I think President George W. Bush is the only leader who can be compared to President Abraham Lincoln.

Heck, Obama isn't even a President Bush - I don't think that even Lincoln, at the worst moments, was vilified as unfairly as our current President. How President Bush puts up with it and retains his sense of Christian love and mercy is a marvel.

It seems that the really great are usually reviled in their lifetimes.

I think its too early to compare any president to Lincoln. I believe that no president can truly compare to the paragon of sacrifice named Abraham Lincoln. As for Barak Obama, I would never vote
for him, but I believe we should hear his views
with an open heart and not blinded by partisanship.

Neil,

Well, we pretty much already have heard his views - he's a fairly conventional leftwing politician.

"Senator, I knew Abe Lincoln...he was a friend of mine. Senator...you are NO Abe Lincoln."

Without being blatantly disrespectful to the right and ultimately questioned on the account of patriotism, I would be ad missed not to mention the perspective of a young, African American male, college educated, who otherwise would be portrayed as a post-Katrina insurgent in most eyes in this shaky land we call America. Most of you would support our current leader if he took us into a war under false pretense and soon started another brilliant quagmire in Iran…but wait a minute… he’s been there and doing that. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, “Nothing in the entire world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity,” and I place emphasis on the words conscientious and stupidity. I am not one to throw stones at the already bruised and irrevocably-damaged President, but to consciously lie to Americans and stupidly “stay the course” is just out right despicable. It’s a shame when an articulate, intelligent political figure like Obama metaphorically compares himself to Lincoln ever so eloquently gets slighted, while an inarticulate, guns-a-blazin, “I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully” leader of the free world is looked upon as a hero. Let it go people, he’s not going to get above 33% and your unchanging and unwavering support i.e. “patriotism” isn’t going to change that. The damage has been done. Let’s just pray Mr. President pulls his light bulb string before it’s too late.

Let's review once again. Licoln was a far left wing liberal Republican. This is fact. The parties didn't switch sides until 1896. Licoln wouldn't recognise todays Republican Party.

I don't know why any presidential nominee would ever compair themselves to a former president. To me that's the most stupid thing to do, for we shouldn't look at a canidate as "the next X" but as a new President.

Nothing like throwing stones, huh taylor, as much as you tried to restrain yourself. But hey, youre a liberal, condescension comes naturally.

Face it, the democrats would vote happily vote for Ahmadinejad if it meant not having a republican in the WH for another term; its why America cant and wont trust you with the reins again. Hell, youre too cowardly to try anything more than a symbolic vote, and we are supposed to put our national security in your hands?

Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe!

"It seems that the really great are usually reviled in their lifetimes."

Mark,

I can think of no other example of this except Truman. Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Reagan, were all beloved when they left office/died.

"I think President George W. Bush is the only leader who can be compared to President Abraham Lincoln."

James,

I would love to hear you elaborate on this.

Gar Wood

All I can say is, did Abe Lincoln have big ears?

Oh, and his little speech where he was talking about despair? What despair? Why are all you lefty kooks so negative about everything? Everything is doom-and-gloom with you pantywaists. You people make me sick; please move to Canada, with the rest of the morons...

Obama says "this war was misguided from the beginning" and Hitlery says "I didn't think the Pres. would take us to war."

What freakin loooserrs would make moronic statements like this and worse yet, who would listen to them other than a bunch of GW haters and peace-niks??

I absolutely believe we did the right thing by invading Iraq and that we're also on the long road to victory. Our kill ratio is still over 100-1 and Al Qaeda is running like sheep...right into our bullets.

What the F is wrong with the kook left anyway? Do they honestly believe that this terrorist threat will simply go away and they'll leave us alone or are they all that naive???? How does the left plan to fight the WOT? With negotiations? Will the left pull another Madam Dulbright with our enemies if elected? These questions can't be answered by the kooks because they have no answer..period.

Time has proven that a Dem president can be manipulated like a child and if for some reason we get an Obama or Hitlery, we are royaly screwed. The terrorist community will see this as a chance to strengthen their base, expand their PDCs and spread the word of jihad. All the while, the Dem president will be watching the polls to see how popular they are....puke.

Man these kooks piss me off!!

