Looks like Rummy's got things firmly in hand. What a great Secretary of Defense we've got. America is truly blessed.

Say what you like, moonbats. If you're honest with yourselves you know it to be true.

Rumsfeld received a very enthusiastic round of applause from the American troops in Iraq. It was great to see.

You go Rummy!!!
AubreyJ.........

The fact that these trips are unannounced speaks volumes about the security situation. It is atrocious. Before we can say Iraq is truly liberated either we or the Iraqi forces will have to get the security situation under control.

The ACTUAL headline when you click on the link speaks even louder:

"22 Slain in Raid at Iraqi Bus Station
Rumsfeld Visit Coincides With 4th Day of Intensified Violence"

If they knew he was coming they'd have baked a cake...

The only thing that is "atrocious" is how much B.Poster and congressive hate America.

The only thing even more atrocious is how much Bob hates our freedom.

Congressive,

Sectarian strife has raged between Sunnis and Shiites-who believe in a different line of succession to the prophet Muhammad-throughout Islamic history since AD 680. Some Sunnis regard Shiite Muslims as infidels.

If Iraqi Sunni Muslims would just stop slaughtering Iraqi Shiite Muslims and vice versa, then Iraq as a whole would be relatively peaceful.

Bob, I think that actually B.Poster is a patriotic, pro-American who's just a little frustrated with our rate of progress in the war.

In that case, I apologize to B.Poster. I'm just so tired of Bush haters minimizing our progress in Iraq to score political points. They made such hay out of President Bush's visit earlier that I'm a little sensitive to criticism of "unanounced" visits.

Also I'm relatively new here, so was unaware of B.Poster's position.

Sorry, B.

Congressive, on the other hand, the only thing..., well, never mind.

Thanks for the history lesson, Free. But I didn't write the headline. Mark linked to it.

Ah yes, if only... Hey, what about if outsiders stopped trying to be greeted as liberators, like the Brits back in the early 20th century and now us? Hey, how about that "graveyard of invaders" slogan. Seems to be holding up so far. Boy, history is fun, ain't it?

Hey, how about wherever the Shi'ites are a majority, they create a theocracy, making the Koran the absolute law of the land? Darn, we didn't see that one coming, now did we?

Does it count that the Baath Party protected those two million Christians in Iraq from being slaughterd by the Shi'ites and Sunni's, and actually let women drive cars and go to college without a tablecloth over their heads and get real jobs like lawyers and politicians? How do they fit into the "stop slaughtering" paradigm?

But all that is not a "happy place." It's all the Mulsim Iraqi's fault. There, now doesn't that feel better? ☺

BTW, I don't think Bob likes me. He won't say exactly why. Just that I'm a lot of bad things.

But it's ok, Bob, 'cause I don't hate your freedom.

Besides, no one hates America. I wonder why they never named that horse...

Well since more than half of Americans now oppose Bush's policy in Iraq-does that mean they all hate their own country and now we are a nation of traitors? Doesn't say much for the democracy we are peddling to the Iraqis does it?
I see: opposition to Bush= hatred of America= treason.

You know, so many of us are tired of these unpatriotic putz's claiming they are not un-American. And then pursuing to slime our leaders, their policies and our troops. They have a right to do it, but the rest of us have the right and sometimes obligation to just ignore the fricks. Congressive and others promote a political agenda that is not our policy, and thus are just yappers at the ankles of those in charge. It angers them that they will never take the lead and that their historical vision started with the likes of Lenin and Marx. Congressive is surely from the Groucho Marx wing of the democrat party.

Congressive,

No worries man, the last respite of tyrants is questioning one's patriotism.

I guess we can expect more of these 'unannounced visits' every time the locals go on a tit-for-tat killing spree; Atleast until such time as Baghdad is a ghost town, or when Al-Sistani or Sadr get elected as PM.

Rummie (aka Rummy) did the Texas 2 step around the troops question about having to use old equiptment.

Bob

Freedom1 summed up my position perfectly. Freedom1, thanks for summing up my position.

