A few days back the Seattle Times offered several laments about the current situation in Iraq, among them, the complaint that current efforts in Iraq are "too much a case of American troops standing amid civil conflict between Sunnis and Shiites."
Interesting then that besides the veto news of the last twenty-four hours also related to Iraq, the other top story from that land involved al-Qaeda, specifically whether its commander in Iraq was finally getting his due chance to consult closely with Allah, or someone else.
Either way, the details surrounding his possible demise serve as a reminder of a helpful trend, so compelling it earned serious coverage from the New York Times: the notable shift of Sunni tribes in the restive Anbar province to work with the Iraqi government and US forces to smash the Al Qaeda forces they've learned to hate.
Certainly, Shiite and Sunnni tensions do exist in Iraq and are a source of serious sectarian violence. Yet Iraq war opponents, including the Seattle Times, have become quite skilled as of late in ignoring the fact Al Qaeda has turned Iraq into its cause celebre. During his recent trip to the Capital, General Petraeus said, "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign." This the same Petraeus confirmed unanimously by the Democratic Senate.
Bluntly, the factual correctness of many war objectors is becoming a serious issue, whether in glossing over the current Al Qaeda focus on Iraq or in continuing, like the Times, to ignore the dramatic changes undertaken in Iraq strategy since last fall. Since such opponents still don't like it, they demand something new under the false pretense that nothing has changed...or at least not to the course they prefer.
The disconnect is so acute it recently made the pages of a significant left-of-center publication, the New Republic [Note: the link may require free registration, which is well worth it for this read]. Some key excerpts:
Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt "sad" about President Bush's claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi's assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.)...
What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don't know what they're talking about. My guess is some combination of the two.
...
Speaking of "where things stand on the ground in Iraq," Reid insisted that the role of U.S. forces is to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. troops, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.
This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni, friend from foe.There are several problems with this formulation, not the least of which is that, far from being a "new strategy," it mirrors exactly the approach that was tested and found wanting when Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over the war and "reducing our combat footprint" was a raison d'etre. Chaos, not stability, was the result.
...
Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.
Good people can and most certainly do disagree about Iraq and our future course there. Nonetheless, is a little intellectual honesty in the discussion too much to ask?
Posted by Eric Earling at May 02, 2007 07:37 AM | Email ThisSo quit trying to rewrite history, own your cynical, self-serving support for this worst of all failures in U.S. history, and quit trying to scare us with the "bad guys."
Posted by: ivan on May 2, 2007 08:20 AMYou ought to see the series on PBS- America at a Crossroads. For a liar like yourself, you will be exposed.
Posted by: swatter on May 2, 2007 08:26 AMLosers, the lot of you.
Posted by: ivan on May 2, 2007 08:31 AM> Nonetheless, is a little intellectual honesty in the discussion too much to ask?
How about a little intellectual honesty from the George W. Bush administration. Is that too much to ask?
George W. Bush has lied about Iraq from day one, and he continues to lie on behalf of prolonging this war just long enough for him to get out of office with his ego intact.
George W. Bush is going to sacrifice 1,000 more troops to preserve his ego. He is also going to kill about 40,000 Iraqi civilians in the process, but conservatives don't really care about these Iraqi civilians so their deaths do not count.
Where are the WMDs? Where are the throngs of Iraqis greeting American soldiers as liberators? Where is freedom & democracy?
All of these lies have evaporated away. Our troops are now fighting & dying for nothing.
Even if General Petraeus was successful he would have to stay in Iraq forever in order to preserve that success. The Iraqis would get rid of the Green Zone puppet government in a day once our troops have left the country.
How many more soldiers have to die before conservatives begin dealing with reality rather than their neocon fantasies?
What is the patriotic number of dead soldiers for the Iraq war?
If Iraq is a mess today it is only because George W. Bush has generated the mess. If thousands of Iraqis are dying every month (virtually a 9/11 per month), it is because George W. Bush has allowed that country to degenerate into anarchy and civila war.
