The one possibility overlooked by the author and many of those posting on this site is that smart people of good conscience might disagree with your view. The reason for lack of involvement in anti-war protests from military veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan may be that they actually think that we are right to be there. In fact the publicized breaks with the "establishment" from within the military are mostly "we are doing this wrong" as opposed to "we shouldn't be doing this".

So consider this, maybe we should step back and admit that there may be more than one correct answer and if you disagree with me you're not stupid, not a war mongering asshole, not a pot smoking oversexed hippy but someone who has a different point of view.

There is nothing unusual in the lack of protest, different war different people, and different points of view.

.

Hint, the author covered this albeit probably not from a perspective that you think is fair

They are committed political conservatives dismissive of evidence that the war cannot be won, fearful of the consequences of even a gradual U.S. withdrawal, eager for signs of a thaw in Iraq's frozen communal politics

Given the partisan divide and alignment on the issue of the Iraq invasions, this is pretty accurate. I know of almost no individuals, military or not, who support the invasion but who are politically moderate or liberal.

I know of almost no conservatives outside the wacko libertarian types who do not support the invasion.

Ok

So I'm pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti gun control groups and anti the way the NRA handles the issue. I'm for immigration reform but against amnesty and prefer action against businesses who hire illegals as a solution. I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I would like to see tax increases based not so much on amount made but difference between your pay and the avg. pay of those employed by your company. I think that if you screw up you should pay the price.

So on your neat little scale am I a conservative a moderate or a liberal? I think that life is too messy for those labels and that many of us are conservative on some issues and liberal on others while being moderate on yet others.

"They are committed political conservatives dismissive of evidence that the war cannot be won, fearful of the consequences of even a gradual U.S. withdrawal, eager for signs of a thaw in Iraq's frozen communal politics"

and then...

"Given the partisan divide and alignment on the issue of the Iraq invasions, this is pretty accurate. I know of almost no individuals, military or not, who support the invasion but who are politically moderate or liberal."

the invasion was the invasion. it is water under the bridge. the question is why don't that bimbo pelosi and that nerd reid do anything about it. if they truly represent those who didn't support the 'invasion', then why don;t they do anything about it?

i have a sneaky feeling they are cutting and running from the promised cutting and running.

figures.

Hey Morgan, I like your post above and it is good to know there are others like me out there. I think there are many people (particularly of my age group) that are like this too. Ie. pro gay rights, pro choice and support a strong military and policies based on personal responsibility versus entitlement. Liberals always put off like they are the only ones capable of critical thinking when they are often guilty of regurgitating the same leftist mantra they picked up from their college professors or Amy Goodman. I believe the true free thinkers are the ones that can make a stand on an issue based on their own personal values and judgment and not based on the propaganda they soaked up at church or from some college professor. I’ve found that these people often embrace ideas from both sides of the isle.

"They are committed political conservatives dismissive of evidence that the war cannot be won, fearful of the consequences of even a gradual U.S. withdrawal, eager for signs of a thaw in Iraq's frozen communal politics"

the invasion was the invasion. it is water under the bridge. the question is why don't that bimbo pelosi and that nerd reid do anything about it. if they truly represent those who didn't support the 'invasion', then why don;t they do anything about it?

i have a sneaky feeling they are cutting and running from the promised cutting and running.

because they have a majority but not a veto proof majority?

Split-S wrote

I believe the true free thinkers are the ones that can make a stand on an issue based on their own personal values and judgment and not based on the propaganda they soaked up at church or from some college professor. I’ve found that these people often embrace ideas from both sides of the isle.

My opinion also, but to take it one step further. I often find that I try to understand the arguments from both sides of the Isle and both are wrong and right at the same time. If you combine the ideas and find the common ground in the issues, as opposed to the pet solutions you might have a chance of finding a solution that actually addresses the issue without getting caught up in the "you don't completely agree with me therefore I will discount everything you say because you must be a stupid partisan hack.

One of the most difficult actions in Quality engineering is to get a group of people to stop focusing on their pet solutions and first focus on defining the actual issue they want to resolve. If you can achieve this it often very easy to find a solution that people who where about to come to blows over the each others positions will happily get behind and promote side by side.

I believe that a moderate 'common ground' party would win every election. I can't begin to count all the times I have heard the comment " I'm pissed that my party has been stolen by the extremists"... from both republicans and democrats. All thanks to a party system that gives the extremes a disproportionate amount of say in who it's party runs.

'because they have a majority but not a veto proof majority?'

ha! they didn't have one during vietnam either. that's why they voted to cut the funding. the nutless ones today don't have the guts.

that's why they are cutting and running from cutting and running.

they tell you one thing but do another because they know you are a sap.

like osamba telling the canucks not to believe him when he lies to you about NAFTA.

Here, Here! I completely agree with you about thinking a moderate party would win every time. But then again, and maybe this is just because I've always lived in college towns, but there are a lot of extremist out there. They don’t just exist to hijack parties. I’ve found it is easier for most people to demonize one side and fall in line with the other. I said to friends during the primaries that if Mit Romney won the GOP nomination I would vote for Hilary in the general election (if she were the nominee, this was before Obamamania). On the other side I don’t know any Democrat that would ever vote for a Republican even a McCain or a Guiliani.

.

Veto-proof isn't the issue. The issue is twofold

1. The Dems made a mistake in "we support the troops" rhetoric back in the early part of the invasion. They allowed GWB to frame any discussion of cutting funds for the occupation as a failure to support the troops.
   
   The inability of the Dems to clearly articulate the "power of the purse" being different than providing the troops with adequate protections does rest at the feet of the DNC leadership.
   .
2. More importantly is the inability of Reid to pass Cloture in the Senate. Since the Dems are 50-49 in the Senate (Lieberman is pro-invasion and an independent), even if they could pass a bill on the floor, they never get a chance because they need an additional 10 GOP votes to end debate (cloture). With a GOP POTUS, even moderate Repubs dare not break rank on a cloture vote since Bush has shown himself very willing to retaliate (think Lincoln Chafee).

So Bush is running out the clock and the Senate Dem leadership is hoping for their candidate to have coat-tails. If the Dems win the WH and have coat-tails you could see the senate move to 55-45.

With the Senate at 55-44-1, you only need 5 Senators to break rank: Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, Smith, Specter, McConnell, Gregg or Kyle ie 5 out of 8. And they can still vote against it on the floor and tell their constituents they voted against the bill. Becuse without the club of the WH doling out punishment, there suddenly is less reason not to.

.

You are a moderate conservative. A Rockefeller Republican.

Nothing messy about it. You are basically a libertarian with a touch of authoritarianism mixed in.

Split-S wrote

On the other side I don’t know any Democrat that would ever vote for a Republican even a McCain or a Guiliani.

Actually I do, it would just take an democratic nomination of someone like Nader or Dean. The only reasons that either Obama or Hillary have a chance in a general is that both are running on the "I can work with the other side ticket" and the extream partisanship which has only gotten worse since Regan.

The thing that both parties seem to have lost is the fact that whoever wins needs to be everybodies president. This has been Ws biggest downfall IMO.

BTW. the general fiscal performance of the GOP and their rubber stamping GWB precludes me from voting for them again see http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

My Uncle was fraged in vietnam.

Humm... the link you sent is not what I would call an objective site. You actually proved my point that people love to lap up their own propaganda! I'm sorry your Uncle was fraged but with all due respect what the hell does that have to do with the rest of your post?

That plot is of actual White house budget data. You can do it your self, the pdf budget data is available from the White house.