This will get a bit ugly from time to time

boy if that is not the understatement of the year...

insert fingers in ears and sing loudly enough and maybe everything will be just peachy

It sounds like the Iraqi tribesmen have started listening to Toby Keith and Willie Nelson:

"Justice is the one thing you should always find.
"You got to saddle up your boys,
"You got to draw a hard line.
"When the gunsmoke settles, we'll sing a victory tune.
"We'll all meet back at the local saloon,
"We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces,
"Singing: 'Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.'"

How exactly is this 'bad news for Democrats'? Personally, as a Democrat, I want things to go well in Iraq. Although I hope for a 'Jeffersonian Democracy which is an ally in the War on Terror and inspires a transformation of the entire region', it just isn't going to happen. . . The assessments from our intelligence agencies, from our retired Generals who were in command in Iraq is that things continue to get worse in Iraq- and that's sad. We are being fed BS that things are going well, while behind the scenes things are degenerating into chaos.

Remember promises that "we will be greeted as liberators"? That "the war will pay for itself" or "cost 1.7 billion"? Remember that the was "I doubt will last 6 months"- Runsfeld thought it would be over within weeks and that our troops would be down to under 30,000 within a year!?!?!?

We're 3 1/2 years into this war and it keeps getting WORSE! We've got to have another war for Baghdad, the Anbhar province has been (temporarily?) ceded to the insurgents, and we have spent almost HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS! And there still isn't SECURITY in Iraq!

The thing is for all the "cut and run" rhetoric, we have only two choices:

1) "cut and run" Murtha plan NOW being picked up by Rush Limbaugh (of ALL people -didn't HE call it "cut and run"?)- to give the security of Iraq to the Iraqis and to pull back US troops to the borders to prevent foreign fighters from coming in (primarily from Iran, but also Syria)

2) send 300,000-400,000 US troops to re-take ALL of Iraq, provide security through force, and quash the insurgency completely. Runs the risk of looking like a long-term occupation, but so does what we're currently doing with permanent bases, the insulated "green zone", etc.

One thing is clear: what we're doing ISN'T WORKING! Having our young men and women standing on streetcorners as targets, but not enough troops to provide actual security just fosters resentment against the US. When the Iraqi citizens see that the US is there, but is not stopping the insurgents from wreaking havoc on the security situation- regualr Iraqis will think that it is the US which is in control and is allowing this situation to deteriorate.

The thing is: we NEED a much larger force to "finish the job", but we don't have the manpower and resources to fully commit. Instead, we just p*ssyfoot around without fully commiting to staying or to leaving.

WHY?

Because THAT would require a REAL commitment from this administration and the prople who 'SUPPORT THE WAR'. Specifically, THEY HAVE TO SIGN UP TO SERVE IN THE WAR THEY SO FIRMLY BELIEVE IN! The American people WILL NOT tolerate a draft, so it is up to the people who still believe a 'Jeffersonian Democracy' is still possible to serve!

You ALL say that you 'Support the War', but HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE ENLISTED TO SERVE? HOW can we win if those who say they believe in the war won't even enlist? Do you REALLY believe that what we're currently doing is working? The administration has admitted that more civilians are being killed every month than even before, but things are going GREAT????

State of Denial, indeed. . . I think the GOP is enjoying this Foley media storm because it will be something salacious to pin their election loses on- it's easier to admit that it was just a 'sex scandal' responsible for their loses, rather than their sheer incompetance on everything from Iraq to Katrina to the budget deficit to immigration to corruption to 9 billion dollars LOST in Iraq.

I also think it's lucky for the Dems that they didn't win in 2004- that would have been the BEST thing for the GOP. The republicans would now be saying: "Iraq was going fine until Kerry won; we would have been out of there by now if Bush was still president!". But with the Presidency and a solid majority in both houses of Congress, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for their failures.

