"... I'll be(t) most of the "veterans" are like most of the "homeless vets" of the 1980's - bogus."

Or like the "veterans" John F'n Kerry rounded up in his shameless Winter Soldier campaign---frauds nearly to a man. "Viet Nam Veterans Against the War"---a title as phony as his sworn testimony to Congress.

Looks to me that these brave, partriotic protestors are merely voicing the opinion of a majority of Americans.

You know, the 65% of Americans show are against this scam of a war, the scam of Iraq, and the outright scam of the "war on terror."

Wade

Wade,

And, once again, if 65% of the American people thought as you, then the Democrats would have been able to pull funding of the war...the fact that they can't do that shows that, regardless of what polling is presented by the MSM, a majority of Americans are opposed to defeat in Iraq.

That aside - every right must be exercised with discernment...to be a black-hooded hate-monger, you have to be ignorant and untirely unconcerned with truth and justice.

So your saying there were no Vietnam vets that had a hard time adjusting after the war?

And just for the record - its not me who is causing the broken record phenomenon. Its Mark who posts time and time again and insinuations like the one above that if you go to an anti-war protest you are anti-American. Its exactly this sort of language which lead to McCarthism... So its not even original

Note how mark puts it - he has to phrase it very very very carefully. According to Mark its not that Americans support the war, its not that they want it continued its that they "are opposed to defeat in Iraq". I am sure thats exactly how they phrased it when they asked people that question - which is of course so loaded a question that it doesn't matter what people as responded. Its like asking are you "opposed to Freedom" and then when people say no, claim that it is an endorsement of Bush policies.

How bout it Mark - how was the question phrased?
The important questions are not answered by constructing abstract loaded poll questions - you have to ask very specific policy questions.
- do you support the presidents plan for increased troop levels in iraq?

kblack,

McCarthyism? That would be something done on the left these days...some day soon I expect Reid to announce that he has the names of 200 Neo-Cons who have infiltrated American government.

And I said it years ago - patriotism requires supporting the troops to absolute victory. Anything less than that is anti-American, at least to some extent.

It sounds and looks as if BDS is progressing to brain rot.

"You know, the 65% of Americans show are against this scam of a war, the scam of Iraq, and the outright scam of the "war on terror."

Agreed; refusal to support the troops to anything less than absolute victory is a disingenous sham. Its a facade of concern, a useful tool of the libs to gain political power; those werent conservatives burning the soldier in effigy.

That anti-war march was a joke, the live footage included every kook-group you can think of from "911 was an inside job" to geeks wearing palestinian flags. The war has become an opportunity and an excuse for every leftist moron in America to air their pet peeve or personal conspiracy theory on a daily basis.

Bernard was correct, thanks to multiculturalism and PC bull, the stupid are taking over the country. The thought of giving the White House over to this new incarnation of the DFL scares the crap out of me.

I hear so many say they support the troops but don't support the mission they are on.

So I have to wonder, just what are they supporting when they say they support the troops?

Wade,

Only 20% of people have the same postion of war protestors, which is the immediate withdrawl of US forces and defunding the wat.

Majority og people , over 60% believe the Congress should fund irregardless if surge or time table

over 60% also believe congress should set a time table and troops should have 3 year between deployments.

But I doubt much if they know what current deployment legislation is..

Example .. National Guard and reserves can only be deloyed 24 months out of a 5 year period.

SO no, war protestors don't represent main stream people

Mark,

Eagles, War Pigs, and Moonbats - oh my!
Eagles, War Pigs, and Moonbats - oh my!

Rove is the man behind the curtain.
Dubya is a Flying Monkey.
And you can be Toto.

The rest of the world just wants to wake-up from this God-awful republican nightmare.

Peace

Mark

Your reply to Wade is absolutely correct. If the democrats really had the mandate, they would be able to pull the funding and stop the war. The half measures and political gamemanship they employ with non-binding resolutions and slow bleeds is proof that they dont have the support they claim to have.

One thing that I feel is overlooked is that the tactics the Democrats have been using are proof of their opportunism on the subject. Opportunism on the part of the politicians, and opportunism from their supporters.

Nancy Pelosi knows that her "mandate" is bogus. She doesnt have the votes to stop the war. She knows it would be political suicide to try and defund the war effort.
Harry Reid knows it. Hillary Clinton knows it. Obama knows it.

That doesnt stop any of them from claiming that they are about stopping the war in order to garner the support of the allegedly anti-war supporters out there.

I say alledgedly anti-war because their actions dont match thier statements. If you really are anti-war, how do you justify a slow bleed?
How do you justify continuing to fund the war until 2008?

Wade and the rest need to ask themselves about their own motivations here. Is it about stopping the war? If it is, why do they continue to support people that claim to be against the war while simultaneously avoiding any responsibility for actually stopping the war?

