...what Americans don't like (as proved by Vietnam and Korea) is long, bloody wars with no apparant conclusion.

Yeah, and with the help of the DBM, this is what the DemocRATs will get. It's the only way they can retain power. Unfortunately, their tactics will make this country weak, weak, weak...

Watching LtGen(ret) Delong and LtCol(ret) Hunt on FOX News right now--General Delong put it exactly when he said we cannot win it militarily, but we can lose it without our military.

I think everyone on our side agrees with this premise. We need to do both--militarily and political--to make this work.

However, there are those on the left, including 99% of the idiots who troll here, who think we can achieve peace in the Middle East just by sitting down and talking to these people.

Dream on, libs--appeasement has never worked, and it will only result in a bigger attack than before. Are you willing to take the risk? Do you live in a "crap happens" world? Do you really think the Bin Laden's of the world want to live in harmony with us "indidels?" Wake up, you idiots!

So its treason to ask for:

1) proper training and equipment for soldiers

2) limits to terms of service

Yeah, that Murtha is a real booger...

Unfortunately, their tactics will make this country weak, weak, weak...

Unfortunately, keefer, they don't see it that way. Your average Lib is caught up in a Vietnam time warp, a vacuum, if you will, totally devoid of rational thought or logical reasoning. I truly think that most on the Left either remember, or are told by their parents who remember, that America suffered no short or long-term consequences from losing in Vietnam, and abondoning Iraq will have the same result. Of course, in order to spin it that way in their minds, they have to conveniently forget the 2-3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Loatians who were slaughtered, sent to reeducation camps or perished at sea trying to escape. Sadly, sweeping that part of the scenario under the rug is a simple exercise for a group whose slogan is "the ends justify the means." After all, in the overall scheme of things, what's a couple million gooks, right?

If we leave Iraq prematurely, even if Al Qaeda doesn't follow us home, the best case scenario ill be a bloodbath that consumes the entire region, after which Al Qaeda could likely emerge stronger than ever and with a huge base of operations. An, of course, you know how the Libs will spin that: it's all Bush's fault.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that when we win, their political goose is cooked. In 1945, Churchill was defeated by a lib (Clement Attlee) who greatly increased the size of their government, making the UK into the welfare state it is today.

Mark -

ah - so now, all of a sudden, polls are accurate? Funny how you will dismiss dozens of major polls if they don't reflect your opinion, but then you'll trumpet loudly when one poll - no matter how obscure - seems to support your point of view.

Every other poll shows that the public is against this war, and against escalating it. Sure, if the question is phrased "Do you want to win?", most people are going to say YES. I myself want to win. Duh! That's a very different question from ones like:

Should we have invaded Iraq? Does the invasion of Iraq enhance our national security, or hurt it? Have we received any positive benefit from the invasion, and if so, was that benefit worth 3,200 US soldiers and an eventual price tag of $1.2 trillion of our taxes? Does the US have a positive role to play in Iraq? Is participation in the Iraqi civil war the equivalent of fighting the GWOT - or is it a diversion from the GWOT? Has the Bush administration managed the post-invasion period with competence? Has the invasion and presence of US troops in Iraq won "hearts and minds", or has it turned most moderate Middle Easterners against us? What does "winning" mean in the context of a chaotic civil war? Will yet another much bally-hooed Baghdad security sweep lead to "victory"?

But never mind all of those questions. Just keep repeating ad nauseum the simpleton's mantra that you're FOR "victory" and against "surrender".

Do you think all American adults have the mental capacity of a 5 year old? If you're so FOR "victory", and this victory is indeed possible, then what has kept you from getting to this victory already? I mean, look - you've had the majority of the American people supporting your Iraq endeavor for years. For almost the entire time, you've had full control of the WH and both houses of congress. You had a meek and brow-beaten press that neglected to ask tough questions in the wake of 9/11. You've had almost 4 years get to "victory" in Iraq, which is longer than it took for us to fight and win WWII. You've had the world's best equipped and trained military at your disposal, fighting against an enemy that is no match for a superpower's weaponry. You've had virtually unlimited funding for those four years, and lavished tens of billions on corporate contractors.

So where is your damned victory already?! How much more money, time, and lives should the American people give you? If $1.2 trillion, 3,200 US soldiers, perhaps 50-100k dead civilians, and four years is not enough for this ill-defined "victory", then what is?

How much more money, time, and lives should the American people give you?

There can be no artifical cap. The cost of failure will be higher than the cost of victory. It's obvious we're almost there, but the more the treasonous left nips at our troops heels, the longer it will take. So unless you can root for total victory, sit down and shut up.

And don't talk like "the American people" are some abstract entity. We are the American people. And we're in to win.

Name one person who said Americans do not "want to win" in Iraq. [crickets] Thought so.

This is like a poll asking whether Americans "want murder to decrease" where the question is, "should we increase funding for local law enforcement."

Silly.

Aarontime,

When did 911 become a Republican War? Last time I checked Americans were being killed.

Ya know sometime soon your base is going to realize that the Democrats always run from the tough fight. Always being on the wrong side of the issue until its the popular thing to do.

War is not pretty but somewhere here there is a principal for which we are fighting this for.

there are those on the left, including 99% of the idiots who troll here, who think we can achieve peace in the Middle East just by sitting down and talking to these people.

Islamic law permits negotiations with an enemy for two reasons. One is to encourage and facilitate the enemy's conversion to Islam. The other is to make a temporary truce, called a hudna, to allow weakened muslims to regroup their strength, after which they will violate the truce. (This may be one reasons why muslims view negotiation as an admission of weakness.) The "negotiate with the terrorists" camp don't seem to understand this.

They also don't understand that these terrorists are supremacists who view non-muslims as sub-human. Asking our side to negotiate with Al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, etc., is not too different from asking African-Americans to negotiate with Klansmen who have gone on a cross-burning spree. (In the History Channel's series on the Presidents, which I watched a few days ago, the episode on Grant included comments that he launched a "war on terror" against the KKK.)

of course, you know how the Libs will spin that: it's all Bush's fault.

If the U.S. leaves, and Iraq goes to Hades afterwards, you can bet your boots that the U.S. will still be blamed for it, both domestically and internationally. Those who claim that this war has ruined our international reputation don't seem to realize that retreat will make it even worse, just like it did after Vietnam. I guess some lessons of Vietnam aren't worth learning.

Has the invasion and presence of US troops in Iraq won "hearts and minds", or has it turned most moderate Middle Easterners against us?

There is only one way for non-muslims to do "win hearts and mind" when dealing with muslims, and that is by being strong. The two strategies urged by your side, retreat and negotiation, are both viewed as weakness. (If you look at the recent history of Israel, for example, you will see that both retreat and negotiation have resulted in increased terrorism.) Bin Laden himself used to say that people prefer a "strong horse" to a weak one.

So where is your damned victory already?

When America hands Iraq over to a government that is strong enough to fight the terrorists without our help, THAT will be victory.

I know people like Aaron. I deal with them every day, in non-political ways, on non-political issues, but the mindset is the same: If it's not quick and easy, it can't be done.

These are the same people who resent those who DO accomplish things, who DO preservere and get things done, who DO overcome obstacles, who DO explore different approaches to problems till they achieve what they want. (Why do you think they feel justified in setting punitive tax codes to strip accomplishments away from those who do succeed? They resent them, and they are open in declaring that they don't NEED "that much" of what they have earned.)

These are the same people who sneer at every setback as a FAILURE, totally ignoring the eventual outcome, which is usually success.

This personality trait, this mindset, is what makes the Liberal movement so attractive to them in the first place. It is a Utopian fantasy, one of black/white, perfection/failure, and it meets their personal needs. It is simple, and appeals to the simple. It is emotion-based, and it appeals to the emotionally driven. It relies heavily on negatives----personal attacks, hatred, envy, revenge, elaborate conspiracy theories, suspicion/paranoia---and so it appeals to those who feel good when they feel bad.

So to a radical Lib, anything short of total and uncompromising success---which has to meet the defintion of that word in the Lib lexicon---is total and uncompromising failure, and a reason for quitting. To a radical Lib, this failure is more than adequate justification for a hatefest of name-calling, personal insults, and a general attack mode.

People aren't this way because they are Libs. They are Libs because they are this way.

And they will simply never comprehend the possibility, much less the reality, of a huge population of people who are not emotion-driven, who are not fulfilled by hate and spite and malice, who don't wallow in the cheap thrills oof slandering and name-calling, and who are reasonable, pragmatic, and tending to base their decisions on facts instead of how it makes them FEEL.

So they will embrace anything which supports their distorted view of the world, and will reject anything which contradicts it---which is why they will just ignore, or try to rebut, the statistics which show that so many do not. And let's face it, it can't be encouraging to keep seeing proof that these negativist hatemongering hyper-emotional Socialists are not really representative of our country.

I'm not surprised to see the numbers quoted, but then I have a lot of faith in the average American. While he may be misled, it is usually because he naively believes the best of people, and finds it hard to accept that someone he likes will look him in the eye and lie to him. Naivete is frustrating, and can lead to some pretty negative outcomes (such as the '06 election results) but it also is indicative of a basic decency, and basic decency will trump hysterical anti-Americanism and defeatism any day.

Unfortunately, America cannot win against our enemies abroad until and unless we defeat our enemies here in America -- DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS)!

Even as our troops fight to defeat terrorists, the mindless Democrats continue their efforts to defeat America, to give the victory to our enemies, to discredit and waste the lives of our soldiers who fought to win -- just as they did with Viet Nam, and just as they have worked so hard to do with their incessant anti-American propaganda campaign for the past six years!

Democrats have already convinced the terrorists to hold on, to continue the fight, to fight a little longer, to never give up because Democrats are working as hard as possible to hand the terrorists their inevitable victory. Now that Democrats have control of the agenda in Congress, they have assured the terrorists that they will do all they can to defeat America's soldiers and military, and they will work toward that goal until they succeed. Democrats have told the terrorists, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and our enemies around they world that they will do whatever it takes to stop America from winning and defeating them, to include cutting the funding to our military and troops! Yes, just hang in there terrorists, the Democrats are on your side!

Once Democrats have defeated America abroad, they will continue their social engineering and efforts to weaken and defeat America within... with their weak Liberal ideas and agenda.

Worst of all, a majority of Americans have been suckered by the Democrat's misleading lies and propaganda. They don't even understand or see America's real enemy -- DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS)!!!