Coulterfan,
Check your facts, first. Many at this blog are currently enlisted, and I'd think since libs no so much they wouldn't go around making assumptions, like Al Gore assuming it was laughable Osama bin Laden was the most dangerous man in the world when Ollie North was on trial. If you were as smart as you think you are, don't you think you'd be able to connect your message to the American people instead of relying on deception and just bashing those who do have a message? Personally, I talked to a recruiter and found out I wasn't eligible. I know you probably assume since I vote for Bush it's because I was indicted for some sort of corporate fraud, but actually I had an abdominal surgery that keeps me from joining up. Check your facts, again. The army's recruitment is as high as its ever been. People do believe in protecting America by fighting Iraqi insurgents and terrorists, and they're betting they're lives on it. Leave it to a lib to make that seem like it's worth nothing.

meanwhile 27 soldiers killed in the forgotten war this week alone. judging from the increasingly frightening scenario as evidenced by these statistics, i'd say you drew a lucky card, morris.

what a god damn shame and what a waste of good human beings.

FOR WHAT?

Morris,

Who is relying on deception and bashing one's critics? I never call conservatives names or unpatriotic. Do you ever call liberals names or say that they are unpatriotic or on the side of the terrorists?

Show me the facts you rely on. My facts include 17 US intelligence agencies, UN reports on violence in Iraq, and retired Generals. Where are your facts that things are improving? When did this adminsitration ever say that the Iraq war would cost trillions and last over a decade? WHAT IS THE PLAN? A free and democratic Iraq which is an ally in the war on terror? Is that still a realistic goal? Especially considering that in democratic elections so far Iran has elected a VERY scary regime and Hamas was elected in Palestine. Iraqis are also voting along sectarian lines and a SOLID MAJORITY want the US to leave!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Where are your facts supporting that the Iraqis want us to stay? Which experts are saying that violence is calming in Iraq and that it is stabilizing? Are you relying on facts, or just wishful thinking and propaganda?

"1) "cut and run" Murtha plan NOW being picked up by Rush Limbaugh (of ALL people -didn't HE call it "cut and run"?)- to give the security of Iraq to the Iraqis and to pull back US troops to the borders to prevent foreign fighters from coming in (primarily from Iran, but also Syria)"

So true. Murtha's resolution to re-deploy was shot down and now the administration is suggesting the same plan. Yes, he suggested Japan as a staging area to redeploy. I agree that is a little to far. But he left it quite open by saying in the region.

"A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region."

He was quickly labeled trying to 'cut & run'. Now the administration and some right leaning media folks are embracing his resolution but calling it their own.

I don't agree with some of his statements about our brave soldiers but he is not a traitor and he doesn't hate our military.

good catch morphie. i'm astounded the level of depravity around here to which certain readers/ diarists stoop with regard to jack murtha. it's clear that the iraq has crystallized as a quagmire in the minds of a great majority of voting americans. we need a fresh perspective and a fresh set of leaders to rescue this nation from a head-long leap of a very steep cliff.

karl rove and king george have placed politics and power above everything else and our country, our constitution, our treasury, and image, our military, and the families of over 2700 dead soldiers have suffered enormously as a result.

parting image:

Wearing a helmet and a flak jacket and flanked by machine-gun-toting bodyguards to defend against insurgents, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came here Thursday, insisting that there were new signs of progress in Iraq and that the Bush administration had never sugarcoated its news about the American occupation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/world/middleeast/06diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

if things are going so "swimmingly" over in iraq, why are all these state visits a "surprise"?

Morris said:

"The army's recruitment is as high as its ever been."

Well, not exactly. The army's recruiting levels for 2006 just hit what they were in 1997 (when Clinton was president), so they're as high as 9 years ago. So Clinton was able to mobilize more people to enlist during non-wartime as Bush during wartime!

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep21/0,4670,ArmyRecruiting,00.html

In contrast, over 6 million Americans volunteered for the army during WWII over a 3 year period. Bush likes to compare the War on Terror to World War II, but look at the numbers:

http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html

Clearly, your statement that Army recruiting is as high as it's EVER been is false on its face. Now, about who presents facts and evidence and who doesn't. . .