The guy cant even take comments about his ears, and he is expecting to stand up to the Clinton Death Machine©? Dont think so.

Barry has absolutely no governing experience of any kind yet we are supposed to make him the POTUS? President of the Most Powerful Nation Ever To Exist On This Earth? Come on, my local hardware store owner has more experience managing people.

This dem candidate field is turning into a damn circus. If Giuliani can overcome his doubters, he will wipe Hillary or Obama right off the map.

Princella: "Not in 80 years has there been a presidential race where the sitting president or vice president is not vying for the seat."

In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower ran against Adlia Stevenson. Neither were President or Vice President. So though your statement wasn't completely accurate, it was close enough. It HAS been a long time since we've had an election as open as this one. Also interesting is the fact that except for JFK, no sitting senator has been elected President since Warren Harding in 1920. Many have tried, though. Considering the composition of the current candidates, it could prove to be an interesting primary season.

Lincoln was very articulate - thats what I like about him.

Let me get this straight, here at Blogs for Bush, Princella tells us Sen. Barack Obama is not qualified to be president.

That's a lot like William Hung declaring Frank Sinatra couldn't carry a tune in a wheelbarrow.

If you really, really want to call attention to someone who's proven his lack of suitability for the presidency, Princella, begin with this blog's namesake. The man's record will do the heavy lifting for you.

So let me get this straight... you all support the current ding dong in the oval office - who came in with precisely zero knowledge of foreign affairs - but you attack Obama as "unqualified"?

SW and Aaron - what do you know about straight?

OK, sorry.

I actually don't care who the Democrats choose as their candidate. If whoever it is runs against Bush, well then thats just stupid. If Rudy is against him or her, the simple choice of being a 2nd Amendment supporter will make the difference.

Expect the NRA to weigh in soon and issue each candidate a grade. By the way, that may be a big help in how I decide.

Sooooo, where's Obama on the 2nd Amendment?

Uh, Kahn... you do know that Rudy was one of the most aggressive gun control advocates in the country when he was mayor? Don't you?

Imagine that... a diehard Republican examines a Democrat and concludes he's unfit. What will the next post be about: did you conclude water is wet?

Aaron - yes. Exactly. I didn't explain it very well. I'm NOT voting for Rudy in the primary or in the main election.

If it ends up that he's the candidate, then I'll be looking at the Democrat to see where they are on the 2nd Amendment. Clinton's husband was an enemy as far as I'm concerned. Where is she? Where is Obama? This issue was the deciding factor in several states in the last several elections. So - where do they stand?

I would actually vote for a pro-2nd amendment Democrat OVER Rudy. There, I said it.

Aaron

That current "ding dong" in the oval office didn't allow the sand hole to continue to fill in with terrorists and I'll take the risk by saying that if it had been ALgore that had been in office, we'd be up shi* creek right now with the extremists PDCs cropping up at ten times the rate.

You kooks can't comprehend the meaning of "kill or be killed" except when it happens to you, but when someone else takes action to prevent more killing, like GW has, you condemn it as warmongering....it's pethetic.

SW posts:

"That's a lot like William Hung declaring Frank Sinatra couldn't carry a tune in a wheelbarrow."

So far this is the third most moronic statement I've read here at B4B!! I guess this puts Anderson in the same class as Steve and Sambo the Suicide Bomber.

Kahn...I agree with your comment about Rudy, but thusfar, all the Dems have are weak-kneed, wanna-bees.

If Newt would take some public speaking lessons, he'd be my guy. He needs to whoop it up a bit and get away from the "matter of fact" talk.

Ricorun, check wikipedia online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

2008 presidential election characteristics

First election without incumbents in 80 years
When an American President leaves office, more often than not his Vice President is considered the heir apparent to replace him, at least in the eyes of his political party.

In the three most recent presidential administrations featuring an outgoing, two-term president (those of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton), the incumbent vice president has immediately thereafter run for president (Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election).

Ricorun,

Check Wikipedia online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

2008 presidential election characteristics

First election without incumbents in 80 years
When an American President leaves office, more often than not his Vice President is considered the heir apparent to replace him, at least in the eyes of his political party.

In the three most recent presidential administrations featuring an outgoing, two-term president (those of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton), the incumbent vice president has immediately thereafter run for president (Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election).

