Mark: "You can't really add anything to this speech, it does say it all..."

Well, it didn't exactly mention who the "they" is. Is it all of Islam? Or part of it? Is PM Maliki to be counted among the enemy?

He says we are at war, "the most serious war this country has ever faced against an opponent like none we have ever faced." If so, why have we continued to avoide mobilizing for it? Our military is being asked to do more than we have a right to request of them. They don't need fiery rhetoric, they need reinforcements. In what sense, really, are we taking our enemy seriously?

I am sending Senator Santorum some money today - He is exactly what this country needs in leadership. The left can argue till they are blue in the face, but there is NO valid arguement to what Senator Santorum just said.

NONE

After many years of capitulating to these mongrels prior to 9/11, these Dems (if they receive a majority in either house of congress) will put us back into a position of vulnerability. Democrats seem to think that we can sit down with these killers and work out our differences. These are not the days of Eisenhower and Krushchev or Reagan and Gorbachev. This is not a case where the politics of MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction)can be played. This is not the same as dealing with a tyrant in N. Korea. These scumbags want to kill us and they don't mind killing themselves to do it.

If we let these spineless liberals into we will essentially be handing over the keys of this country to the hands of those that want to destroy it.

Santorum is right on every point. We need more politicians to start calling a spade a spade.

Ricorun,

Yeah - thing is, the only people not calling for massive increases in troop levels in Iraq are, well, the commanders in Iraq who know what they need to get the job done.

The plain fact of the matter, Ricorun, is that we mobilised 12 million men for WWII, and only 1 million saw combat...we could have easily had an all volunteer military and won WWII. My view is that if a nation cannot secure sufficient volunteers to fight a war, then that amounts to a national plebescite against the war and its time to make peace. As of now, we have no lack of young men and women willing to fight in this war - who go in to the military knowing precisely what they are getting in to. God bless them all, as they are the best we have - but we don't need to start drafting people who aren't called to military service.

And Santorum made it clear just who the enemy is - and if you want to try and pretend he implied that all of Islam is the enemy, then that is just your Bush-hatred preventing you from thinking clearly.

Vero,

He impressed all the heck out of me...Romney is still my first choice for 2008, but Santorum just put himself high up on the list of possible candidates.

To fight and win a war, two important ingredients you need is

A) Public support

B) Moral authority.

Bush and Co. f'ed this up big-time in Iraq (among many, many other things--in fact, it's so desperate there for them, they've taken to fudging figures to give the impression things are improving... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14801520/).

Iraq was made a part of the war on terror by our administration, and due to their incompetency, they put us behind the 8-ball there. Thanks a lot guys!

We need new leadership with a new attitude that recognizes we can't beat terrorists with military might alone. This speech is falsely painting the opposition party as one who does not want to fight terrorism while defending a war that has set us back in the "war on terror."

As far as what we do now in Iraq... who the hell knows. No one does, because it's looking more and more like an impossible situation. If you read that report from the Army intelligence officer in the Anbar province, he said things won't get better there until the US leaves. Maybe it's time to start thinking this way for the entire country... Problem now is that Iraq is sending delegations to Iran, who are promising to help secure and rebuild the country. Iran's waiting for the US to leave to exert even more influence on Iraq.

There's also the prefect recipe for civil war. An army trained by the Americans and governed by a strong Shi'te government. A militia system of mostly sunnis. And a proposal looking to be pushed through by the Shiites that would give them control of most of the oil in Iraq, which the sunnis are not very happy about.

So, thanks Bush, you've really put us in a great situation in Iraq.

npfl,

Agreed - we need more of this, especially more of this from Congressional GOPers.

Tom,

Thank you for checking in from the Alternate Universe on Iraq...we're very familiar with it. We know the drill: everything is screwed up, there was never any reason whatsoever for us to be there, and we'd better figure out how to get out.

We got it, ok? No need to hammer it home any more - we just don't, you know, believe it because, well, the facts don't support such a belief. Facts, you know, are stubborn things and if you bring up something entirely divorced from the facts then those of us who live in the fact-based world just can't work with it.

Thanks for playing.

Gee, you think that after 9/11 if this administration would have not taken the good will we had and trashed it by doing everything wrong we wouldn't have multiplied these "evil doers"?

In the Muslim countries extremists are a small majority that unless their message is validated are marginalized. That is unless of course you popularize their cause by spewing the message that Santorum and people of his ilk do. Has anyone thought that the reason we haven't been attacked since 9/11 (which is not true considering there was the Anthrax attacks - and this administration hasn't caught them either) is that there just aren't that many terrorists to begin with?

Fact: your chances of getting killed by a terrorist attack is 1 in 80,000. That's the same as getting killed by a meteor and less than getting hit by lighting. Yet, instead of keeping this small group in check by using the police tactics that have worked so well in other the countries the bush administration wastes money and lives misusing those resources. And Santorum says we should "stay the quagmire".

Mark, facts like the drop in the violent death rate in August, Mark?

Thanks for playing? You have nothing... I just presented some important facts, none of which you responded to, while accusing me of ignoring facts... talk about alternate universes.

Just to recap, here are the facts I laid out.

1) US fudged violent death totals in August to make them appear lower.
2) Iraq recently sent a delegation to Iran to increase relations with the country.
3) The Shi'ite government recently broke an agreement to hold off passing an amendment that would give them the power to set up an autonomous region in the south which would give them control over much of Iraq's oil... which the sunnis are not happy about.
4) The Shi'te controlled government with a US-led army is increasingly fighting Sunni militias.

And this is about Iraq. Most of the criticism of how Bush is fighting the war on terror is about Iraq. The thing is, there are very valid criticisms about why and how we went into Iraq, not to mention whether it was a good strategy in fighting the war on terror.

We are at war, the most serious war this country has ever faced against an opponent like none we have ever faced.

And Santorum knows how to fight that war: put on a bumpersticker.

"And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what's at stake. They're willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I'm asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?"