Oh, just to clarify for Morris who obviously doesn't like to research. 2 million people per year volunteered for the Army per year in WWII. In 2006, just over 80,000 will volunteer- roughly the same number as in 1997 during NON WARTIME!

More evidence from that left-wing rag "Military.com"

"Army's Recruiting Lowest in Years"

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,77951,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Again, Morris, where are your stats coming from?

BAGHDAD, Oct. 5 — Wearing a helmet and a flak jacket and flanked by machine-gun-toting bodyguards to defend against insurgents, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came here Thursday, insisting that there were new signs of progress in Iraq

New signs of progress: a helmet and a flak jacket; machine-gun-toting bodyguards; her military transport plane that circled the city for about 40 minutes because of either mortar fire or rockets at the airport; lights that went out during her meeting with President Talabani; at least 21 dead American soldiers since Saturday.

My son, is CURRENTLY SERVING in Iraq. When I talk with my son, he relates to me that more and more of the "locals" are starting to trust the troops more, starting to trust that they will not "abandon them to the wolves", as it were, and are starting to confide in them as to the whereabouts of the terrorist elements, their weapons cache locations, etc.

The more we talk about "cut and run", the more these locals are apt not to trust the troops. This will serve to decrease the trust between the troops and the locals, who will not want to stick their neck out to turn in the bad guys; especially knowing that the "bad guys" are taking notes as to who's currently working with coalition forces.

To put it more succinctly, the more you idiots (and your fellow travellers in Congress and the Senate) talk about "cut and run," the more likely it is that my son will come home in a box instead of in business class.

Think about that next time you open your piehole, okay?

I think the time has come to put to rest the lie that Bush and his cronies have been putting out there with increasing frequency as we get closer to Nov 7th. That lie is that democrats, liberals, people who think that he has screwed up American foreign policy are somehow in league with the terrorist.

Now they are clever enough not to come right out and say it in those exact words (Although they have come very close as of late). However, from the words that they use and the speeches that they give the implication is clearly there. Even their supporters have gotten into the act. This very topic is a perfect example. I defy Noonan to name one democratic member of congress (or democrat/liberal who posts on this site) who has ever said that they want Iraq to fail. I defy Bush to name one democratic member of congress who has said that they want another terrorist attack to happen in this country. He can't name one, but he has been making that charge on the campaign trail.

So since we now now that Bush and co are lying, the question then becomes why? Answer: He is afraid that the republicans are going to lose their majority Nov 7th and he is saying anything he has to in order to prevent that from happening because, should democrats get control of one or both of the houses he will actually be held accountable for his actions and inactions during his tenure as president. Think of it, for the first time in George W. Bush's life he will actually be held accountable for his failures and that scares the dickens out of him.

Faced with this possibility, Bush's only recourse is to demonize his opposition with phrases like "cut and run" and "obstructionist." Oh yeah, and "democrats will raise your taxes." In addition to all of that, he and his people have been working over time to blame Bill Clinton (who has been out of office for how many years now?) for Bush's failures. Meanwhile, we learn that Bush is taking advice on Iraq from no less than Henry Kissinger, that Bush and his national security team were asleep at the switch pre-9/11, that he has been lying about how bad things really are in Iraq and that things are going to get worse, and the list goes on and on.

Bush needs to find Mark Foley and give him a big ole' french kiss, because his scandal is the only thing that is keeping the true gravity of all of these new revelations from bringing him to his knees. However, I believe after Nov 7th that is going to happen anyway!

nice try pscy - that's a lousy way of employing your son for the purpose of advancing your tryannical view of how to run a war. don't you dare try to equate a well-defined democratic plan for getting our troops out of iraq with "cut-and-run" nor try to implicate any of us who question the "stay-the-course" strategy as being complicit in raising the likelihood of your son "coming home in a box" - god forbid!

I'll call them as I see them, Wilhelm. And I'm calling it as my son sees it.

If the truth hurts you, too bad, but the dem policies are killing our kids.