Navydad,

How many times do we need to explain this to you? The Iraq War has done nothing to reduce the threat of terrorism. In fact, it has increased the threat. The truth is, stay in Iraq or leave Iraq, either way we increase the threat to us.

You think Al Gore would have put us up s**t creek?? Look down, idiot, that's not water you're rowing in right now...

SteveGA

This is the problem with your pethetic party. You believe that no aggression is the answer to the WOT and our party believes in killing the terrorists before they have an OPPORTUNITY to attack us.

Do you believe that terrorists just wake up one morning and decide to become terrorists? Well, this is the liberal mentality to the "T".

Look back about twenty or thirty years...moron, and you'll notice that the extremist mentality has been festering for decades and that they've been champing at the bit to exercise their extremist views.

You're party and YOU are laughable cowards...period!

navydad, Iraq wasn't a land of terrorists before the invasion. Saddam Hussein didn't tolerate terrorists in his midst because they represented a threat to his dictatorship.

Saddam did contribute money to some jihadist so-called charities that apparently gave money to families of suicide bombers. So did a whole lot of rich Saudis. And BTW, Saudi Arabia is where most of the 9-11 attackers came from.

This leads me to wonder, if you, Bush and the neocon swivel-chair crusaders who brought us the blunder war in Iraq are really so gung ho to go after terrorists pre-emptively, why hasn't Saudi Arabia been invaded? Why aren't you mad as hell at Bush for invading the wrong country?

With your penchant for calling people whose views you disagree with moron, I don't give you credit for having much common sense and decency. But this is pretty basic stuff — actually invading the country 9-11 attackers mostly came from — that I should think even you would get it.

...
Face it, the democrats would vote happily vote for Ahmadinejad if it meant not having a republican in the WH for another term; its why America cant and wont trust you with the reins again. ....

Posted by: Lose the Bongos

Bongos, why not have your party draft the guy? He favors school prayer, is anti-choice on abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay in general, and isn't considered to be very articulate in his native tongue by anyone I know who speaks that language fluently. He feels that treaties are to be followed only when it's convenient, his government hated Saddam and the Taliban, opposes the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and is pretty much ideal in every way.

Bush was criticized by many before he became president for his lack of experience. He was governor of texas, and the governor is somewhat weaker there than in some other states. Can we conclude he's been a total failure, or do you want us to reject the premise of the post? You can't really believe A=B and A does not = B and be taken seriously

navydad,

Why the straw man argument? No nationally-prominent Democrat calls for not being aggressive against terrorism, we simply don't think that Iraq had or currently has much to do with fighting terrorism. Unfortunately (for you as a party, and for us as a country), the facts back us Dems up: there has been no link between Saddam and AQ, nor is AQ's involvement in Iraq now the major source of violence. The majority of violence now is sectarian: Shiite vs. Sunni. Do you understand this??

Going back to my earlier post, I'm curious how you think Al Gore would have put us in a worse position that we are in now. We can all agree that Iraq is a mess, (well, the rational ones of us can agree) and neither staying or leaving will change that. We're left with a failed state in Iraq, an ascendent Iran, and the potential for a regional Sunni vs. Shiite war. How is this better than anything Al Gore would have done?

For crying out loud, look at the argument you pro-war bushbots are now making: we have to stay in Iraq or else the mess we created will get alot worse! HOW IS THIS A POSITIVE OUTCOME!

Democrats - you are NOT running against GWB or DC get it? No matter who else is on the ballot, they won't be.

Meanwhile that Democrat Congress won't have done anything to end the war either. Everyday they parade around these pathetic do nothing bills is another day "Democrats Lied and People Died."

Let us know your plan. What is your plan? Why should you be trusted when all you do is make these never ending whining posts? Are you OK with a nuclear armed Iran taking over the oil fields in Iraq and threatening Israel AND all the Sunni states in the region? The nukes are about oil you know, not about Israel. Israel is a diversion.

Soooooo - your plan to deal with the turmoil in Iraq that is being driven by Iran to gain control over a huge amount of oil is to come home crying? Great. Hate Bush. Say it was all a mistake. Continue to look backwards. But with no plan for the future, you are just clowns in the rain.

