The democrats are planning a symbolic vote against the war.

As if we don't already know they are against it. When are they going to stop wasting my tax dollars on meaningless crap.

mark........bush is delusional....either send in 100,000 troops or more or don't send them. 20,000 troops is like a band aid on a gaping wound.

Mark -

Just wanted to say I too look forward to a rational debate deviod of name-calling and assumptions by both sides. This evening may prove rife with topics, and here's to hoping people will keep the discussion sane, focused, and reasonable.

That being said, I'm not holding my breath...

I guess by "everyone who isn't a far left fanatic" you really mean the 11% of people who actually support an escalation.

Some people believe that we can win. Some people believe we've already lost.

If you think we've lost, why stay at all? Why block escalation? I mean we lost right - come home.

Or, if you have sources of information outside the daily AP reporting of the body count and you know we HAVE WON in many areas and need to put some extra resources into a few hot spots then you're for it.

Tell us Wycked - what do YOU know outside the body count? Military or veteran (former Marine here). Friends or neighbors or relatives been there or are there? (all of the above for me - friends, ben and are, neighbors been and are, relatives been and are).

My sources say the picture painted by the media is so myopic and so limited that it is almost treasonous in its apparent deliberate attempt to deceive Americans. This is almost word for word what many have told me.

NOT sending troops will NOT win. Sending troops MAY win. Your choice.

in 1999 W criticized Clinton regarding Kosovo: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

in another interview also in 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

To get us up to date, prior to the 2006 midterms Bush said, "Absolutely, we’re winning.”

then in December 2006 W changed his tune as we all know, "We’re not winning, we’re not losing".

----

i aslo recall our host Mark saying something to affect that..."in war there is no middle ground, there is either winning or losing" That is a paraphrase by my recollection. But i just need someone to explain to the American people (starting right here on this forum) Why there was no middle ground when Mark said so, but there is one when W says so. Which is it?

Furthrmore- did the war in Iraw change so drastically in less than 30 days that W's position went from "winning" to a "middle ground"?

any way, where are those time tables Mr. bush?

And if why are winning- why are we sending 20K more troops in???? or are we in "middle ground"?

in 1999 W criticized Clinton regarding Kosovo: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

in another interview also in 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

To get us up to date, prior to the 2006 midterms Bush said, "Absolutely, we’re winning.”

then in December 2006 W changed his tune as we all know, "We’re not winning, we’re not losing".

----

i aslo recall our host Mark saying something to affect that..."in war there is no middle ground, there is either winning or losing" That is a paraphrase by my recollection. But i just need someone to explain to the American people (starting right here on this forum) Why there was no middle ground when Mark said so, but there is one when W says so. Which is it?

Furthrmore- did the war in Iraq change so drastically in less than 30 days that W's position went from "winning" to a "middle ground"?

any way, where are those time tables Mr. bush?

And if why are winning- why are we sending 20K more troops in???? or are we in "middle ground"?

OK Bill - only a little dis-jointed. Pull out immediately or add troops? If you "stay the course" then there is no point in staying, according to you.

You want a plan - he's giving you a plan to win. But, is that what you want? To win? Don't you think we already lost? If we lost, why prolong it - come home now. Let there be a bloodbath. Who cares so long as they're not American. let Turkey crush the Kurds, Western Iraq Join Saudi Arabia, and Southern Iraq be an Iranian puppet or province. What do we care?

Tell us what YOU want. Stop the carping and spell it out for us dumb old Republicans OK?

Kahn-

I do know some people who have been to Iraq, and almost all of them are against the "surge" that people are predicting the President will propose.

Frankly, I think that by sending in more troops, we will only make the Iraqis more dependent of our blood and treasure for their survival... We seem to be just giving them fish, so they can only pretend to learn how to fish. We need to put less resources into active combat operations and more in to training and supporting new and existing Iraqi troops.

Totally OT, but I found this interesting video of Mitt Romney from 1994, when he failed to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat as a liberal Republican... either seems like a massive flip in the past 12 years or molding his views to match public opinion... I would be wary of either of them...

There is a civil war of ancient origin raging in Iraq. Perhaps 200,000 added troops could reduce the carnage and restore order to the country but 20,000 will have little effect. Just watch.

Bush and his advisors are much smarter than the left believes and they surely know this reality well. My guess is that this added force is intended to increase our presence in the region in preparation for an Israeli attack on Iran's nucleur facilities.

Long term Bush can save his legacy only by rolling the Iraq war into a larger political transformation of the region. I think that larger escalation is around the corner.