The majority of Americans still want to win, but we don't have the leadership to overcome the Democrat's anti-American lies and misleading propaganda. We need leaders who can and will stop the political correctness and work 24/7 to educate the American people about our real enemies, Liberalism, and what it takes to defeat them!

AAR

The simple question that never gets asked by liberals on their sights or neocons on their sites is this "What would Iraq have looked like today if America had not inavded the country?" now anyone who thinks that iraq would be in the current shape it is in now would be a good candidate for free mental helath advice in the UK. Sadam Hussein would still be torturing his people as he had done with the support of the US government as long as he was battling Iran in the ten year war of the 1980s But there would have been no death squads of Shi'a and Sunnis slaughtering each other as there is now.

The solution to Iraq as well as Palestine go far beyond people who cannot see beyond their own partisan need to be "on top". As long as you keep bickering like this in the states and leave your borders open and slack on security for chemical plants because "it costs too much" then all manner of people will continue to topple your buildings and kill your citizens. It's no longer about arrogance gentlement it is about greed. American greed cost you buildings in New York and unless you are willing to listen and negotiate it shall cost you much more. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition and no Roman saw the Sack coming because they were too busy being "patriotic Romans".

"When America hands Iraq over to a government that is strong enough to fight the terrorists without our help, THAT will be victory."

Bigfoot,

You mean the Sunni terrorists, the ones that are causing about 80% of the damage? The ones that are supposedly being aided by Iran which is largely Shi'ite? Or the Al Qaeda terrorists, which are causing about 5% of the damage? Or the aforementioned Shi'ites? And the "Iraqis"....are they a fourth group? So, when American might forces all these people to see the light and everyone gets along.....because the American military has shown them how to stop killing each other.....then it's over?

Of course, it's easier just to go with "terrorists bad", "free Iraq good". Breaks it down all nice and simple for you.

Attention Bushbots:

Murtha's proposal would require certification that troops are fully equipped and trained before sending them to Iraq. What is your problem with that? Are you FOR sending under-equipped and under-trained troops into combat? If so, how exactly do you consider yourself a supporter of our troops?

Any of you pro-war cheerleaders care to answer?

I can't comment on the make up of the respondents but, taking the numbers at face value, shows nothing about whether we should stay. I would love victory as well but no one in, or associated with, the WH can define what victory is, or, at least a victory that would enable us to leave. That goalpost has not just moved laterally but horizontally from the beginning. This lack of definition, or static definition, is one of the many reasons why people have turned against this war.

Victory? Hell, yes!! But what does it mean? What is victory? And, most importantly, people are finally beginning to see that perhaps this is a game in which we should not even be playing so victory, no matter how it is defined, may be beyond the point.

Cling to any hope you can. Have faith all you want. But, please, let the adults and realists take over policy from a president that has failed in more ways than many could have imagined.

To quote Murtha: "The legislation I'm putting together, first of all, puts restrictions on the President, on the administration, saying you can't send people back into battle until they've had a year at home. Now they should traditionally have two years at home...They must have the equipment and the training and they must be certified by the Chiefs of the various services before they can go back. Second, we can't extend people. Now if they can't extend people, if they can't send people back that don't have equipment and so forth, they can't continue the surge is what it amounts to."

So, this is what you oppose, and what constitutes treason? Ending the extension of service time, requiring adequate equipment, saying only those fit for combat can be sent, etc? No wonder no one wants to vote on this. It would require criticizing Dear Leader, or voting to keep screwing the troops. I'd say the most craven choice would be to vote against armoring troops, so i'd assume much of the Gulf Oil Party would do. That may prove unpopular. better to lie.

Interesting debate, many thoughtful posts. But I think it important to remember that in the Arab world, victory does not mean what victory means in the liberal world. Victory to them is to overcome through force, victory to the liberal is to be equal, to be peaceful. This is why all those CNN propaganda machine videos of bombings and snipings are effective, because in the Arab world that makes them appear strong. But let us not forget the only way they will be exposed to different kinds of overcoming appearing to be victory is by opening their societies, even by force, and so opening them to our ideas. The Christian ideals of equality and peace are not their ideals, yet. And they will never be their ideals if they never have the opportunity to learn them. So they will continue seeking to overcome by violence, to overcome us by violence, until they see another way. The only way for peace is through force. Liberal diplomacy isn't enough to work unless people want peace to begin with.

Murtha's proposal would require certification that troops are fully equipped and trained before sending them to Iraq. What is your problem with that? Are you FOR sending under-equipped and under-trained troops into combat? If so, how exactly do you consider yourself a supporter of our troops?

Certified for what? What is the criteria for the certification? Do our troops have to fill out a form before they fire thier gun at the enemy? Do our troops now have to be iso 9000? Murtha is an idiot and I can not believe he is still in office.

When America hands Iraq over to a government that is strong enough to fight the terrorists without our help, THAT will be victory.....

And if that government turns out NOT to be in the US camp.. will we refined victory? If and When an independant Iraq goivernment tells us to get out.. to clsoe down our bases, and joins the cartal of oil producing states.,,will we still accept that as Victory?? or will we define it again..... just a question??

There is no "war on terror", the very concept is a politically opportunistic American administration conceit.

The fact that several other governments have jumped upon the rhetorical bandwagon is merely indicative of their adopting Bushist tactics for "selling" a devaluation of rights and freedoms to their citizens.

Prior to 9/11, America's experience with terror was practically inexistent, except as a net "funder" and "facilitator".

Other countries which had very real experience and suffered multiple attacks on their respective territories, have always "handled" terrorism as a "criminal" problem, with law enforcement in the front lines, supported by adequate backing from Diplomacy and Intelligence.

The "war on terror" is a completely buffoonish imbecility, a transparent excuse and should always be treated as such. The terrorist element in Iraq is a direct consequence of this administration's actions, and those "terrorists" serve this administration's purposes above all else.

My god what a load of bloviating tripe.

You righties have lost the fight. But it's fun to see you prone on the canvas, still swinging away. Good for you. It will give you something to do while the adults take back control of our country.

Christ, what a pack of fools.

"I know people like Aaron. I deal with them every day, in non-political ways, on non-political issues, but the mindset is the same: If it's not quick and easy, it can't be done.... So to a radical Lib, anything short of total and uncompromising success---which has to meet the defintion of that word in the Lib lexicon---is total and uncompromising failure, and a reason for quitting."

Uh, that's a mighty big straw man you're building, Almiranta. You guys never seem to tire of the straw man arguments. But then again, building straw men seems to be the only rhetorical strategy you have left.

Straw man - This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

Trouble is, you've all gone to this well way too many times. You've trotted out this straw man silliness so often that everyone recognizes it immediately for the BS that it is. Now lets address this part of your rant:

"...but the mindset is the same: If it's not quick and easy, it can't be done..."

Listen, nobody on the left ever expected this Iraq thing to be "quick and easy". On the contrary, we correctly predicted that Iraq would be a long and ugly mess. The only people who expected it to be easy were NOT libs - on the contrary, it was the Bushies and the Neo-cons who kept saying, for several years, that it would be easy.

So ignoring your pathetically transparent and rather stale attempt at erecting a straw man, lets go back to what I was actually saying, and to the questions I was actually asking that apparently none of you can answer:

Does the invasion of Iraq enhance our national security, or hurt it? Have we received any positive benefit from the invasion, and if so, was that benefit worth 3,200 US soldiers and an eventual price tag of $1.2 trillion of our taxes? Does the US have a positive role to play in Iraq? Is participation in the Iraqi civil war the equivalent of fighting the GWOT - or is it a diversion from the GWOT? If $1.2 trillion, 3,200 US soldiers, perhaps 50-100k dead civilians, and four years is not enough for this ill-defined "victory", then what is? Is any cost too much? With the unprecedented amount of time and resources you've had to achieve victory, what has kept you from it? And if victory has not been achieved despite all the enormous effort and destruction wrecked thus far, what makes you think that more of the same will get victory?

Sure, we all want "victory", and we all know that victory has a price. But, everyone has to ask themselves the relative cost/benefits of any endeavor. So far, the costs have been staggering, and the benefits have been less than nothing.

You guys seem to like business analogies. So lets say you were the CEO of a publicly-held corporation which had embarked on an ambitious new technology project. You told your stock holders that the Project would be easy and that it was essential to address a terrible Problem. Years go by, and billions of dollars get spent. In fact, you spare no expense on the Project, giving it unlimited time and funding.

Along the way, shareholders find out that the very real Problem that the Project was meant to fix is not really addressed by the Project at all. In fact, independent internal audits indicate that the new Project is only making the original Problem worse. In addition, it is later revealed that the Problem was located in an entirely different area of the company, and that the case for addressing the Problem with the Project was at best hyped, and at worse lied about.

The Project continues to bleed resources from company, and never addresses the issue it was supposed to resolve. In fact, it is clear the Project is diverting resources from the original Problem. Further, the enormous drain of resources threatens the company's ability to compete with other companies that also threaten its livlihood.

Despite all of this, the CEO stubbornly insists on seeing the Project thru, if only because lots of money has already been spent on it. The Project managers and the CEO circle the wagons and hunker down. They wildly accuse those who question the wisdom of the Project of secretly wanting the entire company to fail. In fact, they go so far as to say that the majority of loyal company officers and shareholders are actually moles working for enemy companies.

So, what should the shareholders do? Oblige, out of blind loyalty, the increasingly irrational and mendacious CEO and Project managers by cutting an ever larger check that leaves the company ever more in debt and vulnerable to other threats? Should the shareholders give the OK to continuing a Project which has already had more than ample time and resources for success? If the Project was ever going to meet with success, it surely would have long ago. Should they continue to have faith in a CEO who has badly mismanaged the Project thus far and misled shareholders? Should good money be thrown after bad?

Or should they pull the plug on this Project, and try to save what they can?

"Boondoggle" - 1) An unnecessary or wasteful project or activity. 2) to deceive or attempt to deceive.

Wow - such intense ignorance, (Ed. Note: over-the-top slander deleted), and stupidity is hardly ever seen so compactly put by the neo-con attitudes here..

1)"But I think it important to remember that in the Arab world, victory does not mean what victory means in the liberal world."

"The Christian ideals of equality and peace are not their ideals, yet. And they will never be their ideals if they never have the opportunity to learn them. So they will continue seeking to overcome by violence, to overcome us by violence, until they see another way. The only way for peace is through force."

So - in your estimation - the problem is that Arabs don't "understand" or want peace - they just want death and war. Perhaps there is a very small minority out there that does - just like there is a small minority of Christians that do as well. But such an overt generalization of all Arabs does nothing but help you justify in your mind why it is fine to overthrow other countries, starve them through sanctions (yes I know Clinton did this too - and I agree he did many horrible things as well) - its all because they are backward death loving muslims??

