Even you Mark, have to be able to distinguish between being against the war and being against the troops. Almost everyone supports the troops = but not everyone supports the war. I'm sorry Mark - but this war *is* useless -
a) there were no WMDs
b) there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq
c) life in Iraq for the common Iraqi is not significantly better than it was before the war
d) the US has not gained anything , it has lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, with more losses in sight
e) there is no end in sight which will leave Iraq stable and democratic...
f) the entire region has been set on a course which has only two options - bad or worse

and on and on..
And it is not those who opposed the wars fault - it is those that shot first and asked questions later or not at all.

I'm sorry Mark but the lives of the troops and others who have died were sacrificed by this president and for what?

Nobody - with any dignity - is saying that most of the troops (excluding scandals) the didn't serve bravely and valiantly - unfortunately they served at the discretion of one of the worst presidents in history. Mark my word Mark - Bush will not go down in the history group as a Lincoln - history will see him for what he really is

kblack,

History will view Bush as another Truman, or even better. Be that as it may, you've got yourself entirely wrapped up in the leftwing narrative of the war...which is entirely divorced from reality. Just in the fact that you think the Iraqis are no better off than they were under Saddam shows how little you've actually looked at the facts on the ground.

As for "no end in sight"...well, there was no end in sight in 1864 or 1944, and a year later the war was over. War isn't tidy and quick - it is a messy business and it goes on until one side admits it is beaten. The enemy doesn't think of its fight as useless, and it has lost three to ten times the number we have lost, and there is no end in sight and, additionally, they have lost position after position (in case you haven't noticed, the "terrorist hotspots" of Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit are no longer terrorist hotspots...quite calm these, days, actually and life is improving steadily)...if you can't see the promise in 11 million voters and 350,000 Iraqis fighting alongside us, then no amount of arugment will sway you.

Kblack77 said, "f) the entire region has been set on a course which has only two options - bad or worse."

You mean like the situation in Canada? There's a religious war brewing between factions of Muslims up in Canada.

Canadian Moderates Threatened With 'Slaughter'

CBCnews: A moderate Muslim group that called for a separation of religion and state in a recent documentary has received a pointed death threat. The Muslim Canadian Congress received the message Tuesday morning. It was left on the Toronto telephone of secretary general Munir Pervaiz.

"I swear on 99 names of Allah, if you don't cease from your campaign of smearing Islam … I will slaughter you," the unidentified caller said.

Toronto police and its hate-crime unit are investigating. [..] Pervaiz said the accusation of smearing Islam is a serious one, an offence that some Muslims believe is worthy of punishment.

The death threat comes after the Muslim Canadian Congress took part in a documentary that aired on CBC News on March 6. The piece examined the divides between secular and fundamental beliefs within the Canadian Muslim community. The congress has been targeted for its moderate beliefs before, but never in such a direct fashion, Pervaiz said. Members have had their homes and cars damaged after sharing their opinions publicly.

"We want as many people to know that such a problem exists in Canada," Pervaiz said. "People thought we were exaggerating, but this now kind of confirms and proves the problem exists."

"e) there is no end in sight which will leave Iraq [Canada] stable and democratic..." -by: kblack77

I agree. As millions more Muslims arrive in Canada from Islamic countries like Pakistan etc., the problem will get worse and worse as Canadians increasingly sacrifice their Western democratic laws and Western culture in favor of Islamic culture and Shari'a laws-under the guise of "cultural sensitivity", of course. It's already gotten violent. It will get worse. How long before they start torching cars like in France? If Canada won't stand up for it's Western democratic laws and society, I don't see any end in sight which will leave Canada stable and democratic. Increasingly volatile and violent, yes.

"I'm sorry Mark but the lives of the troops and others who have died were sacrificed by this president and for what?" - by: kblack77

The troops are fighting for freedom and democracy, Kblack77. They are valiantly fighting to transform the brutal tyranny that was Iraq into a functioning democracy where Iraqis will have freedom and a chance for a more hopeful, prosperous future. The best cure for tyranny and Islamic terrorism is freedom and democracy.

No one's going to debate that our troops shouldn't be fighting for freedom and democracy, it's just that we'd all feel better if they were fighting for OUR freedoms and democracy, not for some other country's.

And yes, Democrats are disagreeing with each other. That is a GOOD THING for democracy. Democracy thrives when different ideas are bounced around and considered. it's when an entire legislature marches lockstep and in unison with no questions asked, that we have the types of dangers we see today as America heads right for the edge of a cliff. Thank God the Democrats are in the driver's seat, SOMEONE's gotta hit the breaks !