Mind you, he did not ask for "Support our troops" bumper stickers. No no no: "Support Santorum" bumper stickers.

This man is beyond contempt. The GOP should run this man out of their party, but they won't.

We need real leadership like we would have with someone like Senator Santorum.

not the Damn PC crowd we have now bring back General Swartzkopf. Yesterday wouldn't be fast enough for me.

Tom,

I have never responded to your comments before as they are LAME. I really, really like your #2 one, actually got a pretty good chuckle out of it 2) Iraq recently sent a delegation to Iran to increase relations with the country.

so? We are not their mother nor their fathers, they are a country with their own interes, and has a valid ELECTED government. What would you have us do? Christ you folks on the left is still as dense as when I was one of you.

They also want us there, don't see your panties in an uproar over that. All your other "points" is just liberal Yak-Yak and proves/solves NOTHING

First off (for you liberal moonbats and that includes you Mr. Tom Shipley, that like to think of yourself as free thinkers but you’re actually brainwashed by the MSM and their democrat talking points), if you think the “civil war” in Iraq is being perpetrated by Iraqi Sunni and Shites then you’re lying to yourselves. Prior to the death of Zarqawi, Al Queda’s main goal was to start a Civil War between the two factions to prevent the government from stabilizing. Well as of right now, there is no evidence of any Civil War, only the same tactics that were being used to start it.

“Iraq was made a part of the war on terror by our administration, and due to their incompetency, they put us behind the 8-ball there. Thanks a lot guys”!

No, Saddam Hussein made himself part of the war on terror. After 17 U.N. resolutions and his refusal to allow weapons inspectors unfettered access to his weapons capabilities, couple that with Saddam’s connections to Abu Nidal, Ramzi Yousef, Zarqawi, Abdul Ysin and Bin Laden himself and you see why we had to go into Iraq.

You say we are “behind the 8-ball” in Iraq but you probably don’t realize that 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq are starting to flourish and their crime rate is lower than that of most major American cities.

Mr. Shipley, you need to seek information for yourself and stop having it spoon fed to you through CNN and Newsweek.

The use of They / Them. I live and PA and Santorum uses this same term in his commercials on how he is going to free us from oil dependence so we no longer depend of them If you live in PA you know that Santorum has a track recording of voting against the interests of working families (think K street project)...the people of Pennsylvania cannot wait to vote this joker out in November

Gonnuts,

I think you have already gone nuts. Either that or you are a moron.

"Fact: your chances of getting killed by a terrorist attack is 1 in 80,000. That's the same as getting killed by a meteor and less than getting hit by lighting."

I've got news for you. Odds of 1 in 80,000 are not good. With a US population of nearly 300,000,000, you're saying that 3750 Americans will be killed by a terrorist attack. That is unacceptable. We want the odds to be 1 in 1,000,000,000 or greater (which, by the way is the odds of being killed by a meteor). That is why we are fighting the terrorists overseas, so we don't have to fight them here.

A-10,
THIS is why we are in Iraq...
http://www.newamericancentury.org

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

and here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

A-10,
THIS is why we are in Iraq...
http://www.newamericancentury.org

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

and here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_010603_pnac.html

Mark: "The plain fact of the matter, Ricorun, is that we mobilised 12 million men for WWII, and only 1 million saw combat...we could have easily had an all volunteer military and won WWII."

So I guess the other 11 million who weren't dodging bullets were just sitting on their hands. Okay fine, if that's how you want to see it. Be that as it may, in the here and now we have many troops that have been to Iraq for 2, 3, and 4 tours of duty. We have ready reserve troops being called up again to active duty status under stop-loss provisions. That Bush-hating libbie rag, Stars and Stripes, reported a few months ago that Iraqi army troops in Anbar province were deserting in droves. A couple of weeks ago the Marine Corps Times reported that troops were being diverted from Anbar to fight in Baghdad. They indicated about Anbar, "With Iraqi forces nowhere near ready to take the lead, U.S. officers are concerned that everything their troops sacrificed to achieve is at risk."

Just today, reacting to the recent intelligent assessment indicating that the Anbar region would continue to deteriorate unless there was an infusion of aid and a division was sent to reinforce General Zilmer’s command,
General Zilmer said, "“For what we are trying to achieve out here I think our force levels are about right,” said Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, who defined his primary mission as training the Iraqi forces who ultimately would be responsible for security in the area. “Now, if that mission statement changes — if there is seen a larger role for coalition forces out here to win that insurgency fight — then that is going to change the metrics of what we need out here,” General Zilmer added.

So in other words, his "mission statement" doesn't include winning. If ever there was a message sent between the lines, that was it.

Also today, we have Tony Blair and Condi Rice pressuring NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan. This new call comes on the heels of reports that the Pakistan government arranged a peace deal with the pro-Taliban, pro-al Qaeda warlords in their Wazeristan provinces -- the provinces that are certainly providing insurgents for Afghanistan, and probably harboring OBL, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and the rest of those thugs.

While all this is going on you Mark, as well as many others here, have been speaking out in favor of an attack on Iran. Apparently you believe we could attack Iran without having to worry about a backlash of any sort. That was essentially the same assumption made with respect to Iraq. But it didn't work out that way. It seems to me that we are in serious need of a Plan B. And my math suggests we're going to need more troops if we're in a fight with "the most dangerous enemy ever to confront this country."

No, Santorum DID NOT make clear who he thought the enemy was. Warrior, Khan, and to a lesser extent others here, make it clear who they think the enemy is -- all of Islam. I have no idea what Santorum thinks, but I'm inclined to think he PREFERS to be vague. I believe that to be part of the problem -- not only with him, but with the Bush admin in general. It's getting extremely difficult to define who the enemy is. And in my view, a big part of the problem there is that we are not meeting them effectively and decisively.

You can call me a "Bush hater" if you feel the need. I don't hate Bush. But I will admit that I am getting more and more disgusted with him. This "economy of force" theory is proving itself to be more and more backrupt as time goes on. We can't be decisive if "winning" isn't in the freakin' mission statement. Instead, the message we're sending is that we're ineffective. Thus, it comes as no surprise that we are generating more enemies at a faster rate than we are defeating them. And unfortunately, that is the conclusion of virtually every intelligence agency in the world.