2) Your constant mantra that those who oppose the war are traitors. The insinuation is that if you don't support whatever insane war they get us into - we must be traitors and must WANT to see the US fail.

Get a grip - and stop using these cheap, underhanded , mindless tactics (Ed. Note - like calling someone a racist when they disagree with you?) and come up with a real argument. It is completely invalid - and completely idiotic to argue this way. If you disagree - bring a real argument to the table.

So if you disagreed with something Clinton did when he was president - that makes you a traitor? Obviously not!

This goes along with all the nonsense that the only reason people oppose the war is that we "hate bush", or that we want to see America fail. Despite the well thought out arguments that are presented - is it because you can't refute them that you resort to this nonsense??

Finally -- let me remind you of one fundamental and important fact. I will not claim to support or justify the actions of the current leaders of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.. However, the people , the 95%+ peaceful people of these countries are suffering horribly because of the constant Western attempts to control their natural resources, dictate their governments, and outright bombing campaigns.

I REPEAT - no sane person, liberal or conservative - supports these tyrannical regimes or the terrorists that kill innocent people . The difference is that anti-war left does not support the bomb first - ask questions later - mentality of this administration (Ed. Note: lie deleted), the lack of any significant evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, and the utter disregard and idiocy shown by this administration getting the country into a war that it CANNOT by definition "win".

I asked this some time ago and still have not gotten an answer. DEFINE exactly what you mean by "wining the war". I have yet to see a response to this that makes even the smallest amount of sense. The only thing that I have seen that makes any sense and is supported by facts is that the military industrial complex that runs the country would like to turn the entire middle east into a client state that provides cheap oil to us.

Iraq was absolutely no threat to us - there army was destroyed, there government so weak that it took two weeks to topple it, yet we attacked anyway. If we really wanted to get the terrorists we would have sent the 100k+ troops to Afganistan or Pakistan where Bin Laden by all general accounts still is. Or into Saudi Arabia where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers are.

No, this is not about fighting some ill defined "evil" out in the world. This war is about hegemony, OIL, and (Ed. Note: over-the-top slander deleted).

If you would bother to take your heads out of the sand and even look at the most basic facts you would realize this. But you just ignore all evidence , all logic, and only pick out the few things that can be twisted to suit your views.

Look - we all would love it if Iraq could some how become a peaceful democracy free of terrorism, sectarian strife, etc.. However, I cannot see how more years of a completely failed policy of bombing them into submission is going to work - it just won't. How many more Iraqi's and Americans have to die until you realize this!!!

Tom -

"When did 911 become a Republican War?"

And when did the Iraq war become 9/11????

Listen up Tom - it was the toady Republicans who originally defined the Iraq War as a Republican War. They wanted exclusive ownership of it. Now they are running away from ownership.

steveGA,

"Are you FOR sending under-equipped and under-trained troops into combat?" No, I'm for sending them to fight with the best we realistically have available and under the circumstances (which includes many factors and variables) at the time. I'm for adjusting to changing conditions and upgrading the equipment and training to the extent we "reasonably" can as the battle progresses!

Have you stopped beating your spouse? Are you FOR allowing children to play in the sun knowing it can cause skin cancer? Are you FOR allowing women to wear bikinis knowing that they are even more exposed to cancer causing radiation? Are you FOR allowing children to play outside knowing they can get hurt? Are you FOR allowing our police to work without full body armor knowing that they are more vulnerable to being shot by criminals?

Are you kidding? Or, are you that naive? Do you not recognize Liberal Democrat "brain candy" when you see it? Do you not understand an indirect attack and effort to accomplish their defeatist objective? That is nothing more than a sound-good, sound-right way to accomplish the Democrat's objective of defeating American! Unfortunately, most Americans do not recognize or understand a subtle and indirect Democrat attack!

Who's to decide what is fully equipped, trained, and ready? The nutty Democrats (Liberals)? Our troops are the best equipped, best trained, most effective, and most capable military anywhere, bar none. No matter how much equipment, training, or whatever else we provide, they will never be 100% protected from harm. To say that or military must be "totally", "fully", and 100% certified as "fully equipped and trained " is the same thing as saying they will not fight!!!

The fact is, our enemies will change their tactics to defeat our actions as fast as we develop new and better weapons and tactics to kill them. Our enemies will find more and different ways to kill our troops faster than we can design, produce, and distribute the countermeasures to stop them. Nevertheless, our military designers are constantly working on new and better equipment. As the enemy changes their tactics, our military trainers develop new and better training for our soldiers.

Our tanks are the best available anywhere, the best in the world, but a well placed bomb, IED or shaped charge can easily take one out. And if they can defeat a tank, there is absolutely no way to stop all damage to a Humvee, truck, or even an armored personnel carrier. We don't have nor can we produce impenetrable body armor that will totally protect a soldier from harm. Another of those IED, mine, or a well placed sniper shot will kill or injure them. It sounds right and good to say that we will not send any of our troops into battle until their body army can provide 100% protection. That's nothing more than an unachievable Democrat message that any "caring American" can and will unthinkingly believe and swallow. In effect, however, it's exactly the same as saying we will not fight! Many soldiers do not want to wear the body armor they have because it slows them down and makes them easier targets.

And once the Democrats decide what is "acceptable" (which will be the impossible) there's the matter of time and money to acquire something that is impossible to achieve in the first place. It's takes time to design, produce, and distribute those items. It takes money, which the Democrat's are already trying to cut, which would make it totally impossible to satisfy those "sound good" objectives.

And just what are we and our soldiers going to do while we develop, produce, and field the Democrat's theoretical perfect weapons and defense?

It's like another of the Democrat's recent propaganda tricks on the American people. Their little bill to say that all of the ships, trucks, containers, and everything else coming to America will be fully and 100% checked and safe. That's totally impossible, but it sure sounds good, right, and the thing any American would support. Suckered again! And the dumb Democrats won't even vote to fully secure our borders. More hypocrisy! But, far too many Americans fall for the Democrat's "brain candy".

Yes, the Democrats call for the perfect weapons and training... all while they encourage and embolden the terrorists to kill our troops and Iraqi citizens by their words and actions. Talk about the ultimate in hypocrisy!

If Democrats are really interested in protecting the lives of our troops, they would have stood strong behind America, the President, and our military. They would have sent a message to the terrorists that we will defeat them, not the message that Democrats are working on America's retreat and surrender. If the Democrats were interested in the lives of our troops, they would never have started their pro-terrorist campaign that emboldened terrorists to begin their bombing and campaign of terror. If Democrats cared about the lives of our troops, they would not be using the halls of Congress to tell the terrorists to hold on while the Democrats work for America's defeat.

How about those "restrictions" and "rules" the Democrats want to place on our troops. Don't shoot until you are shot. Don't shoot at a fast approaching vehicle, likely carrying a bomb, until you are 100% sure it's loaded with terrorists! Don't use loud music, cold temperatures, or sleep deprivation to interrogate the enemy, to determine their plans, to locate their weapons and personnel... to do all they can to stop the enemy from killing OUR troops. Provide the terrorists with lawyers and "hotel" accommodations and read them their Miranda rights. And when we have programs to find out what terrorists are doing and stop their future killings, Democrats want to broadcast our efforts in the world press and do all they can to stop them!

If Democrats were actually interested about lives of our troops and those of Iraqi families... They would shut up! They would never have begun their anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda! Next, you can count on the Democrats to start their inevitable efforts to weaken and destroy America's military strength, cutting money and funding for them to use to buy their votes!

Democrats (Liberals) are the real threat to America and our troops!

AAR

In Defence of a Beseiged President,

I would kindly submit for your consideration that despite the deliberate noncoverage of his many successes by the msm, this president has a tremendous record and history will judge him well.

First of all the homeland has not been attacked since 911 and that is no accident. Afganistan and Iraq are now both recognized democracies where women have the right to vote and girls have the right to go to school. Both of these countries have demonstrated a determined desire for freedom and democracy and have proved that desire time and again by their persistance and continued restraint in the face of daunting odds and demoralizing resistance. One further point if these two countries didn't want democracy and despised the american presence in their nations so much, they would be marching in the streets by the tens of thousands demanding our immediate withdrawl but they are not.

Another great untold storey in America today is the tremendous Bush boom in the economy. Unemployment is at lowest ever average at an unheard of 4.5%. The stock market is hitting all time highs on a regular basis, wages are up, income is up, inflation is low to moderate, minority home ownership is up and minority unemployment is at historic lows. On top of these staggering facts, the deficit has been cut in half, in half the time expected. This despite
the worst attack on our own soil in history, the ongoing cost of the global war on terror, and the worst ever natural disaster in our nation.

The final point I would like to make in defence of this great President is that he truly has restored the dignity and honour that, that high office demands. He demonsrtated this in the way he so courageously yet graciously led our nation in its darkest hour. He continues to inspire hope and optimisn by his ongoing reliance on a source beyond himself and his determinance to see the glass half full. I see the subtle underpinnings of a great man in the way he has comforted the families of the fallen and by his refusal to let their losses be in vain, by not completing the mission. I see in him a man of unwavering resolve and strength of character, exactly the kind of man we need as our president in times such as these. Carry On, Mr. President, Carry On, through hardship, pain, toil, snare, misunderstanding, and great opposition, Carry On!

In Defence of a Beseiged President,

Canadian Conservative

I know people like Aaron.

So do I; I drive past Springfield Mental Hospital every day, on my way to work. There's plenty of Aaron's locked up in that place...

AAR,

Could you please elaborate on what you meant when you posted this comment:

"Unfortunately, America cannot win against our enemies abroad until and unless we defeat our enemies here in America -- DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS)!"

Specifically, how do you, or how does our country, intend to "defeat our enemies here in America -- DEMOCRATS (LIBERALS)?"

Since the topic of this post is "Poll: 66% Think Victory in Iraq is Important," I think that it would be insightful for someone with such strongly articulated, anti-liberal, anti-Democratic opinions, such as yourself, to give us your definition of "victory" over "our enemies here in America."

I, for one, as a liberal and Democrat myself, am ready and willing to turn myself in as an enemy of America (as you have revealed to the world in your post) if that would indeed spell "victory" in Iraq. Would you be willing to make that same sacrifice?