"Iran's nucleur facilities"

Are those made by the French?

You know what Kahn? the reality is we "lost" when W lied about so much. Had Powell punding on his desk with facts. Had 1,000s of direct links to Iraq and Terrorism.

The other sad point, aside from a total shame to America, is the fact that a closed Iraw has now become an open invitation to hell. You know bad *was* maneagable. Now with 3017 US troops dead, 30K seriously wounded and a flood of Terroist from all over the region. W sure has made Americans proud. YOu know this is exacly what i expect of the President of The united States. To take a small problem and make a MOUNTAIN RANGE out of it. All the while we keep pitchin our dollars into his hat. All the while we keep losing our kids. All the while we see the problem grow beyond managable.

And dress right dress, all the followers point their antennae at Bush and turn up the volume.

Hey Navy- you know NK and Iran are backed by China. Where are the real kahonies in Bush's pants? How about going after the serpant's body and not just one of the heads?

Kahn--I've lost you. If the picture painted by the media is so inaccurate, things in Iraq must be going pretty well. Then why do you say "NOT sending troops will NOT win"? Are we winning, or not?

mark.....i'll post again because you wouldn't post my first comment. don't send 20,000 instead send 100,000 or more. let's get serious or get out

They don't know. One day we're winniing. Then we are staying the course. Then we are not winning, but not losing. Then we are sending 20K more troops in. I am so confused!

Ok W is really confused. But sharing it with America isn't really the brightes of ideas.

Does anyone have any idea about anything regarding Vietnam. I mean Iraq?

BS

We've cut-off Iran's oldest bank from doing business in the United States over alleged links to North Korea and thus far no European country or Gulf allie has followed suit. What's that tell you about who's on board?

With the imposed sanctions against NK and Iran, you would think that the consensus would be that GW was listening to his enemies, however, the Chinese are talking to NK in hope of bringing them back to six-party talks, but I don't think the Midget will care one way or another since his wealth is illicit according to the UN, which means that he's obtaining it via the black market, ie. those that don't honor the UN Security Council. In essence, as long as the Midget and Hockmadumbojob have their's, they don't care what anyone thinks because they know that America won't do squat right now. But that's gonna change real soon...maybe as soon as tomorrow.

Although, the word on the street is that the terrorists are starting to piss their pants with fear that America is finally serious about killing their arses. Somalia was just another stop in the Twilight Zone of terrorism.

Sure they'll ramp up here and there to show their strength, but remember what happnes when the rat sticks its nose out of the hole...wham, we're gonna get ya.

You may not be able to comprehend this, but could you imagine what kind of damage we could do if we were united?

I'll actully be in China in March on biz, so when I get back, I'll let you know what the concensus regarding their neighbors is.

We don't know what Bush is going to say? Shoot, I do. In fact, I'll tell you exactly what he is going to say. After the speech tonight, come back and grade me on how well (or how poorly) I did. Ready?

"My fellow Americans, many of you are frustrated by the length and cost of our military operations in Iraq. I share that frustration with you. It has long been our intention, with the current troop presence in Iraq, and with the support of our allies, to have brought about a peaceful and stable country. And to a large degree, we have.

"But there is no doubt that the insurgency, based in and around Baghdad and a few strongholds, has made this mission a much longer and more difficult task that my military advisors and myself had anticipated. There is also little doubt that mistakes were made during the course of this occupation and that these mistakes need to be addressed and corrected.

"The battle for Iraq is an important front in the war on terror and one that we cannot afford to lose. A peaceful and stable Iraq is crucial to the region. If we allow Iraq to fall into a civil war or, worse, into the hands of the insurgency and their effort to overthrow the freely elected government, we will have consigned the Iraqi people, and the broader Middle East, to chaos. We cannot, and will not, allow this. The only way we can lose in Iraq is if we lose our will to win.

"The insurgents are hoping that we do exactly that. They are hoping that America will walk away from this important battle and allow the terrorists to lay claim to this important region. It is vitally important that we not allow the insurgency to shake the will of the American people. We must win the fight for Iraq and, with my new proposal, I believe we will.

"In order to accomplish this goal, I intend to forge a "New Way Forward" in Iraq. It is my intention to deploy an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to quell the insurgency, pacify the region and drive the terrorists from Iraq. Troop levels, up to now, have been enough to keep the insurgency at bay, but not to crush the opposition completely. With this increase in troop levels, victory in the region can be attained."

