You "conservatives" just take the cake. Now we see that the Army intends to stay in Iraq, with no significant change in strategy or tactics, until 2010.

Leo, Matt, Mark, Bane, Spook: Do you really thnik that "stay the course until 2010 with no change in tactics" is going to sell with the voters? And if 60% or more of the population doesn't think this is a valid plan, are 60% (or more) of the voters suddenly "Defeatocrats"? And since you hate Defeatocrats, do you really hate 60% of Americans?

Murtha is kicking you-know-what in his re-election precisely because he is a Defeatocrat, like most everybody else.

Come off it, guys. The people are turning away from you. Get over it, and get a new plan.

Defeatocrats hopefully will come to mean Democrats who defeated Republicans on November 2006.

Wade

sheep Leo
you've got to stop it...my sides hurt too much for laughing, you idiot sheep
"What else would bolting when the job is almost 3/4 of the way done" ??????

where the hell did you pull that number from? It does fit will with the rest of the con sheep idiotocracy of "greetings us as liberators" "mission accomplished" and "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

“Iraqi freedom and Afghanistan soldiers are receiving the very same treatment”
Really, where and by whom? Let’s hear it you lying sack of sheep, give some evidence, if you can, or come out and admit you’ve really got nothing and are just lying as usual.

Hey Leo, maybe it's time to get off the farm and realize your blind hatred of our military and it's vets only makes you look, well...like you support the enemy, like the rest of you con sheep truly do.

Opus, nice twist and turn... keep spinning like that and it's quite possible that you'll generate enough power to heat a few dozen homes this winter.

How's here for starters?

Maybe it's time to "get off of the farm" Opus, and realize that your party has no use for the military, except to the extent that you can use them as a cover for your anti-American rants.

Take Murtha, for example. Murtha was pretty much persona-non-grata in the democrat power structure, since he in a lot of ways has been too conservative for your tastes. Even should he win re-election (I say he won't) your party won't make him majority leader. You're only propping him up now because his rhetoric gives you perceived political cover for your anti-war rants.

Face it--you guys despise (yes, and as Slick Willie himself put it, loathe) the military.

And Jim Oliver, since when is staying on and providing security for Iraq, while they take responsibility for more and more of their own affairs until they are able to do it on their own, wrong?

You would rather we withdraw prematurely, and allow the terrorist elements to establish an unopposed stronghold in the middle east, from which they can more easily spread their mayhem across the globe.

Your version of a "new direction" is simple; especially since your "new direction" consists of turning tail and running.

Some "new direction". Glad you're not a general.

Psychmaster,

We are providing security? Look Here.

Look, nobody wants to be critical of our military, which is the best in the whole flipping world. But these deaths are happening anyway. By your implication, if we leave the death toll will go up. But by how much? How much more inferior, after 3 years of training, are the Iraqis? They are not capable of sustained operations against the terrorists, when they know far better than we do who they are?

And please don't flame me and tell me that I "hate the troops" because I dare brink up the 2,667 number. Our troops are doing the best job they possibly can. But they do not cover every single flipping alley and goat path, 24/7. It is not possible to do that, and civilians are going to die, whether under our direction or the Iraqi's.

And isn't it just remotely possible that somewhere, in the deep recesses of the conservative zeitgeist, is the idea that the terrorists are using the Americans as recruitment tools? Had you ever thought one flipping time that once we're gone the Terrorist recruiter will be forced to change his slogal from "Join us and kill an infidel" to "Join us and kill a fellow muslim"? Do you really think that their recruitment efforts won't take a big hit when we leave?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, Our presense there is helping the terrorists as a recruitment tool. WHY IS THIS GOOD?

Again, I DO NOT HATE THE TROOPS. But the terrorists in iraq have direct contact with the people and THEY ARE USING OUR OWN TROOPS AGAINST US.

And you conservatives think this is good.

Murtha is a defeatocrat! Murtha must go!

Pyscsheep,

unlike you sheep I don't have a "party" nice try, but good job only proving everything I say, and Jim O's right, the only anti-American's around are you sheep who seem to love the fact that more terrorists are created on a daily basis, what are you on Al Qaeda's payroll or what?

wow, freedomsheep, "defeatocrat"- great argument, and it's a wonder you con sheep are considered stupid

I'm just trying to figure out how Bush caused the eathquake in Hawaii.

I actually agree with the people who say we're on the wrong track in Iraq.

I want to send three more divisions there and conduct a thorough sweep of the country that ends at the Iran and Syria borders.

Since Democrats are pretty hard to pin down when you ask them what change means, is that what you mean?

Stay?

Leave?

Become MORE agressive?

Because if yoy Democrats are voting based upon hopes that we will pull out immediately, you are NOT lisyening to your own candidates. FEW say that.

Mr. Murtha is only a foreshadow of the corruptness of democrats to come, in their desperate attempts to gain a grip on the Nation, many things will go on behind the scenes that will be brought into the light, things that will shock the Nation, But, will be proof as to how sick the democratic party really IS!

So...Here is my summary...

We don't need a bunch of America HATER'S in power!

Let's put Murtha on the ROAD to prison, and wipe the slate clean, for the sake of our government, which has been corrupted TOO MUCH, by demoncrats!
It's time our government leaders like Murtha are held accountable for their actions, and they should pay the price, for their dirty deeds!

Just look at it this way, If it were anyone of us, you or I, we would have already been thrown into prison, because we were republican.