...

Hmmm... apparently my commentary is not appreciated.

Jeff, you are a true nut job. Is this what shows like x-files has produced. Will you please state for us that you think the towers were brought down by Cheney as well. I especially like the part in the prison planet link that a former female CIA agent was the prey in Cheney's "human hunting" forays. Thanks for those links, I needed a good laugh.

One more try...

Mark: "The plain fact of the matter, Ricorun, is that we mobilised 12 million men for WWII, and only 1 million saw combat...we could have easily had an all volunteer military and won WWII."

So I guess the other 11 million who weren't dodging bullets were just sitting on their hands. Okay fine, if that's how you want to see it. Be that as it may, in the here and now we have many troops that have been to Iraq for 2, 3, and 4 tours of duty. We have ready reserve troops being called up again to active duty status under stop-loss provisions. That Bush-hating libbie rag, Stars and Stripes, reported a few months ago that Iraqi army troops in Anbar province were deserting in droves. A couple of weeks ago the Marine Corps Times reported that troops were being diverted from Anbar to fight in Baghdad. They indicated about Anbar, "With Iraqi forces nowhere near ready to take the lead, U.S. officers are concerned that everything their troops sacrificed to achieve is at risk."

Just today, reacting to the recent intelligent assessment indicating that the Anbar region would continue to deteriorate unless there was an infusion of aid and a division was sent to reinforce General Zilmer’s command,
General Zilmer said, "“For what we are trying to achieve out here I think our force levels are about right,” said Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, who defined his primary mission as training the Iraqi forces who ultimately would be responsible for security in the area. “Now, if that mission statement changes — if there is seen a larger role for coalition forces out here to win that insurgency fight — then that is going to change the metrics of what we need out here,” General Zilmer added.

So in other words, his "mission statement" doesn't include winning. If ever there was a message sent between the lines, that was it.

Also today, we have Tony Blair and Condi Rice pressuring NATO to provide more troops in Afghanistan. This new call comes on the heels of reports that the Pakistan government arranged a peace deal with the pro-Taliban, pro-al Qaeda warlords in their Wazeristan provinces -- the provinces that are certainly providing insurgents for Afghanistan, and probably harboring OBL, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and the rest of those thugs.

While all this is going on you Mark, as well as many others here, have been speaking out in favor of an attack on Iran. Apparently you believe we could attack Iran without having to worry about a backlash of any sort. That was essentially the same assumption made with respect to Iraq. But it didn't work out that way. It seems to me that we are in serious need of a Plan B. And my math suggests we're going to need more troops if we're in a fight with "the most dangerous enemy ever to confront this country."

No, Santorum DID NOT make clear who he thought the enemy was. Warrior, Khan, and to a lesser extent others here, make it clear who they think the enemy is -- all of Islam. I have no idea what Santorum thinks, but I'm inclined to think he PREFERS to be vague. I believe that to be part of the problem -- not only with him, but with the Bush admin in general. It's getting extremely difficult to define who the enemy is. And in my view, a big part of the problem there is that we are not meeting them effectively and decisively.

You can call me a "Bush hater" if you feel the need. I don't hate Bush. But I will admit that I am getting more and more disgusted with him. This "economy of force" theory is proving itself to be more and more backrupt as time goes on. We can't be decisive if "winning" isn't in the freakin' mission statement. Instead, the message we're sending is that we're ineffective. Thus, it comes as no surprise that we are generating more enemies at a faster rate than we are defeating them. And unfortunately, that is the conclusion of virtually every intelligence agency in the world.

::::provides ample supply of tinfoil to Jeff::::

btw jeff, Bill Kristol who is the chairman of PNAC isn't a very big supporter of the war in iraq. If you were to read some of his columns in the Weekly Standard you would realize this. Don't you find it strange that if this organization started the war in Iraq, wouldn't the chairman be 100% behind it. No, you'll probably say that they can't all be in lockstep with eachother because that might look fishy. Oh, you crazy conspiracy theorists make me laugh.

It's always great when Noonan deigns to lecture somebody else on being "divorced from the facts" regarding Iraq. The same Mark Noonan who holds to this very day that Iraq had WMDs (not even Bush is running with that canard anymore). The same Mark Noonan who holds to this very day that Saddam and Al Qaeda had an operational relationship (also a canard that not even Bush runs with anymore).

The facts, Noonan, are exactly what reveal you to be a clueless Bush dead-ender--and therefore a terrific source of amusement for those of us who actually, you know, pay attention to the facts. That you're a joke and don't realize it is funny; that you can't even see how ridiculous it is for you, somebody who is completely wrong, to try to lecture people who are actually right is hilarious.

Oh, and please push Santorum for a 2008 presidential run. It'll be great to watch Senator Man-on-Dog crash and burn horribly. Hell, he can't even win his own Senate race without the GOP funding the Green Party candidate to act as a spoiler.

Thanks everyone for the warm comments...
I'm just pointing out that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were directly involved with the decision making for taking this country to war. On the first page of that web site it states
"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."
It looks to me that they would like the USA to control the world. If this is the case I would hate to see what this administration has in store for us next.

npfl,
I have seen Bill Kristol on Brit Humes show say some pretty negative things about the war, but I'm thinking that he was all for it a few years ago. Then when things started to sour, he jumped ship.

Tom, as to your earlier post,....

"3) The Shi'ite government recently broke an agreement to hold off passing an amendment that would give them the power to set up an autonomous region in the south which would give them control over much of Iraq's oil... which the sunnis are not happy about."

You're actually wrong about this. Ali Sistani and secular groups in the Parliament have prevented the passage of the federalism amendment to which you refer. That means it's a good thing. This amendment, had it passed, would have furthered federalism, which is what the Sunnis don't want (remember our own Articles of Confederation). The gist of this action is that all Iraqis can share in the benefits reaped from economic advancement (i.e., share the oil revenue).

