"Be thou hot or cold, for if thou art lukewarm, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

Preach it! Whichever side of the war you are on, these wafflers, without enough moral conviction or courage to choose sides and stick with their choice, are the worst. I woudl rather have Kucinich than have someone who just sits their and tries to proverbially split the baby in half.

What is lost in all of this debate is the fact that we were told, not misled, told, that this struggle was going to take a long time. A long time. Now, we can do this right, or we can pull back, and wait for the next attack on our home soil.

I know which course I desire, and I'm pretty sure which course those on the left desire. Does anyone here think that if we abandon, yes abandon, Iraq, that this war on terror will magically end? Does anyone here think that if Bin Laden were captured/killed/found dead tomorrow, that Al-Qaeda would pack it in worldwide, and extend an olive branch to the "Zionists and infidels?"

Wake up, kooks! We leave, we lose. And not just us--even the boneless wonders who watched from the sidelines will suffer too...

Critics of the pointless and needless waste of life are Boneless Wonders eh? Well then Bill Kristol is calling between 65% and 75% of the citizens of this nation Boneless Wonders because they oppose bush's waste of more precious citizens of this nation in a pointless, useless and needless war.

I am with my fellow citizens. Time to bring home our good citizens from that Civil War.

"If you think it is right, then you keep fighting and striving, certain that victory will be worth the cost - if you think it wrong, then you keep trying to stop it, certain that continuing will be more costly than any other result."

Mark,

The Democrats have made it clear that cutting off funding would be to pull the rug out from under the troops. Why is that not a principled decision? With Democrats accused of despising the troops on a daily basis by your ilk, I think you should understand the sensitivity to making sure that the troops are not abandoned through lack of funding. It appears to me that your newfound admiration for Dennis Kucinich is a desperate attempt to pin the inevitable failure of the Iraqi war policy on the Democrats.

Gar Wood

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular." -Bill Kristol, 2003

The fact that this guy has any credibility after being so tragically wrong about Iraq makes me wonder - what kind of sh** is that? Why should we start to believe him now?

Gar Wood

Mark, you make one assumption that probably lead, not only to your loss of tact, but also to a somewhat false generalization that you are, more or less, apt to make on this blog: that anyone who doesn't support Bush's plan wants us to lose in Iraq.

Well, I give myself as a counter example...

I am inclined not to support an escalation (or surge, but euphemisms suck) in Iraq... it must be some crazy parallel that I see between this and actions that our government did 38 years ago...

In my view, you don't enable the Iraqis to "stand-up" by giving them a wheelchair instead of crutches, and we can support them without doing all of the dirty work for them.

In fact, if the congress doesn't agree with the escalation, then it is their ability (if not duty) to with hold funding from it. That is the way that our Constitution is written. The President doesn't have supreme authority when it comes to all military matters; he can't declare war and he doesn't hold the purse-strings.

So, what do I propose as an alternative to the escalation?

I'll preface this by saying that I don't believe that I am a great military strategist... Now, based on the fact that many of Bush's former commanders (including the former commander in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken) were reticent about the escalation and the fact that it didn't really work that well in 1968, I can come to the conclusion that escalation isn't the answer.

Instead, I think that we need to shift our focus away from active combat operations and focus almost entirely on building up and protecting Iraqi police and military infrastructure and upgrading the weapons, tactics, and training processes of the Iraqis. Also, moving away from active combat ourselves, we force the Iraqi military to step up and gain valuable combat experience.

It has been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... it looks like some people need to crack open a history book...

The problem with your rationale here is that you keep repeating, "we leave...we lose". The reality is that the war in Iraq is already lost. It was lost on the very day that Bush stood on the aircraft carrier with the big banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....period.

The Bush Presidency has been from the very beginning, a policy of band-aids. What does a band-aid do? It covers a wound, but does nothing to heal it. 20,000 more troops will do NOTHING to solve the problem in Iraq. It won't end in a win. Most likely it won't even help. It will create jobs though....jobs at the companies that manufacture body bags...jobs for casket manufacturers...you get my drift.

These are not the words of a pessimist, but the words of a realist. The writing is on the wall, you guys just need to learn to read it. The borders aren't secure, and never have been. If we send 20,000 more troops, Iran and Syria will send 40,000. They will just walk right in, unscathed, and bring all the IEDs with them to kill more of our kids.

But Bush will send the troops and prove himself and all of you wrong...again. And then he will come up with a new new new new new new way forward in Iraq, and all of you will go along with it because you are all convinced that the war is winnable. No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you will never ever ever ever ever ever GET IT.

