition begins by applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others. It therefore would have condemned the war as a crime, in fact 'the supreme international crime' that encompasses all the evil that follows, in the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal."

Therefore, if we allow ourselves to commit the "supreme international crime", then we must allow others to commit it against us. (Unless we're hypocrites.)

The arguments on this thread that hinge on Rovian-reinterpretations of international law hardly need comment. They remind me of the arguments of climate-change-deniers who post here. There are plenty of scholars of international law, some of them Republicans, who have concluded that our attacks and occupations are violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.

But, more important than that is what I call "the Chomsky Test": If you want to know if an action of state is morally acceptable, then reverse the situation so that you (the U.S.) are on the other side. Ask yourself if Iraq's occupation of the U.S. should continue because Iraq decided that it was in our best interests. (The example of France/Germany was perhaps too difficult for some to understand. The point is the same, however.)

Re: the obligations of an occupying force to maintain the welfare of the people occupied:

This is an argument that bolsters my position. We have failed to protect the Iraqi people and, in fact, we have decreased their safety by our very presence. We have furthermore ignored the will of the Iraqi people on this (not the puppets in charge of the Iraqi "government".) As Iris said, occupied people want the occupiers out.

Furthermore, the reason our rulers have fought so hard to call what is happening in Iraq a "war" instead of an occupation is that occupations in and of themselves are illegal unless they are "purely defensive" and "temporary".

Our dear leader has made it clear to anyone listening carefully that our occupation of Iraq is going to continue indefinitely AT LEAST until the end of 2011, and decisions about its end then will depend on what the generals have to say about it. This is not what the U.N. meant by "temporary", and our occupation is obviously not "purely defensive" or, for that matter, defensive in any way. Therefore, it is illegal, and we are responsible for the deaths of all those Iraqis above what normally would have been expected ("excess deaths" in social science circles).

The argument about killer drones being somehow legal if we start them inside a sovereign nation instead of outside them is pitiful. Are you saying that if it can be proven that the drones started in Afghanistan or Iraq then it is a war crime? (The fact that the thugs running Pakistan may have agreed to the killing of their own people is irrelevant. We killed them, and we knew that innocents would be killed as a result.)

Thanks to those anti-fascists who have responded righteously on this thread.

Jenni,

How did you arrive, specifically, at the 35,000 number, rather than the 50,000 that Obama wants?

What piece of information or intelligence are you privy to that Obama isn't?

Or, are you just throwing numbers around for the sake of maintaining some type of moral high ground?

Topic: Merkley: Obama drawdown not fast enough or big enough.

Gareth Porter in his article A withdrawal of sorts from Iraq is one of several who agrees.

Let's not forget that war is the business of the military top brass. It provides the best opportunities for advancement, including the combat experience that is so crucial to promotion, enhanced personal power, and hopes for a big lobbying job upon retirement. Therefore the brass are scarcely unbiased observers and advisors.

Moreover, the continued presence of large numbers of troops in Iraq will increase the opportunity for continuing combat losses which will then be used as excuses for endless extensions of the occupation, leading to more promotions, and so on.

Merkeley is honorable and right: the withdrawal should be fast, efficient, and complete, or else it will get bogged down again as the brass anticipate. Let's not forget that they already have a backup war in place in Afghanistan that could easily dwarf the scale of the Iraq fiasco. We must get clear of Iraq and be able to focus in turn on getting out of the Afghanistan deathtrap.

The one good use of military power in that region would be to pinpoint the criminal bin Laden and bring him to justice. But even if that could be done before bin Laden dies of natural causes, President Bush has already made him a martyr to terrorists everywhere.

Well said, Patrick. Obama's defence conundrum and the nation's.

That's the difference between us. Some of us realize the realities of the world and that compromise has to be done sometimes. But it's better than saying "my way or the highway" and holding out until you get it 100% your way.</ii>

Jenni: Your comment from which the above is abstracted is less than your usual standard. I presume that the quote above is mostly directed at Harry K. but probably includes some of us inclined to agree with him.

I believe your choice of 100% is excessive just as it would be if you were accused of being willing to compromise if you got 1%.

Some of us who are as critical of the Democrats as we are the Republicans might be willing to compromise with the Democrats if we got maybe 80-90%, but when half the Democrats voted for the war on Iraq and have shown they have learned nothing from that blunder by going along with a military increase in Afghanistan, then compromise become problematic. Add to that Obama has chosen three Wall Street stalwarts to resolve the financial crisis they helped to create, then compromise become even more difficult. Then, as they say on television commercials, "Wait, there's more." But let's not belabor the point.

The question now is, "At what point will you refuse to compromise?" Is your criteria as long as the Democratic Party is the lesser evil you will remain a loyal trooper?