That document looks fake to me. Quick, someone check the kerning on that type!

Mark,

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Is "case-closed" like "mission accomplished"?

Keep trying to justify your WMDs excuse, in the meantime the people who prefer to solve our problems are going to be over here trying to figure out how to remove ourselves from a bloody civil war we have unleashed, and the greatest terrorist recruiting tool OBL could have asked for. Heck of a job, guys!

TEO: How we extricate ourselves from Iraq is to get more troops on the ground to get the security under control. Once we have more troops on the ground this should give us better intellegence to identify the terrorists groups within the insurgency who have global reach and those who are just local militias.

The leftist talking point is that this has created more terrorists. Perhaps its true. that being said no attacks on American soil as I'm writing this is quite an accomplishment. By not using enough troops, at the beginning, this gave the insurgents and their terrorists allies time to melt back into the population and to plan attacks. Also, going through the UN gave them even more time to plan. The UN ran interference for the terrorists and their allies.

All of this being said, Israel is getting ready to demolish Hezbollah and Hamas. If the US government, is smart enough to stay out of Israel's way the Israelis will eliminate a major problem for us. It would have been preferable to us to have committed the necessary resources to this from the beginning but we did not do that. Now we have to figure out how to move forward.

Btw, Mark is correct to bring up the WMD issue. This is not a matter of trying to prove anything. Some evidence indicates that Saddam's WMD may have been transferred to Syria or Lebanon. Its important to get to the bottom of this. If it is found that Saddam's WMD stockpiles were moved elseshere, this is not a pro-Bush argument. It is one of the best anti-Bush arguments we can make. One of the most important reasons for invading Iraq was to eliminate WMD stockpiles and the WMD program, if these weapons were moved, that part of the mission failed. The Democrats should be pushing this.

Also, I hope that should the Democrats gain control of the House and the Senate, they will push for increases in military spending. Specificaly for increases in the size and strength of the army. It is becoming increasingly clear that the military is not large enough to meet as effectively as it should the threats we face. In addition to this, the military idea of proportional responses should be eliminated. This only ensures that the conflict continues longer than it should.

Hey Mark! Here's the President, unplugged...and just as pissed off about the whole situation with Hezbollah as all of us! Check it out.

B,

First of all, the 5-10% of the insurgency which are foreign fighters are not the ones driving the vast majority of intra-Iraqi violence, for instance, the bombings this weekend, were claimed by local militia groups.

Secondly, how can we hope to soothe the violence when the institution which has been tapped to help stabalize the violence, the police, are dis-interested at beast, and collusionary at worst in these crimes against humanity. We setup a police force for them, trained, and armed them, and what happened? They turned around and fell back into the same old game of revenge and repression.

Our woes in Iraq are not AQ, we can handle the remnents of those idiots, but our real problem lies with this simmering hatred that we barely recognize, and understand even less. This isn't about who has or hasn't been attacked, this is about how much hatred and FUTURE terrorists we are creating RIGHT NOW; I don't know about you, but I am not planning on leaving an era of terrorism for my kids, and their kids.

As far as WMDs, this game of hypothetical situations and ghost convoys doesn't prove anything, all it is, is connecting dots which paint a picture that perhaps, maybe, sometime, who knows he had SOMETHING, but we don't know what, so don't quote us on anything, but we THINK something fishy was going on. Please, this is no justification for an illegal war, and the hubris following it.

In regards to military expenditures, perhaps we need to engage the remaining military allies we have, and figure out inernational responses to these challenges to world peace, I think we would find ourselves in a very undesirable position if we are increasingly expected to enforce the laws of the world, why everyone else gets a free-ride, but I don't relish the idea of a hyper-militirized state for the indefinite future.

Meanwhile, the revolution will not be televised

Meanwhile, the revolution ...

That kind of news kinda gets you off, doesn't it trashcan? You get all "moist" in your secret places when you hear about car bombs killing women and children. I'll bet you spend the day looking for bloody pictures of body parts to bring you to nirvana.