I don't imagine that the Iraqis are going to build any monuments to Goerge W. Bush. The Iraqis are dying for oil and nothing else. Our soldiers are dying for the SUV and nothing else.
When will the neocon dead-enders wake up?
One thing I'd like to see put forward as a policy position is the case for a permanent base in the area, ala Kaiserlautern or on Okinawa. The Germans squealed when the prospect of relocating US bases away from there was even mentioned in passing the other year, as they are a big boon to their local economy.
A case can be made that the permanent status of such a base will be a signal of a prolonged stabilization force, and would be geopolitically advantageous as well to US national interests.
Anyway, on point, Eric, I agree a little honesty in reporting would be great, but what can you expect when Pelosi and Reid are skipping out on Petraeus' briefings, and in the case of Reid, are predisposed "not to believe him" anyway.
Posted by: chunkstyle on May 2, 2007 08:49 AMWhen the Brits assembled Iraq, they ignored religious, cultural and tribal differences. They basically created a mess, just as they did when they drew a line in the sand and said those on the eastern side were "Indian," and those on the western side were "Pakistani."
Our best course of action is to allow the civil war to ensue (becasue we can't prevent it) and remove our troops from harm's way. Getting rid of Saddam was a good accomplishment, but there's not much else we can garner by getting in the middle of a civil war that has been on-hold for 80 years. The tribes and cultures that comprise Iraq will decide who will run the entities that emerge from the conflict.
Posted by: Libertarian on May 2, 2007 09:01 AMMoreover, Germany and Japan declared war on the U.S. Iraq didn't.
Posted by: ivan on May 2, 2007 09:02 AMSaddam Hussein violated the terms of the '91 cease fire, resulting in a de facto resumption of hostilities.
Posted by: chunkstyle on May 2, 2007 09:08 AMI hope that you and the rotten-to-the-core administration that you support continue trying to sell that to the American public as the equivalent of Pearl Harbor.
Posted by: ivan on May 2, 2007 09:25 AMIt's not hard to understand. Violation of the cease fire results in the resumption of hostilities. Mind you this was a vaunted UN-decreed international coalition style war that led to the cease fire in the first place.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the attack on Pearl Harbor is equivalent to the resumption of hostilities in an unended war.
Posted by: chunkstyle on May 2, 2007 09:30 AMMy two sons - the army staff sergeant and Marine lance corporal - are pretty important to me, and I wouldn't for a second want them to jeopardize their lives for anything less than a noble cause. I think the Iraq war is a noble cause.
Here's what bothers the beets out of me: All you Bush haters (and really, at the core of this is nothing more than hatred for Dubya all stemming out of the 2000 election and what you perceive is a denial of some divine right to Gorerule), have yet to offer a substantive and realistic alternative to the current situation that's victory oriented.
Oh, I hear a lot of hunker-down thinking that says withdraw, beef up first responders, and make nice with the world, but that smacks of begging the bully not to hit us again all the while making the conditions such that the bully won't be able to resist.
Why not print up our own "Kick me hard!" sign and affix to our backs!
For the most part we're getting lectured by a lot of armchair strategists who demonstrate an appalling unwillingness to take off the blinders of their own puny perspective and think...globally. Cliche ridden and, frankly, quite boring are the platitudes one hears.
You do not defeat evil by accomodating it, ignoring it, hiding under the bed or behind a wall of first responders from it, wishing it didn't exist, rationalizing how it's all our fault, trying to send it to psychotherapy, wagging your finger at it, or by cynically making it chic or a virtue.
There are times you have to take it on and kill it! In the 1940's that's what had to be done with National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. In the Cold War, it was done with the USSR. In both instances, a combination of diplomacy and armed conflict were necessary to make the point and do the job. In neither were those options totally successful tactically, but they proved ultimately successful strategically. What's different today? Nothing.