The people of this country want out of the war. There is one huge difference between this war and Vietnam. During Vietnam, the counter-culture made the news with their protests and their violence and some people were led to believe they were the majority, when in fact the majority of the people supported the war. Today in this country, those that oppose the war are a majority. If we had a nationwide vote whether to stay or pull out, we'd be gone in a heartbeat. No matter what fear and smear tactics you Republicans use, the people aren't buying it. It's time to pull out, admit defeat, and get back to the business of hunting down terrorists before they do launch a large attack on the homeland while all of our tired-out resources are stuck in an open-ended war with no achievable victory.

I made the same point in other strings. If you want us to get out, then vote us OUT. You can cut off funds, you can rescind the Presidents right to use force there, you can rescind the right Congress gave him to use force anywhere he thought necessary to stop terrorism.

That was the whole point of the election we just had wasn't it? Didn't Democrats roll into power saying they were going to end the war? Well? Being in Congress has certain real and delineated powers and responsibilities. Having your opinions be taken more seriously on "Meet the Press" is not one of them.

Of course realize that rescinding this power and pulling out will have consequences. A blood bath in Iraq. We couldn't have acted in Somalia as we recently did, and what of Afghanistan?

I am surprised that Democrats and or liberals here are not screaming for this. Unless the opposition to the war was a sham? Democrats control Congress. This is YOUR watch. So..... act. Or, shut up and support the President while he fights a war. End it, or fight it.

You nailed it, Blue. Semper Fi!

Kahn, what do you think of my proposal?

Mark,
I agree and since listening to the President's speech on Wednesday night I came to a realization. The Democrats along with their pundits behavior and stated positions on the Iraq war reminded me of all the westerns and movie plots I have seen over the years. It explains their actions and makes it a little easier to see them for what they are. Think about it this way. A John Wayne or Clint Eastwood western or Dirty Harry movie. What is the plot? A bad guy or bunch of bullies(terrorists) invade a town and the town leaders are too weak to stand up to them so they hire or get a hero to save them. Then when the hero is kicking the bad guys asses they turn on the hero because he is too righteous for them and they think his actions are too harsh. Think about it we have seen this story all of our lives in the movies and TV. I was always proud of the John Wayne role types and saw them as my role model to manhood. I now, for the first time, realize that some people saw the cowardly town shop owners and crooked politicians that sold out the town folk as role models for them. We can call them Democrats and the liberals of today. They would rather give in to the bad guys and live like sheep than have John Wayne save the day. They would rather give in to the neighborhood bullies thinking they will just leave them alone. Does anyone really believe a bully will just go away? They never have in the movies. What is that saying, "Art imitating real life"or is it the other way around?

"Instead, I think that we need to shift our focus away from active combat operations and focus almost entirely on building up and protecting Iraqi police and military infrastructure and upgrading the weapons, tactics, and training processes of the Iraqis."
This has been the plan Georgia, it wasn't working that great. The new plan will pick apart the shiite militia, which has been fueling the violence in Baghdad, for this we need the additional combat troops bcause it will be quite a shootout. Being a social studies teacher, it is hard for me not to look at things and think how people from the past would have handled certain situations. Abraham Lincoln for one, would have rounded up the members of congress spouting off the current defeatest crap and sent them to Jefferson Davis. You loser libs whining right now about Iraq are the same ones claiming we are losing in Afghanistan, and it does not hold up under scrutiny. There is no war in history that I can think of (where there were enough supplies and logistical support) that more troops would have been seen as a disadvantage to less troops. If you can point a few out, I would appreciate it. Until you can make a good case for this, I will see you all as actively wanting a U.S. defeat, and traitors. Abe Lincoln would look at you the same way.

"BAGRAM, Afghanistan - An Afghan insurgent leader operating from inside Pakistan sent some 200 ill-equipped fighters, some wearing plastic bags on their feet, into Afghanistan where most were killed in a major battle this week, a top U.S. general said Saturday."

The democrats are a bunch of spineless wimps...non-binding resolution my ass. If you yellow belly libs had one ounce courage you would cut off the funding for the war. You libdems are still stuck in the Jimmah Carter surrender to Islam mindset.

You surrenderdems are a damn disgrace to America's heritage.

Thank GOD we have millions of brave men and women willing to VOLUNTEER to take the fight to the islamo-facist scum coward terrorist. If you wimpy dems would shut the hell up and quit giving aide and comfort to our enemies (yes bad mouthing the CINC only aides our enemies during war) our military could end this.

Put up a binding resolution or shut the hell up!

Instead, I think that we need to shift our focus away from active combat operations and focus almost entirely on building up and protecting Iraqi police and military infrastructure and upgrading the weapons, tactics, and training processes of the Iraqis.