It was probably a big disappointment for you to learn that several of the perps were arrested by Iraqi police.

Yup, we found WMD's in Iraq and bush is the greatest emperor since Nero. So lets pull the troops out of Iraq today. Oh wait, some in the defense department say that won't happen until 2016. The warmongers in the Republican Party are now totally bankrupt of intellegence. Peace

Yup, we found WMD's in Iraq and bush is the greatest emperor since Nero. So lets pull the troops out of Iraq today. Oh wait, some in the defense department say that won't happen until 2016. The warmongers in the Republican Party are now totally bankrupt of intelligence. Peace

TEO: As I've said before on another thread, when we invaded Iraq we should have used at least 500,000 troops. We needed enough troops to overthrow the Baathist regime, secure the weapons caches, secure the oil pipelines, secure the oil fields, check all of the potential WMD sites, secure the country's coasline, and secure the country's oil terminals in the Persian Gulf. Keep in mind this only enough to secure Iraq. We would have needed even more troops to project a credible threat to Syria and Iran. I have often when facing such a major threat as Islamic Extremists and their allies, such as Saddam's Iraq, pose why we only went in with the minimum amount of troops possible. I think it was a combination of arrogance, hubris, the desire to please certain elements of Congress who would have balked at a military campaing whose initial cost would have been so expensive, and the desire to appease other members of the world community who would have been uncomfortable with such a large force.

The next mistake we made was when we allowed Islamic Extremists, such as Al Sadr to enter the political process under the misguided belief that it would moderate them. This has not happened. Now we have Al Sadr and a Sunni insurgency without sufficient troop strength to deal with this as effectively as I would like. By allowing Islamic Extremists groups into the political process this has corrupted elements of the police force.

As an observer of middle eastern politics, when Operation Iraqi Freedom was initially launnched I was very supportive. Even before the ISG issued its report I already strongly suspected that the sanctions had, for the most part, collapsed and Saddam was actively seeking WMD. Given Saddam's hatred of the US and his willingness to ally himslelf with Islamic Extremists a day of reckoning with him or his son's was coming and if we waited he would be even stronger. In other words, he would wait to attack until he had a good chance at winning. I felt a confrontation with his regime was inevitable and their was nothing we were going to do to avoid it. Having said this, my thoughts were entirely theoretical. The confrontation may not have occured. I felt the odds were that it would occur. Had I have known in advance that the military planners and Don Rumsfeld would badly underestimate the non WMD capability of the enemy. I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq.

Right now it appears that due to botched execution the invasion was a mistake. If we fail to achieve our goals it will have been a mistake. It is not known at this time if the situation can be salvaged. I pray that it can be. American national security depends on getting this right.

It is AQ's goal to foment civil war. Some of the militias are local and pose no American national security threat. We will need to identify those and separate them from the ones, such as the old Baathist regime elements. I highly doubt the locals could be as effective as they are without getting assistance from the other more powerful groups. Once we separate local militias from those who pose a greater threat we could probably resolve the situation. In any event, if we withdraw now the Deomcratically elected government probably falls to a combination of former regime elements and AQ who will get an assist from local militias.

Btw, AQ are not idiots they are a highly lethal fighting force who has allied itself with Iran and Syria who are allied with Russia and China. They should be dealt with as such and not as idiots.

Now as far as the WMDs go, the convoys are well documented. They just are not covered much by the press. This is no ghost. I've said repeatedly the conventional wisdom may be correct and I hoope it is. All I'm saying is complete the investigation that the ISG was unable to complete. If these WMD should fall into the hands of terrorists, this is a huge problem.