Congressive

You make good points about Iraq. The problem with leaving Saddam in power was that he supported terrorists organizations that have a global reach and these terrorists were actively targeting the US. It could be argued that his support for these groups and the threat he posed to the US did not rise to the level to justify invasion but that decision has already been made. A democracy of the type that we were hoping to achieve may have been doable wtih a largere committment of troops and equipment but we can't be certain that this would have made a difference. Personally I think it would have been. Sadly, at this point this very noble goal may have been lost. Hopefully it can still be achieved. At this time Iraq seems to have three major divisions. There are the terrorists who have global reach, such as Al Qaeda and the former regime elements. There are the local militias. These local militias are likely only able to operate in Iraq. Finally, there are the Iraqis who just want to get on with their lives. We need to separate these groups. Al Qaeda in Iraq and the former regime elements should be destroyed. Once the terrorists are eliminated we should be able to get security under control or at least contain it. To this end, I would like to see a greater committment of troops and better equipment to try and get security under control. Failure in Iraq means the terrorists win and this would place America in even more danger, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we get this right. More troops, better equipment, and a greater committment fromt he government are needed. Faster please!! Finally, the military force structure needs to be flexible enough to deal with the threats posed by Russia and China that is far greater than even what the terrorists pose.

I'll be impressed when he can make an announced trip.

Ash et al,

Please take a look at the following link(s). It helps to explain why most posters on this site act the way they do and also why nothing you say will ever matter to them. They simply cannot be shown to be wrong. They are incapable of change until unless told to by their leaders. And you and I ain't them. It's also a fairly succinct decription of conservatism in general and why it will ultimately fail. I started looking into this after the interview with John Dean where he mentioned an ongoing study of Authoritarianism. The real funny part was when he said that less than 1% of the left actually go along with what they're told without question. The scary part is something we all know and that is that when in control, these folks tend towards highly nationalistic if not fascistic behaviors. Sound familiar? Hang anyone who disagrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

Dean link:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

Ash et al,

Please take a look at the following link(s). It helps to explain why most posters on this site act the way they do and also why nothing you say will ever matter to them. They simply cannot be shown to be wrong. They are incapable of change until unless told to by their leaders. And you and I ain't them. It's also a fairly succinct decription of conservatism in general and why it will ultimately fail. I started looking into this after the interview with John Dean where he mentioned an ongoing study of Authoritarianism. The real funny part was when he said that less than 1% of the left actually go along with what they're told without question. The scary part is something we all know and that is that when in control, these folks tend towards highly nationalistic if not fascistic behaviors. Sound familiar? Hang anyone who disagrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

Dean link:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

3MY,

I am looking foward to getting the new Dean book, I read the reviews and it seems to be well researched, and from a well noted political insider.

I just have to wait until my paycheck comes through, the energy rates are killing me, and our 3% cost of living raise was shelved due to "unexpected expenses".

A democracy of the type that we were hoping to achieve may have been doable with a larger committment of troops and equipment but we can't be certain that this would have made a difference. Personally I think it would have been. Sadly, at this point this very noble goal may have been lost. Hopefully it can still be achieved.

B. Poster, I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone equivocate as much as you do. We may lose, but we may not, but we coulda, shoulda, woulda, if we'd only, but we didn't. I'm not sure whether you are attempting to not offend anyone or whether you are just confused.

Failure in Iraq means the terrorists win and this would place America in even more danger, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we get this right. More troops, better equipment, and a greater committment from the government are needed. Faster please!! (emphasis - mine)

Then I guess FAILURE is not an option, but I'll bet if you were running things, it would be. I realize that you're probably a Conservative, but your posts are more annoying than those of the uber-Leftists who comment here.

A democracy of the type that we were hoping to achieve may have been doable with a larger committment of troops and equipment but we can't be certain that this would have made a difference. Personally I think it would have been. Sadly, at this point this very noble goal may have been lost. Hopefully it can still be achieved.

B. Poster, I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone equivocate as much as you do. We may lose, but we may not, but we coulda, shoulda, woulda, if we'd only, but we didn't. I'm not sure whether you are attempting to not offend anyone or whether you are just confused.

Failure in Iraq means the terrorists win and this would place America in even more danger, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we get this right. More troops, better equipment, and a greater committment from the government are needed. Faster please!! (emphasis - mine)

Then I guess FAILURE is not an option, but I'll bet if you were running things, it would be. I realize that you're probably a Conservative, but your posts are more annoying than those of the uber-Leftists who comment here.

I am looking foward to getting the new Dean book, I read the reviews and it seems to be well researched, and from a well noted political insider.

Also a well noted serial perjuror. He's got about as much credibility as my dog.

I just have to wait until my paycheck comes through, the energy rates are killing me, and our 3% cost of living raise was shelved due to "unexpected expenses".

Boo-frickin'-hoo.

Spook,

Can you give me some sources and links to your assertion he is a "serial purjuror"? Can you show me the case in which we was convicted of purjury?