Mark -

"I like, especially, how they expose an alleged "Iraq veteran" as a fraud. I'm sure there are a few Iraq veterans who have actually signed on to the left, but I'll be most of the "veterans" are like most of the "homeless vets" of the 1980's - bogus...

...patriotism requires supporting the troops to absolute victory. Anything less than that is anti-American, at least to some extent.

So Pat Tillman's brother is a bogus war vet and unpatriotic? And all of these Iraq war vets are bogus: http://www.ivaw.org/view/profiles ?

You've made it clear, Mark, that you think that anyone not blindly supporting Bush's Iraq venture (aka worst strategic blunder in US history) is unpatriotic, wants the US to lose, and wants the terrorists to win. But what happens when Iraq war vets say the war is bogus, a huge mistake, or has more to do with Bush's ego than with the war on terror? What happenes when highly decorated vets of past wars say the same thing? Are they terrorist lovers? Are they cowards? Do they hate America?

Unprecedented numbers of retired generals have openly criticized the Iraq war, and say the US should leave. Are they also all for defeat? Are they "cut-and-runners", despite having achieved lofty and distinguished positions in our armed services? How do "cut-and-runners" get promoted to such high rank, deapite their "defeatist" sentiments? Were they just extremely adept during their multi-decade careers at hiding the fact that they secretly hated America?

What would it take, Mark, for you too to concede that the decision to attack Iraq was a colossal mistake, and that there is little to gain and much to lose by staying there?

The balance sheet so far: In exchange for removing a contained despot that was an enemy of al-qaeda, 3,200 US soldiers have been killed, $580 billion have been appropriated on the way to an estimated eventual cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion, and perhaps 70,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. In addition, our moral authority has been trashed, hatred for America is at an all time high across the world, and respect for America is at an all time low. Meanwhile, our enemies across the globe (remember Osama?) have benefitted immensely from having the bulk of US combat forces stuck in Iraq... instead of, say, pursuing al-qaeda.

If we have not already paid enough for the removal of a single, contained, tin-pot, secular dictator, at what price do you finally say this isn't worth continuing? Should it be 10,000 more US soldiers dead? Or 20,000? Afterall, that's nothing compared to WWII - right Mark? Heck - more soldiers were killed at Iwo and Okinawa - right Mark? And with current operational costs of $9 billion per month, should we shoot for a $2 trillion total price tag? Or would it take $3-4 trillion before you stop and think, "hmmm, is this costing more than what it is worth? And what really is to be gained anyway by occupying a country in civil war?"

Apparently, to avoid admitting a gross mistake, Mark and Mr Bush and all you pathetic authoritarian cult worshippers are quite OK with seeing as many US soldiers sacrificed as it takes, and squandering as much of the US treasury as needed. Your treason to US interests truly knows no bounds.

Mr Bush apparently feels that it is his perogative as God-King to disregard the American people. But what happens if a majority of US soldiers in the field decide that the mission is bogus? Should they just all be sent to Leavenworth for insubordination?

Aaron,

Calm down - you're going to give yourself a stroke if you don't take a breath from time to time.

We've endlessly gone over all of your points in the past, so there's not too much point in arguing it - you think what we are doing in Iraq is evil and wrong, I think it is a noble effort...an outpouring of love and devotion not seen since 1861. The chasm is too wide for us to bridge.

I will say this, however: victory is a requirement, not an option. It doesn't matter what it costs because the costs of defeat are always far higher than the costs of victory. So, I will agree to seeing this thing through - but, of course, as I am not in the anti-war's Alternate Universe, I know it shan't cost what you think in your fevered imagination that it will cost (or, heck, even has cost...you exaggerate greatly, already).

Hey aaron,

As long as we are talking numbers of dead soldiers, at what point could this war or any other be considered a failure?

I hear the left bark about how they support the fight in Afghanistan. With our dead approximately in the two hundred range over there I guess that the number is acceptable to them. So, we have 200 dead in Afghanistan and 3200 dead in Iraq and we have been in Afghanistan longer...therefore the acceptable number of dead must lie somewhere between 200 and 3200. What is the magic tally?

Is one dead trooper too many, what about ten or fifty or one hundred? If we hadnt lost a single man in Iraq, would you consider the war a success? What if the numbers were reversed and instead we lost 3200 in Afghanistan, would the left still profess their unqualified support for that war?

No Mark,

Its statements like "if you don't support the troops to absolute victory you are not patriotic" which are show how you have to manipulate and carefully construct your argument.