The war in Iraq may have been misguided and even foolish. Perhaps it is contrary to national security interests, however, the notion that it is "illegal" damages credibility. This implies we need the permission of a body such as the UN to grant us permission to defend ourselves. In this case, Saddam had used his oil weapon to co opt the UN into supporting his agenda. All the while he gets Russia and China to run interference for him. The UN was never going to support us. I have seen how the UN has mis treated Israel over the years. This is all the more reason not to trust them. Btw, 30 countries examined the Iraqi situation and reached the conclusion that it was of sufficent risk to warrant their support of it. Granted it was not as big of a coalition as we would have liked.

With all of this said, if the mission fails and we don't end up with a secure Iraq who is allied with the US in the GWOT, the mission will have been a failure. Leaders should be judged on their acutaly accomplishments and not on what they intended to accomplish. If the mission fails the invasion was a bad idea. Its that simple. My motto is, "we win, they loose."

with regards to military expenditures, I think to drive a stake through the heart of the Islamic Extremist/Marxist alliance once and for all will require a WWII type mobilization. This would require enormous sacrifices on the part of the American people. They are unwilling to make this sacrifice, at this time.

Given this reality, I think the best solution is to nuclear arm Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Also, we should work to strengthen India. This will provide a more robust deterence against China and Russia. With regards to a nuclear armed Japan and South Korea this gives us the abiltiy to remove our troops from these places where many of the populace does not want them. Also, the Navy can be less active around Taiwan. We should work to strengthen Israel to shore up our most important buffer between us and Islamic Extremists. In Iraq, we should work with the soverign elected Iraqi government to root out the most dangerous groups who have global reach and help them root out the local militias. We need enough of a deterence to make sure they don't start supporting terrorists again. Beyond that how they run their country is their business. due to mis steps in the execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom and its after math, we find ourselves where we are. It is definitely not a pretty picture. I actually think this policy suggestion is a variation of what you are suggesting.

I formulated much of this alternative to a WWII type mobilization prior to Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. If the American government is smart, they will stay out of Israel's way. If Israel is allowed to complete the mission, they will significantly damage Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as degrade Syria's ability to support the Iraqi insurgency. This would be of great benefit to everyone.

TEO; A more detailed reply to your post should be forth coming but it was submitted outside of type key. Suffice it to say due to errors in execution the Iraqi mission is in danger of failing. For Iraq to fail and to become the terrorist supporting state it was under Saddam would be a disaster for everyone. At one time, I think many countries kinda liked Saddam. He served as a check on the "hyper power" that isn't. Now if the international community will engage us constructively something good can come out of this. Islamic Extremists terrorism is a greater threat to the world than the US.

My previous post showed up!! I apologize for the waste of band width.

"At one time, I think many countries kinda liked Saddam" -- Like Europe and the US.
20 years ago he was just as harsh to his people, but in 2002 we felt he was a brutal dictator, deserving of military invasion. If our values haven't changed then that must not be the reason for invading Iraq.
At the end of the First Gulf War, Sadam had materials confiscated that could have been used to produce WMDs. Many Americans assumed that he couldn't change his ways and thought he was coy because he was covering up his growing stash. Actually, his coyness was used to fool his generals into thinking he was just as tough as ever -- and they were horrified to learn they had no WMDs to target the invading Americans.
No WMD's, Iraqis were not overjoyed on our arrival, 2500 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis dead, and it's cost a little (!) more than the 85 Billion estimate.
So, when will you be willing to question your government (despite their good intentions). It's what a genuine patriot would do!

WMD's or no WMD's W's Cowboy Diplomacy has us in a mell of a hess. The big bangs are in Lebanon and Israel now, but the people being killed in Iraq are just as dead.

but the people being killed in Iraq are just as dead.

Yea, and we know how much you care about them. Especially if they're terrorists ... I mean ...freedom fighters.

TEO...
Do you eat meat? I assume not because you care about the soul of those animals that die for your animalistic need to consume flesh?
I love how there is a topic, and then you'll throw in useless s**t just to prove a point that no one was making. It's what you do though right? Then you claim moral outrage when someone calls you a name. Being truly morally (even though since you don't believe in ANYTHING you can't really have morals, you have mores) superior would mean you won't engage in that behavior back, you'd be above it...

but clearly you aren't above it.
Just an observation.