I see empathy isn't your strong suit.

Also a well noted serial perjuror. He's got about as much credibility as my dog.

Let me get this straight: your dog lies under oath?

Does your dog know you talk about him/her behind his/her back?

Retired Spook

I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else. It is a combination of not wanting to offend anyone and being confused. Apparently in my desire not to offend I have done so anyway!! As for the confused part, I do not know what the best strategy would have been and I'm not sure what the best way to move forward is. Different strategies were suggested and the Administration went with the one they thought was best. Some people who suggested other courses of action may be feeling bitter now. Perhaps they are justified to feel this way. The trouble with some people who have offered criticism is they seem to suggest that they "know" a different strategy would have worked better. I think this is to fall into the same hubris the administration is accused of falling into. There may have been an element of hubris in decisions made by the administration. I'm not sure. Again, this is where confusion comes in.

As I do not know what the best strategy was or what the best way to move forward is, I can only make recommendations based on what I see, hear, and read. If I were in charge, failure would not be an option. In a Republic, such as ours, the people run things. If they are unwilling to sacrifice for a cause, there is little a politician can do. I would suggest the following: 1.) Had I been in charge from the beginning, we would have gone with the plan put forth by General Eric Shinseki that called for 500,000 troops. In other words, prepare for the most difficult thing possible. Assume everything that can go wrong will go wrong. Post 911 instead of telling the people to "go shopping" or something to this effect I would have called for massive increases in the size of the military. It is my considered opinion that the threats posed by Islamic Extremists and their Marxist allies are a grave threat to national security, if not to the survival of the nation itself. If we fail in Iraq, I think this only strengthens this enemy. I truly believe failure is not an option. If I were in charge, winning the GWOT would be my top priority. It seems clear to me that the government underestimated the difficulty. I also think to get this right may require a mobilization simillar to what was done for WWII. This leads to the following: 2.)The American people who actually run things are not currently willing to make this kind of sacrifice. They might be if the stakes were explained to them. Furthermore our allies are not willing to make this kind of sacrifice either. Given that the American people are not willing to make this kind of sacrifice I would suggest allowing Israel to take care of business against the Islamic terrrorists. In the past, we have often acted to restrain them. Israel acts as buffer between the US and the terrorists. A stronger Israel should help all of us. Furthermore, we could support Japan, Tawain, and South Korea going nuclear. This would enable us to pull back troops that many of their people don't want there anyway and would lessen the pressure on the US military. We discussed nuclear arming Japan on another thread. You think we should not. Your concerns are valid and you may be correct. Finally, no matter what we do we need to develop our own energy resources. This would go along way to winning the GWOT.

Guerrillas don't win on the "battlefield" -- wow, an epiphany for the Decider's number-two henchman. You'd think that with all of the time he's spent planning, selling and running wars he might have already discovered that.
Of course, von Clauswitz teaches that there is no clear line between the political, economic and military aspects of war -- only the level of violence differs.
As we have seen time and time again -- guerrillas win by wearing out occupiers, thus defeating them politically and economically. It works more often than colonial powers like to admit -- that's why they find it so necessary to quash dissent at home.
How will we know when we are victorius?
I guess that will be when Bush, Darth and Rummy can announce their visit and then take a convertible from the airport to the Green Zone -- or wait -- they can't even make a trip like that here.

B.Poster, you're not offending me; your constant equivocation is just annoying, as are your 33 line paragraphs, which are hard to read.

From your last post (2 consecutive sentences):

If we fail in Iraq, I think this only strengthens this enemy. I truly believe failure is not an option.

Failure is the foremost option of those who wish to replace the current administration, and, IMO, the only way we will fail is to elect representatives who will quit prematurely. They and their cheerleaders, TEO, TMY, Ash, et al, are also the ones most critical of the amount of money we're spending. Can you imagine how much more money we'd be spending if you were in charge?

To suggest that we need to be making sacrifices similar to those that were made during WWII is, IMO, being overly dramatic. Are you suggesting gas and butter rationing? There is no comparison to the simultaneous campaigns in both the European and Pacific theaters during WWII and the skirmishes we're encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, no matter what we do we need to develop our own energy resources. This would go along way to winning the GWOT.

On this I could not agree with you more.