I would like to hear from some of you on the other side as to exactly what you would do differently. Not to minimize defeat, mind you, but to recognize geopolitical truth and the necessity to remove the scourge of Islamic-based terrorism from the globe. Caveatt, however...no "blame America first" crap. That's so 80's it's not funny!
So, until all you folks on the other side can show me a concrete, victory-oriented strategy and the intestinal fortitude to see it through, then kindly hold your forked and name-calling tongues.
Posted by: Piper Scott St. Clair on May 2, 2007 10:08 AMThey have NO plan!
Just blame GW when it happens here again and it will.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 2, 2007 10:14 AMInvading Iraq, where there was no Al Queda, is about the most stupid thing anyone could do, when it comes to trying to fight terrorism.
Bush's ill advised, illegal (according to Kofi Annon), insane invasion, with no idea what to do after they "took out" Saddam, is the worst disaster any president has ever made. Period.
I am sure there are still a few retards that still buy the talking points, and believe in Fuhrer Bush's vision of the new neo-con world order.
I pity you.
If you still think invading Iraq was a good idea, I suggest you march your retarded ass down to the recruiter, and sign up for a tour.
Personally, I would rather we spend our time hunting down real terrorists, and not just making more.
Now go turn Faux News Distortion back on, and watch the liars spew their lies, and GOP talking points that are not based in any form of reality.
Just hold this thought. Cheney said Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a year. If you think this statement was based on facts, and "real" intelligence, I have a bridge to sell you.
Bush didn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
We lost the war on terror the day Bush took office. It has been all downhill ever since. Period.
Posted by: Facts on May 2, 2007 10:16 AMI told you...give me a strategy to win or hold your venom...
And citing that cynically criminal (or criminally cynical???) Kofi Annan in support of anything betrays your hubris.
Until you engage in a reasonable exchange of POV's, I shall regard you as a carbuncle upon the posterior of humanity.
"Stultum facit fortuna quem vult perdere." Look it up.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 2, 2007 10:27 AMMaking, and keeping America safe is hard work. Bush would rather be in Crawford ignoring the PDB's.
The only way to truly deal with the terrorism problem is with a united world, committed to finding peace, and prosperity for all. As long as there are people being urinated on, terrorism will only continue to get worse.
Did anyone happen to notice terror attacks worldwide was up 25% last year? I bet they didn't mention it on Faux News.....
Posted by: Facts on May 2, 2007 10:31 AM
Top Hamas Official Wants All Americans Dead
Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One". Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI.
Ahmad Bahr began: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.,/B>
Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.
The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."
While I have no doub that "Facts" and his ilk are celebrating and pounding fists at this speaking out against America, he would be well reminded that, for good or bad, America includes him. "Facts", you, Nancy, Dirty Harry and GasBaghdad Jim can hold hands and chant kumbayah along with Dennis, but you are as hated as those of us Americans who LOVE our country and have the courage to stand and fight for our freedom and, even more importantly, the freedom of our future generations.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 2, 2007 10:33 AMCome on you can do it.
That's why he didn't want us to stop his money flow.
PS Saddam broke the rules over & over in the no fly zone. Which per the UN rules we could go back.
DUDE did you even make it past the 5th grade?
Also remember the DEM's wanted proof before went back into Iraq.. Do you even remember it took us nearly a year before we invaded?
Gezzz.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 2, 2007 10:35 AMOf course they hate us.
Now they hate us more.
If we were capturing, or killing "real" terrorists, instead of just causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, they would not hate us more.
Every time an innocent muslim dies by our actions, the people that hate us get stronger, and we get weaker. Pretty easy math, even for Republicons.
I know, I know. I am not saying our troops are slaughtering civilians. By not providing adequate security, we are causing their deaths. It adds up the same. Blame the president, not the troops.
Posted by: Facts on May 2, 2007 10:40 AMBoring, dude!