Anderson and SteveGA

If you kooks could hear yourselves...it's truly sad to think that you've been brainwashed into believing that Saddam had NOTHING to do with terrorism. You should be ashamed to present this argument. What would you like, a confession from the grave, well it ain't gonna happen.

The majority of halfway intelligent Americans that have read the 911 report now fully understand that Saddam in fact entertained terrorists and trained at least 8000 of them pre-911. You won't hear this on the Daily Show but it's true and documented.

Have you heard about Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak? Probably not since you care not to hear anything that might be a Bush vindication.

Marine Corps counter-terrorism specialist W. Thomas Smith, Jr. points out that "those with connections to the U.S. special operations community have long known that the pre-war link between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network is not only a fact, but one that had to be addressed as part of the global war on terror."

The media has glossed over many indictments within the 911 Commission Report to boot and if you don't believe that terrorists trained in Iraq pre-invaision, I've got some muffler bearings to sell ya real cheap.

I'll ask these question one more time and if neither of you pin heads can answer it, I'm done with you both.

1) Do terrorists wake up one morning and decide to become terroists or are they taught to hate from birth? If at birth where do they go to train? I know the answer..do you?

2) Do terrorists honor borders or do they have the freedom to cross any border in the middle east they please? Is there a impervious wall between those countries? Boy, the Taliban don't seem to have a problem traveling back and forth...now do they. Nor do the Iranian terrorists.

3) Since Algore practiced appeasement when VP rather than confrontation, how do you suppose he would have handled post 911? Take a look at the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, World Trade Center in 1993 and tell us all if Clinton and Gore were effective in fighting the WOT and I'll tell you that they were both too busy having Dick Morris conduct polls to gauge the public’s reaction to their actions...as pethetic as they were.

"how do you suppose he would have handled post 911?"

Algore would have issued an apology before the second tower fell.

Navydad,

Who are you trying to convince? Others or yourself? Saddam has been gone since march 2003.
The Taliban are coming back to Afghanistan using record opium harvests to finance themselves, aided by elements of Pakistani intelligence services, something I hope your shadowy special forces know about. Osama and Mullah Muhommed Omar are still at large, and the Iraqis are now killing each other. Whatever reasons you believe we had for invading, none of our current problems in Iraq and Afghanistan have anything to do with Saddam. Just as the fading support for the war has nothing to do with the American public opinion.
Its Iraqi public opinion that our troops need to sway. In 4 years they haven't succeeded in convincing any significant portion of the insurgents to stop killing each other. That's not their fault. Its the fault of the leaders that sent them with no understanding of the conflicts between the various Iraqi groups there that allowed Saddam to stay in power for so long.
It was never about the US. Its about Iraq, and Iraqis. Till we see the conflict from the insurgents perspective, we are doomed to failure.
I understand your desire to see us succeed. I ,too, have the same desire. But you don't get 2 chances at wars. Bush has had his and he's failed. If this surge doesn't work, what reason would you give us for staying?

Ummm JAT, when was the last attack outside Baghdad? What about the rest of Iraq? Is it in civil war? What about the Kurds? Do they fear civil war? No they're actually fighting side by side with our guys in Baghdad.

No JAT, the fools are those of you that believe terrorism is confined to Afghanistan/Taliban....it's so sad that you're blinded by your political agenda.

BTW, having a son that recently left the US Navy after nine years that made multiple trips to the gulf as a Rescue Swimmer, gives me the right to agree or disagree with our action and guess what, I choose to agree.

You kooks come up with the craziest analogies and comparisons, many of which can never be substantiated, and time after time we conservatives dig deep for facts to counter your pethetic arguments only to have you come back with hogwash that is completely off topic.

"In 4 years they haven't succeeded in convincing any significant portion of the insurgents to stop killing each other." What the hell are you trying to say..or do you know?

You obviously have no idea how our military functions do you? Our guys are KILLING insurgents not negotiating with them..moron.

Navydad,

Although you refuse to answer my questions, I will answer yours.

1. Terrorists learn to hate. Most often, they seem to learn at madrasas of radical Islam (wahhabism). Here's my follow up question for you (I'm sure you will ignore it.) Which country had more madrasas, pre-Iraq war? Iraq or Saudi Arabia?