Guerrillas don't win on the "battlefield" -- wow, an epiphany for the Decider's number-two henchman. You'd think that with all of the time he's spent planning, selling and running wars he might have already discovered that.
Of course, von Clauswitz teaches that there is no clear line between the political, economic and military aspects of war -- only the level of violence differs.
As we have seen time and time again -- guerrillas win by wearing out occupiers, thus defeating them politically and economically. It works more often than colonial powers like to admit -- that's why they find it so necessary to quash dissent at home.
How will we know when we are victorius?
I guess that will be when Bush, Darth and Rummy can announce their visit and then take a convertible from the airport to the Green Zone -- or wait -- they can't even make a trip like that here.

TEO, my recollection on Dean's perjury stems back to the original Watergate hearings. In the years afterward, G. Gordon Liddy accused Dean, both in public speeches and on his radio show, of masterminding the Watergate breakin and of being a "serial perjuror" in his subsequent testimony, resulting in a number of innocent people going to jail. Dean countered those accusations with a defamation lawsuit which Liddy welcomed publicly as an opportunity to show Dean for the liar he is, but after rattling around the courts for close to a decade, the suit was finally being thrown out by a federal judege in, IIRC, 2000.

I hope that helps because I'm too busy to do a lot of research on it. IMO, John Dean has less credibility that almost any former government official alive.

TEO, my recollection on Dean's perjury stems back to the original Watergate hearings. In the years afterward, G. Gordon Liddy accused Dean, both in public speeches and on his radio show, of masterminding the Watergate breakin and of being a "serial perjuror" in his subsequent testimony, resulting in a number of innocent people going to jail. Dean countered those accusations with a defamation lawsuit which Liddy welcomed publicly as an opportunity to show Dean for the liar he is, but after rattling around the courts for close to a decade, the suit was finally being thrown out by a federal judege in, IIRC, 2000.

I hope that helps because I'm too busy to do a lot of research on it. IMO, John Dean has less credibility that almost any former government official alive.

Spook,

Doesn't it strike you as a bit of a 'DUH!' to think that the guy who was fingered by Dean (don't forget that he implicated himself in the whole deal too) would claim that he was lying? If it were such a lock, then why not sue for defemation himself?

I asked for some proof, all you have given me is a criminal claiming that the guy who ratted him out is lying, that isn't proof, that is human nature.

I don't understand how he has less credibility than anyone else, the guy was ready to go to jail for what he came to realize was wrong, but instead did what the justice system wants, and turned over all the info he knew about an illegal Executive action; He has insider info and context you and I can only guess at.

Retired Spook

You are quite right. The long paragraphs are hard to read!! When I post in the future, I will write out the post first or type it into word to make sure it looks neat and is gramatically correct. I suspected this could be a problem but I never really gave it much thought. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. I'm glad you were not offended.

B. Poster, you often have some valid thoughts to add to the debate. Just don't worry so much about either not offending anyone or offending everyone equally.

TEO, apparently the federal judge who threw out Dean's lawsuit decided it had no merit. I'm not trying to suggest that Liddy has a great deal of credibility either (he is a convicted criminal who served time in federal prison, afterall), just that, over the 8 or 10 years that the suit bounced around in court, Liddy was publicly a lot more anxious to have it heard than was Dean (who brought the suit in the first place). That alone tells me something about Dean's credibility when it comes to the truth. Personally, I don't care if you buy the guy's book or worship him on Sundays. My opinion of him is, I suspect, lower than your opinion of VP Cheney.

Congressive,

"Hey, how about wherever the Shi'ites are a majority, they create a theocracy, making the Koran the absolute law of the land? Darn, we didn't see that one coming, now did we?" Posted by: congressive

Where in the world have you been, Congressive?!? They both create Islamic theocracies. Shiites only make up about 15% of the world's Muslim population. Sunnis compose about 85% of the world's Muslim population and these Sunnis create Islamic theocracies where the Qu'ran and Sharia Law are the absolute law of the land. Saudi Arabia ring a bell??

culturalorientation.net" "The Sunni, who make up approximately 85% of all Muslims...take their name from the Sunna, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shi‘a or Shiites, the remaining 15%, are primarily found in Iran and Iraq.
******

AllAboutIslam"
Branches: The two main divisions of Islam are the Sunni (90%) and the Shiite; the Wahabis are the most important Sunni sect, while the Shiite sects include the Assassins, the Druses, and the Fatimids, among numerous others. Another significant element in Islam is the mysticism known as Sufism.

And yes, Congressive, we did know about Islam and Islamic theocracies. President Bush along with the US/Coalition forces in cooperation with the Iraqi people has replaced Iraq's secular dictatorship with freedom and democracy.