Terrorism attacks up? Not in the USA! Besides, when you take on the bad guys, they do fight back.
After war was declared in 1941, German and Japanese attacks against US targets increased. What does that prove?
Peace and prosperity? Ossama is a Kajillionaire, and the 19 of 9/11 were well educated, middle-class...terrorists. How did a peace and prosperity agenda deter Hitler?
Terrorism will get worse until terrorists are killed.
Per your reasoning, the beheading of Daniel Pearl was our fault? Quit blaming the bad acts and bad attitudes of others on those you hate. That type of emotional projection is a sign of borderline personality disorder. You might want to get checked out!
BTW...how many sons have you in the conflict?
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 2, 2007 10:44 AMAs far as I'm concerned every death that occurred/occurs since April 25, 2007 is solely on the shoulders of Harry Reid.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 2, 2007 10:48 AMAnd you know this ... how? Please enlighten us as to what course of action would have been the smartest in your esteemed opinion.
>"I pity you."
Thank you, my life is not complete.
>"If you still think invading Iraq was a good idea, I suggest you march your retarded ass down to the recruiter, and sign up for a tour."
I served ... did you? And if so, in what capacity? Are you trying to imply that only those with a "retarded ass" would actually sign up to serve this country in its armed forces? Are you really John Kerry? I thought all you folks support the troops - doesn't sound like support to me.
>"Just hold this thought. Cheney said Saddam could have a nuclear weapon within a year. If you think this statement was based on facts, and "real" intelligence, I have a bridge to sell you."
You would be refering to the "real" intellegence that EVERY intelligence agency in the world believed? That every congressman and senator on the select intelligence committees was provided in RAW FORM so they could make their own determination? That Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid all agreed with after having made their independant decision unrelated to the white house assessment? I guess what you must be saying is that these folks are every bit as stupid as you allege that the President and Vice President are. Hmmmmmmm, you may have a point on this one.
>"Bush didn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites."
Did you know the difference before all this started? How did you know?
>" We lost the war on terror the day Bush took office. It has been all downhill ever since. Period."
And your contention is that we were winning it when Clinton was in office? That would be because of his stately performance in response to the first World Trade Center bombing? And the Kohbar Towers bombing? And the embasy bombings in Kenya and Tanzanea? And the bombing of the USS Cole?
Mr. or Ms. Facts - I would submit that your "facts" have more holes than a swiss cheese factory. There have been many posters on this site with liberal beliefs that at least post things with some basis in fact that lead to useful discussion - you are not among those folks. In fact, you are so full of hot air that I suspect that you may be a leading cause of man made global warming.
Posted by: Jay on May 2, 2007 10:53 AMOf course no one likes the Kurds so they're screwed. Iran (Axis of Evil Dooer nation) supports the Shiite, so we can't give them any influence. Saudi's support the Sunni's and would give them more control over the worlds oil. Anyway looks like regional power structures would keep this from ever happening. Sounds like a fun no win situation all around.
> You do not defeat evil by accomodating it, ignoring it, hiding under the bed or behind a wall of first responders from it, wishing it didn't exist, rationalizing how it's all our fault, trying to send it to psychotherapy, wagging your finger at it, or by cynically making it chic or a virtue.
I agree, Piper. This is exactly why the American public has to politically struggle against the bloodthirsty warmongering of the fundamentalists in the White House.
George W. Bush is evil. He casually kills Muslim civilians by the 100,000 and wonders why the Iraqis don't appreciate our help. He has lied to the American public about Iraq from the first moment that he advocated for this war until today, yet without shame even as our soldiers have died by the thousands in vain.
The bloodthirsty neo-con dead-enders want to fight an eternal war against terrorism but the American public is fed up with all the lies, fearmongering, bloodthirsty warmongering, and our government's neglect of the war-wounded and dead soldiers.
George W. Bush is a lame duck president. He can pretty much do whatever he wishes without any fear of the consequences.