You know, I just watched a recording of last Sunday's new Hannity's America show, and in the two-on-two segment, this point was offered by the DimmyucRAT strategist Michael Brown, who I'm sure is a very nice man when he's not drunk on blue kool-aid.

What I'm trying to say, Georgia, is that these tactics are already in place. Maybe they're not being accomplished as fast or as well as you impatient defeatocRATs would like, but give me a break on the talking points and platitudes. It all sounds intelligent, but it's all redundant. Sort of like the '04 campaign, when Spitball Kerry outlined his five steps for Iraq--the same five steps that were in place!

We have combat troops, support troops, and troops over there training the Iraqis. This is nothing new.

Georgie, if you would tear yourself away from the DBM, CNN, and MSLSD, you may learn a bit more. I'm not holding my breath. And yes, I get my share of DBM news every day. If you listen to as much talk radio as I do, you can't help but get DBM news every hour. Ninety-five percent of it is biased, kook-fringe propaganda, but I listen to it anyway. Try it sometime, and turn off the radio when those evil right-wingers come back on...

Blue:
You're also no student of history. Let's recap for you... the majority of Americans were fine with British rule before the Revolutionary War.

Through much of the Civil War, the American people were angry with the handling of the war. If we used your world view, the President of the United States would have monthly visits to the Foreign capitol of Richmond to visit the Confederate President to discuss agricultural trade.

If we followed your view, we wouldn't have helped France and Britain in World War I.

If we allowed the American people to vote because things were tough in World War II... we wouldn't have gone to Europe... after all, Germany didn't attack us on that day in December... yet we declared war on them first.

Polls are a snapshot of a moment in time, just as votes are. Too many people go to the polls these days not thinking of ANY consequences; partly because so many babyboomers (most in the Democratic Party) see no consequences for their actions.

We're told we should leave Iraq and then go "get the terrorists." Out of curiosity, if we ignore Iraq, where are we going to go to get the terrorists? How do we get them on the Continent of Africa? Are we going to have Cindy S. say we can't get them because they did nothing to us.

It's just silly. This is a Global struggle against people who view western civilization as the American civilization. Iran, in the last 10 years, has amassed a huge sum of money due to oil while setting up an electoral scheme that means only nutjobs or EXTREME nutjobs can even run.

We see Iran prodding Syria to interfere with Lebanon from living at peace with it's neighbors.

And of course, as is always the way, Muslims in the region only get what their mass media tells them... much like here.

Al-Jazeera is just like CNN... half-truths and half-distruths are reported as fact and no one is believed who question their reporting. And you could substitute nearly any other media outlet in CNN's place.

Georgia:
I think your proposal makes complete sense. However, what's the point of training and developing an army that is getting decimated as we train them by insurgents living right next door.

If we clear and hold an area instead of clear and release an area in Baghdad, we can, as we go even faster at training Iraqi forces, pull out of the districts in Baghdad, which will free up more troops to train even more Iraqis.

If you want success in Iraq, this is a plan that on paper works. Which is how all military actions progress. There's a plan... then there's the reality of the plan in action, then adjustments.

Georgia, If you want a reason why just turning over as your proposal suggests, we'd just be training Iraqi police and soldiers to go into action against an enemy that for all intents and purposes is the military of Iran.

But again, if you want success in Iraq, we stay until Baghdad is more stable. It's clear people like Blue think America is ALWAYS a failure unless there's a Democrat in the office... history be damned.

As Gar pointed out, Bill Kristol has proven time and again that he is one you should be basing your opinions on.

But most importantly, I can't believe what I'm hearing in this discussion. When did you all on the right turn on our military? It is entirely reasonable to be against the policy and strategy the White House is pursuing but to continue to provide funding to the military.

See, what civilians don’t understand is that a vast majority of combat is focused on small-unit goals like keeping your friends alive. Sure there are greater implications, but if you listen to veterans or active duty members, the resounding commonality is that they are fighting or re-enlisting to support their brothers in arms.

Few on either side want to disadvantage our men and women in uniform (exceptions for anarchists and Fred Phelps-like morons) and that is why congress will continue to do what is necessary to prevent as many lost lives as they can by providing the materiel and support our fighters need to survive. But what they are finally indicating is that this support must be accompanied with responsible leadership; something this administration has failed to provide over the last four years, despite numerous chances.

What I am reading in here is that the right is so angry with the left that they are willing to politicize very real and very dire issues in order to make the Democrats look inconsistent. How can you rationalize this to yourself?

And no one has answered my question from a while ago; why do you assume Iraq will end up a terrorist-harboring state?