Well, wait. What does "victory" in Iraq mean for the U.S. anyway? Let's see, a popular conception of "victory" from an earlier post is "When America hands Iraq over to a government that is strong enough to fight the terrorists without our help, THAT will be victory." Well, THAT'S certainly a noble concept. Now, can someone please identify how the U.S. will achieve that "victory?" Whose head does the U.S. have to hold a gun to arrive at that end? We need to expedite that task! I am willing to volunteer to hold that gun, if someone can tell me at whose head to point it.

Wait, wait, before you waste any more energy imagining "victory" in Iraq, here's the gun. Use it on your own head. Bang, victory.

Onward, to victory in Iraq! Onward, to Iran!
Justin K.

Morris,

The only way for peace is through force? That's ludicrous! It is this simplistic thought process that enabled Bush to go into Iraq with such support from the populace even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or anti-American terrorism (I know, you'll trot out all the lies you've given in to from the beginning about the connections that weren't but I'll say it anyway).

We have been using force for almost 4 years there and it has done nothing but make us weaker and more vulnerable. Why? We will have a hard time enlisting support should a conflict that IS necessary arise because our evidence will have to be that much stronger since we are less believable.

4 years and we are on which definition of victory now? 4 years and we are doing again what we've done before and are asked again to trust that THIS time it will work? We knocked off Germany and Japan in shorter time. How? Because it was a war for survival and the people ponied up, the government asked the people to make sacrifices, companies were held to task to support the effort by not expecting excessive profits (if any at all), and we realized we were all in it together.

And, all along, we never said that disagreement was sedition. We didn't put brakes on the wheels of justice (except in a few circumstances). We didn't ask the people to think of the Constitution as hamstringing our war effort but knew that it was that very document for which we were fighting.

Iraq has none of that. It is a war Bush wanted from the beginning, it is a conflict that was abused politically, it is a fight we didn't need, and it is not in our national interests. If the latter were true, people would again pony up and we would be called to sacrifice (not sacrifice the Constitution but our luxuries and spoiled lives).

The American people have been educated by Bush. The end of the Iraq war could not come too soon. There would be no greater gift to offer those fighting than to get them out. The deaths and sacrifice they have given to date will not have been in vain, in spite of the conservative rhetoric, if the education Bush has given us holds, i.e., never trust a wildly partisan president who prefers to work in secret and stifle debate to lead us into conflict, never accept a fight that is not necessary, bullying is the realm of cowards and non-thinkers, and never trust the press to ask questions for you because they are no longer independent (thank god for the internets).

Further, Morris, as for your Christian values, they are not equality and peace (except on selective reading of the bible and history). They may be traditional American values but don't equate the two, it is not what the founding fathers had in mind and it is not Constitutional. Further, there have been plenty of Muslims throughout history, and are in the present day, who want equality and peace. It is a human value first. The point lost on you is that peace and equality do not happen at the point of a gun; rather, they are both antithetical to the point of a gun.

And, do you realize that you have countered Bush's rhetoric from almost the beginning, i.e., after the WMD and terrorism reasons fell by the wayside? He has said that all people want that. Now, you say that Muslims don't have these values for which we have ostensibly been fighting? Is that not an admission that, therefore, we should end the fight and come home?

Of course, it's easier just to go with "terrorists bad", "free Iraq good". Breaks it down all nice and simple for you.

Why don't you break it down all nice and simple for us, Martin? What's your idea? Are you a Murtha boy? A coward? Just in it to win seats in Congress? What's it gonna be, Marty?

Hey, OhioGolfer, I hope you keep score better than you write. Read your post, idiot; it's riddled with errors. Guess you sliced one OB...

Wow, gotta love a good war debate!

I’d first like to point out the obvious, something a few posters already have; that it must be a chilly day in Hades to see Mark citing poll numbers. What is interesting in the results (which Mark fails to mention) is how public opinion (according to IBD) with regards to how important “winning the war” is by party has increased among Democrats and Independents and decreased among Republicans.

Interesting indeed…

As for these rants and ravings in the comments, I’d once again like to address my disbelief at how inaccurate and fanciful some people’s assumptions about Muslims are. The whole “they only understand strength” stereotype is indicative of how little some “educated” Westerners actually are.

There is no deterministic character of the Middle East which warrants this misconception. Political Realism of the Waltzian nature has been the standard way of doing things for ages. Violence and strength are what shaped Western civilization as much as anywhere else in the world. Proof of this is apparent in that what we view as the culmination of Western ideals; i.e. the United States of America, spends more money on our military than the rest of the world combined. Not on political institutions, not on humanitarian relief, not on spreading Christianity, not on education, but on weapons, operations, and personnel.

The tendency to blame the MSM and American Democrats is another manifestation of this ignorance of the world. Let me remind you that it was neither the press nor Democrats who decided 150k people would be able to stabilize a nation with 26 million residents. It wasn’t the Congressman Murtha or David Gregory who threatened Pentagon officials with termination if they were to mention the need for a post-invasion plan. It wasn’t Senator Reid or Jon Stewart who predicted there wouldn’t be significant levels of sectarian violence. It isn’t the NY Times or the DNC who dress up in official uniforms executing kidnappings and murders on a daily basis.

Are some things working in Iraq? Yes. There are schools and hospitals and the like, but when families are too scared to let their children out of the house what good do they do? Electricity, clean water, and jobs are harder to find than death threats and we wonder why 90% of Iraqis think our presence there is doing more to fuel the violence than quell it.

A few posts here have asked specific questions of Bush supporters, namely what is your answer to Murtha’s very detailed proposition requiring proper training and equipment for soldiers before deployment? It is sad that this has to even be an issue now, but how can you defend the practice of sending under-trained ill-equipped Americans into the middle of a civil war?

Of course, all I can expect in response are some attacks on previous parts of my post which have no real regards to the overall argument I’m trying to make, but I suppose I troll here for a reason, so whatever.

You all can attack we war-critics all you want, calling us kooks, cowards, commies, traitors, etc, but it doesn't bring you one step closer to making a rational point or convincing anyone of anything except that you don't have any real basis for your beliefs except that you don't like us.

Re-read the poll before you post. Most Americans want "victory." So how do those polled define victory? What Bush has done is not leading to victory, so most people ALSO want Bush to change his strategy -- no surge -- because that will FAIL. Most people, here and in Iraq, feel our presence is making the civil war WORSE. The vast majority of dems and libs have never asked for a complete withdrawl -- but a move to the sidelines, advisors, and focus on the real terrorists until the civil war burns out. Victory is something we all want. How we define it is the point of debate.

This war is about hegemony, OIL, and racism.

Pure LIBERAL BALONEY! Besides, Democrats (Liberals) are TODAY's racists!!!

Iraq was absolutely no threat to us...

For anyone to come up with that conclusion -- which we know the ALL Democrats (Liberals) do -- requires the individual to have: no knowledge of history; no knowledge of Saddam, his sons, and his regime; no knowledge of Saddam's prior and ongoing actions (at that time); no knowledge of the threat he posed to the region, to the world's economy, and to the U.S. economy; no knowledge of the threat he posed to world oil supply and prices (of course, we don't need that dirty stuff anyway); no knowledge of human nature; no knowledge of France and Russia; no knowledge of probable future actions; a basic inability to analyze the total situation considering all related facts and likely outcomes; and some naive liberal view -- to name only a few!

Having studied and majored in physics and math myself, I know they used to teach students to better analyze and understand the total problem than that and to determine likely future outcomes based on known facts, events, possible and probable outcomes, etc. But to do that, you must first forget the liberal indoctrination and brainwashing you apparently received from your other misguided elitist professors -- probably liberal, Democrat anti-war, anti-American and their theoretical utopian text-book world.

AAR

"...But if six months from now things are reasonable, then the go-ahead will be there to do the other things necessary..."

Okay, but what if things are not "reasonable" in six months. (What would reasonable be to you in this context?) It seems like every few months, we are reminded that Victory is just around the corner. I'm tired of going around the block.

I have seen the question posed time after time, but not one single Iraq War supporter ever answers it: What would constitute Victory in Iraq? Any ideas, Mark?

This administration refuses to change course, which makes me wonder if Victory ever was the plan. There's a whole lot of money to be made on a protracted war. It was also a safe be for a few election cycles that the public would support the more-American-than-thou Republicans. In that sense, the Republicans "won." Quoth Karl Rove, "Run on the war!"

This whole debate seems to be moot right now. Bush has the commander he wants, the numbers he wants and the strategy he has chosen for the Iraq war. Democrats lack the votes to even put a non-binding resolution through Congress, let alone do anything substantive like withhold funding.

The net effect of all of the hot air being blown around these days is that the Iraq War is firmly established in all of our minds as a Republican war. If the surge works and leads to victory, Bush and the regulars here can run victory laps around those of us who think Iraq was a blunder.
But if it doesn't, Bush and the Republican party will pay the price at the polls. This is the last escalation the public will tolerate.

In the meantime, people who call Murtha and Hagel "cowards" while extolling the warrior virtues of leaders who pulled strings to avoid service when they were on the clock look like idiots. Call them dissidents, fools or delusional and you make your point. But don't think for a minute you can prevent them from exercising the right to free speech that THEY put their lives on the line to protect.

America has been waiting for a definition of just exactly what Bush would consider "victory", and apparently it amounts to sodomy:

A few months ago a book called Ariel Sharon: An Intimate Portrait came out. It’s by the late Uri Dan, who was Sharon’s longtime confidant/bootlicker. It sounds like it’s worth skimming, at least for these two parts:

From a new review in Ha’aretz:

Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”

You Publicans better move your White House to New Jersey.

Thrower,

But cowards and traitors they remain - and you can once upon time have been a brave patriot and wind up a cowardly traitor...people do change. Murtha and Hagel, once brave patriots, have now become cowardly traitors. It happens all the time - people who were lions at one point in their life for various reasons become craven later on.

A good example of this is the way Petain was the rock of France's WWI resistence, and then became the instrument of France's craven surrender in WWII. Hero in 1916, traitor in 1940....

kblack,

A word of warning - call our war racist one more time, and you'll be banned...we'll tolerate a lot of even silly dissent here, but that is a step too far.