B. Poster, you often have some valid thoughts to add to the debate. Just don't worry so much about either not offending anyone or offending everyone equally.

TEO, apparently the federal judge who threw out Dean's lawsuit decided it had no merit. I'm not trying to suggest that Liddy has a great deal of credibility either (he is a convicted criminal who served time in federal prison, afterall), just that, over the 8 or 10 years that the suit bounced around in court, Liddy was publicly a lot more anxious to have it heard than was Dean (who brought the suit in the first place). That alone tells me something about Dean's credibility when it comes to the truth. Personally, I don't care if you buy the guy's book or worship him on Sundays. My opinion of him is, I suspect, lower than your opinion of VP Cheney.

B Poster- Buck up, man! Debate is healthy, and no one takes themselves too seriously here-except maybe Mark Noonan- If we all had to have the same opinion, we'd be living in a dictatorship. Just post what you really believe, because what else counts?
I'm sure just about everyone here is a patriotic citizen-whether you support the war or not-whether you support the current administration or not---so don't let what others think matter so much. I respect people who aren't afraid to be themselves (as long as they can be themselves and be civil)

Retired,

I give a lot of credibility to a guy who offers up himself, without asking for a plea, for the crimes he committed. I would assume if he was just turning state's evidence for save his own keister, then I would hold his info with a high degree of contempt, but aside from the failed lawsuit, he has been an adept social/political commentator. I am sure you probably think less of him than i think of Cheney, but that isn't saying much since I find 0% worthwhile with him as a politician.

Retired Spook

Thank you for the response to my post and for the kind words of encouragement.

You ask: "How much more money would we be spending if you were in charge?" The initial cost would have been far greater than what we spent in the initial phase. The coalition war plan used about 150,000 troops. I would have used about 500,000 troops, as some of the generals thought we might need. In other words, I would have used something more like the plan that apparently Colin Powell wanted to use. Also the "shock and awe" phase the coaltion settled on was a scaled down version from what they initially had suggested. My "schock and awe" phase would have been much more aggressive. So, with me in charge the actual phase of the war that removed the baathist government would have cost more.

If my war plan that called for 500,000 troops or more had been successful in paciying the country and securing its borders with Syria and Iran, we would have been able to get along with rebuilding the country that Saddam had virtually destroyed. The long range cost probably would have been less. Also, the terrorists would have had less opportunity to kill innocent Iraqis.

You write: "To suggest that we need to be sacrifices simillar to those that were made during WWII is, IMO, overly dramatic." I agree with you to a point. Exact comparisions between the GWOT and WWII or Vietnam are not possible, however, at a minimum it seems the governments in Iran and Syria will need to be removed or they will need to change course. I don't think negotiated peace is possible with an enemy whose goal is world domination. The 500,000 or so troops I think we should have used in Iraq are only what is needed for Iraq. To be able to project a credible threat against Iran and Syria will require still more troops. Finally at some point, something will have to be done about the actions of Russia and China who continually aid and abet the terrorists. If we are going to win, we may need a mobilization simillar to what we engaged in during WWII.

You ask: "Are you suggesting gas and butter rationing?" I don't know that butter rationing would help any but I think gas rationing might be a good idea. Due to bungling by both Republicans and Democrats, primarily Democrats, we need foreign oil imports more than they need to sell it to us. This is not a good position to be in either to fight a war or to negotiate a settlement, should it become possible. I suggest something simillar to the "Manhatten project" to eliminate foreign oil imports within 5 years. Admitedly, I'm not sure how it would work. We can begin by opening up oil drilling off the CA and FL coasts and in ANWR.

It was becoming apparent to me, even predating the 911 attacks, that Islamic Extremist culture and Western Culture cannot exist side by side. Now that they have allied themsleves with the Marxists of Russia and China against us they become even more dangerous. I think a WWII type mobilization may be required to drive a final stake through the heart of this enemy. This type of mobilization would require enormous sacrifices on the part of the American people. Frankly it seems to me that the American people, who run the country, are not willing to make this kind of sacrifice.

Given that the American people do not seem willing to make this kind of sacrifice, I suggest nuclear arming South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. These could provide a buffer between us and Russia, China, and their terrorist allies. With this strategy we may be able to contain the threat and we could pull our troops out of South Korea and Japan. It is my understanding that many South Koreans and Japanese do not want us there anyway. Also we could lessen the Navy's involvement around Taiwan. Who knows, if it works out we might even be able to cut military spending. This should make all of the liberals happy.