I think it's interesting that some (not necessarily you) believe that, just because the full-fledged government in Iraq hasn't completely eradicated negative influences in the country after less than a year on the job, that the country isn't going to make it or that we don't need to continue to provide some support for them. Even after we replaced our Articles of Confederation with our Constitution, it still took decades before our own government was able to provide full-fledged federal support for our country, a country comprised of united, yet (to a degree) "independent" states.

Also....

"4) The Shi'te controlled government with a US-led army is increasingly fighting Sunni militias."

They have been doing this for quite some time, if you want to include the insurgency in the formula (and even if you don't for that matter). Now, as it were, they are also going at it with Shiite militias. I think that is good in the long term.

I do believe that this administration does understand that we won't win this overall war by solely using military force, and I think multiple approaches are being used, with varying degrees of success. Plus, despite what you assert, I don't believe we've set ourselves back in the GWOT. Having lived in that area of the world and under the thumb of that cultural mindset, I can vouch for the fact that what they respect in dealing with others is strength. Backing down or showing passivity is clearly viewed as weakness and deserving of exploitation (as far as they are concerned). In cases such as this, that exploitation could very easily be carried to the extreme, as it was on 9-11. Don't for a minute think that that event wasn't set up as a result of years of passivity and backing down, not only to past terrorism events, but our actions (how we left) in Vietnam.

So what is the enormous brained liberal plan? Wi;; it help us win? Or is it to admit defeat?

Ricorun -

great points. The wingnuts are never able to adequately define who this amorphous enemy is they say we are in the fight of our lives against. In the Iraqi civil war, are we fighting the Shi'a or the Sunni? Both? If we are not backing either group, and just watching the mayhem unfold, then why are we there at all? Or perhaps we are there to prop up the government of al-Maliki - you know, the one who is butt buddies with arch-enemy du jour Ahmadinejad.

Just who are "they/them"? If by "they/them" the Bush cultists mean the fundies who attacked us on 9/11, well, they are still at large safely esconsed in Pakistan planning their next attacks while we sink ever deeper into the Iraqi civil war.

Good point as well in underscoring the dissonance between saying we are in the ultimate defining war between civilizations, on the one hand, and other hand calling for business as usual. Thomas Friedman, who I usually can't stand and who in the past has been an ardent supporter of Bush's Iraq Folly, made similar points in his column last week:

"Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, and let's have an unprecedented wartime tax cut and shrink our armed forces. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but let's send just enough troops to topple Saddam - and never control Iraq's borders, its ammo dumps or its looters. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but rather than bring Democrats and Republicans together in a national unity war coalition, let's use the war as a wedge issue to embarrass Democrats, frighten voters and win elections. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism - which is financed by our own oil purchases - but let's not do one serious thing about ending our oil addiction.

Donald Rumsfeld demonizes war critics as 'morally confused.' But it is the 'moral confusion' at the heart of the Bush policy - a confusion between its important ends and insufficient means - that has hobbled us from the start.

And while we're supposedly in this fight to the death in the "most dangerous enemy ever to confront this country", Bush goes on the most frequent and longest vacations of any president in US history. And what is Santorum asking us to do in this war against "most dangerous enemy ever to confront this country"? - go put a bunper sticker on your car. This is supposed to be great leadership?

Santorum is a retard. If this is what passes as good leadership in the GOP, all the scare tactics, staged terror-porn photo-ops, and paid propaganda stories won't save them.

Mark -

You write: "Facts, you know, are stubborn things and if you bring up something entirely divorced from the facts then those of us who live in the fact-based world just can't work with it."

Those of us who live in the fact-based world?? Huh? This from the same guys who constantly tell us Baghdad is no more dangerous than your average US city?

If you want a good dose of facts, pal, check out this recent article from a veteran foreign correspondent from India who has traveled to Iraq over 20 times in the last couple years.

But I doubt you have the stomach to read it, or any other factual accounts of life in Iraq. You prefer instead to believe in your fairy tales, in the faked photos of Baghdad from GOP candidates, or the faked news stories planted by the Lincoln Group.

Or as Colonel Jessep said, "You want the facts!? You can't handle the facts!"

Aarontime

Instead of whining and crying like a little 4 year old girl why don't you tell us how you would fight the Islamofascists? I'd be curious as how you would have killed Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies without invading Iraq. You far left wing kooks sure are good at bitching and complaining but short on solutions.

Mirk W.,

This legislation (I was incorrect in calling it an amendment) is far from dead (unless there's been developments in the last couple of days that I'm not aware of...) This is a story from Sunday:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 10 -- The main Sunni Arab political bloc boycotted parliament Sunday to protest legislation supported by Shiite Muslims and Kurds that would carve Iraq into a federation of three autonomous states.

The bill would create a predominantly Shiite region in the south of Iraq much like the largely independent zone currently controlled by the Kurds in the north. Sunnis vigorously oppose the plan, which would leave them with the center of the country, a vast desert devoid of the oil reserves of the other regions.

"I call on all the people of Iraq -- whether Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Muslims or non-Muslims -- to stand with us against the federalism project," Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the main Sunni bloc, said at a televised news conference.

The new Iraqi constitution, approved by voters last fall, includes a provision allowing for the creation of autonomous regions.

...

Sunni members of parliament say they now feel betrayed that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a powerful Shiite political party, is pushing legislation that would create the first steps toward federalism. Analysts say that Hakim hopes to become the leader of the southern Shiite region, which comprises nine provinces.

The Kurds strongly back the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000260.html

MikeW, sorry.

“Fundies” is that the cute nickname lefties are giving Islamic extremists these days. It reminds me of the nickname the lefties had for Joseph Stalin (Uncle Joe). By those “ensconced” in Pakistan, do you mean Bin Ladin w/ his wet nurses sitting in a 120deg cave wondering when that bullet is finally going to pass through his grey matter.

while we sink ever deeper into the Iraqi civil war”.