But the Republican party better wake up. The Republicans are going to pay a political price for 3,000 dead soldiers and 10,000 wounded soldiers and a Muslim nation destroyed & left in anarchy.
How much are Republicans willing to sacrifice for the sake of perpetual eternal aggressive warfare? Will they lose the White House and Congress and become the minority party for a generation? Probably.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 10:54 AM> As far as I'm concerned every death that occurred/occurs since April 25, 2007 is solely on the shoulders of Harry Reid.
That still leaves 3,300 dead American soldiers blood on George W. Bush and the neocon's hands.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 10:56 AMIn raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.
"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.
"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.
Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family's house, or watching "several terrorists die" on the same strip of pavement.
But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has "turned to complete s- - -" during a bloody insurgency.
He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.
"If Iraq didn't want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?" he asked.
"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.
"We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, 'Hey, that's not nice' again."
"And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time."
"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.
THAT'S **YOU** HE'S TALKING ABOUT "Facts"
No, to me this is Al Queda's "Tet Offensive" -- a last gasp drive to try and win a victory. And, as most people don't know, the Tet Offensive was a brutal defeat for the North Vietnamese where they suffered high casualties and lost significant materiel.
Bush is absolutely right to request "surges" in order to combat the enemies surge. This is the time to fight the battle down to victory and stamp out the roaches -- or else we will have a really protracted war.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 2, 2007 10:58 AM> It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - -
Well, that is a shining praise for what George W. Bush has done for Iraq. Makes me proud to be an American.
Where's a flag? Bring me a flag! I want to wave the American flag like a true patriot!
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 10:59 AMThanks to your Family for its service! Many out here support you. How soon liberals forget the playground bully lesson. Only now, the stakes are higher.
Another problem is our insane liberal penchant to put a lawyer on every soldier's back. Just like our police. Questioning every bullet. Defensive wait-n-see responses & second-guessing those on the front lines. Until we lose that bias, our military's hands will be forever tied and we will be forever reactive, not proactive--and subject to the world's bullies.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 2, 2007 11:01 AM> No, to me this is Al Queda's "Tet Offensive" -- a last gasp drive to try and win a victory
You are seriously mistaken, John. The surge is George W. Bush's Battle of the Bulge.
America has lost Iraq. George W. Bush is only attempting to hold off the shame of defeat while he still remains president. George W. Bush is going to allow a thousand American soldiers to die so that the next president can inherit his mess.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 11:01 AMHow are things with your band?
I put you in the same category with Facts...
Give me a strategy for victory or refrain from your rabid vituperation!
And remember...the ol' Piper has two boys at risk, so don't mess with me on that score with your smarmy talk of casualties. I have the moral authority to speak, while you appear to have bupkis!
The only type of warfare that works is aggressive. Consult Wm. Tecumsah Sherman and Bobby Lee, not to mention Black Jack Pershing, Geo. S. Patton, Ike, and Doug MacArthur. Passive wars never work. Ask Neville Chamberlain or Geo. McLellan.
And your religious bigotry is so...Talibanish! I'm an evangelical Christian - a fundamentalist, if you will - who believes strongly in the rights of all to worship, or not worship, in a manner and means as they see fit.
You, on the other hand, seem to be a throw-back to the Salem witch trials. Crucible, anyone?
Besides...like facts, you're boring.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 2, 2007 11:03 AMAren't you lucky you live in a country that allows you and protects your 'right' to flaunt your hatred for it anonymously.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 2, 2007 11:03 AMJay, it doesn't matter if congresspeople read the fake nie, recipe for war cooked up by Bush's buddies in the CIA with all the caveats at the end.
Bush, Cheney, and the rest lied their asses off building the case for war. Heck, I believe Saddam was a sleazebag too.
I just thought I could trust my president to tell me the truth. You seem to ignore the fact that they lied repeatedly in the runup to the war. It may seem ok to you, because you want war, and you want to see innocent muslims die, but to me it is treason.