NO. OF CASUALTIES - Not Applicable
NO. OF CONTAMINATED EQUIPEMENTS - Not Applicable
DROP/FALL OF CHEMICAL AGENT ON THE GROUND - Not Applicable
FRONT CONTAMINATON - Not Applicable
REAR CONTAMINATION - Not Applicable
ELEVATION - Not Applicable
PLATOON’S ACTION AREA WAS SURVEYED AND DECLARED CLEAR OF ANY CONTAMINATION
GENERAL INFORMATION - Not Applicable

\/ They cried but there was none!!
!

What might it be??

They have turned their eyes from Jesus!!

Jeremiah

I once wondered if it would be possible for me to turn back the clock and re-embrace Liberalism, and realized that I just could never get that simpleminded again. I understand how tempting it is, and how easy it is, to live in such a black-and-white, either-or, world, but to those of us who live in the real world, the Lib worldview just doesn't make sense.

The Pentagon, the White House, the Department of Defense, all knew going into Iraq that they were entering a whole new ball game. While the Pentagon had been gaming assymetrical warfare for a few years, there was no real experience on which to base some decisions. They ALL knew that this would be a learning experience. I think they may have thought it better to get the necessary experience across the world, in a small isolated conflict, than here at home when our very survival might be at stake. I know I feel that way.

I can fully understand the decisions made at the beginning of the Iraq invasion. I can even understand the year-long run-up to the invasion, and understood it then, though I thought it was wrong at the time and nothing has changed my mind. I think Bush thought that by doing absolutely everything the Libs asked for, from repeated hat-in-hand visits to the UN to ask for permission to protect the country to repeated meetings with Congress to do the same, he would end up with a solid backing and unification on our side, which he correctly understood to be essential to victory. He simply underestimated the treachery of the Left. He simply did not realize that Left "leaders" like Kerry and Kennedy could, and would, vote for war, and then twist around in their own skins and claim they did not. He simply did not realize that the Left would vote to go to war, and then use that decision to try to destroy HIM, without interest in the corollary damage to the country. His mistake in this regard was to think that the other side would act with honor and decency if he did. Ha! I could have told him that would be a miscalculation.

It is not only possible, it is likely, that some decisions were wrong. So?? Has there ever been any project, anywhere, which has gone exactly according to plan? Most certainly no war has followed an outline of how it SHOULD be going.

But the real tragedy of Iraq is the contribution of so-called Americans to the difficulties we are having there, and to the efforts of those so-called Americans to bring the effort to a disasterous close. In this, the enemy has learned, and learned well, the lessons of Viet Nam---that with people like Kerry working from within the country, it is nearly impossible to prevail against an enemy wven when we are winning. We never lost a battle in Viet Nam, yet we were undermined so thoroughly from within that we slunk away from victory like whipped dogs. Now the same people are working toward the same outcome in this conflict.

Michael

We did work with Saddam at one time. This was to try and contain the mullahs of Iran. Everyone knows about this. There is not a day that goes by that we are not reminded of this. This was a mistake. Everyone knows this too. Reagan offical Caspar Weinberger summed it up best when he said concerning the Iran/Iraq war, "it is a pity they both can't lose." The axiom, the enemy of my enemy is my friend drew us together. Later Saddam begin to ally himself with Islamic Extremists and began to actively oppose American interests.