Employing reason and logic (sure indicators of liberalisim!) in discussing all things Iraq with so called conservatives such as AAR, is like trying to explain to someone who believes with such delusional fervency as to deny all evidence to the contrary that the earth is flat and disease is caused by demonic possession. AAR would probably deny the reality of gravity by claiming it is a liberal plot to keep things stuck to the earth and planets in their respective orbits.
AAR is not...by any stretch of the imagination... a conservative. Rather AAR, you are an advocate of totalitarianism. How dare you suggest that anyone who dissents over this "war" is guilty of treason. How dare you imply that anyone with an education has been indoctrinated by "elitists". People like you embrace one party rule, state controlled media, censorship and a messianic world view of pan nationalism. There is nothing to "win" in Iraq regardless of your wild eyed protestations. Iraq itself is a "country" in name only invented by the Brittish and was held together in more recent times by a despot. Amoungst the miriad of reasons this administration of ours has tried to promote as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place was to establish a liberal democracy. The same sort of liberal democracy that you so despise. Liberalisim is the natural order of things. Members of the democratic party are not anti-american nor are they traitors. Rather they are patriots of the first order because they can see that GWB has alot in common with George Armstrong Custer.It is simple minded reptilians who are manipulated by fear and our administration is comprised of people who are the worst sort of authoritarians and they have been consistently wrong time and time and time again. What don't you get about Iraq being a civil war? What don't you get about the erosion of our civil liberties? (There is that word "liberal" again.) Do you really think that "they" hate us for our freedom? If so then you must agree that the fewer "freedoms" we have the safer we will be which just proves my point. As Ben Franklin said; "Those that sacrafice liberty (liberal!)for security deserve neither". You, my freind, are the real traitor here. Not those of us who recognize this madness and want to stop it. Lets go after those that attatcked us. How about that?
I am going to suggest you read 2 articles. One is on the website of The American Conservative. It is entitled Good-bye to All That by Austin Bramwell and the other is on firstthings.com by Joseph Bottum. Read those and then let me know how you can claim to be an American conservative.

AAR,

So I guess your answer is no, you are not concerned about troop-readiness. As you say, we should send troops that are as trained and equipped as much "as possible". Of course, this allows Bush to send troops who aren't equipped at all into combat, just as long as no equipment is the best available equipment. Be all that you can be, right?

When did you guys stop caring about accountability? Was it the day Bush took office, or the day after?

Just because you want "victory," does not mean you agree with the current policies. Frankly, I'm shocked that so few people in the IBD poll said they wanted "victory" (I use the quotes because I'm not exactly sure what victory means here).
Who doesn't want "victory?"

I hope that we are "victorious" (whatever it means, it sounds good) in Iraq, however, I believe that Iraq is in a state of anarchy and there is nothing we can do about it. Therefore I would like us to get out as soon as possible because all we're doing is losing American lives, diplomatic capitol, and money as we remain there. And no amount of wanting victory will change that.

Too bad the poll didn't ask whether or not you think the Bush Administration can deliver Victory. That number would have been even higher.

Here's a snippet of Condi's recent speech to the troops:

"And the final thing I want to say is I know that a lot’s going on in Washington and that you’re hearing it. A lot’s going on because we are a great democracy. And people have their views and they’re going to express them. And some do not think that this was the right war to fight, and others think that we in the Administration haven’t fought this war quite right. By the way, all of them know that the sacrifice and the labor of our men and women here has been honorable.

And so when you hear the criticism of the war or the criticism of the President or of me or of anybody else, I do want you to know that to a person at home, your honor and your sacrifice and your labor is appreciated. People know what you’re doing and it’s appreciated across the board. I don’t care what people think of the policies; it’s appreciated across the board."

Traitor. Doesn't she know the "enemy" is listening to this?

Also, well put Aarontime. Thank you.

It's strange... 66% of Americans think victory is important... and yet not a single sitting Democrat lost their seat in the November elections. The public wants a victory but overwhelming voted out the President's "Stay the Course" strategy.

The only logical conclusion is that the American people have lost faith in the Bush Administration and do not believe they are capable of delivering that victory. We might actually be at the point where only Laura and Barney support the President in Iraq... though I have my doubts about Barney.

R. U. Pendergassed,

So says you. I am agog at your incredible ability to ascertain the exact reasons for the 'Rats victory in November.

Silly me! Here I was thinking the losses by the GOP were entirely consistent with virtually all prior losses sustained by the party of a 6 year sitting president (Slick Willy one of the few exceptions). Call it what you will. I call it history repeating itself.

Mark,

I'll bite. Our war is (Ed. Note: over-the-top-slander deleted). Or at least nationalist, which is an equally ridiculous and inhumane discrimination. If 50,000 Americans had perished (I'm using a number that I believe is too low for the sake of argument), then I believe even some of the posters who are now supporting the war would begin to question our objectives. However I admit that it's possible that you wouldn't even then.

So Thrower, sounds like you're a perfect candidate for a "fair weather fan".

Is the war in Kosovo owned by the Dems...cause we're still there, or have you conveniently forgotten? Is Somalia owned by the Dems? How about NK? Or what about the USS Cole? Or what about the first WTC bombing? Will your party take responsibility for anything that doesn't help their agenda?

Your comment about this being a Republican War is truly pathetic and it places you squarely in the category of a coward. I could have sworn that Congress (you know Dems and Repubs) voted to give GW the authorization to use force. So what did that mean to you...slap their wrists and send em to their rooms?

This is the part about being an American that you kooks don't get.

Thrower states:
"But if it doesn't, Bush and the Republican party will pay the price at the polls. This is the last escalation the public will tolerate."

Boooo..hoooooo!

Who freakin cares!!!!
Those of us that support this war do not care about the political ramifications, nor do we care what the lib community thinks of us or our mission. Because if we don't succeed, we're (operative word "we're") all screwed anyway, it's just a matter of time.

If we do succeed, we'd better see you simply go away Thrower, along with your anti-American buddies.

mitche,

Reason and logic from a Democrat (A.K.A. Liberal)? Not in their vocabulary! Democrats lack the basis for logic.

I don't suggest that some, many, of the anti-war Democrats are guilty of treason. I am stating it as a fact. It's just that Democrats (Liberals) are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions!

I'm not implying students in today's colleges and universities have been indoctrinated by elitists. I am flat out stating that the students have been brainwashed, mislead, lied to, and indoctrinated [for the most part] by a bunch of elitist nutty liberal anti-American professors. Deny the facts if you must.

I guess you haven't paid much attention to the news the past few years. I guess you missed the stories about Ward Churchill, Kevin Barrett, their supporters, and others like them. I guess you missed the stories about the professors trying, in many cases successfully, to convince Americans that the government and President Bush were involved in some make believe plot to blow up the World Trade Center and destroy the Pentagon with a missile.

Where is much of the anti-American, anti-war, Bush-hating propaganda coming from? The colleges and universities and those professors who indoctrinate our students. Unfortunately, Liberals just don't get it! Liberals are incapable of understanding or acknowledging the damage and harm caused by their actions and words. But then what could we expect from liberals who have been educated by, support, and even DEMAND "professors" and "instructors" like Ward Churchill and Kevin Barrett? Liberals are "trained" (not educated) by their handlers, professors, and instructors they admire and idolize like Ward Churchill, Kevin Barrett, and others!

There is nothing to "win" in Iraq? Not after the left-wing Democrats have convinced -- told -- the terrorists that Democrats will work hard for their common goal -- the defeat and withdrawal of America from Iraq. Why would any self-respecting terrorist concede defeat or give up now. Just hang on. Democrats have already sapped America's will to win, and now they are using the halls of Congress to tell the terrorists they will do whatever it takes to defeat America, cut the funding, cut the support, cut the troops... cut and run with their tails between their legs and their yellow flag flying high in the air!

Liberalism is the natural order of things? Wow! Only if ones wants weakness. Liberals (A.K.A. Democrats) and Liberalism are destroying America, everything that created and made America strong, and will do so unless stopped... culturally, morally, ethically, competitively, economically, militarily, and in the image of the billions of people around the world. Liberals have destroyed America's work ethic and created millions of welfare families, tied to government doles and handouts, unable to work and help themselves earn a better living... all in order to buy more votes for Democrats.

What don't you and the "smart" (allegedly educated Liberals) not understand about the fact Democrats have and are aiding, emboldening, and encouraging the terrorists to kill our troops and Iraqi families. Look back at the Democrat's campaigns and see when the terrorists started their killing. Look at the Democrat campaigns and propaganda. See how terrorists predictably increased their bombings and killings of our troops as the responded to the Democrat's (Liberal's) message and propaganda. See how they cast their votes for the Democrats -- in American and Iraqi bodies -- to provide the fodder Democrats use and need for their incessant propaganda and media coverage. Look back at how Democrats have called our President the same as Hitler and Saddam, and who made a media spectacle and demeaned all of our troops of implying to the world that our troops are all a bunch of murderers, torturers, and rapists because of the actions of a very few. Look back at our Senators saying to the world that President Bush and America is running gulags and torture prisons like those of Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin. Unfortunately for ALL Americans, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, including terrorists, believe that garbage.

I could go on and on, but that should be enough to let you know what I think about what Democrats think... but thanks for your highly predictable and not unexpected liberal (Democrat) view and opinion!

I suggest you go read some more liberal lies and ignore the facts and consequences of the Democrat's actions!!!

AAR

It's strange... 66% of Americans think victory is important... and yet not a single sitting Democrat lost their seat in the November elections.

Posted by: R A Pendergast at February 19, 2007 04:57 PM

So how do you explain Queen Nancys "Non-binding" resolution Pendergast? You would think that with the kind of political capitol you guys keep claiming to have, Nancy might try to push something a little more ... binding.

Sorry Navydad, I'm here to stay and I've cast may last Republican vote for awhile. I raised two politically moderate kids who are now radically liberal after watching a schoolmate return from Iraq with one arm. Actions do have consequences and Bush is on the cusp of taking an entire political party down with him. If you blow enough hot air you may for a time miss the change in the weather that is happening around you.

Buga writes:
"It is this simplistic thought process that enabled Bush to go into Iraq with such support from the populace even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or anti-American terrorism (I know, you'll trot out all the lies you've given in to from the beginning about the connections that weren't but I'll say it anyway)."

I'm sure to you anything you don't believe must be a lie. So it must be a lie published by the New York Times with its conservative agenda, right?

January 27, 1999, “A Much-Shunned Terrorist Is Said to Find Haven in Iraq”

“Abu Nidal, one of the world's most infamous terrorists, moved to Baghdad late last year and obtained the protection of President Saddam Hussein, according to intelligence reports received by United States and Middle Eastern government officials. The reports have raised questions about whether Iraq is pushing to establish a terrorism network, American and Middle Eastern officials say. … Abu Nidal's move to Iraq, which he was forced to leave 15 years ago because of his ties to Syria, suggests that he may have renewed a relationship with President Hussein. ‘He could become a more significant threat again if he finds more effective state sponsorship,’ an American intelligence official said.”