When you talk about Clinton, you must remember something. Dozens of warnings that we were about to be attacked came before 9-11, and Bush did not even have a meeting to discuss possibly raising security levels. Now this may be ok to you, but it appears to be helping Al Queda to me. He, and his buddies left us wide open. Even ignoring the "Bin Laden determined" PDB in Crawford.
By the way, calling our president dishonest, a traitor, and incompetent, is not "not supporting" our troops.
So, according to you, Bush was completely honest about the Iraq threat, and Saddam's Al Queda ties, and nuclear program before the invasion? Let's see you answer this one. By the way it doesn't matter what Kerry thought. He did not order the invasion. He did not cook the intelligence. He did not say the known to be false 16 words at the State of the Union address.
Taking blame. The one thing Republicons will never do. Remember more democrats voted not to authorize the use of force than voted for it. Period. If it was up to democrats we would be hunting terrorists, and not just creating more, and more, and more, and more.....
Posted by: Facts on May 2, 2007 11:08 AMIllegal, except, of course, for that little thing of the U.N. authorizing force due to Iraq's violation of the cease fire... but hey, who are we to argue with such a moral authority as Kofi "Oil for Food and let's look the other way at U.N. sex predators" Annon.
Oh, and you and David Matthews are right, President Bush murdered over a hundred thousand Iraqi's. All those terrorists and insurgents launching mortars into parks, setting off car bombs, and strapping explosives to their chests, and gunning down civilians had nothing to do with with any of those deaths.
Posted by: Mike H on May 2, 2007 11:09 AMLook at some point we will leave. You cannot keep a war like this going forever. It is just not going to happen. Our current strategy has resulted in nothing but growing numbers of terrorist and greater sophistication in attacks. There is no political or societal will for a great increase in troop, so we are stuck with what we have.
In the 90's when conservatives talked about welfare reform they argued that permanent welfare destroyed ambition. By putting a limit on how long someone could get benefits they would be forced to exercise self-reliance and take care of themselves.
The same logic applies to Iraq. As long as the Iraqi government knows that the US is there they have no real incentive to as Bush says, stand up. We need to hold them accountable. Set goals and being withdrawing. They have had 4 years and so far all there is to show is a rather corrupt military and police, an ineffectual government, and reconstruction that has been marred by mismanagement, corruption, and shoddy maintenance. If we simply stay the course why will the next 4 years be any different. If conservatives are not willing to have the US government permanently care for poor people here, why do they want to it for Iraqis.
By setting a time table we tell the Iraqi government that it is now or never.
That video is extremely funny in an ironic sort of way. "Way to Go, W"!
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 11:54 AM> Sometimes war is ncessary, especially against a people who, if they had their way, would rejoice in the ultimate destruction of the USA, both as a people and a society.
Uh ... kevstar ... the Iraqis were never a threat to the United States. See The Encyclopedia of George W. Bush Lies #1 - #666.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 11:56 AMNever a threat? You are probably the type that cares more about teaching children the joys of homosexual anal sex as opposed to making sure they learn how to read, write, and know basic math.
Posted by: Kevstar on May 2, 2007 12:00 PMFor the most part both liberals and conservatives want the same things. A safe prosperous county for ourselves and our families. We may disagree over how, but the goal is the same. Unless you really believe that liberals like the idea of destroying the economy or getting killed by terrorists.
Posted by: Giffy on May 2, 2007 12:03 PM> Never a threat?
Yes, Kevstar, never a threat.
Iraq was never a threat.
Those 3,300 soldiers died for nothing except oil.
The 150,000 Iraqis died for nothing except oil.
Geoege W. Bush has killed more Americans and more civilians than Osama Bin Laden.
George W. Bush is evil.
Way to Go, W!
Posted by: David Mathews on May 2, 2007 12:06 PM"...support things we think are best..."