Freedom - when the war of Armageddon starts - and the four horsemen draw near - let us know....

when the war of Armageddon starts - and the four horsemen draw near - let us know....

No one will have to let you know. You'll know.

"Even you Mark, have to be able to distinguish between being against the war and being against the troops."

Yeah, tell that to the lefties who burned a soldier in effigy in Portland, and smear paint, blood, and feces at military recruitment centers, along with their normal protesting. Plus, the left doesn't constantly highlight the dead and wounded American soldiers in Iraq because they support them. Otherwise, they might take an interest in the ones who have been WIA and KIA in Afghanistan, too.

"I'm sorry Mark - but this war *is* useless -"

So then why did the majority of Democrats vote for it? They thought it was the right thing to do. Why did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act? Jeez, once again having to get into an old debate over leftwing talking points. Count me out.

The Republicans have been wrong about Iraq again, and again and again and again and again. Yet they still have the gall to tell us, "trust us, we're right this time".

The Republican party has greatly benefitted from the support of the "idiot vote" and now it's insulted even that constituency. Unbelievable.

Mark,
This kind of thing really exposes how inauthentic leftie comrades are when talking about young lives being wasted in Iraq. The truth is, to a liberal those lives are wasted only if that person would have left the military and gone on into the Senate or House and railed against abuses by the military. If the lefties honestly believed a soldier would always be a soldier, they'd think their life is wasted already. Why else do they kick military recruiters off their campuses? They don't want young people wasting their lives.

Kblack writes:
a) there were no WMDs

But Duelfer's report clearly details under "regime strategic intent" that Saddam had issued an order to defy UN resolutions (as he'd already done by developing missiles capable of reaching Israel); that he was gathering scientists with WMD skills; jacking up his military industrial budget to dozens of times what it was in the mid-1990's (when that liar Bill Clinton pressured the CIA into releasing only information confirming Saddam already had a WMD program); and using the Oil for Food money not to feed starving Iraqi children dying by the thousands in his country, but to bribe Russia and France into dropping sanctions for the purpose of developing WMD.

b) there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

There is without question a link between Iraq and terrorism. He was rewarding the families of suicide bombers in Israel with tens of thousands of dollars. Of course that only matters if you believe terrorism against Jews is terrorism, and most lefties like Jimmah Carter think of it as freedom fighting or insurgency when a Palestinian blows up and ice cream parlor killing Jewish children. Further, Saddam had lost control of Iraq by 2002, because Al Queda was operating there, and if they didn't have his permission, then he didn't have the power to stop them. Michael Moore's Iraq is manufactured dissent, a myth, and both soccer players and government sanctioned rape victims could tell you that.

c) life in Iraq for the common Iraqi is not significantly better than it was before the war

Not so fast. If you read the recent B4B post on the Sunday Times' poll, you'd see that a majority of Iraqis think Iraq is better than before the war. But of course you know this, so you throw in the word "significantly" to play semantic games like the so called leaders of your party. The trouble is, that poll appears to be statistically significant, unlike the ABC news poll which sampled twice as many non-Kurdish Sunnis as there actually are in Iraq's population.

kblack must be referring to Saddam's henchmen and his followers as the "common" Iraqi. As for the "uncommon" Iraqi, their life was filled with murder, rape, torture, fear, and no hope.

Your only fooling yourself.

You can't tell someone you support them and then turn around and criticize them and tell them what they are doing is wrong.

Bush, even with the majority on his side can't pass things like Social Security reform. His first Supreme Court nomination gets shot down by his own party. He' can't find Osama. He can't win in Iraq. He has a low-30s approval rating. The Republicans lose the Senate and the House...and...wait for the punchline...you think the Democrats are the party of defeat?

Wake up. Almost everything your beloved president and party has done has gone down as a monumental defeat.

Oh and Morris,

Gathering scientists and stealing Oil For Food money doesn't = a WMD.

Terrorists in Iraq doesn't mean Al Qaida was in Iraq (it wasn't). By your logic, America has ties to Al Qaida.

And if you'd like, I can source numerous statistically significant reports that show how Iraqis have less electricity, less water, and less of pretty much everything since the war started.

Freedom1,

So should we invade Canada to kill all the Muslim extremists there, too?

I can't think of any other way we could handle the impending downfall of Western law in Canada.

The Dems have conned the MSM into calling this bizarre concoction some sort of Pelosi-coup. Their cheering section in the electronic and dead-tree Upper Deck far from any action or influence continues its Orwellian Ministry of Truth activities.

The pliant morons on TV call a pullback by the anti-war Dems an advance, and a moral defeat a "victory."