Do you not believe that Iraq has a vested interest in elevating itself beyond the institutional black hole that Afghanistan was for al Qaeda? Because that is the comparison you make whenever you or Bush argue Iraq will be a place for more terrorist attacks on US soil.

But Iraq has a much longer history of stability; albeit at the hand of Saddam. But there are nationalistic interests on the Sunni side and the Shiite side; both of which go against the involvement of foreign fighters and Islamic extremists.

So who has some sort of proof or at least justification that “if we leave things will get worse for the entire world?” I’m not saying it won’t happen, I’m just saying that it seems more likely that with our exit, Iraqis; Sunni and Shiite alike, will be more inclined to focus their attention on the main antagonists like al Qaeda and Iran/Syria instead of the US; a codifying scapegoat for Iraqi aggression in the region.

Hey wawi, you made a good point about the democrats supposed desire about chasing down the terrorists.

Lets say we do leave Iraq and decide to hunt down terrorists groups around the world instead, who is to say the terrorist sympathizers wont simply go to where the fight is, as they are doing in Iraq?

The U.S. goes after a organization in Somalia, then the terrorists will answer the call for help and show up there to fight. The battles get bigger and more involved and the process starts anew, what is the difference?

Throw in the fact that the dems piss and moan about using military force, and the dynamic starts to look awfully familiar to Iraq. Evidence Democrat Senator Byrd who just yesterday criticized the attack against the Somali terrorists...did you get that libs? One of your guys whined about whether or not Bush should have used gunships against terrorists and we are supposed to trust you with the WOT?

Al-Jazeera is just like CNN... half-truths and half-distruths are reported as fact and no one is believed who question their reporting. And you could substitute nearly any other media outlet in CNN's place.

Posted by: wawilliyo at January 13, 2007 11:22 AM

Nearly any other media outlet, with the exception no doubt, of FOX, who we have all come to rely on to broadcast the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Willy, lad,
Before you start giving history lessons you should probably take a little remedial WWII history course (sorry, no undergraduate credit).
The Japanese did attack us at Pearl Harbor -- you got that right, perhaps you watched a movie about it with Doc.
The U.S. then declared war on Japan -- sort of a no-brainer under the circumstances.
In what historians consider to have been a major blunder; Hitler fulfilled his treaty obligations to the Japanese by declaring war on the U.S.
That relieved FDR of the problem of how to get Congress to act against Germany.

wawilliyo, first and foremost, I would like to commend you for not taking a shot at me below the belt just because you disagree with me. Thank you. I wish I could say that about everyone in here.

Secondly, I, unlike Bush, have this habit of listening to people. I listen to what the generals on the ground in Iraq say. What are they saying? Sending more troops won't help. I was actually flabbergasted to hear John McCain go along with the Bush plan...he is one of the only Republicans who I sometimes admire as the voice of reason on that side of the aisle. He has been to war.

In my line of work, I help people. I take phone calls every day from people who tell me they want to get out of Iraq. For every 10 of those, I get 1 that wants to stay and finish the job. I also get calls from people who are suffering. One lady whose husband returned from Iraq last year and cannot support his family, called for my help in getting money from the government to keep their home and keep them and their 3 children off the street. They will not receive VA benefits for 6 months and social security will not kick in for 4 months. Can you imagine living 4 months with only food stamps as income?

Then I get a report on my desk one day that says that the dust our soldiers are breathing in Iraq will cause more cancer in later years than Agent Orange. The Iraqis who grow up in this environment have a tolerance for the dust...our soldiers don't. Not even the MSM reports this stuff, but maybe they should.

The suffering and death from this war goes well beyond the killed and maimed you hear on the news. Nobody will ever get a real number. Some of these soldiers would rather die on the battlefield than deal with the suffering later on.

Is this all worth it???

Why don't you ask some Vietnam vets...those who are still suffering from the effects of agent orange....who had the skin eaten off their legs and feet.

And while you're at it, ask some of them how they were treated by this very same government that sent them there. Ask them how they feel about lower taxes. When the government cuts VA spending, they cut jobs for those who process applications. They cut funds available for our soldiers. These heroes wait months, and sometimes years to get the benefits they deserve. Why? Because our government doesn't have the funds to treat these people. The VA's first choice is almost always to decline benefits and force the soldiers to appeal.

Do our soldiers get the heroes' welcome they deserve? The answer is no. Instead, over and over again, the VA "loses" paperwork, makes "mistakes", "misreads" information, all to do whatever they can not to pay out benefits to those who fight for our freedoms.

If only our soldiers knew what was coming to them when they got home...