See how you mix in supporting the troops with absolute victory? One can support the troops and want them to return! Its your insistence with equating opposing the war with opposing America. Its your insistence with equating not "supporting absolutely victory" with being a traitor - from previous posts. Its your insistence with manipulating the words so that if you can't have a clear statement of opposing a policy without treating soldiers badly..
Thats what makes you a McCarthiest...

So if a Democrat got us involved in a war that you didn't agree with you would fight it to the end to be patriotic?

Mark -

"...I am not in the anti-war's Alternate Universe, I know it shan't cost what you think in your fevered imagination that it will cost (or, heck, even has cost...you exaggerate greatly, already)."

Exaggerate greatly? In my previous post, I said that $580 billion have been appropriated thus far for operations in Iraq. Now pay attention for a moment and see if you can follow this. Up thru the fiscal year ending 9/30/2007, the total approporiated by congress for the war in Iraq is $456 billion.
citation: costofwar.com/numbers.html

And for the fiscal year ending 9/30/3008, the White is requesting $142 billion for Iraq, but the congress might scale that back to $122 billion. citation: cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html

So Mark, the total that has been appropriated for ongoing operations in Iraq is $456 billion (2003 - 2007) + $122 to 142 billion (2008) = $578 to 598 billion. So where have I exaggerated when I say that roughly $580 billion have been appropriated for operations in Iraq?

It is important to note that this estmate of what has been appropriated for Iraq is rather conservative, in that it does not include a number of hidden costs. From the National Budget Priorities Project:

The Cost of Iraq War calculator is set to reach $456 billion September 30, 2007, the end of fiscal year 2007... Spending only includes incremental costs, and additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included, but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. It is also not clear whether the current funding will cover all military wear and tear. It also does not account for the Iraq War being deficit-financed and that taxpayers will need to make additional interest payments on the national debt due to those deficits.

As far as the enventual total financial cost of the war, one has to factor in multiple extra expenditures beyond just what is appropriated for day-to-day operations. For example, the costs of lifetime medical care for 25,000 wounded vets, and of replacing worn out and destroyed equipment. Most economists put that eventual total between $1 and $2 trillion. I used the more conservative figure of $1.2 trillion estimated by journalist and Yale mathmetician David Leonhardt in his Jan 17, 2007 column in the NYTimes Business section titled "What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy":

...Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.

These estimates probably would have turned out to be too optimistic even if the war had gone well. Throughout history, people have typically underestimated the cost of war, as William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, has pointed out.

But the deteriorating situation in Iraq has caused the initial predictions to be off the mark by a scale that is difficult to fathom. The operation itself -- the helicopters, the tanks, the fuel needed to run them, the combat pay for enlisted troops, the salaries of reservists and contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq -- is costing more than $300 million a day, estimates Scott Wallsten, an economist in Washington.

That translates into a couple of billion dollars a week and, over the full course of the war, an eventual total of $700 billion in direct spending.

The two best-known analyses of the war's costs agree on this figure, but they diverge from there. Linda Bilmes, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate and former Clinton administration adviser, put a total price tag of more than $2 trillion on the war. They include a number of indirect costs, like the economic stimulus that the war funds would have provided if they had been spent in this country.

Mr. Wallsten, who worked with Katrina Kosec, another economist, argues for a figure closer to $1 trillion in today's dollars. My own estimate falls on the conservative side, largely because it focuses on the actual money that Americans would have been able to spend in the absence of a war. I didn't even attempt to put a monetary value on the more than 3,000 American deaths in the war.

Sorry Mark - once again, I am correct. And once again, your credibility is shot.

"I think it [the Iraq War] is a noble effort...an outpouring of love and devotion not seen since 1861."

Now that's just downright creepy. You sound exactly like a starry-eyed, love-struck cult member professing eternal devotion to the Dear Leader.

An "outpouring of love and devotion", indeed.

"It doesn't matter what it costs because the costs of defeat are always far higher than the costs of victory."

1) And the cost of withdrawing years from now will be far higher than the costs of withdrawing now. Occupations end with either annexation or withdrawal. Assuming we are not planning on annexing Iraq, we will eventually withdraw.

2) there is no "victory" to be had by continuing our presence in Iraq indefinitely, and the only "defeat" to be had is if we bleed ourselves dry by staying there far beyond what is obviously prudent.

3) Leaving Iraq is not the equivalent of "defeat". "Defeat" at the hands of who? We ousted Saddam, which was the declared goal of this misadventure. So lets declare victory already and get out.

You wingnuts never grow tired of screeching like little girls about the dire, world-ending consequences of leaving Iraq. Talk about alarmists. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering that was used to justify the US staying in Vietnam for 14 years too long. Back then, we were told that if the US withdrew from Vietnam, all of SE Asia would fall to communism, and before you knew it commies would be killing us right here in Kansas. Well guess what? We left Vietnam, and none of the "domino theory" fear-mongering ever came true.