"DON'T YOU DARE", or what willem! What the hell do you think you are going to do! Smear me on national media? That's all you guys are good at! "Don't you dare WVO", you see, we do know what we will do about it!

Coulterfan, the VAST majority of us(B4B conservatives) have lived, eaten, breathed in the defense of this country, and I dare say, most of us would jump at the chance to serve our interest in Iraq! Since most of us can't for one reason or another(ex. disabled vets ...hole, to old, already did our time, etc.)we support our men/women here at home in the best possible way we can. By the way, "Psyc & his son are spot on".

By the way coulterfan, OA & liberal friends! Do you guys think we are effin stupid? Of course you do, what am I thinking asking that question! Quick observation, 15 years ago when I was a part of the USMC the way liberals felt about the military and our boyz serving wasn't any different than it is today. Some things NEVER change & NEVER will. " Don't you dare", try to PRETEND to be the friends and supporters of OUR children, you all are full of it, & we see right through you!!!!!!!

coulter,

Uh, that report you linked is from 2005...I just checked my calendar and its 2006.

Orange,

And why were 27 of our best killed this past week?

I know, you on the left like to think of them as helpless fools led to the slaughter by Bush for Halliburton...but the reality is that our magnificent men and women are engaged in a intense battle to crush the terrorism in Iraq in preparation for Iraqi security forces taking full control.

Over the past few weeks, 30,000 Iraqi and 15,000 American troops have been taking the fight to the terrorists in Baghdad...and, yeah, twice as many Iraqi troops as American troops...that Iraqi army you on the left said we'd never get off the ground is fighting hard for liberty right alongside our troops.

normally i don't descend to your level bearman but as you have opened the door wide open, and after careful and deliberate review of your comment history, i can confidently agree with your statement - i do think you are stupid.

you continue to equate criticism of this disaster of a war with criticism of the men and women serving (wherever they may be stationed). by that logic, i suppose all of the democratic servicemen, all the retired generals, all of the republicans who have spoken out against the policies and mismanagement of iraq must therefore be against the military, bad for morale, and good for the terrorists. your claptrap banter is amusing if it were not so plainly desperate and stupid and misguided. i feel confident labeling you as such.

mark,

i do not disupte that those man and women were "engaged in an intense battle to crush the terrorism in Iraq" - who disputes that?

i think some of us are merely exposing the increasingly brutal fighting environment as evidence that, contrary to feverishly rosy assertions by condi, bush, cheney, et al, that sh*t 'ain't' getting better. time to change course, not stay the course.

What's next Mark? Gonna say Iraq had WMD again?

President Bush (Aug. 06): Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

Please respond, I'd like to know if you or the President is lying. Thanks.

"If the truth hurts you, too bad, but the dem policies are killing our kids."

Umm, going into Iraq was Bush's policy. . .

During the Kosovo war, when Clinton acted (with the UN) to defeat the brutal dictator Milosevic, were the Republicans on the side of the Serbs? Was all their talk about Clinton "not having the moral authority to go to war" and "wagging the dog"- was all that talk because they didn't support the troops and wanted them killed? Lest I remind you that all this talk occurred while our troops were in danger on the field. Didn't all this talk embolden Milosevic?

Or was it merely disagreeing with a policy and speaking out against it as we are able to do in America?

Mark said:

"Uh, that report you linked is from 2005...I just checked my calendar and its 2006."

Umm, last I checked we were engaged in Iraq in 2005. I know it's hard to remember back that far. . . 2006, again, is shaping up to be the best recruiting year since 1997 (during the Clinton presidency during peacetime!)

Now, prove to me that Army recruiting is at its "highest level ever". And keep in mind that there were over 2 Million Americans volunteering for the Army during WWII EVERY YEAR!!!

One question for those TRUE BELIEVERS:

If Iraq is going as splendidly as the media isn't telling us, we must be nearly done setting up a free and democratic peaceful society which is an ally in the WOT. Since we're ALMOST done anyway, why can't we turn over control of Iraq to the Iraqis? When do you think we WILL be able to leave? And WHY are we now re-taking areas previously thought as safe (Baghdad), and replacing Iraqi security forces with American troops again? If they are "standing up", why are we not "standing down"?