{sheds a tear}

Here come the anecdotes, "why, I hear from jillions of soldiers who think Bush is the devil and are 110% opposed to this war!"

I have no doubt that some people here know soldiers or their families who have had difficulties with the deployments and the war, I also have no doubt there are some who know of soldiers who support and encourage our action in Iraq. That being said, neither could claim they know ALL the soldiers or that their experience is proof-positive that we should either stay the course or run.

I could give you mine, about my three relatives who have gone off to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, about my Green Beret uncle who supports this war and his war in Vietnam, about my VFW post being full of returning vets who itch to get back to the fight. But would that change your mind, probably not, its just another anecdotal example that supports my beliefs about this war. Save them for the newspapers, teary-eyed tales of woe happen every day in every segment of our society.

I will end by saying that BlueRev must reside in San Fran or something, where I live the returning soldiers are feted to a myriad of quite expansive celebrations upon their return; my VFW and Legion posts alone have big celebrations with food, gifts, ceremonies, etc.

hey fellas let's just see what Robert Novack wrote prior to the troop "surge" speech came out:

"I checked with prominent Republicans around the country and found them confused and disturbed about the surge. They incorrectly assumed that the presence of Republican stalwart James Baker as co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group meant it was Bush-inspired (when it really was a bipartisan creation of Congress). Why, they ask, is the president casting aside the commission's recommendations and calling for more troops?

Even in Mississippi, the reddest of red states, where Bush's approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops. What is happening inside the president's party is reflected by defection from support for his war policy after November's election by two Republican senators who face an uphill race for reelection in 2008: Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman announced his opposition to the idea after returning from a trip to Iraq that preceded McCain's."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100931.html

----

does any one in here get it? it's not the LEFT. Truly, the opposition to the war is NOT some hippie, yuppie, yippie leftist scheme to undermine Bush.

No it's really more like sensible republicans that oppose the maniacal plot to bring America down. And guys, the republican party's eyes are wide open and seeing Bush's ship sink and they are wise enough to save America from going down with his ship.

But i know- this post will be responded with name calling, more leftis remarks, ignorance. I know, the air in here will NOT open the eyes of the faithful. Well, fortunately many republicans are opening heir eyes toward the salvation of America.

Ah, but Mark,
A non-binding resolution will help you out immensely.
You won't have to speculate about which Republicans to detest and never assist again -- of course it will also help the American people learn who exactly backed this fool's errand in November 2008.
Let's see, there was Lieberman and McCain and . . .?

Deny deny deny 4th light horse....if you just pretend it's not there, it's not. It just shows your complete lack of empathy for people. Change the topic to celebrations...did I mention anything at all about celebrations???? Anyone? Send them out to fight for YOUR freedom and when they're too disabled to care for themselves, send them out on the God damn street!

While I'm here, I may as well correct Nebraska militia for complete disregard for the facts...there are roughly 140,000 soldiers in Iraq, not millions as you claim. Most of the remainder of our forces are stationed in peaceful areas of the world and are currently doing very little to nothing about terrorists. If we had such an abundance of people volunteering for duty in Iraq, we wouldn't need to continually send the same people back for 3-4 tours of duty. Where are the millions of new trainees to take their place??? If you support the war so much, get off your fat lazy asses and fight yourselves, and take the Bush twins with you....we'll then see how long it takes to get out.

Nice to see youre stable in your debate technique, blue, will your next post breathlessly contain descriptions of me as a "warmonging, money-grubbing neocon"?

My previous point was that of all the millions of military personnel in service today, in the capacity that you, I and others interact with the soldiers, we see only a very small percentage of them. We could exchange anecdotes of sorrow or support all day, but neither would be indicative of whether or not our personal beliefs about the war are completely vindicated.

I dont have lack of empathy for our troops; Im a vet myself and the organizations I participate in go to great lengths to assist soldiers and their families with all sorts of needs, as well as celebrate (yes I said CELEBRATE) their return. You tried to use the experiences you have had to portray all our vets and their families as marginalized, forgotten, disrepected cast-offs. While those examples may lead you to believe that, its simply not true, my experiences prove otherwise.

I know some soldiers and families have had difficulties, some have been treated very badly, but those examples are not indicators that throughout the land no one cares and soldiers are being ignored, no matter how many tearful stories you give. The systems in place may not be perfect and mistakes will be made, but they werent designed to make sure that vets are shoveled into the sewer.

So again, save the hyperventilating self-righteous rants "they fought for you and now they live on the street!" for the papers, we arent going to accept that bloviating here. Intelligent, informed people know better.