What do you mean by this? Who is "we"?
Posted by: Kevstar on May 2, 2007 12:06 PMProve the war is over oil. Prove it beyond a doubt. Did you throw a party after 9/11?
Posted by: Kevstar on May 2, 2007 12:09 PMProbably a bit idealistic but I think that applies to elected officials as well (both r,d, and Lieberman). Sure some do it for power, money, prestige, pages/interns, etc, but I would say that most do it because they honestly want to serve our country and make it a better place.
Posted by: Giffy on May 2, 2007 12:14 PMAt least you do not spout vitriolic diatribe as David Mathews. It's good you care about the good ol' US.
Posted by: Kevstar on May 2, 2007 12:17 PMSome interesting quotes compiled by the folks over at The Patriot Post :
"The Defeaticrats are being opportunist: They think they can calibrate the precise degree of U.S. defeat in Mesopotamia that will bring victory for them in Ohio and Florida." --Mark Steyn
"For months, Iraq War defeatists led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have provided our enemies with invaluable propaganda." --Henry Mark Holzer
"Senator John McCain, adamantly supporting the current 'surge' in Iraq says he would rather lose a presidential campaign than a war. Democrats, all smiles, prefer to lose the war and win the campaign. They're not alone. In Iraq, Al Qaeda is smiling, too." --Jeff Jacoby
"Citing polls as proof you're on the right side of an argument is often a symptom of intellectual cowardice. If the crowd says two plus two equals seven, that's no reason to invoke the authority of the crowd. But pundits and pols know that if they align themselves with the latest Gallup findings, they don't have to defend their position on the merits because 'the people' are always right." --Jonah Goldberg
"Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism--because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse." --John Hawkins
"God hasn't promised us tomorrow, but he has promised us eternity." --Tony Snow
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 2, 2007 12:31 PMJames S.
"But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: We are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.
"When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a "surge" of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition because there wasn't any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it."
The waning of the GOP
George W. Bush is the iceberg. The Republican party is the Titanic.
Republicans will have to decide if they want to ride a lost war into the next presidential election. George W. Bush ain't going to get the United States out of Iraq.
Maybe it is time for impeachment. The President & Vice President must be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, violation of the constitution, and the lies which killed 3,300 soldiers and 150,000 civilians.
If Bill Clinton merited impeachment for his lie, George W. Bush merits impeachment for his crimes.
Now we'll see the dems quietly give bush exactly what he wants. They made their big showy stand to appease the moonbat corner of their base but they do not want to be saddled with defeat and not properly funding the troops going into '08
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 2, 2007 12:58 PMAnyone that still supports the incompetent, dishonest, fool in the White House hates America far more than any "liberal" ever born.
America may never recover from the Republicon control of both houses of congress, the white house, and the supreme court.
God save us.
I bet you blame the nightmare in Iraq on the democrats, as well as the 5 trillion Bush spent he had to borrow. All the Democrats, and Bill Clinton's fault right?
God I wish I could buy that crap you are smoking.
Posted by: Facts on May 2, 2007 01:10 PMAgain...how many sons have you in the fight? You have the moral authority of Vidkun Quisling.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott St. Clair on May 2, 2007 01:23 PMThe Kurds are having big-time problems with the Turks. It seems they can't seem to buy a break. If you give them country status the Turks will immediately invade. Oh, and they don't want to be annexed either.
Posted by: swatter on May 2, 2007 02:09 PMVidkun Quisling? Sorry, pal, that dog won't hunt. There's no comparison here. Vidkun Quisling collaborated with an enemy that had INVADED AND OCCUPIED HIS COUNTRY.
And we all know who that enemy was. I wish your sons a speedy and safe return, but your analogy is a-- backwards.
Bush invaded and occupied Iraq, and to many Iraqis, whether you like this or not, those Iraqis who collaborate with our armed forces are the Quislings.