Orangealert, Murtha, Pelosi and others at the bottom of Mt. Suribachi:

There's gonna be a lot of casualties and you're spread really thin. Go back--time to change course!

Orangealert, Murtha, Pelosi and others at Gettysburg...

Hey Union Troops--you're getting spread pretty thin--there's gonna be 10,000+ casualties--time to turn around and change course!!!

Orangealert, Murtha, Pelosi and others at Pearl Harbor:

Hey--look--your navy's a mess--there's no way you can rebuild on time. You better give up trying to defeat those Nazis, and learn to do the goose step!

You get the picture.

Psycmeistr,

So, your "evidence" is putting words in other peoples mouth? What did Hannity, Limbaugh, DeLay, Hastert, and Bush say during Kosovo? As I recall, they were on Milosevic's side, right? No "nation-building", right?

There's nothing 'Conservative" about invading a nation which did not attack us nor did they pose an 'imminent threat'. Or, were you always for "nation building"?

And if Dems aren't pro-military, why are there SO MANY MORE Democratic veterans in Congress than Republican vets? And, why do the Republicans dislike their most prominent vets (McCain, Hagel, Powell)? And why did the Repubs CUT veterans benefits and VA funding and vote AGAINST modern body armor?

Oh, and who won WWI and WWII?

Oh, and who won Kosovo in a couple months as I recall?

normally i don't descend to your level bearman but as you have opened the door wide open, and after careful and deliberate review of your comment history, i can confidently agree with your statement - i do think you are stupid.

you continue to equate criticism of this disaster of a war with criticism of the men and women serving (wherever they may be stationed). by that logic, i suppose all of the democratic servicemen, all the retired generals, all of the republicans who have spoken out against the policies and mismanagement of iraq must therefore be against the military, bad for morale, and good for the terrorists. your claptrap banter is amusing if it were not so plainly desperate and stupid and misguided. i feel confident labeling you as such.

Posted by: orangealert at October 6, 2006 01:36

Thanks OA, you never let me down! Thank you for continuing to prove my points! I find it odd though, that such a smart liberal as yourself missed the part where I answered my own question. Thus making it POINTLESS for you intelectual types to answer my question. Of course, I didn't expect you to pass up a chance to make fun of/ or demean a military guy. Thanks again OA!!!

Now in response to your utter ignorance, you continue to equate the fact that PEOPLE DIE IN WAR to our failure in this war. If we are to endure the sting of historical failure it will be due to the propaganda force fed us daily by a MASS(at their own admittance)media filled with conservative hating peaceniks. Everytime YOU GUYS report anti-Bush, anti-American editorials, YOU guys create more terrorists amongst the masses. Amongst those that would probably just go on with their day to day if it were not for the anti-American propaganda they hear from every news source around.

All of the democrat military men/women, all of the Generals that speak out against policy, all of the republicans that speak out against policy would be heard much clearer and hopefully given an opportunity to give their two cents worth, was it not for the DEMONIZING of the administration by the left. If the Bush administration was not having to defend itself against all the STUPID, HAIR BRAINED, MORONIC conspiracies constantly leveled against them by IDIOTS like yourself OA, maybe they would have more TIME & HELP in winning this GWOT. NOW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TRY AGAIN IN CONVINCING ME THAT LIBERALS REALLY DO LOVE OUR BOYZ & GIRLZ! No really, don't bother! I've wasted enough cyberspace on your dimwit!