Blue,

You have to be wary of repeating leftwing lies here on Blogs for Bush as we are tremendously well informed - and one of the lies you should never come here and spread is the lie that VA benefits have been cut. You see, my father is 80 years old and a WWII combat veteran and all through President Bush's Administration, his VA benefits have increased. Don't tell me that VA benefits have been cut because I know better.

If we had such an abundance of people volunteering for duty in Iraq, we wouldn't need to continually send the same people back for 3-4 tours of duty.

It has to do with military specialties, the fact that we cant ignore the rest of the world and send everyone to Iraq and the nature of the fight in regards to which units can best be utilized. Not everyone in the military is sitting around with a rifle, waiting to be sent into combat, the days of the cannon-fodder are over. Believe it nor not, a large portion of the services are not combat infantry but support staff and technicians of various sorts. Brush up, please.

If you support the war so much, get off your fat lazy asses and fight yourselves, and take the Bush twins with you....we'll then see how long it takes to get out.

One of my favorite liberal memes. My retort: why dont you join up and fight, seeing as how you support the troops and all and are as patriotic as the next guy? Spend time with your fellow soldiers, protecting their backs and making sure they come home alive.

BTW, are only those who are not of military age and of sound mind and body allowed to support the war?

Great post, Anillo. It really comes down to the inability of Republicans to accept that their party will forever be tarnished by the fiasco in Iraq. They want the Dems to cut the funding so they can say that that lost the war when we start withdrawing in a year. What happened to the party of personal responsibility?

Gar Wood

Ok, I will make my points short and sweet this time.

I never said VA benefits have been cut; I am merely stating that benefits available are not keeping up with needs. In my opinion, this is directly related to tax cuts.

My other point: again I never stated that ALL vets are being treated poorly, most likely not even a majority of them...what I am saying is that vets should be first and foremost on any list of people that are waiting for benefits. Vets deserve better treatment than anyone in this country, no matter when they served and in what capacity.

Finally, the results of fighting in a war go far beyond the physical scars and the number of dead. Time will take its toll on these soldiers, physically, mentally, and emotionally. We need to be there for them....if that means forking out a few extra bucks, so be it.

Oh yeah, so don't go accusing me of repeating left-wing lies....read what I say and stop putting words in my mouth...I really despise that.

Iraq is a disaster, and 21,500 more Americans will not make it any better. I stand united with my fellow Marines and will do as I am ordered. This whole Iraq debacle is an embarassment to the United States, not to mention a tragedy for those who have lost family members, both American and Iraqi. Semper Fidelis.

Because I have posted here before, I can already see an argument of semantics coming...

My exact words, "When the government cuts VA spending, they cut jobs for those who process applications. They cut funds available for our soldiers. These heroes wait months, and sometimes years to get the benefits they deserve."

1...did not imply benefit cuts for those who already receive benefits

2...incorrectly stated "spending cuts" when it was intended to mean "didn't keep up with needs"

3...ONE Iraq vet waiting months to receive NEW benefits is ONE TOO MANY!!!

...but then Bush repeatedly campaigned in 2004 that John Kerry voted for higher taxes hundreds of times, when the majority of the votes were against lowering taxes

...if Bush can do it, so can I

See- no one can address what Novak discusses about the right-winged retreat from Bush.

Amazing

Salve,

It is cowardice - a binding resolution probably wouldn't get 150 votes in the House and 25 votes in the Senate...and if you feel good that people will give you eyewash rather than conviction, then you are a fool.

Blue, I agree with you that veterans should be first when it comes to benefits, more so for combat vets. They should receive what the politicians give themselves, and then some, from free college tuition to lifetime health care. First in line every time. We are in lockstep on that point.

Your statement "Send them out to fight for YOUR freedom and when they're too disabled to care for themselves, send them out on the God damn street!" conveyed a sense of political generality, dont you think? Thanks for elucidating your opinion, we were able to find some common ground clear of partisanship.

BS, what is amazing is that you expect everything you want to come true; perhaps none of us feel like exchanging dozens of posts about whether a talking head is now the preminent authority on Iraq.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Try again with something else and perhaps someone will bite.

"Iraq is a disaster, and 21,500 more Americans will not make it any better. I stand united with my fellow Marines and will do as I am ordered. This whole Iraq debacle is an embarassment to the United States, not to mention a tragedy for those who have lost family members, both American and Iraqi. Semper Fidelis."
Chester- We have had enough fake military libs posting on here to spot you a mile away. Take your lies elsewhere. Better yet, if you are a real marine, next time you are in your barracks start spouting off some of Bill's talking points and see how fast you get your ass kicked by real Americans.