2. No, borders are porous. Except for the border between Saddam's Iraq and Iran, since they were fighting each other for twenty years, that border was pretty tight. Again, a follow up question: if borders are porous and terrorists can be in any country, why is the vast majority of our military tied up in a single country?

So far, you haven't answered any questions of mine. How about answering these?

meanwhile....

WASHINGTON (AP) - Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad.

Wonder why he'd run if we weren't closing in?

Kahn wrote:

Let us know your plan. What is your plan? Why should you be trusted when all you do is make these never ending whining posts? Are you OK with a nuclear armed Iran taking over the oil fields in Iraq and threatening Israel AND all the Sunni states in the region? The nukes are about oil you know, not about Israel. Israel is a diversion.

None are so deaf as those who will not hear. Redeploy our troops by March 2008. Let the Iraqis do the sorting our they're going to do whether they have to wait a year, three years, five years or whatever. That's the plan.

Let me ask you, K, are you OK with nuclear-armed Pakistan that could be taken over by radical Muslim al Qaeda types at any time? For that matter, are you OK with a nuclear-armed China that 's busy as can be reverse-engineering and doing industrial espionage, to develop advanced weapons and delivery systems, like planes and missiles that can reach across the Pacific and anti-satellite missiles?

I see those threats as much more ominous than Iran and much more important than Iraq.

You claim the nukes are about oil. I disagree. The Iranians have lots of oil to use and sell. They feel threatened by what they see as a hostile, aggression-prone and nuclear-armed nation, Israel, across the way, and by the U.S. positioning its military next door in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It the situation was reversed, I guarantee you we would feel threatened and do all we could to gin up an effective deterrent.

navydad, if you want people to answer your questions and engage in a dialogue with you, grow up and quit calling them things like pinhead and moron. I doubt you'd do that face to face where others know your real name, so why do it over the Net?

Your name calling reveals you as an immature product of a poor upbringing. It says everything about you and nothing about the people you call names.

...actually invading the country 9-11 attackers mostly came from — that I should think even you would get it.

Based on your moronic--as usual--argument, we shoul've invaded our own country for the attacks of McVeigh and Rudolph.

The Saudi government had nothing to do with 9/11, and neither did the Egyptian government. When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, we went after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not the Afghani people.

Why are you a big idiot, S.W.???

SW...you don't get it. We typically have a pretty good dialog here until you PINHEADS and MORONS bring your anti-American anti-Bush rhetoric into OUR HOUSE and expect us to be kind. Please go back to the Daily Hogs where you belong...PINHEAD, because I refuse to be kind to MORONS and PINHEADS.

Also, I'm proud of my real name which HAS been revealed here from time to time...got a problem with that...PUNK?

Good answers Steve...but real weak. Saudi has the most, but no one knows exactly because the underground madrasas haven't been accounted for. However, what do madrasas have to do with terrorist and or insurgents and people that fly planes into buildings...not a damn thing!
A madrasa is a symbolic place of education and if you think like you do about borders, that hate is only taught in madrasas, then buddy, you've got reality issues!

"Except for the Iran/Iraq borders?" You're joking here right? We can barely keep illegals from penetrating our borders and you stand on your theory that the Iran/Iraq borders are/were not pourous...give us all a break Steve. The border is well over 1000 miles long! You need to stop thinking absolute here and start to try to grasp the belief that terrorists and/or insurgents are THE BAD GUYS and they DO NOT HONOR borders or anyone or anything that doesn't agree with their philosophy...period. These are the guys that use women and children as shields.

Every argument that your side makes regarding the WOT is weak and indefensible in that it always defends the bad guy when used in conjunction with GW and even weaker when you say things like "The Iran/Iraq borders are/were not pourous", or "terrorists only learn in madrasas" or "why don't we attack Saudi since they have terrorists too".

As far as our military being tied up in one country..think again Steve. We have operations in every single country in the region, although, you'll never know....get my drift?

Now, please answer my question about Algore. With his record on terrorism, would he have been as agressive, or would he have caved? My guess is that he would have caved and tried to convince America that it was an isolated issue and since Al Qaeda had no "real" country, we would need to treat 911 as a "criminal act" that would require each dead perpetrator to be brought to American courts for justice. As he believes all Gitmo detainees should.