So...The solution to the problem is as follows:

It's time America get's back on it's toes and start seeing through the evilness of democrats!

It's time America starts looking toward God for the answers to it's problems! It's time we put God first and NOW, instead of later!

As in those very famous words:

"LET'S ROLL!!"

Jeremiah

Kahn brings up a good point.
This "stay the course" mentality is apparently going nowhere or at best progressing at such an agonizingly slow pace that a growing number here at home see the sacrifices we are making as far outweighing any benefits we have or will realize. If we are going to succeed, we must be more aggressive and demonstrate indisputable progress in controlling the situation over there. This has to happen soon. Otherwise, people are going to grow weary of the daily death tolls and the "cut and run" momentum will continue to grow.
However, any major escalation in this war at this point would amount to political suicide for any president, so here we are chasing our tails.

Kahn,

That plan (increasing troop levels in Iraq) is certainly better than "stay the course with no changes", which is what we have with the current administration. But will it work? The nature of this war is very unfortunate for us. Like Vietnam, the enemy can easily blend in with the citizenry when not attacking. So even if you had 10 times the troop levels, at whom would you shoot? All males aged 18-65?

I would like a concession from you, Kahn. You're assertion that we should increase the troop strength now implies that it should have been stronger at the beginning, when the enemy was fighting a more conventional war. Will you allow this concession? If not, how do you justify low troop levels for 3 years, then only increase them after we get bogged down? Should we have had fewer troops on D-Day, then waited 3 years on the beach for reinforcements to arrive?

Even if you don't think there should be a political backlash against the republicans because of the mistakes in Iraq, there has got to be some measure of accountability for this. George Bush has the duty to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Firing a general is not an ideal solution, but Bush has to do something or the voters will revolt. By sticking with Rumsfeld, Bush is selling you guys down the river.

There is still a very good chance that Republicans will win the presidency again in 2008. Maybe you guys should be more careful picking your candidate the next time around.

“That plan (increasing troop levels in Iraq) is certainly better than "stay the course with no changes", which is what we have with the current administration. But will it work? The nature of this war is very unfortunate for us. Like Vietnam, the enemy can easily blend in with the citizenry when not attacking. So even if you had 10 times the troop levels, at whom would you shoot? All males aged 18-65?”

You just brought up ONE dilemma to the problem of increasing troop levels. Who do you shoot at? Will increased troop levels help in distinguishing who the enemy is? By your own question it seems that increased troops will not aid in this department.

Another dilemma would be, how and when will the Iraqi troops and police step up if we doubled or tripled the troop level? With our current levels it seems like the passing of control from American forces to Iraqi forces is easier. Isn’t that what this administration has been advocating will bring our troops home, when the Iraqi’s have successfully taken the reigns and can function properly and consistently?

And isn’t it the liberals who keep advocating “all of our troops over extended in Iraq / there aren’t enough troops to handle rotations / and a favorite – with all of our troops tied up in Iraq we don’t have any to deal with North Korea”. How the heck are we supposed to double and triple troop levels in Iraq if you claim there aren’t even enough for the other things mentioned? Sounds like you guys are trying to pull a Kerry; “FLIP – FLOP”.

I want to send three more divisions there and conduct a thorough sweep of the country that ends at the Iran and Syria borders.

And where will you pull these tree more divisions from? Out of your hat?

The only way to continue to second-guess the war effort is to pretend that the situation is static---that what we see now, with the troop levels we have there now, is what we would see if we either increased or decreased the troop levels. To pretend that the enemy would continue the same tactics if we change ours.

But the fact is, the enemy can, and does, adapt quickly to every change we make. So simply adding manpower may not be the answer. Just possibly, the number of people we have there, with their experience and knowledge and connections within the Iraqi population, gives us the freedom and flexibility to adapt to the rapid changes of the enemy.

The thing is, we have highly trained and extremely experienced professional military minds making the decisions of how and what to do in Iraq, and to think that we, with our extremely limited knowledge, our complete lack of experience, our total absence of on-the-ground intelligence, can possibly provide better answers than they do is simply delusional.

I married an amateur war historian, so I have been exposed to a quarter of a century of war analysis, covering a dozen or more wars. If I wanted to keep up, and sit in on discussions with noted authors and historians, I had to read and study, and I had to make sure my questions were pertinent. So I think I have a better perspective on war in general, and on the lessons we have learned in past conflicts, that many do not have.

For example, I've walked the battlefields of Normandy, and knew the carnage that took place there long before Saving Private Ryan made it clear to millions more. I know the sad story of Slapton Sands. And I know the disasters that would have occurred if the Liberal mindset we see today had been prevalent back then.

No one wins by whining "Oooohhh....it's just TOO HARD!!!!" when things get tough. I can just imagine the Left of the 40's if we had instant coverage of Normandy, or the Battle of the Bulge. Basically, if they had had the success then that they had later, regarding Viet Nam, we'd all be goosestepping and speaking German.

Mistakes will be made. They always have been made, they always will be made, and this is a simple fact of life. It is likely that more will be made now, in our age of technology and instant communications, where the enemy can change in a heartbeat. They will certainly be made in a world in which political opponents, motivated by nothing more than greed for power, can freely sabotage our military efforts, with no repercussions, as we have seen in the past few years. But these things do not mean that the effort is not worthwhile, or that we cannot win. It just means that the defeatocrats, and the politically-minded rather than the nation-minded, will have more to fuss about.