Blue,

No, you just repeated the oft-told leftwing lie that VA benefits have been cut - you didn't modify it at first, you just said that VA benefits had been cut, and told stories about how hard it is for veterans...implying a heartless President Bush who sends men out to fight and won't take care of them after they are wounded...

Stick it in your ear - that is BS from start to finish, you know it and yet you came on here to spread it because, being a leftist, you are based on lies and can only be sustained by lies.

Georgia - sorry it took so long to reply. I don't believe in slogans. We are facing a hostile set of militias that are fighting us, but mostly each other. 80% of the casualties are within a 30 mile radius of Bhagdad. 20,000 troops is not all that much, considering how many of them will actually be trigger fingers. Most are not.

So - we have a tactical situation that a relatively small number of troops may be able to help alleviate. Look to Haiditha to see what can be accomplished when you work with the locals, take their advice, and back them up. Last year it was a hotbed of violence - not so now.

Of course, my opinions don't matter. The President is sending them and Congress will do nothing more than symbolically protest. Meanwhile giving aid and comfort to our enemies via the world wide web and international television.

OK, Rich. I did what you said. Interestingly enough we came up with "What the hell are we doing?"

we are tremendously well informed

Har! So, Noonan, where are the WMDs that you--and nobody else, not even your beloved President Bush--claim we found in Iraq? Well informed? Not by reality you aren't. In your own words, "you are based on lies and can only be sustained by lies." Which probably explains why you are so very, very angry at people who know better.

My thoughts about this is that we all need to pray for victory in Iraq; no matter what. I feel bad for President Bush and he too needs our prayers. WE MUST SUCCEED.

And all those who want to pull out are as unpatriotic as anything I have ever seen; including those Republicans who will lose my respect in a heartbeat.

If we are defeated in Iraq; we are defeated in the war on terrorism and all hell will break out!

Geez, Noonan, even when you tinker with my posts, you can't answer a simple question. Nice collection of quotes that don't have anything to do with my very basic question. For the benefit of your (most likely willful) lack of reading comprehension, I'll repeat it: Not even Bush claims we found WMDs in Iraq. You do. So...where are these alleged WMDs? Stop being a dodging coward and answer the question.

well Semby- now what? we are so totally f'd then...right?

thank jr. for that. we had no business in Iraq and now that he took us there- well, "all hell will break out!".

Great- i feel so safe now. Glad to kow you all. But guess what guys- we had no business looking for WMD's and seeding terrorists.

The war on terror has just done wonders for our lives- huh?

"I'm a Divider, not a Uniter" yeah we know already.

--

Yeah but Sees- it's only the rebellious reps. they can be mad at. They expect as much from the lefties. But when their own gang says asta la vista, well- who else can they gripe at?

Can anybody spot Bill's plan for Iraq in ANY of his posts? You know, I tried to direct him/her/it to to a site with a good sale on Prozac, but it didn't seem to help.

I'll bet he laughs so hard he foams at the mouth. Then he gets angry a W all over again and veigns pop out on his forehead.

Its YOUR fault HA HA HA HA, arrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!

No - we won't help. No help from us. Thousands die? Its your fault HA HA HA HA, arrrrrgggghhhh!!!!! George Bush! Republicans! Foam Foam Foam. No help from us! No ideas from us. We HATE you We HATE you! arrrrrgggghhhhh!

Sees,

Geesh - you just won't go look at it, will you? Well, to quote from the report of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of June 21, 2006:

--Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

And that, Sees, is just part of it - as I've been telling you, WMDs have been found in Iraq. Want to know what is really sick about this debate? Had we not liberated Iraq and were Saddam still in power at this time, you on the left would pitching a bitch about how President Bush blew his opportunity to get rid of Saddam and the WMD threat he poses because of his continued connections to international terrorism...the whole War on Terror would be held up by you on the left as a failure because we have spent five years chasing a shadow called bin Laden - who may not even have been responsible for 9/11 - rather than concentrating on the real threat in Iraq.

How do I know you'd be saying things like that in 2007 if we hadn't liberated Iraq in 2003? Because the whole purpose of your opposition is based upon hatred of President Bush for daring to challenge your desired result in Florida, 2000. You hate, hate, hate the man and it doesn't matter what he does, you'll go on hating him and just making your hate fit the circumstances of the moment.

oh Mark. After 4 years all W could drop in was 500 WMD's ? That's not really a grandiose attempt at proving his point, don't ya think?

I would have thought he could have at least gotten 500 per year- that would be a little more symbolic.

oh Mark. After 4 years all W could drop in was 500 WMD's ? That's not really a grandiose attempt at proving his point, don't ya think?

I would have thought he could have at least gotten 500 per year- that would be a little more symbolic.