Since you don't know who he is (or you wouldn't say something stupid about Saddam not having ties to terrorists), the Council on Foreign Relations can teach you, if you are able to learn:

"What terrorist activities has the Abu Nidal Organization undertaken?
the 1994 assassination of the senior Jordanian diplomat Naeb Imran Maaytah in Beirut;
the January 1991 assassination of Abu Iyyad, the PLO’s second-in-command after Arafat, and another PLO official in Tunis;
a September 1986 shooting at the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey, that killed twenty-two;
the December 1985 attempted hijacking of a Pan Am flight in Karachi, Pakistan, in which twenty-two people died;
the December 1985 attacks on El Al airport counters in Rome and Vienna, which killed eighteen people and injured 111;
the June 1982 attempt to assassinate Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London, which helped trigger Israel’s invasion of Lebanon."

Not enough terror ties (only about 900 casualties so far, right)? Have you ever heard of the Achille Lauro?

"(CBS) U.S. officials say Abu Abbas, a notorious Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean, has been captured by U.S. forces in Iraq.
Abbas, who had moved to Iraq to escape the reach of American law enforcement, is wanted for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American passenger who was shot and tossed overboard."

Of course, just because CBS manufactured evidence to tarnish Bush doesn't mean they're above helping him out by reporting lies, right?

But they post even more neocon propaganda:
"(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber."

I'm bored. I'll get back to you later.

Morris, Yes, they were all quite the threat to America, weren't they?! They were after Israel and Israelis, as Palestinian terrorists, and any Jew satisfied their interest in attacking Israel. How many Americans did they kill? How many Palestinians have been involved in attacks on America and Americans? Thought so...

The Palestinians, by and large, have stayed away from attacks on Americans because they have continued to hold out hope that America, as the chief sponsor of Israel since the late 50s, will be able to rein in the Israelis and their continuing campaign against the Palestinians (not that the latter are wholly innocent, by any means).

While the situation in Israel/Palestine has been used as an excuse by many Middle Eastern terrorists for attacks on America and Americans, this is one used almost solely by non-Palestinians. In actual fact, however, terrorism against Americans has been largely carried out in the name of Muslim crazies acting under the influence of Bin Laden who sees our presence in Saudi Arabia as an affront to Islam.

And then, you fail to see of course the conditional language used in the articles you quote, i.e., "may have renewed," "could become," "if he finds." In other words, there is nothing definitive stated that Hussein is a threat to the US.

And, you wish to impugn the NYT, I know, and think that because you consider it liberal that I must take my marching orders from its pages. Sorry, bub, but the NYT published Mylroie and Miller, two of the biggest shills for the Unnecessary War in journalism. They also have had Thomas "another six months" Friedman in their op-ed pages. Nope, I stopped reading the Times, unless someone links me to them, 5-6 years ago and have started my day, in any event, with WSJ and FT for more than 10 years. If you avoid the ludicrously Bush-supporting pom pom team at the WSJ on their op-ed pages, you would know a lot more about real news than you do. FT has missed the op-ed mark several times as well but, again, their news is top of the line.

Perhaps you should avoid the op-ed pages for a while and read the news and you may be able to reach your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you in pithy sound bites which are absolutely intended to push a particular line.

If this is a fight for our survival and one that is absolutely necessary, you'd better pack your bags and ship, along with the others of your persuasion. I'll be sure to thank you when you've saved us. Hurry along, now. What's that? Oh...

AAR:

You are, without a doubt...(Ed. Note: long-winded, paranoid and hate-filled leftwing rant deleted...we've seen it all before, so just mentally insert the last such you saw).

Thrower,

Your kids became radical liberal because of that?

A bit more quality time with the kids, Thrower...if something like that will control how they view the world, then they are in a very weak moral position and easily subject to domination by any con man who comes along.

Jared,

Your position is patently absurd - we're expending blood and treasure in Iraq in order to bring a good future for them...if we were on a nationalist war of aggression, we would have negotiated a peace treaty with Saddam with him ceding the Basra area to us, and Mosul to a new Republic of Kurdistan.

Thrower, I didn't think we'd get rid of ya that easy!

Maybe you should buy rubber sheets for your kids.

Please ask your kids who will defend them the next time we're REALLY attacked. My guess is they'd say Barrack O-Big-Ears or maybe Teddy the Swimmer, but surely not our Military...no, they're ignorant fools that are too dumb for society so they need to join the military. Yeah...right!

It appears that the brainwashing of your children started at an early age.

It's amazing how the current generation of kids can see through BS Mark. They see us using their generation to wage an incompetent war against the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sounds like about 70% of the U.S. population right now.

mitche

The 14th Amendment, Section 3 to the U.S. Constitution states: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I fully believe the actions and words of some Democrat Senators and Representatives and would-be presidential candidates during the past 6 years fall within the scope of the 14th Amendment. By their words and actions, they have provided aid, comfort, and encouragement to our enemies. Knowingly or otherwise, they have encouraged and emboldened terrorists to kill our troops. Knowingly or otherwise, their words and actions have damaged the image of the United States around the world, created hatred and disrespect against the United States and the office of the President, and have undermined the efforts of the President (and future Presidents) and the United States to deal effectively with our enemies like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Knowingly or otherwise, their words and actions have severely harmed the security and safety of our troops and placed all Americans at greater risk from future attacks.

It's time we follow the Constitution and start taking the members of Congress to task for their actions and words. The 14th Amendment may not apply to the average citizen or the news media, but it does apply to the irresponsible and anti-American actions and words of members of Congress. As a minimum, it warrants extended Congressional hearings and a major investigation into its effect on America's security and safety. The American people need to be told and clearly understand the consequences and harm to America and their security from the irresponsible actions and words of our lawmakers!

Any members of Congress found to have supported or engaged in actions, words, or propaganda which provided aid, comfort, and encouragement to our enemies -- directly or indirectly -- should be removed from office in accordance with the Constitution! Any future Congressional or Presidential candidates found to have engaged in such actions, words, or propaganda should be barred from running for those offices!

AAR

My kids have minds of their own Navydad, and I fought some epic battles keeping them in line while they were growing up. I respect their independence even if it has been frustrating at times.

The point their thinking underscores is reflected in the difficulty we are having hitting recruitment marks in the military. We have raised the age limit by I believe seven years, eliminated a criminal record as an automatic exclusion and morphed the National Guard into an International Guard. There is a message there.

I live in a staunchly Republican community and none of the kids I have coached or watched grow up want any part of losing limbs to bomb throwing Iraqis so we can have one more theocracy in the Middle East.

Navydad,

I'm a navyson. My dad retired an 0-6 after 25 years' active and he brought me up believing that war & violence were stupid unless for defense. I grew up wanting to fly for the USMC (F-18s were just about to be introduced when it finally my time but I got turned down due to 3 ops on my sports-harried knees). Living in that community, I was surrounded by fliers and one, who now develops avionics for missiles, was quick to remind me more than once, when I romanticized the life, "Never forget that shooting down another plane, dropping a bomb, strafing a beach, mean that you are probably killing another human." It didn't stop me from trying to get in. It did certainly affect my outlook on how heroic war is. Knowing all the vets from WWII that I did showed me that those who will stand up for America come in all stripes, colors, creeds, backgrounds, intelligences, et alii.

In fact, what I have learned in my nearly 5 decades is that those who talk the toughest are usually the ones least capable of coping with vagaries of actual conflict in this life (not just military, but in all aspects of this struggle).

So, as for brainwashing (and all the others who have written of the evils of that buklernin in kalej), we've all had multiple influences...hopefully. It is whether we were able to listen to them all, not necessarily heed, and synthesize our own personality based on what we think best for ourselves that counts. I don't fear disagreement, in fact it is the very strength of our democracy that HISTORICALLY we have been able to disagree without demonizing the other side. The GOP, of which I used to be a member until it went off its religious rocker almost 20 years ago, has shown itself to be nothing more than a bully-machine intent on stifling disagreement and argument. They have become a group insisting on similarity and obedience.

That is the true mark of weakness. Weakness of person. Weakness of position. Weakness of rhetoric. And, weakness of principle.

I haven't found yet the strength in the Democratic party that would enable me to call myself a Democrat. However, for the first time in my life, I voted not just the majority of my votes for Dem candidates but 100% of my votes were not for GOP candidates. This is due to the fact that allowing the GOP to continue on the wildly partisan course they took from the late 80s will be the end of what we have known as democracy in the US, i.e., they may allow purple-fingered votes but it honestly won't be called freedom.

Finally, the war in Iraq is what I hope to be the end of insanity in the GOP and a return of that party to its senses and some semblance of the American middle. Whether I will return to the party, or offer my name to any party for that matter, will depend on the policies they propose, the intelligence with which they support it, the data and logic behind their reasoning, their ability to argue openly and honestly, and whether they are pursuing true liberty for the maximum possible number of Americans.

W is not only the absolute worst we have had based on the criteria above but he is the epitome of what the GOP has become and the Iraq war is the end result of this idiotic, rancorous, vitriolic weakness.

I am sad to have lost what I thought the GOP was all those years ago. I am sadder still for what it has meant for America especially when the alternative has proved to be so weak-kneed in meeting the threat.

Hell AAR, we'd need to ring all the Dems up except Joe at this point.

It appears it's becoming fashionable to be anti-American and anti-military with the left as witnessed in Thrower's last posts and if left un-checked, this country will suffer immensely from another post Vietnam barrage of peace-niks and America-haters like Thrower, Atime, Co, Conscriptor etc.

As for the the kooks here at B4B, go the your dictionary and look up the word "treason." There you'll see pictures of half the DemocRAT party.

Democrats seem united, neocons should be worried about Republican Senators and Congressman beginning to break ranks.

"My kids have minds of their own Navydad, and I fought some epic battles keeping them in line while they were growing up. I respect their independence even if it has been frustrating at times."

Obviously, the true love of our country wasn't taught at your home, otherwise, instead of an aversion for the fight, they'd say. "If my country needs me, I'll be there" as millions have in the past, even if they didn't fully agree with the mission.

Intestinal fortitude is something that can be learned Thrower and if your kids have witnessed soldiers returning without limbs, do they feel pity or admiration? A true patriot feels both, but with a stronger feeling to engage those that attacked us.
An aversion for fight typically means flight.