If the liberal politicians think like their constituency then this country is in a heap of trouble. You must think that Zarqawi wasn’t a member of Al-queda. Do you think that he was just a member of an Islamic faction warring against each other? If you believe that Zarqawi was the head of Iraq Al Queda , then do you think his minions all left after he was killed? Until you idiots realize that what we are fighting in Iraq are terrorists then this country will never truly “unite” on the war on terror.

Tom- two things you have to have to fight a war are men and weapons.

CJ -

"I'd be curious as how you would have killed Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies without invading Iraq."

Zarqawi. First of all, before the US invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi was a minor, relatively obscure wannabe al-qaeda. There were (and are) far more dangerous, high profile terrorists with truly horrific rap sheets living in neighboring countries - specifically US "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Secondly, before the US invasion, Zarqawi's group was based in the far north of Iraq in the area under the no-fly zone that was not under Saddam's control. Thirdly, as the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report just underscored yet again, Saddam was an affirmed enemy of Zarqawi who tried to have him captured and sent to abu-ghraib to be tortured with all the other muslim fanatics Saddam was holding there.

How would we have gotten Zarqawi without invading Iraq? Well, it is interesting that you bring this up. You see, in the lead-up to the war, the Bush admin desperately wanted to paint a picture of an Iraq that was in league with al-qaeda. The only problem with that strategy was that the only "al-qaeda" who actually operated in Iraqi terrirtory was this little camp up in Kurdistan led by Zarqawi. So here's the interesting part: why didn't the US just bomb that little camp to smithereens? Afterall, this was just after 9/11 - we were at the time busily bombing every single suspected al-qaeda camp in Afghanistan. We also had been routinely bombing sites in Iraq for several years. But in the case of this one little suspected al-qaeda camp in extreme northern Iraq, directly under our war planes running daily missions patrolling the no-fly zone, the US declined to bomb. Why? The answer is clearly that had the Bushicons given the order to obliterate the one and only suspected al-qaeda outpost in Iraq, that would have undermined the entire rationale behind the push to invade Iraq. The Bushies had to leave this camp in place so they could say "See, Iraq is harboring an al-qaeda terrorist camp".

Tom - the quick explanation is
1. Shiite area has oil
2. Kurd area has oil
3. Sunni area does NOT have oil

Since the Sunni's have been the biggest jerks about all this, the other two groups/regions are telling them that if they don't knock it off then they'll fracture the country and the Sunni's won't have any oil (money).

Arab countries that don't have oil (like Egypt or Syria) have crappy economies.

Aarontime

Instead of whining and crying like a little 4 year old girl why don't you tell us how you would fight the Islamofascists?

CJ, Aarontime is a little 4-year-old girl; noone any older than that could be so stupid. Well, Shipley and Willemena are, but noone else.

Actually, anyone in this country who doesn't realize by now that we're at war with radical Islamists, is either brain-dead or a DemocRAT.

Actually, there's no difference between today's DemocRATs and the brain-dead.

This includes you too, Rico.

The moonbats are in a tizzy--must be something to do with the races tightening up.

Did'ya hear Boehner's and Demint's comments today? Finally, our guys are tellin' it like it is. You DemocRATs want to protect the terrorists more than you want to protect your country. How unpatriotic can one be? Why don't you all move to Canada, where men are boys, and the call to prayer is the national anthem...

Santorum is a joke so anything he says bears little merit. It all started with that stupid comment about people not guaranteed rights to privacy in their bedrooms......

A few things...

I urge all of you guys who still believe that Saddam was friendly with Al Qaida to read the recently released Senate Intelligence Comittee's Phase II report. It states, among other things, that:

In 2005, the CIA assessed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."(page 92 [or 95 on my browser])

Here is an article entitled:U.S. count of Baghdad deaths excludes car bombs, mortar attacks. That doesn't sound too honest to me...

Apparently we are doing such a bad job of securing Iraq that they are asking Iran to do it for us.

Also, oil output and electricity have not met pre-war levels.

This is not to say that we should leave Iraq, but to stand there and say simply, "We're winning," seems to imply that one is just blatantly ignoring the facts of the situation.

What we need to do in Iraq is simply reevaluate our decision-making process in regards to Iraq, because whatever we are doing, it's not giving us our intended outcome.

Ricorun -

I am personally confused by what I hear from the military. On the one hand, all four branches hit their recruitment goals this year,

* but *

the marines and army have both pushed alarmingly high numbers of soldiers into multiple and extended rotations. Your point about General Zilmer comment is especially interesting to me.

This is the stuff that most troubles me about the situation in Iraq right now. I do not, and never have, seen willingness on the part of the Bush administration to fight this war with overwhelming force, and I have stood in utter shock at their treatment of military officials that disagree with them, like Eric Shinseki.

@ Mark N. -

I would like to hear how you respond to Ricorun's last post.

Outstanding speech by Senator Santorum!
:)

Georgia - the first part of your post. Yes, I'rve read the report also. Did you notice all those blcked out spaces, some just before and just after what appear to be the most damning sections. Sometimes, whole pages are blacked out.

Secondly - YES. We get it. There is a new battle going on in this campaign. OK - yes. Bad guys with guns. Too bad the liberals aren't actually doing anything about it - well anything that will help us win. You all refuse to serve and you point at every fight like it justifies pulling out.

Willem van Oranje,

Senator Santorum is dead-on accurate. Instead of criticizing Santorum, you should be criticizing politicians like Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner who's handing the Netherlands over to the enemy. Where did you say you live? Dutch Justice Minister OK with Shari'a

"Minister Welcomes Sharia In Netherlands If Majority Wants It." THE HAGUE, 13/09/06 - Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner considers the Netherlands should give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions. Muslims refusing to shake hands is fine with him. And Sharia law could be introduced in the Netherlands democratically, in the minister’s view. [..]