--

Mark, where are those "stockpiles"? "numerous WMD's"? Mobile Chem Labs? uranium enrichment facilities?

huh? what's that? they live with the easter bunny?

Or did Powell take them with him when he quit thae charade?

've been telling you, WMDs have been found in Iraq.

You keep telling me, yes. And I keep demanding that you prove your assertion. And you never have. Not once. Because you can't. The best you can come up with is 500 degraded shells left over from 1991 that can't even be used. I point out that not even President Bush, the man who would stand to gain the most standing from finding WMD in Iraq, agrees with you that we found WMDs in Iraq. In response, you...offer a bunch of quotes from Democrats. I call you on your ignorance, you say, "Look, a jackalope!" Sad and predictable, Noonan. I'd tell you to grow up, but I think you're well past the stage of that happening.

Love your attempted spin, by the way, that Iraq is the "real" terrorism threat and not the "shadow" that is bin Laden (a claim no serious, informed person would make). Reality is not the stuff you make up in your head, Noonan, no matter how much more comfortable your fantasyland may be than actual reality. You want to be taken seriously as somebody grounded in reality, then you should display at least a passing familiarity with it. But you prefer being a sad little loyalist. That's entirely your choice, but don't be surprised that you have made yourself into a punchline because of it.

Because the whole purpose of your opposition is based upon hatred of President Bush for daring to challenge your desired result in Florida, 2000.

Nope, I oppose him for what he has done. I was with him on the invasion of Afghanistan. He lost me with the stupidity of Iraq. And his bumbling since then has done nothing to win me back. He has proven himself to be an incompetent hack. Naturally, I'm not much of a fan of having an incompetent hack in the highest political office of the country.

See, that's the thing about not being a fire-breathing partisan, Noonan--you let people succeed or fail on their own merits rather than their political alignment. And Bush has been an abject failure by his own doing.

You, because you are so painfully intellectually lazy (not to mention sadly uninformed, as we see in this post, among many others) simply cannot conceive that somebody would oppose Bush because--*gasp*--Bush's track record is lousy.

No, you have to invent wild conspiracy theories about how everybody who opposes Bush just decided to hate him because of the shadiness of Florida in 2000. If anybody is expressing hate here, it is you, as evidence by your spittle-flecked threats of violence against Congressmen. You hate hate hate that people--who, by the way, are actually correct about factual matters such as WMD--oppose Bush. You simply can't process that. So you ascribe your own blunt hatred to them. It's a sad display of projection and cognitive dissonance tempered by the humor of somebody so very, very wrong claiming intellectual superiority.

damn- that was some raw ace shite. If i could have said it better i would have not singles mark out alone. It's the entire herd.

but- as we see, the herd is slowly leaving the feed bins. slowly, but one sheep at a time.

Sees, we see the trend of those valiant enough to cross the W line. and it finally is a move toward patching up America rather than pouring salt on the Divided.

Team Bill strikes again with another bit of blog site noise pollution. If you're going to let EVERYONE in the commune use this log-in identity, can you at least make sure their not stoned out of their minds?

Really.

Iraq is a disaster, and 21,500 more Americans will not make it any better. I stand united with my fellow Marines and will do as I am ordered. This whole Iraq debacle is an embarassment to the United States, not to mention a tragedy for those who have lost family members, both American and Iraqi. Semper Fidelis.

Posted by: Chester at January 13, 2007 02:11 PM

Sorry to disagree w/a fellow devil dog Chester, but the true embarassment was not finishing the job in 91' and then waiting 12 years to go back! As a fellow Marine I would think you would join the ranks of soldier & warriors that are pissed off at the constant negative drumbeat of the MSM. Sure things suck over there right now(for Iraqi's mainly), but did ANYBODY promise that creating a new democracy would be simple? I never heard that! Of course any thinking marine is going to realize that "WAR IS WAR" what a concept! I was a part of the first go at Saddaam & my brother has done 2 tours in Iraq & 1 in Afganistan since 9/11. You couldn't convince either of us that what we have done wasn't noble or right, cause it is and was!! Regardless of what the MSM and it's liberal co-horts try to convince us, I am proud & glad my CinC and our brave men & women went in there(regardless of the PCaholics) gun ablazing & took out that sadistic bastard. I would gladly re-join the marines today, if they would let me, unfortunately I'm a DAV & they wouldn't look twice at me. Of course if this defeatist spirit continues to take root in our great land the fight may come back to our door step! Either way, I'll be prepared(as well as I can be that is)!

Anyways, semper fi to you and I hope that you don't lose hope! Sometimes that's the difference between a free country and a not-so-free country!