Mark:

I think that your censorship of my response to AAR is gutless. It is exactly what I am talking about. Stamp out discent. Remove factual challenges to unsubstaintiated and misleading claims in order to falsely reinforse your position.
I feel like Zell Miller right now.
I follow the rules of this website and you, for some reason are treating me unfairly. If you are so secure in your philosophy, why should what I say pose exposure to AARs' falability? If I am really this wild eyed zealot, I dare you to print my post and allow the readers and writers to make their own determination.

Wow, this thread was like trolling for idiots, wasn't it? And Aaron just keeps biting at the hook, doesn't he?

Hey, Mr.Cut-and-Paste, you just don't get it, do you? I described a pathology which seems to fit every single radical Lib I have met. I did not set up a straw man, I merely pointed out that this is a mindset which leads one to this particular political orientation---and that I think it has less to do with political philosophy than with a certain way of looking at the world.

Next time you don't understand something, just post your name---we'll get it, without all the bloviating.

Look at this, for example. You blatantly state: "The only people who expected it to be easy were NOT libs - on the contrary, it was the Bushies and the Neo-cons who kept saying, for several years, that it would be easy."

First, of course, you fall back on the radical Lib buzzword "neocon", which, being meaningless, is appropriate for you to use, but adds nothing.

And you, quite simply, lie. When you claim that Bush and his administration and conservatives in general said the war on terrorism "would be easy" you are lying. Not merely mistaken, mind you, but purposely inventing a falsehood with the intent to decieve. LYING. You see,unlike you and your ilk, who rewrite history every time it seems necessary to advance your agenda, we REMEMBER the President telling us that this conflict will take decades, and perhaps generations, and that it will be hard and demanding. We heard him, we understood him, we agreed with him, and we decided it was worth it.

But then no one expects honesty from you, AT, any more than we expect common sense or decency or even a rudimentary grasp of reality. You have chosen your own distorted delusional reality, you inhabit it gleefully, it meets your own pathological needs, and no one expects anything else from you.

Aarontime: GIGO

And BTW,this new posturing from the Left as tough guys, the ones who really understood all along this would be a tough war, the ones who suddenly want to WIN, just won't fly.

You all have spent way too much time flouncing around with your panties in a twist, whimpering about how it was all TOO HAAARD!! and TAKING TOO LOOOOONG!! and so on to be able to suddenly be convincing as manly men pursuing manly goals.

Silly twits is more like it, posting silly twittiness, while spouting nonsense and making up lies. GIGO

Almiranta,
It's funny how the mediots asked Bush three times to give a time table in an interview about a month into the fighting, and he wouldn't do it; yet they spread these pathetic schoolyard lies that he said it would be easy. They begged him to say how long it would take, he didn't give the answer they want, so they just made up one that fit their perception of Bush as idiot in chief, never mind the real idiots who can't accept reality.

And they may deny your pathologizing, but it still fits even more with their denials. They think the war is a mistake, so they focus on every roadside bomb as evidence thereof, then ignore every dead insurgent, every dead terrorist, every time we get information from the Iraqis, every advance in their government. Sure, we don't know how it will be, but they still support social welfare programs after years of evidence that they've damaged poor families, education, and certainly haven't fixed the problem they set out to. 40 years isn't enough time for a verdict on the war on poverty, but 4 is more than enough to create a functional democracy expected to have less violence than California despite a tradition of violence.

Anillo,
It's not just determinism. Most other world religions afford a measure of tolerance to members of other religions, but the Muslims don't. People don't seem to get that values don't just exist, they have to be taught, and middle schools in Saudi Arabia teach that people who die killing the infidels will go to Heaven. Their religion was founded as a political movement as well as a religious movement. It may be that there's an invisible Islam of which people don't speak that has no interest in reigning over all, but where is that Islam? The heroes of the Muslim world are the ones who strike at Israel and the US, not the ones who make peace. The Palestinias celebrated 9/11, when thousands died burning alive or jumping out of a hundred story high window. Hezbollah in the last year fired a thousand rockets into Israel indiscriminately. I hear more crickets than Muslims condemn such actions. Are you listening?

The President was clear that the war on terror would be a long war. No argument there. But the conservative architects of the Iraq portion of that war could hardly have missed further in their predictions. Many of them have since sought cover by throwing Bush under the bus in claiming incompetent war management is the problem in Iraq.

Instead of a weeks long campaign financed by Iraq oil revenues, we are left facing warring sects who agree on nothing except that it is OK to kill Americans. And after four years, 3,000+ lives and half a trillion dollars spent, no end is in sight. This failure to execute a successful war in the face of sunny prognostications is why Bush has lost two-thirds of the support he enjoyed in October of 2001.

I want to win in Iraq. I also want a pretty girl riding a unicorn to bring me a million dollars tomorrow. Not much chance of either.

Now, if you define victory down to "Al-Qaeda not ruling the country" -- well, then we're definitely going to win. Because what we're going to get is an unstable, illiberal, mostly Shiite-theocratic government. More Islamic fundamentalism than under Saddam, and more civil war. And it's not clear to me how anything we do can change this. The political situation in Iraq controls us, not the other way around.

Thrower (or should I say Tosser?),

You, a "former" GOP'er? Dont make me laugh.

You're right at home with the lily livered 'Rats boyo!

mitche,

Your comment was rude, condescending and, worst of all, boring...we have high quality lefty trolls here at Blogs for Bush and we're not about to put up with second-rate rehashes of issues we argued about years and months ago.

Keep up - perhaps you should lurk for a while and see what the lefties are up to here before you start commenting.

Thrower,

Thing is, it has all gone rather splendidly - and if it weren't for the left in this country tossing the enemy morale-boosting propaganda at every opportunity, we'd have had this Iraq campaign wrapped up now.

The enemy and the American left are replicating Vietnam to perfection - the only people not playing along are the members of the United States military, and the conservative political forces in this country. As I've said: we're going to win in spite of the critics.

Thrower,

I will ask one simple question. In fact I ask it to everyone on this board, especially the liberals who come here. It is a question I have asked my wife(a very liberal woman, how we ever got married and maintain it with great relations I do not know, since I am far to the right of her). I wil giver her answer in her words then I will give the question.

Her response " That is an unfair question. I can't answer that question, how can you even ask me that?" We both know why she won't answer. Its because she doesn't want to face the truth, and reality. We both know this, so I continue to let her evade.

The question:

Who do you think the terrorist around the world want as our President: A Bush type or a Clinton type? A Republican or a Democrat? Explain.

A simple question, and one that I can not get a single Dem I work with to answer directly or answer at all. The response is normally a run around or speech on how this is not relevant. But it is releveant.

we'd have had this Iraq campaign wrapped up now. Mark Noonan at February 20, 2007 02:02 AM

Neocons are such fools. The campaign was wrapped up when our troops toppled the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. What you have today is a civil war where both Sunnis and Shiite want to kill our troops but for different reasons. Sunnis kill our troops because they don’t want us to leave. If we leave they know the majority Shiite population will take reprisal on them for the years of Saddam tyrannical rule. They coax us into revenge, and neocons play right into their hands. Instead of providing fewer targets, we give them 20,000 more. The Shiite kill our troops because they are aligned with Iran and must kill infidels if they are to have an Islamic state.

This civil war has simmered and boiled for 2000 years. You can’t be that simple minded to think 20,000 Americans will end it once and for all. Neocon foolishness is just wasting time. Pull out of Iraq and let the 20,000 hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What ever happened to the Bush doctrine that you are an enemy of the US if you provide safe harbor for Bin Laden? Why is the Pakistan boarder so sacred?

"The President was clear that the war on terror would be a long war. No argument there."

Give the man a cigar! Don't tell me you're coming around Thrower and if you believe this, why would you question the mission? I mean, if a troll like you admits GW said it would take time, why not the rest of the left? Or is it that "popular to bash Bush" thing where internally the Dems truly believe in the mission but due to their political agenda, just cannot bring themselves to admitting it? Which will it be, he lied, or he didn't?

BTW Thrower, if I recall, GW & Cheney also told us all that the WOT would last decades..not two months.

This is a generational WOT that is in escalation due to our invaision, in both countries, not just Iraq, which 99% of us knew would happen, just not so much in Iraq. I knew it, the Adm. knew it, but why didn't the donks know it, or weren't they listening? There is NO negotiating with these animals and I honestly do not care one ioda if the terrorist is 2 years old or 52 years old, they need to go away asap.

If you'll recall the people dancing in the streets all over the world post 911, it will be a vivid reminder of how the world sees America as the bully and the terrorist as the underdog. This attack had been long awaited by the Islamic community and remember, they started this war not us, but we're gonna finish it...unless Hitlery is elected. Her party's undermining of our Military's actions in Iraq is the most treasonous, despicable act I can imagine.

canadian conservative,

You forgot what GW has done with Aids.

Ya know Bono asked Harry Reid for money and he told him no. Democrats are hardly the Champions for the down and out.

God is Great--Libs I Hate

"Hey, OhioGolfer, I hope you keep score better than you write. Read your post, idiot; it's riddled with errors. Guess you sliced one OB..."

When America hands Iraq over to a government that is strong enough to fight the terrorists without our help THAT will be victory.....

And if that government turns out NOT to be in the US camp... will we refined victory? If and when an independent Iraq government tells us to get out... to close down our bases, and joins the cartel of oil producing states, will we still accept that as Victory?? Or will we define it again...Just a question??

God is Great--Libs I Hate Now that I have cleaned up the errors, will you address the question rather that attacking the post for misspelling - a cheap way to advoid discourse!!!!

I'll take a shot at your question, TrueAmerican. Terrorists definitely liked Clinton, and probably loved the fact that he was pinned down by Congress in a sex scandal while they were in final stages of plotting. I expect they love George W. Bush equally as much as he has placed living Americans in their gunsights in a venue where overwhelming firepower is muted.

Who would they hate or fear? George H.W. Bush for one, due to his ability to assemble world class military leadership, give it the tools it needed and rally the world behind him. Some others I think would effectively wage the WOT are Jefferson (created West Point), Lincoln (ability to inspire both soldiers and civilians to stay behind the bloodiest war in our history), Grant (legendary fighter who never retreated no how matter how tough things got), FDR (inspirational communicator), Kennedy (could admit a mistake and move on) and Reagan (brilliant communicator and one whose leadership crossed political and economic lines).

Thrower,

I agree with a lot of the names you have thrown out there. They were all good leaders.

What I will address though is your comment concerning Clinton being tied down by Congress. This was brought on by his own accord. He decided to bring an intern in to the Oval office, and the other things with previous women. No one made him do theses things and ignore the other terror plots during his tenure. To expand: He is also the man who turned down the offer from Syria to turn over Osama and he is also the one who turned a blind eye to the USS Cole attacks. That in my opinion is why terrorist would rather have a President like him in office.