...Donner considers “a tone that I do not like has crept into the political debate. A tone of: ‘Thou shalt assimilate. Thou shalt adopt our values in public. Be reasonable, do it our way’. That is not my approach”.[..] “For me it is clear: if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist,” according to Donner. “It would be a disgrace to say: ‘That is not allowed!’”

What is Sharia Law?

CJ -

"I'd be curious as how you would have killed Zarqawi and his terrorist buddies without invading Iraq."

Zarqawi. First of all, before the US invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi was a minor, relatively obscure wannabe al-qaeda. There were far more dangerous, high profile and experienced terrorists living in neighboring countries - specifically US "allies" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Secondly, before the US invasion, Zarqawi's group was based in the far north of Iraq in the area under the no-fly zone that was not under Saddam's control. Thirdly, as the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee report just underscored, Saddam was an affirmed enemy of Zarqawi who tried to have him captured and sent to abu-ghraib.

How would we have gotten Zarqawi without invading Iraq? Well, it is interesting that you bring this up. You see, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the Bush admin desperately wanted to paint a picture of an Iraq that was in league with al-qaeda. The problem was that the only "al-qaeda" who actually operated in Iraqi terrirtory was this little camp up in Kurdistan led by this Zarqawi guy from Jordan. So here's the interesting part: why didn't the US just bomb that little camp to smithereens when they had the chance? Afterall, this was just after 9/11 - we were at the time busily bombing every encampment even remotely suspected of even a loose affiliation with al-qaeda. Our warplanes had been routinely bombing targets in Iraq for years - yet with US jets flying directly overhead as part of daily patrolling of the northern no-fly zone, the US did not bomb what it repeatedly was claiming to be Zarqawi's al-qaeda base. Why do you think that is? The obvious answer is that if the US simply obliterated the one and only al-qaeda encampment in all of Iraq (albeit in Kurdistan, outside of Saddam's military reach), the Bushicons entire rationale for invasion would be undermined. So they let Zarqawi's camp sit there unmolested for months as US planes flew directly overhead.

Any more questions?

to clarify in my last post: after 9/11, the US had been busily bombing al-qaeda camps in neighboring Afghanistan.

question still stands: why wouldn't the US have bombed the one suspected al-qaeda camp in Iraq? We were bombing Iraqi anti-aircraft and other targets in Saddam's military, and we were bombing al-qaeda everywhere that they lived in Afghanistan. So why not Zarqawi's camp?

That's a good question. Why not bomb Zarqawi's camp? This sounds like a good question for the military commanders or possibly intellegence personnel who would identify the camp. Another good question to ask would be, in the latest report, why contradictory evidence regarding a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq was either ignored or brushed aside. So many unanswered questions of so many incompetent leaders.

With Bush's numbers up in the polls, Bush should get on the next plain to Pennsylvania and help Ricky campaign. Pictures, there should be plenty of pictures of Ricky and the Prez.

Rick is closing in on that empty suit of Casey as well. Was down 15 points a few months ago and now down to 4.5 points. Every time Casey opens his mouth the people of Pennsylvania realize what a complete dope he is.

Good luck to Rick.

30 percent of respondents think the country is on the right track, while 60 percent said it is on the wrong track.

60%.......wrong track........60%

the bodies of 65 tortured men were dumped in and around Baghdad.

PROGRESS HUH???

WHERE THE HECK DO YOU NEOCONS LIVE?? UNDER WHAT ROCK?

Think of Iraq in two ways.

1. Sadaam was bad and had to go. and

2. How do you catch a transnational terrorist organization that springs like cockroaches? You smoke them out. By being in Iraq we attract every wacko wanting to kill Americans into one place. But rather than it being a mall in Kansas City... it's Iraq where the only Americans they can try to kill have machine guns and access to air support.

"If you live in PA you know that Santorum has a track recording of voting against the interests of working families" aric

You mean like those who actually PAY taxes?
I love the "working families" mantra of the left. Generally this means those who are on public assistance and want more government handouts.

Sorry to burst your bubble aric...Casey is fading fast as Pennsylvania hears him speak and learns he's just and empty suit running on his father's name.

Willem.............
Welcome to your nightmare!!!!!

The Abu Nidal Organization (Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims)

The leader, Abu Nidal, relocated to Baghdad in late 1998. Iraq had never admitted Abu Nidal was in the country until reports of his death in Baghdad emerged

The terrorist group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was known to be completely controlled by Iraqi Intelligence.

October 14, 2000, A London-bound Saudi airliner was hijacked. They landed in Baghdad where the passengers were released. Saddam granted the hijackers asylum

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the WTC bombing in 1993 was an Iraqi Intelligence officer.

Salman Pak:was a terrorist training camp that was operated south of Baghdad. The trainees were Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arabs.

Saddam, openly and vigorously supported Palestinian suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers $25,000 and building a Baghdad memorial to the first woman suicide bomber.

The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), led by Abu Abbas, responsible for the Achille Lauro attack. Abbas was expelled from Tunisia in 1985 where he was allowed to establish headquarters in
Baghdad.

Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan in ‘01, he then traveled to Baghdad and received treatment for his injuries and later linked up with extremist group Ansar al-islam.

What do you libs not understand about terrorism. Was Saddam not evil enough for you. Did he not kill enough Kurds for you? Did he not support terrorism enough for him to be considered a prime target after 9/11? However you feel about this war, how do you feel about the alternative? You and your children seeing these attacks on American streets.

Actually Civil...that poll changes dramatically when people are asked how they are doing personally.

When that question is asked, almost 70% say they are doing well or pretty well.

Lots of people think the nation isn't going in the right direction, that doesn't mean by default they vote for someone just for the hell of it. If you guys keep throwing up the complete lunatic fringe idiots that you do, then you will continue to lose.

Sorry, the American public is smarter than you give it credit for...thank God!

Aaron,

Mr. Ghosh is a completely unreliable source - he's a long track record of anti-American reporting. You can take him as gospel, if you like, but I prefer to hear from actual Iraqis and Americans who are on the side of victory in Iraq.