If left to ALgore, we'd still be trouncing around Tora Bora looking for UBL. Wow, that would really make us look tough...wouldn't it?

Who said the following Steve?
"To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it." Ahh... right Al. We'll just saddle up our ponies and go looking for one tall mofo with a turban while the remainder of the jihadists plot and plan to attack American/western interests globally...yeah right. What pendejos!!

Navydad,

Let me see if I can sum up your latest rant.

1. We agree that terrorism is a learned behavior, and thus it is of primary concern to remove the sources of this learned behavior. You also agree that Saudi Arabia has more of the most prominent sources of this learning, madrasas. I would thus assume that you would agree that based purely on your logic, we should have tackled Saudi Arabia before Iraq. (Your citing of secret 'underground' madrasas has nothing to back it up, and thus should be taken for what it is: bulls**t.)

2. We agree borders are porous. You compare the US/ Mexican border to the Iran/Iraq border, ignoring the obvious: Iran and Iraq were at war for 20+ years and thus have a strategic need to watch the border very closely. (Ignoring the obvious seems to be a trademark of yours, doesn't it?) You also agree that the majority of our fighting force is in Iraq. (Kudos on being able to count.) However, AGAIN you cite secret operations as evidence that being tied down in Iraq is ok. Again, I have to assume that this is bulls**t.

So basically, you have nothing to back up your argument for why we need to remain in Iraq, other than secret operations and underground madrasas.

As to your question about Al Gore, here's what I think he would have done. Yes, we would have caught or still be hunting for Osama and the culprits of 9/11. (I don't know why you think that's a bad thing.) We would have deposed the Taliban, just as Bush did. We would still be heavily engaged in Afghanistan (more so than we currently are) working on rebuilding. Saddam would still be in power, but still be isolated, continuing to NOT build WMDs, continuing to NOT have a working relationship with AQ, and most importantly, continuing to be a check on Iranian power and influence. Not a perfect world, by any means, but far better than what we've got now.

"f left to ALgore, we'd still be trouncing around Tora Bora looking for UBL. Wow, that would really make us look tough...wouldn't it?"

Instead, Bin Laden remains free, and the bright red handprint remains on our face from the bitchslapping we took a few years ago. Collateral damage bothers me, whether it's ours or someone else's. Was the targetting of civilians by Al Qaeda evil. yes. Is the targetting of civilians by us acceptable? Sure. God loves watching his children die, as long as they are killed by Americans.

What a moronic punk pinhead asshat

Navydad,

Here again, like Bush, you fail utterly to comprehend what's going on. The Kurds haven't been an issue since the no fly zone was created back in the mid 90's. Issues lie between the sunnis and the shia. Our soldiers can't seem to get these people to lay off each other, and if thigs are so pleasant outside of Baghad, why are 4100 more troops being sent Anbar province? Indeed, if this operation is as resounding a success as you say, why are we sending in 20,000 more troops.
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, why not have a referendum on our presence there. Let's ask them if they want us to remain. Before you nix the idea for security reasons, if you believe that the chaos in Iraq is just a creation of MSM, then let's hold the election. Let's ask the Iraqis what they want us to do.
What are you afraid of? Finding out the Iraqis really don't want us there?

JAT

First of all, since you kooks love to generalize, you do so mostly when convenient. Kurds ARE Iraqis no matter how you twist it and have been for quite some time, so please don't try to impose your loonatic theories here.

Iraq is a double-edged sword though and of course they don't want us there, but they need us in order to succeed.
Ya see, right after Saddam fell, the majority of Iraqi's were extremely appreciative of being liberated, however, the war took a turn for the worse, as we all know and have heard a bazillion times, but there are still many millions of Iraqis that pray for our ultimate success.
As far as seperating the factions, it's n ot up to us to do so. Our mission is to kill insurgents, terrorists and anyone that cannot or will not play right... get it.

We're no longer on a peace mission and if we were, Mookie Baby wouldn't be runnin to Iran. It's the old "give em an inch" syndrome, well they;ve burnt up their inches and now it's time to face the music.