The 100,000 dead estimate is from a Lancet study. This has been debunked, however, it continues as a talking point for the anti-war activist because it sounds bad. This is similar to Gitmo being called a "gulag." Millions died in Soviet gulags. Only three or four people have died at Gitmo. Some of them were suicides that were carried out as a public relations stunt. Gitmo may be bad but to compare it to a gulag is disingenuos. Oh well I digress here. The 100,000 dead figure is similar to comparing Gitmo to a Gulag. The actual dead is probably somewhere around 40,000. This works out to approximately 32 people per day. Saddam's government killed between 500,000 to 750,000 during his entire reign. The higher number is probably the closest one to being accurate. This works out to somewhere between 57 to 85 people per day killed by the former Iraqi government. It also should be pointed out that the majority of the killing of civilians is being done by the terrorists or the local militias who are likely being backed up by the terroists and their allies in the former regime. Iraq now has a soverign government. If we were wantonly killing civilians they would have told us to leave long ago, whereas the primary concern they have expressed is that we will leave to quickly.

The conventional wisdom on Saddam's WMD may well be correct. I hope it is, however, there are unanswered questions regarding what was transferred to Syria. The Iraq Survey Group was unable to complete the investigation. We need to complete the investigation before we draw final conclusions on that. If these weapons were transfered, this means a primary objective of the mission failed. This would be a devestating critique of the Bush Administration.

"So when will you be willing to question your government(despite their good intentions). It's what a genuine patriot would do!" I agree with you. In America we do this with impunity. In countries ruled by Islamic Extremists or Communists they do not get this privledge. I have questioned my Government many times. For example a number of horrifying mistakes were made in executing "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I have spelled out how I would have done things differently multiple times on this blog. I tire of doing it, however, you may not have seen it.

We should have used enough troops to overthrow the government, secure all potential WMD sites, pacify the country, secure the weapons caches, secure all of the oil fields, secure all of the oil pipe lines, secure the counrry's borders with Iran and Syria, secure the oil terminals in the Gulf, and secure the country's coast line. We did not commit enough troops. Was this arrogance? Were we being politically correct and not wanting to offend? I suspect it was a combination of both. By failing to act as decisively as we should have, our enemies interpreted our actions as weakness. I'm not happy about this. Given how the operation was executed, I have come to the conclusion we should not have invaded Iraq. Leaders should be judged by what they achieve and not by what they intended to achieve. On this note, I have called for the sacking of Don Rumsfeld the Secreatary of Defense on multiple occasions. The bottom line, with Islamic Extremists and their Marxist allies we are dealing with a major national security threat and the government did not commit the up front resources to it that they should have.

Speaking of questioning the government, it makes no sense to me trying to run the quasi well fare state we are currently running while fighting a war on multiple fronts. This is not very bright.

Also, the "redeploy" mantra put forth by the Democrats guarantees defeat. This would be handing victory to the terrorists and their Marxists allies on a gold platter. The proper solution to beating Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies is to commit more resources to it and get it done. Yes, real patriots do question their government.

AAaaauuuggghhhh!!! My eyes! My eyes!!! Dear God in Heaven! I trustingly clicked your Captain Squarters link, and was instantly BLINDED by the hideously disfigured neocon Medusa - Ann Coulter. PLEASE, PLEASE give me some kind of warning before you EVER do that again...

As for the redeploy idea, had we done that, we'd be in perfect position to remediate the current shenanigans in the Middle East. Too bad. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

As for the WMDs, please, this earth-shattering news gets broken right here on a blog... as if. Boy, you guys trumped even the DoD! You ARE good...

Going to the UN with "hat in hand" may be embarrassing for you, but going to Congress respects the fact that they, as much as everyone complains about them, are the people's representatives. Remember that the president is the executive, charged with executing the laws of Congress, with the Judiciary representing the Constitution and our legal traditions. There's nothing humbling about going to Congress to ask for war powers - that's their role, approval and funding.
Also, the fact that Saddam Hussain killed many of his own people (to keep the peace, like Tito in Yugoslavia, forcing different groups to live under the same roof) was not a reason given for invading Iraq. It might have been a good, moral reason, but it wasn't the one given. Should the US have invaded Cambodia during the rule of Pol Pot when he killed off major segments of his population?
No, WMDs were the MAIN reason given for going into Iraq. And the inspectors were doing their job. Thanks to crafted "intelligence", it was made to look like the inspectors were being duped and that we must invade immediately. I think such manipulation for such an aim is treasonous.
Having gone in, we probably should have used more force to enable greater control. After all, we're spending a large percentage of our budget on our military.
Is it better to have a military state, or a welfare state? Recall the word "welfare" was used in the Constitution.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country."
-- Herman Goering

AAaaauuuggghhhh!!! My eyes! My eyes!!!