The problem with you critics of the war is that you'll never read anything positive about what is happening...I read both; good and bad. You really should open up your mind - stop being so narrow minded and bigoted about it all.

Ricorun,

Not sitting on their hands, but no in combat, either. Its a fact - only one in 12 Americans who served in WWII saw combat. Why is that? Because once you've got veteran troops, you don't want to use anything but - non-veterans just can't do the job as well...so, you keep sending the same units back in to the battle again and again and again. This is why my grandfather managed to land in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy - he was a veteran; no trips home for rest, no getting a discharge even when his enlistment was up...just keep fighting until victory or death. That is the soldier's life, Ricorun - it is a hard calling, and just thank God that there are men and women who are willing to do it.

Perhaps it is because I'm a military veteran that I just understand it better than non-veterans. You don't complain - you certainly don't demand that someone else come and do the job. When I was in, there would have been no way on God's green earth that you could have kept me away from a situation in which my friends were heading in to danger...tell me it was 100% certain I'd be killed, and off I would have went. The love and devotion of a military volunteer is boundless.

As far as the needs of the troops in Iraq - the President has said that he'll send whatever the generals ask for. I believe he would - after all, he's staked his whole Presidency on Iraq, and adding more troops wouldn't change the political dynamic here at home at all. But you should also think a bit - part of the problem we had in Vietnam is that we inserted so many troops that South Vietnamese didn't need to really do any fighting on their own at all. Ultimately, this all stands or falls on the shoulders of the Iraqi people. You say in one area that the Iraqis are deserting in droves? Perhaps - wouldn't surprise me...but I also know that they are also lining up in droves elsewhere and getting rave reviews from their American instructors. You are upset at the number of American troops who have been killed? Have you even tried to find out how many Iraqi troops have died?

Probably not - because you really don't care about Iraq, or the military, or the war...call it what you will, but you diligently search out those sources which are essentially a bill of indictment against your country. Why on earth you'd want to do that...well, I know why, but I won't state it.

I'm just pointing out that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were directly involved with the decision making for taking this country to war.

Posted by: Jeff777 at September 13, 2006 03:13 PM

Are you serious? Oh my Gosh, you mean high level officials in the Bush administration were directly involved in that? Wow, if only I'd known! And here I thought i was the one making the descision to go rescue the world from Saddaam & co. Ho hum I guess that was in another life. All these alternate universes & strange phenomenons are beginning to get to me!

bearman,

Next thing you know he'll be telling us that President Bush was also involved - and then my jaw will really drop to the ground...

I also heard that Condoleeza Rice may have been offering advice to President Bush on the lead up to Iraq, shocking.

Bearman, Mark, NPFL,

The point Jeff is making is that Rummy, Cheney and Wolfy were all signatories for the New American Century. And these three were basically the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq...

Pretty clear link between New American Century and the invasion of Iraq.

Tom,

There's also a clear link between me and the liberation of Iraq...I've been in favor of it since 1991.

You're confusing two issues - strategic thinking with paranoid, conspiracy theories. PNAC just thought carefully about what we needed to do in the middle east - paranoid lefties worked this in to some sort of program to force us in to Iraq at the behest of an evil, neo-con cabal serving THE JEWS and BIG OIL...

Mark,

Don't give more merit to fringe theories to make what happened look better.

The connection is important because it shows prominent members in the Bush administration push for war had their eye on Iraq as a strategic base for transforming the Middle East.

This is important to note in light of the fact that the main reason we invaded turned out to be false. And in light of evidence that shows shaky intell was boosted while what turned out to be correct intell was buried.

Bush and company sold this war as one of necessity. Used imagery of mushroom clouds and photos of mobile chemical labs (which turned out not to be mobile chemical labs).

Thing is, the New American Century became our foreign policy with Iraq... but there was no debate about whether this is the correct policy for America. Instead, the debate was... do you want to see a mushroom cloud in NYC? No? Then we must invade Iraq.

And to make matters worse, this policy was poorly executed and is failing in Iraq.

That's the double-truth, ruth.

Mark,

I am dissappointed that you again choose to confront Ricorun's arguments with personal attacks. You started out with some coherent points, and then abandon logical debate with this emotional outburst:

"...you really don't care about Iraq, or the military, or the war...call it what you will, but you diligently search out those sources which are essentially a bill of indictment against your country. Why on earth you'd want to do that...well, I know why, but I won't state it."

What kind of game is this? What is it that you won't state? You are publicly challenging Ricorun's motivations (instead of the arguments), and then you demure (or pretend to?) at the end, as though you have some knockout that you're holding back. Very impressive.

You never did address Ricorun's interpretation of General Zilmer's comments, for example, nor did you confront our broader assertion that the military's stance is one of compromise and frequent struggle with the administration.

For you to defend the administration by saying that Bush would "send whatever the generals ask for" is embarassingly ignorant. From the beginning of this war, the administration has openly clashed with military officials over troop levels and material provisions. Truck armor, body armor, Eric Shinseki's troop estimates, you may take your pick of topics around to which to debate, or you can simply challenge my patriotism and bug out. So far you seem to be very fond of doing the latter.

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress began selling war in Iraq as a war of neccessity back as far as December 2001, in a letter to the President. No one pushed other intellegence because no one on the intellegence committees believed the other intell and the Republcian and Democrat pundits in the press did not believe it either. To try and pin it on the New American Century, the Zionists, or anyone obscures the complexities of what we do face.

The fact is we have never had enough troops in Iraq from the beginning. This should have become obvious around June 2003. Had more troops been commited immediately, at that time, perhaps the current situation could have been avoided. From the troop levels, it appears no one was serious about transforming the middle east or tryong to develop Western style Democracy. This is why some people who were the biggest cheerleaders of Iraqi democracy left the Administration. While trying to pin most or all of the blame on PNAC obscures the complexities of the situation we face, it is a pity some of the guys who formulated PNAC's position did not have more say over the military planning. The war probably would have been executed much better.

Right now it seems both Democrats and Republicans are more interested in affixing blame than they are in working to fix the current problems. It is obvious that both are fundamentally unserious about the GWOT.