That's the gist. Sound about right to you?

I love the libs, they just cant stand the idea that our military might win because that would validate Bush's ability to turn the tide on the cesspool that is the middle-east. Today the left just loooooovves the troops, yesterday the soldiers were nazis.

Are libs totally incapable of rationalizing anything military? One of the largest reasons there is continuing violence is that the private armies are not being disarmed, groups such as that which belongs to Sadr; sending in these extra troops will allow us to hopefully destroy Sadr and his militia. There are only 15,000 U.S. combat troops in all of Baghdad.

Ill tell you what else will win, allowing our troops to..oh I dont know..fight as soldiers and not as heavily armed policemen. But we all know how that will turn out, the lefties will immediately start screaming "baby killer" and "mindless drone soldiers", once again informing America to their true attitude about the military.

Hells bells son, I might as well craft the democrats response to the Bush speech:

"LIES! NO WAR FOR OIL! HALLIBURTON CRONY! BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED! BUSHITLER! SECRET AMERICAN GULAGS! SOLIDARITY WITH THE DEFENDERS OF FALLUJAH! WE CANT WIN! RUN!"

That's the gist. Sound about right to you?

Actually, no, Bongos. Y'see, in case you missed it, I actually crafted a speech that is, I'm betting, very close to what Bush will actually say. You, on the other hand, went bananas and spouted a bunch of nonsense.

So, again, the answer to your question is: No.

Does anyone have any idea about anything regarding Vietnam. I mean Iraq?

Ill take a stab at it. These two wars share an eerie similarity in how they are treated by the democrats:

1) Both are/were strategic military victories
2) Both are/were denounced by the left as lost
3) Both are/were undercut by cowardly liberals
4) Both are/were shackled by dem politicians
5) Both are/were subject to biased media coverage

I was surfing to find any info about tonights speech and came across the Huffingpot Post where one commentor said this:

"It's extremely important that withdrawal from Iraq take place in a manner that does not exacerbate the civil war there."

And how might that be done...Mr. Blogger?

What a bunch of dreamers are these dweebs? They honestly believe that we're going to pull out of Iraq because they say we should...dream on.

Maybe we will in the future, but not until we've finished the job, and thank God GW is at the helm instead of John Freaking Kerry or Algore or we'd have left two years ago. and left Iraq in shambles.

Another poster says this:

"Democrats need to work steadily towards laying out a crystal-clear case to the whole country why withdrawal is the right option. They need to make it painfully obvious how badly Bush's war is going, and detail why we have no good options left in Iraq. Within a few months, Democrats can develop a solid and detailed plan with military experts' advice (Jack Murtha could lead this effort) to safely withdraw all our forces from Iraq."

But wait, I could have sworn they had a crystal-clear plan leading up to the 06' Mid Terms?

Jack Murtha could lead this effort? They must be smoking some Maui Wowwi over there.

Notice how they say "We need to make it painfully obvious how badly the war is going"...sure, so we can get that power thingy back.

It's not about humanity, our troops or terrorism at all, no, it's about power..period.

Here's the real bad news for you guys: Bush, in his speech tonight, is going to say that the new infusion of troops in Iraq (which is, again, simply extending the tours of those poor soldiers) will NOT be open-ended. He will say that Malaki has assured him that Iraq can begin taking over from the US in November and that we will begin withdrawing troops at that time (those won't be his exact words, of course, but that's the meat of it).

And when November rolls around and things aren't any better? That's when the Vietnam-like retreat begins. You heard it here first.

Actually, cyber, the answer is "yes" and whats wrong with bananas...good source of niacin.

Sure the dems will dress up their language choice to sound appropriately sensitive (it just wouldnt do to have 'America's Grandmother' so hysterical on live tv) but the hidden meaning will be there all the same.

For the sake of argument, I will revise what the democrat response will be, not in so many words of course: "We lost, time to go." In essence, that is what they are already saying.

You need to face facts that the ONLY thing Bush could do to satisfy the dems would be to pull the troops out immediately, and even then they would find SOMETHING to cry about.

BTW, why so much whining about a speech that hasnt even been given yet?

Here is the real bad news for the left, the rules of engagement are going to change. You didnt really think all those extra troops were heading to Baghdad to direct traffic, did you?

This means that the American military can finally be free of the hand-wringing restraint imposed upon it by the democrats and do what it does best.