Same with Iraq. Look, the eventual outcome in Iraq is obviously that the Shi'a will dominate and establish an Islamic theoracy - and there is nothing we can do about that, no matter how long we stay there. Not entirely favorable, no, but also not the end of the world. Heck, this might even be a positive development for the US. The Shi'a are sworn enemies of al-qaeda, and so they will ruthlessly squash any inroads al-qaeda might attempt in Iraq after we leave (ironically, just like Saddam did).

Aaron, no numbers on the body count side of things? How long should we stay in Afghanistan (we have already been there longer than we have been in Iraq) and how many casualties can we incur before we call it off and leave?

You wingnuts never grow tired of screeching like little girls about the dire, world-ending consequences of leaving Iraq. Talk about alarmists.

Alrighty then. You might want to get on the horn to your reps and tell them to dismantle any border defenses we might have, the islamic terrorists arent about to visit us here. Its not like they could fly planes into our buildings or something similarly ridiculous. Damn alarmists and their airport metal detectors!

Remember folks, the lib castrati moan about all the terrorists the war is creating and then expect us to believe those new terrorists will just go home if the war ended. Liberals...you just have to laugh.

The moonbats are really concerned with the 3200 plus US soldier deaths in 4+ years, a real concern for our brave volunteers? Really? But they're OK with the 3700 abortions per DAY in the US in the Progressive name of pro choice.

Progress? Progressive? Surely we can find a better name for these....uh, people?

Bacon -

"You might want to get on the horn to your reps and tell them to dismantle any border defenses we might have, the islamic terrorists arent about to visit us here. Its not like they could fly planes into our buildings or something similarly ridiculous. Damn alarmists and their airport metal detectors!"

[eyes rolling!] please - wipe up that trickle of pee-pee running down your leg. My god man - get ahold of yourself!

And now get this through your thick skull: leaving Iraq is not the end of the world, and staying in Iraq does nothing to help us in the war on terrorism. Quite the contrary - staying there only delights our enemies and weakens the US.

Leaving Iraq is not the equivalent of throwing open our borders, or removing metal detectors from airports, or allowing airplanes to fly into buildings, or any of the other idiocy you toads come up with. And if US forces leave Iraq, America won't fall to Islam, your children won't be sent to a madrassa, and you won't be forced to wear a turban while reciting the Koran before your head is chopped off. There will always be the threat of terrorism - but that threat is not diminished simply because US troops are stuck in a civil war in Iraq.

Well, thats the difference between liberals who see the world the way they want it and conservatives who see it the way it is. Call it a lack of strategic thinking ability, more than likely a result of being raised by liberal parents who told you that abject failure was still a win and insisted that you call them by their first names.

You 'bats cant even keep your arguments straight. If civil war is occurring in Iraq, then its also occurring in Afghanistan...you remember, the place that dems love to claim as their very own 'righteous war'. I suppose we should leave that fight too, after all, even if we ran no terrorists are going to chop our heads off or put our kids in madrassas or fly planes into our skyscrapers. Why, thats just kooky thought.

OBL himself declared America a weakling after Clinton ran like a scalded dog from Somalia, and whether you like it or not, the terrorists will see us the same way if we run from Iraq. Iraq is where the fight is, if we run now the fight will follow us home just as it did after Somalia.

Lawd A'mightee...explaining things to marble-brained libs is getting old.

"Well, thats the difference between liberals who see the world the way they want it and conservatives who see it the way it is."

hmmm, lets see - who is really seeing the world they way they want it, instead of the way it is?...

- "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

- "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

- "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

- "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

- "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

- "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in an ABC News interview, March 30, 2003

- "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties.

- "This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention. The president will give an order. It will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on." -Christopher Hitchens, conservative writer for Vanity Fair, January 28, 2003

Need I go on?

So you were saying. Bacon, that Bush cultists "see the world the way it is"? riiiiight. No self-delusion going on there in Bush-world. Nope, none at all.

Notce that Mark Noonan and other war supporters here always claim that the majority of Americans oppose DEFEAT in Iraq, they never mention that the majority of Americans want us to LEAVE Iraq, eventhough every poll, even the ones in the WSJ Editorial pages, show that most Americans want us out of Iraq IMMEDIATELLY.

for all those who claim...

"They support the troops and not the war",
Please explain to me how you can make that statement when the fact is

the majority of troops in Iraq are either people who re-enlisted or jpined the ,ilitary in the past 2 years knowing they would be sent to Iraq to help stop the sectarian violence and fight terroist insurgents.

and your calling for leave a war that they joined or stayed in the military to fight.

Your position is the exact opposite of the majority of soldiers that are there.

So again... how do you call your position "supporting the troops"