Changes in policy that should be made immediately would be to remove Don Rumsfeld and replace him. I suggest either Senator Lindsay Graham or General Eric Shinseki, if either or these men are willing. By appointing a critic, such as the general, the Bush administration could send a message that they are serious about this.

Also, changes in our immigration policies are needed. The US is in the process of allowing a large number of Saudi students into American universities. There should be a moratorium on immigrants from Islamic countries, at least until the war ends. It seems unlikely we would have allowed Germans or Japanese to enter the US during WWII.

With regards to Iraq we either need to commit more troops or we need to withdraw. I would like to commit more troops but the troops may not be available. If we can't or won't commit more troops then we should withraw to Kurdistan and monitor the civil war from there to ensure that the areas we vacate do not become terrorist strongholds. From bases in Kurdistan, we should be able to have a major influence on the civil war. We should expect other countries to interfere in Iraq and we may need to act decisively to protect our interests.

Finally, intell that suggests Iraq's WMD may have been transferred to Syria is being ignored or is being brushed aside and intell that supports a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection is being ignored or brushed aside. This is all in the interests of making partisan political points. We were funadmentally unserious about this before we invaded Iraq and we are fundamentally unserious about this now. Both Republicans and Democrats should focus less on trying to assign blame and more on working together to solve common problems.

The bottom line on Iraq is we are not as committed as we should be. We either need to commit or quit. If we are not going to wage war decisively, then get out now without further delay.

Nate,

I actually feel bad for Shinseki. He’s allowed himself to be used as a pawn by the democrats. As far as troop levels are concerned, that decision is made by Rumsfeld usually at the consensus of his field commanders. I’m not saying mistakes have been made with one of them being we waited to long to go into Iraq but the idea that troop levels are to low is patently false. 13 or 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces are pretty secure and their people are doing well. 3 of the provinces that haven’t been secured are located in the Sunni Triangle where they were having major problems well before we ever got there.

Your assertions that the military didn’t provide vehicle armor or body armor is also patently false. Many of the Humvees indeed initially came off the line without body armor but the vehicles that were already in the field were quickly altered for the IED’s that they were encountering. They are and were given Kevlar jackets initially. I know this for fact because the Kevlar is assigned to each soldier. If the jackets get damaged in anyway other than combat damage then part of the cost of replacement comes out of their pay. Additional body armor was indeed provided in the field along with newly designed Kevlar helmets also to help protect against IED’S .

I think you need to peddle your talking points to people that don’t know any better before you keep sticking your foot in your mouth.

Mark: "Not sitting on their hands, but not in combat, either. Its a fact - only one in 12 Americans who served in WWII saw combat. Why is that? Because once you've got veteran troops, you don't want to use anything but - non-veterans just can't do the job as well..."

My point is that combat troops need logistics support. You can't claim those not in combat are not needed. To attempt to do so is patently ridiculous. You know it, and I know it.

Mark: "Perhaps it is because I'm a military veteran that I just understand it better than non-veterans."

Refresh me on your military experience. I got the distinct impression it was fairly minimal. For the record, I never served. But it wasn't because I didn't try. I applied to the Naval Academy out of high school. I got accepted, too, pending the physical. I didn't pass the physical (I have lousy eyesight). That got me a 4-F classification. After that, no one would take me. Both my brother and my sister served, though. My brother was in the Army for 12 years (JAG corps), and retired as a Captain. My sister spent 22 years in the Air Force, and retired as a Major. The last few years she taught civil engineering at the Air Force Academy. My sister is smart, energetic, and a people person, and over the years she developed friendships with a lot of very influential people -- mostly in the Air Force, though not exclusively. Through her I went places civilians don't usually get to go, and met people I never would have otherwise met. Since then I've met others, but my sister certainly helped to open doors. At any rate, I think I can say with some authority that the notion that there are enough troops in Iraq is by no means a ubiquitous opinion. I think it would be more accurate to say that it is currently the required (or defined) starting assumption. And thus, stories like this one are not uncommon:

"You can't do clear-and-hold with the force structure we have," the senior American military official said. "I'm almost of the view that you've got to bring more troops and they've got to stay longer, but no one wants to hear that."

Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

I suppose one could attempt to argue that stories such as the one I just cited are just examples of the MSM squawking. They do do a lot of squawking, so you can't really rely on the MSM to tell you the truth all the time -- or any other source, for that matter. But the fundamental reality is that coalition forces have had to re-invade places like Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, and various other places more than once. And many of them have returned to being hell-holes. How do you explain that in any other way? The conclusion, I would argue, is independent of any single source, or even any one type of source. Mark, you make the accusation that I "diligently search out those sources which are essentially a bill of indictment against [my] country." That's not true. Rather, I try to be thorough. I don't always succeed, but I try. I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the citations I have offered -- including, but by no means exclusively, on this thread -- are not affiliates of the MSM, but military and governmental sources. I try not to cherry-pick. Rather, I try to pick sources which are representative. That's not to say that I think military and governmental sources are always totally reliable either. But when the information from various sources converge on the same conclusion, it seems to me that the conclusion becomes that much more difficult to ignore.

And yes I do know how many Iraqi troops have died. According to the Iraq Index, which I have cited numerous times in my posts, the official count is 5,365. There is no question that most Iraqis sincerely want their country back. Likewise, I have no doubt that most Americans want to give it to them. I certainly do. But it's not just a question of goals, it's a question of how best to achieve them -- or even whether the goals can be achieved, given the strategy. That, to me, is the bottom line question.

It appears that the mere suggestion that things aren't going all that well in Iraq is enough to get you labeled as a leftie moonbat -- even if you suggest that MORE troops are needed, not less. Apparently, the only way to toe the party line around here is to assume that everything is going great. But if you listened to the testimony of Generals Pace, Abizaid, and Casey last month in front of congress, you didn't get that impression. Rather, the impression you got is that there are significant problems. Not hopeless, mind you. But no