Navy- "We've cut-off Iran's oldest bank from doing business in the United States over alleged links to North Korea and thus far no European country or Gulf allie has followed suit. What's that tell you about who's on board?"

that's the way since day 1 back in 2003 remember. Obviously NOTHING's changed. that should tell you something about the cock a mamy (how to spell it ohhh) story Bush crafted. No one else in the world buys Bush's story.

Gee and to think the only ones buying it are American Republicans! Boy Navy- you got me there. And for a minute i thought W was on to something the rest of the world just doesn't get.

4th- let me guess. Clinton lost Vietnam for us right? Right in the middle of keeping Americans (the govornment) in the loop of our affairs rather than keeping us out like some crack pot police state. Oh- i thought so.

yeah- hey i heard there were a lot of folks AWOL during Vietnam. hmmm someone i know is on the list...can't think of who though.

hmmm

Bill,

At the end of the war, there is a win, or a loss....at various times in the war you can be winning or losing, depending on the circumstances. Right now, thanks to Iranian mullahs and Americans leftists (it is when a Ted Kennedy announces that he's going to propose a law banning further troops that our enemies gain heart...you see, to them, Kennedy isn't a besotted and senile liberal dinosaur - he's a Kennedy! To the foreign world, Kennedy speaks for America)., we are caught in a stalemate in Baghdad/Anbar - President Bush is damning the mullahs and the leftists and breaking the logjam by sending in enough troops to ensure that the Iraqi police and military can quell the various terrorists and militias plaguing Iraq.

BS - Bush did not lie. You continue to spout THAT lie. He was wrong, led by false intelligence. How can I take tou seriously when you continue to spout this crap?

Wyckyd Sept. Bill made my point in his next post. He knows nothin of Iraq except the casualty figures. Most of the country is doing well. There are a couple of hot spots. Al Queada said they were going to foment secr=tarian violence (and they have). This is noty some age old war. It was created to counter us.

Why exactly are you against 20 K more troops? Are you for more? Or what? If we've lost and any positive action is hopeless, then why stay at all? It seems to me that Democrats are the new "stay the course" crowd. We need to adapt and fight. You don't want to let us. So - you will cause the failure you claim has already happened.

I know you hate Bush - but you are betraying the interests of the United States because of this hatred. OK - you won Congress. Can you turn off the partisan hate machine and think American now? DO YOU WANT TO WIN OR NOT?

How will "staying the course" win??????? I though the whole reason you won the election was because people didn't want to "stay the course"? So? What do you propose with your enormous and majority liberal brains?

Democrats are the majority - so stop the siping and tell us YOUR ideas. It is so hard to get any ideas or positions out of you people. Don't you have ANYTHING besides hatred for Bush and Republicans? You really think that is going to sway our opinions?

At least we have opinions. I've seen some pretty well researched and reasoned arguments here. Not from you Bill - you're obviously out of Prozac.

sniping

No BS...you're dillusional!

The point I'm trying to make is that an effort has been made and that the loony left refuses to acknowldge that effort...get it?

But it's never good enough or fast enough for you kooks and as Bongos has said, "You need to face facts that the ONLY thing Bush could do to satisfy the dems would be to pull the troops out immediately, and even then they would find SOMETHING to cry about."

At least we Conservatives don't sit around and whine about this war when it doesn't go our way....no, we keep fighting for victory and the respect we deserve. Hmmm...respect, something the DemocRATS lack.

Face it BS, if this country were run by your party over the past six years, you and I would be looking over our shoulders every day wondering if we were going to be hit again. The American voter knows this and so does our enemy...you know, the one the NY Times has so proudly supported along with the whacky libs in this country.

Speaking of whacky, anyone heard from GTgrad?

"Gee and to think the only ones buying it are American Republicans!" I can name at least twenty Dems that still support the war. Hitlery for one...shall I continue

Off topic, but do you remember H.R. 4232 back in Nov. of 2005, you know, the one that went down in flames with the title "To prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq". Yeah...you know the one alright.

Another posturing waste of taxpayers dollars.

I hope we see another just like it so the liberal true colors will be forced to surface.

In fact, the Republicans should pull a Rangel and introduce the bill themselves to see if the runaway monkeys bite.

Hey kooks, good news. My president is gonna take responsibility for mistakes in fighting the war on terror in Iraq. There, something for you David Gregory wannabes to gloat about. I know, I know--nothing short of President Bush holding out his arms for the cuffs will do, but at least it's a start, until your hero Conyers can get those impeachment hearings started.

You defeatocRATs make me sick. I hope that you all get yours the next time we get hit. Oh, my, aren't I the evil one...