Now although I am a advid Bush supporter, I do believe he made mistakes. But he doesn't take crap, and he knows we can win the war in Iraq and is willing to do what it takes to do so. That is why the terrorist don't want another President like him.

I like that you answered though, most libs just evade.

When you're calling for "victory" does that mean you want the Shias to win, greatly increasing Iran's influence in the area, or do you want the Sunnis to win, bringing back a brutal, but secular rule? The situation is *not* a simple win/lose proposition:

The following recently explanation of the current situation is written by Lt. Gen. William Odom, the former former head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

When I hear the call for "victory", what I hear is the same lack of understanding that created this mess in the first place. Its not that I'm against war in principal, or sacrifice in principle, but rather finding a way out of the current situation that's in America's best long and short term interests.

When you're calling for "victory" does that mean you want the Shias to win, greatly increasing Iran's influence in the area, or do you want the Sunnis to win, bringing back a brutal, but secular rule? The situation is *not* a simple win/lose proposition:

The following recently explanation of the current situation is written by Lt. Gen. William Odom, the former former head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

When I hear the call for "victory", what I hear is the same lack of understanding that created this mess in the first place. Its not that I'm against war in principal, or sacrifice in principle, but rather finding a way out of the current situation that's in America's best long and short term interests.

Almiranta -

"And you, quite simply, lie. When you claim that Bush and his administration and conservatives in general said the war on terrorism "would be easy" you are lying. Not merely mistaken, mind you, but purposely inventing a falsehood with the intent to decieve. LYING."

Gosh, you're right Almy. Nobody connected with the Bush administration ever said this war would be a "cakewalk". Nobody ever said that we would be "greeted as liberators". Cheney never said two years ago that the resistance was "in its last throes". And Rumsfeld never said that the war in Iraq "could last 6 days or 6 weeks - I doubt 6 months". He also never smugly crowed, "Never have so many people been so wrong about so much!"

Bush never declared "Mission Accomplished". Wolfowitz never said, "You have to remember that this is not like the Balkans - Iraq is one people who share the same objective..." And when asked about Gen Shinseki's estimate of for the need of 300,000+ troops, Wolfowitz absolutely did NOT say, "That's wildly off the mark. I am reasonably certain that (the Iraqi people) will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."

Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith never said, "It's going to be a maximum 5 or 6 month operation". Pentagon and State Department officials never told NEWSWEEK that they hope to be able to "withdraw US troops in as little as 30 to 90 days after President Saddam Hussein's ouster".

When White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost of the war would be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion, Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget absolutely did NOT say that this estimate was "very, very high" and he certainly did NOT state that the total costs would be "between $50-$60 billion." Daniels then did not say, "There’s just no reason that this can’t be an affordable endeavor”, and he did not follow up with, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid." On the subject of just how much reconstruction aid Iraq might need, Rumsfeld absolutely did not say in Apr 2003, "I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do."

In fact, administration economic advisor Glen Hubbard did not say in Oct 2002, "Costs of any such intervention would be very small." Press Secretary Ari Fleischer quickly did not agree, and did not add that Iraq could easily fund its own reconstruction. Fleischer absolutely did not say, "Well, the reconstruction costs remain -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

None of this ever happened. Because I am just LYING. I'm sorry - my bad.

Michael Czeiszperger -

Great article! A must read for sure. Posting it again here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html

But General Odom clearly doesn't know anything. He was just head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. He only got a PhD from Columbia, and only teaches at Yale. What does General Odom know compared to the keen intelligence, training, and experience of Lt General Mark Noonan, Major General Rush Limbaugh, and Colonel Sean Hannity.

Aaron

In fact, the article posted by Mike is so good, I paste an exerpt here. In this protion of the article, General Odom explodes the top 4 twisted and self-serving excuses being used by the Bushbots to continue this war for years and years more:

As Congress awakens to these realities -- and a few members have bravely pointed them out -- will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them:

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.

But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that "the buck stops" in the Oval Office? If the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress?

Sorry to lay that on you, Bushbots. Nobody said your deprogramming would be easy.

Aarontime,

If you are going to use figures, don't leave out infromation that goes against your point. You are correct on saying that the administration rebutted the 100-200 billion dollar, and said 50-60 billion. But you fail to mention they were only speculating based on 1991 dollar amounts and the true amount could not be known. It also goes on to say that the Bush administration didn't want to disclose the amount, because the war could escalate and be carried on(this is paraphrase). Here is the link for those of you who want to know the truth, its from the Communist News Network so libs can't say its made up. http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/03/18/warcost/index.html

Aarontime,

Can you name one war that was not only managed perfectly but ended at the exact day and time they said it would end?

What if we never dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII. Do you think it still would have ended the way it did?

Truman had guts, unlike his party today...

Oh, I almost forgot the link has a nice chart, with a yellow background, that breaks it down very nicely. Hey libs make sure you read the asterisks and small print.

TrueAmerican -

No, no, no - they were not "speculating in 1991 dollars". Please. Read the article carefully. They were basing costs on what the 1991 Gulf War cost, but they weren't doing that in 1991 dollars! Big difference, pal. Who do you know bases current costs using past dollars? The war estimates were made in current dollars, for current budget purposes. Congress wanted to know how much we would likely spend, and the WH gave them a figure in current dollars. Further, the WH used the figure for their own budget projections.

By the way, True, Lawrence Lindsey was fired for saying that the total cost of the war might be $100-200 billion, because it was far above the administration's estimate $50-60 billion in current dollars. Clearly, the Bushies wanted to downplay the costs. However, they were correct in one regard: Lindsey's estimate did indeed prove to be "wildly off". The money appropriated thus far is approximately $500 billion (just 10 times the Bushies' estimate), and that is only for ongoing operations. That does not include the costs of repairing and replacing damaged and destroyed equipment, nor does it include the staggering costs of healthcare and rehab for 25,0000 wounded vets. The total eventual cost is estimated by most economists to be in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion (although some Nobel laureate economists are saying it could easily reach $2 trillion).

And just in case you're confused, or playing confused, that's $1.2 trillion in today's dollars. Not Revolutionary War dollars. Not WWII dollars.

Hey True - I just got an airplane ticket to London for $4! Not possible - you say? Well, let me clarify - as is the common practice, I'm using 1890 dollars, from before when airplanes were invented. (snark)

How many want free healthcare?

I'll put my money on over 66%.

AAR said it at 1:45 yesterday: "Our troops are the best equipped, best trained, most effective, and most capable military anywhere, bar none."

Yet they're still getting their asses kicked by a ragtag bunch of insurgents.

Hubris for the masses!!

"The Palestinians, by and large, have stayed away from attacks on Americans because they have continued to hold out hope that America, as the chief sponsor of Israel since the late 50s, will be able to rein in the Israelis and their continuing campaign against the Palestinians (not that the latter are wholly innocent, by any means)."

I've been meaning to get a psychic's opinion about my next big life decision, and I've obviously met one, saves me the trouble. After all, you obviously know without doubt the motivations of the Palestinians. Why, now our country can save millions of dollars we spend on Middle East analysts because they can just ask you what their intentions are, since you obviously know. The trouble is, what you believe must be their motivation is albeit a single possible motivation. But the simpler explanation is that if you're trying to wipe out two enemies, you don't want to get them both mad at you at the same time, it's stupid. It's just a little more convenient to send a suicide bomber across the border into Israel than to send them all the way to America. That's the simpler explanation, and when it comes to getting peace, you seem to think the simpler one (peace to reach peace) applies, that anyone who wants to use force to get peace is idiotic. But when it comes to motivations of Palestinian terrorists, you go for the more complex. Why do you think that is?

Further, I appreciate that you made the bold move that most liberals won't in saying that the lives of Israelis (Jews) aren't important enough that Americans should die to save them. I mean, if these terrorists Saddam was in league with only kill Jews, no big deal. It's not like they're worth anything, eh?

You continue:
"And then, you fail to see of course the conditional language used in the articles you quote, i.e., "may have renewed," "could become," "if he finds." In other words, there is nothing definitive stated that Hussein is a threat to the US."

That's not what Bill Clinton said after striking an Iraqi pharmaceutical plant:
"Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores. . . . This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after."

Newsweek (another dubious source) writes in January 1999:
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."

And those liars at NPR:
"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a US counterintelligence officer, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait... Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."

And the well debunked WaPo (1/23/99):
"Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it.... But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

And of course the Guardian (2/6/98) is a bunch of Bush apologists, too:
"Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Just like that Clinton appointed CIA director Tenet:
"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad... We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs...."

And why would we believe Saddam himself when laying down contingency plans for biological weapons strikes if 41's coalition invaded Iraq:
"We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody."

He was an angel, a threat to no one.

Buga writes:
"The point lost on you is that peace and equality do not happen at the point of a gun; rather, they are both antithetical to the point of a gun."

Why then do all societies have police forces? Name a society that does not use guns to protect its people's freedoms. If as you suggest guns are antithetical to peace and equality, then why is it that the guns of the West preserved freedom despite the peace at all costs types who wanted to give Hitler one more chance, one more time. Without guns, the Jews, gypsies and other non-Aryans would have been wiped out, and I doubt that would have brought lasting peace and equality.

"And, do you realize that you have countered Bush's rhetoric from almost the beginning, i.e., after the WMD and terrorism reasons fell by the wayside? He has said that all people want that. Now, you say that Muslims don't have these values for which we have ostensibly been fighting? Is that not an admission that, therefore, we should end the fight and come home?"

What Bush has said is that people want freedom, and given that tens of millions risked their lives to vote in Afghanistan and in Iraq, there's more than a little evidence he's right. It is the terrorists who see themselves as without options. Terrorism attracts the underemployed engineers without the freedom to use and profit from their skills in peaceful ways.

And when the taught values are not peace and tolerance, why should we expect them to respond to such values without opening (freeing) their societies and their minds to those possibilities? It is freedom that allows tolerance to exist, without freedom tolerance has no meaning. The trouble is, these schools and their leaders have been teaching hatred and violence as what fits the situation so long that there are a lot of people caught up in that tradition. How do we change that tradition by walking away?

If a child beats up another child because they hear from their parents that this is what they're supposed to do, like that DC sniper's son taught to kill, then is walking away going to improve the situation? Or is it necessary to use force to change the situation? Honestly, would you have the police just walk away if the sniper shot some of them, or is that not all the more evidence that there is a problem which force alone will overcome?