How were we supposed to know you were a rainbow warrior? Here, is that better for you?

Wally,

I am glad you noticed I am not perfect, i can accept that, but the morals you claim I don't have guide me to believe that the killing of civilians, no matter what the circumstance is evil, and wrong, and the actors in actions of such, should be brought before a court, and tried.

I have been known to ramble, my friends will gladly back you up on that, but if you don't like what i have to say, then ignore me, otherwise I am happy to have you engage me in discussion.

My unfortunate fall to the Rev's level is nothing more than childish reciprocation of a caricature who seems happy in advocating the razing of a town to achieve his goals, I do believe groups such as the Black Panthers and nation of Islam promote the same course of action, so just as i write them off, I will write this guy off, and point out his inhumanity at every opportunity.

I very much doubt anyone here has the testicles to say half the stuff they advocate here when in mixed company, so generally I write-off most commenters here as what they are, the 5% of the political spectrum that is the most vocal, and the most out of touch with how the squishy center of the electorate vote, does that clear anything up?

P.S. I date a vegetarian, but I love meat...I mean if God(s) didn't intend us to eat them (animals), then why are they made out of meat?

I am glad you noticed I am not perfect

That's like saying the Three Stooges are not serious actors!!!

...and the actors in actions of such, should be brought before a court, and tried.

Except your terrorist pals, right? They, after all, are just "freedom fighters."

my friends will gladly back you up on that

You have friends? Plural? Really? Huh.

but if you don't like what i have to say, then ignore me

You could make that really easy - get lost.

My unfortunate fall...

Think it sells? Buyers? Any buyers here?

does that clear anything up?

Boy, that would be a first!

P.S. I date a vegetarian

What's his name?

I didn't read what the Rev said, but I'n guessing he proved your point TEO

All the reasons for going into Iraq and who gave the order bla bla bla don't matter to me anymore. What the problem is, is that currently America is treating the symptoms not the disease. We are killing terrorists and insurgents in afghanistan and iraq, but al qaeda and others keep getting new recruits.

The american administration has to adress the real problem: how are those terrorists and insurgents created in the first place. You can give the easy argument that they are all crazy, but there are so many of them that i can't believe that thousands and thousands of those 'lunatics' all flock to the battlefields of the middle east. There must be a reason why (young) frightened, insecure, alienated men from both authoritarian as well as democratic societies can be indoctrinated by radical muslims and why they resort to such violence. If bush can answer that question, it think a lot more success can be achieved in the war on terror.

And another thing, in these blogs I have the feeling that some of you portray so called 'leftists' as low ignorant people with no sense of reality. If you really want to reach out to people besides conservatives you need to be a bit less prejudiced, that way you can actually persuade people with different viewpoints.

I didn't read what the Rev said

What's the matter, turdblossom? Scared? 'Fraid I'll say something about certain subjects that I won't mention because you're probably already embarrassed enough about it?

"There must be a reason why (young) frightened, insecure, alienated men from both authoritarian as well as democratic societies can be indoctrinated by radical muslims and why they resort to such violence." Jasper

Sounds like they could all use a group hug... several choruses of Kumbaya, some anger management and self esteem seminars should help as well. I recommend that we send some of our public school administrators to the Middle East to conduct the training.

"I have the feeling that some of you portray so called 'leftists' as low ignorant people with no sense of reality."

Not so, we just don't understand the reality of the alternate universe where you all leftists seem to reside.

BTW Jasper: You're not a social worker or member of the National Federations of Teacher's are you?