Coulterfan,
Let me begin by saying that I was absolutely not as clear as apparently I needed to be in order to be understood. I didn't end the clause recruitment is as high as it's ever been with "during the Iraq war during which the media has demonized soldiers as terrorists, the military as idiots, etc." I find it amazing, and as an American I find pride, to know that I'm in a country in which 70,000 people saw past the erudite, deceptive, manipulative media that will if it has its way see this country destroyed by terrorists. Now, of course you'll say that it's Bush policies that are creating more terrorists; but just within a small frame of reference in the NIE that is true, within the larger frame of reference it is not. The liberal position relies on the logic that being in the Middle East makes Muslims angry, and angry Muslims lead to terrorist Muslims; but this logic is easily falsified by the actions of liberals themselves. Who can deny that liberals are seething with anger at Bush for stealing elections, playing on our fears, every other sin they perceive him to have committed. Yet where is the liberal terrorism? According to liberal logic, anger in Muslims leads to terrorist Muslims. So why is it that anger in liberals doesn't lead to terrorist liberals?
Anger doesn't cause terrorism. The violence inherent in terrorism comes from a culural cognitive set which says violence is acceptable and even rewarded when it's directed against a certain group of people (non-Muslims: depending on the terrorist, it's non-Sunnis, non-Shiites, but certainly all women seeking achievement, all gays, and all Christians). Liberals don't have a cultural cognitive set that believes their violence will be rewarded, so if they act violently they are secretive about it as the Stalinists were. They don't claim credit like the Muslims do.
So, yes, we are fighting a war to open their societies to teaching different ideologies, even liberalism. But it is in the interest of no non-self hating non-Muslim to allow Muslims to teach each other to kill the infidels, because in their eyes we are the infides.
By the way, you need to check your facts, and I recommend factcheck.org; they have articles unfolding the deception of the voting against body armor because no body armor was ever mentioned as being part of Sen. Landrieu's proposal. And funding for Veterans affairs is going up at twice the rate under Bush that it was under Clinton, so check your facts at factcheck before you go on repeating party lines. I know you want to believe them because you can hate Bush more if you do, but forgive yourself and Bush for whatever wrongs you've perceived; you'll feel better if you do.

In the short time this post was up, the situation went from 'worse' to 'worser'

To those Republican knuckleheads who don't see the scarasm, I was making a play of bad grammer as in 'suicider' and 'decider' a la Bush grammer.

BWAH HA HA HA HA.

You guys are priceless, you make my days

Canuck,

Have you even the first clue about how battle works? You do know that war is a nasty, grisley business? Its not like the textbooks written long after the fact make it out...its a heartstopping up and down emotional and physical roller coaster; it stresses and it strains and it causes heartbreak and elation to altnerate in rapid successioin.

You're looking in at the first day of Tarawa and pronouncing the campaign against Japan a failure...get a grip.

Mark:

Remember
"Mission accomplished"
"Will be able to reduce the troop levels soon"
"The resistence is just a bunch of dead enders"
"We have turned the corner" or something to that effect
"We step down as the Iraqis step up"
--There are many other bullshit administration statements.
--I am just wondering when you Republican knuckleheads will acknowledge the utter and total failue of Bush/Cheney/Rummy's tactics in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
--Who am I kidding? That will never happen, you as in the royal 'you', will always spout excuses.
--And please, stop comparing this mess to the glorious victory of WWII. Besides Japan was clearly on the run within 2 years after Pearl Harbour.
--You get a grip!!!

Canuck,
Do you know how WWII is different from the war on terror in Iraq? In WWII, we destroyed the Japanese and German wherever they were. We destroyed Germany and Japan until we'd disabled their military; we didn't attempt to disable their military without destroying their countries, as we did in Iraq. In Iraq, their soldiers feigned surrender, then returned to the hiding of their homes, to the cover provided by their families and neighbors, and this is from where they strike our soldiers nnd each other.

In WWII, the Germans and Japanese believed they had a fighting chance, so they fought us directly. The Iraqis knew they had no chance, so most of their soldiers with their skills of everything from tactics to explosives to leadership and recruiting returned to their homes, knowing we would avoid directly striking them there. In Japan, the people with those skills had the bravery to fight us without using their neighbors as human shield, and when we destroyed them, their knowledge and skills did not return to their resistance.

Morris:
--I don't disagree with what you just wrote. I still stand by my admonishment to Mark to stop comparing WWII with the situation in Iraq.