I do know some people who have been to Iraq, and almost all of them are against the "surge" that people are predicting the President will propose.

Frawg, I too know some people who have been to Iraq, and they tell me that the people you know thought they were deploying to Afghanistan, and couldn't wait to get their hands on that poppy crop.

Really, Frawg, your story sounds like something that rhymes with "poppy crop..."

Oh Kahn, how I love your posts!

Ok, we’ll agree that Bush didn’t lie. But what he and his administration did do was to ensure that there was no dissent within the intelligence they used. The intelligence game is one of a host of opinions and interpretations, and yes, there is the chance that people will get things “false”. But to actually believe he was led (I thought he was the “Decider”) by the intelligence community and not vice-versa is to ignore the truth we all know now.

What we also know now is that there were in fact many parties who were right about Iraq’s WMD program and links to al-Qaeda and that they were screaming their heads off to the White House. CIA, MI6, and other global intelligence sources knew the truth about Iraq, sent memos, and made calls, all for not.

These opinions were suppressed in an effort to make a “slam dunk” case against Saddam. Only after the truth came out did the administration admit it had “faulty” intelligence but avoided acknowledging that the vice president set up shop in the Pentagon and systematically exerted pressure on analysts to comport to pre-concluded ideas which would justify invading Iraq; a plan numerous sources have testified had been in the works since the first month in office.

ANYWAY, it is fun to see you squirm under your own inconsistency. Until it tested poorly among redstaters, “stay the course” was the only strategy Bush thought we needed. Now he is trying to save political face by increasing force levels and setting a timetable after years of claiming that Iraqis are “standing up” and that “timetable” equals “defeatism”.

And you want ideas? There have been a host of ideas put forth by Democratic leaders and us “liberal trolls”. From the beginning many of us have argued for the idea that we needed more soldiers, same as General Shinseki. We’ve argued for the idea that the point is past where the US can unilaterally engineer a “victory” and that now we are stuck between two sides in a civil war and we must now shape our role in Iraq around such a reality. We’ve argued for the idea that those who Bush has put in charge of the war didn’t understand the regions politics and that the US needed to incorporate those who knew the area well, even if they made US foreign policy look bad.

While I agree that some people discuss the war in the terms of “hating Bush”, you have to do better than accusing all of us of that. I’d rather we succeed in Iraq and Bush goes down as a brilliant strategist than lose one more US soldier, Marine, or Iraqi civilian. So to mischaracterize all liberals or anti-war people as you did makes it look like you don’t actually have an argument yourself.

Just for once I’d like to see some of the regular posters write something positive about Bush and his policies here instead of simply taking pot-shots at those who disagree with them. You can call us names, say we are cowards, or hope we get attacked by terrorists; but it won’t change the fact that you still haven’t put forth an argument beyond some false bifurcation about victory on which we can begin a dialogue.

Also, before you (everybody) criticize someone about their spelling, please - PLEASE make sure yours is right. Just common sense.

Frawg, I too know some people who have been to Iraq, and they tell me that the people you know thought they were deploying to Afghanistan, and couldn't wait to get their hands on that poppy crop

Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... at January 10, 2007 07:31 PM

Hey, keefer, what's up with that statement? Are you disparaging the troops now?

My guess is that this added force is intended to increase our presence in the region in preparation for an Israeli attack on Iran's nucleur facilities.

Thrower, I pray you're right.

Hey, keefer, what's up with that statement? Are you disparaging the troops now?

Not at all, CO; I'm disparaging Frawg's b/s statement. If he knows anyone who's been to Iraq, then they're probably Canadian soldiers, who thought they were going to Afghanistan, and couldn't wait...

My guess is that this added force is intended to increase our presence in the region in preparation for an Israeli attack on Iran's nucleur facilities.

Thrower, I pray you're right.

Hey, keefer, what's up with that statement? Are you disparaging the troops now?

Not at all, CO; I'm disparaging Frawg's b/s statement. If he knows anyone who's been to Iraq, then they're probably Canadian soldiers, who thought they were going to Afghanistan, and couldn't wait...

My guess is that this added force is intended to increase our presence in the region in preparation for an Israeli attack on Iran's nucleur facilities.

Thrower, I pray you're right.

Hey, keefer, what's up with that statement? Are you disparaging the troops now?

Not at all, CO; I'm disparaging Frawg's b/s statement. If he knows anyone who's been to Iraq, then they're probably Canadian soldiers, who thought they were going to Afghanistan, and couldn't wait...