I think we can all agree that Quisling got the fate that he deserved. I hope no one thinks that the Norwegians should have given up until the invader had been driven from their soil.
Now tell me, Mr. Historian, in that light, how is our continued presence in Iraq going to make anything better?
I said he had the moral authority of Vidkun Quisling, not that he mirrored ol' Vidkun's perfidy.
And the rest of your logic is so...Hmmmm????...How can I say it without resorting to colorful metaphors? How about...BOGUS!
My sons, BTW, think your POV is dangerous to their health, so if you want your wishes to come to true...Shut Up!
Thus sayeth the one with real moral authority!
And per your reasoning...Saddam, then, is your poster boy for an oppressed, democratic leader beloved by his people who sought only their best interests? And those who support his overthrow are traitors?
Dude! That screed condemns all the victims of the holocaust and every resistence fighter in WW II. Really...you have swallowed the Kool Aid!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 2, 2007 06:18 PM
Please not after losing the election in 2004 the antiwar crowd got Louder and louder. And just before the 2006 election Do you see anything interesting. The attacks increased. And they have not let down. And notice the number of countries with terrorist attacks is growing. Does not look like a one country issue.
Just some more facts
Top 10 2002 2003 2004
1 India (295) India (301) Iraq (336)
2 Israel (78) Iraq (150) India (120)
3 Pakistan(61) Israel (62) Afghanistan (80)
4 Algeria (42) Afghanistan (58) Thailand(71)
5 Indonesia(14) Algeria (50) Pakistan (64)
6 USA(12) Philippines (47) Chechnya (59)
7 Philippines(11) Chechnya (42) Algeria (44)
8 Nigeria(8) Pakistan (39) Israel (43)
9 Bangladesh(6) Indonesia(13) Sudan(20)
10 Afghanistan (6) Russia(8) Nigeria (18)
Top 10 2005 2006 2007
1 Iraq (463) Iraq (952) Iraq (347)
2 Thailand(296) Thailand(315) Thailand(139)
3 India (222) India (295) Pakistan (90)
4 Afghanistan (162) Afghanistan (228) Afghanistan (75)
5 Pakistan (83) Pakistan (189) India (54)
6 Algeria (59) Philippines (39) Somalia(49)
7 Chechnya (48) Israel(38) Algeria(13)
8 Israel (30) Algeria(30) Pal. Auth.(12)
9 Philippines (23) Somalia(29) Philippines (11)
10 Sudan(20) Sudan(9)
Please note one very important fact. Thailand has no US troops yet it is ranking as #2 in terrorist attacks since 2005.
Also not once weakness in resolve by US yes the hate America crowd screaming look at the number of attacks taking place in Pakistan and how it has changed.
Last but not least is Nancy Pelosi has by her own actions talking to terrorist regimes started a wave of arrests of Moderate Muslims in the Middle East. Those who were speaking out for free elections. Those who were speaking out for freedom. Many have had to leave thier homes in Egypt, Syria and other nations. One such person who was known as SandMonkey had to shut down his blog because people were watching him. His friends and fellow blogger from Egypt are slowly disappearing. Thought is arrested. These were people who were speaking about freedom. Egypt feels with the Democrats blocking the President it is safe for them to make Moderates to disappear. Voices are being silenced because of Democratic Leadership actions. I leave it to you to figure out what I think of the Democrats.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on May 2, 2007 10:13 PMColbert -- perhaps not intentionally? perhaps as a joke? -- made the obvious point that there may be something more to lose, however. Whether he intended that as a joke or not, it's still true.
You don't get the joke, do you? Stephen Colbert mocks conservatives in an inhumane manner.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 3, 2007 04:52 AMYou can't read, can you? You missed the part where I said he may have intended it as a joke. But that doesn't make it incorrect. Military and regional political experts almost unanimously believe that things will be far worse if we pull out now.
![[Reid]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/465401535_f89b0cc5cd.jpg?v=0){kind=link}