The Surreality-based universe of the ultra-left confueses its own political hallucinations with facts, and it's sort of like that Magic Theater in Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf, "For Madmen Only."

DEMOCRATS THROW IN THE TOWEL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Out of Iraq Caucus members Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Barney Frank (D-MA).

Democrats are still trying to find the votes to pass a measure setting a timeline for surrender in Iraq. They're still a couple votes short...and as for the $124 billion funding bill that does everything from fund the war to bail out the spinach industry in California? They're all going to vote for it. So much for principle...I guess everything does have a price. But what happened to the concern for the debt and the defecit??? Oh I forgot, they now control the purse strings.

The Out of Iraq caucus...a group in Congress dedicated to surrender in Iraq....was evidently appeased enough by a timeline attached to the appropriations measure that they've now decided to not block the measure. The real reason is they don't have the votes to stop it. With Democrats loading up the bill with pork, it is destined to pass. Forget about stopping the war....this is is all about buying votes and cashing in.

But here's the absolute best part. As a result of the Democrats' inability to stop the war in Iraq and cut the funding for it, ultra, anti-war leftists have begun protesting at campaign events and showing up at members' offices in Congress. The latest victim of a protest? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Just yesterday a bunch of crazies were arrested outside Pelosi's office yesterday afternoon. But, their free speech rights have been violated! How can the Democrats shred the Constitution?

The name of the demonstration? "Pin the war on the donkey." Priceless.

The vote will ensure that the republicans own this war. They deserve it.
You may think that's a good thing. We'll see what the voters think.

Look guys - I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this. The fact that democrats did stupid things and made mistakes doesn't take away from the stupid things this administration did. So don't give me nonsense like the democrats voted for this too. Sure - they were morons as well to vote for it. But they didn't manufacture the evidence - that was all the administrations work..

If things are so great and you support the war so much - why don't you go move there? No, wonder why?

i'll say it...yes...the lives of 3200 soldiers have been wasted in this un-necessary war. i mean really...the leaders of this nation need to grow a pair. say for sake of discussion that the insurgents lay down their arms tomorrow, iraq is relatively stable, and the troops begin to withdraw. are we any closer to eliminating the threat of extremists who, as the fear-mongers love to say, want to kill us? nope. at best it's a wash. al-queda will probably be able to operate at some level within the country...a level greater than the level they could before. they will still have had these past 4 years as a very effective recruiting tool that they didn't have before. and they will still have had iraq as a very effective training ground which they didn't have before. iran will have a greater level of influence in the country than they had before. we will have propped up what at best is an extremely weak, extremely corrupt government. and we will have damaged our standing in the world community because of our human rights violations at abu gahrib, gitmo, and other sites unknown throughout the world. all this at the cost of over 2 trillion dollars...when the true costs are honestly evaluated over time...3200 lives, and who knows how many limbs and minds. i'll stand up and say it...under no cost/benefit analysis is this adventure anything but a waste of lives and treasure and moral standing.
and please do not mis-understand me...i want to annihilate religious extremeists of all types as much as anyone...but this was a colosall mis-calculation and someone should be held accoutable.

Well the majority of Congress and the majority of people supported going into Iraq.

and please don't give me the crap that Bush lied or that members of congress were misled. Senators and House Reps are either incompetent and neglect of their responsibilites or they just base their position on public opinion polls.

Either way you look at it, no matter what was found or not found...

The USA created the problems in Iraq, the USA is responsible to everyday Iraqis to help them.

Kblack,

After 9/11, this President had to make a decision, keep the status quo in dealing with terrorist attacks, which had showed little results in deterring them, the World Trade Center was hit twice, or change course. Bush chose not only to go after those responsible for this act, but all nations who support terrorism as well, dealing with each nation individually, on how we respond. Something had to be done with these relationships, nations were using terrorist groups and still are, to further their goals without getting their hands dirty directly.
Iraq was in violation of a cease-fire agreed by Saddam Hussein with UN Security Council Resolution 687. Conditions of that resolution, pertaining to WMDs, was to be carried out in 105 days. The bureaucratic UN allowed this to carry on for 12 years, in violation of their own resolution. Upon getting Resolution 1441, members of the UN carried out Resolution 687 and even with no stockpiles of WMDs found, we still do not know positively they no longer exist or not. They more likely have been completely destroyed but Iraq is the size of California, it is unlikely, but they could be buried somewhere in the sands of Iraq or they could have been transported to Syria over time, no one is absolutely certain on what happened to them. One of those members, who carried out the removal of Saddam Hussein was Kuwait, whose invasion was the reason for the UN’s involvement in the first place. Our participation in the Gulf War was because of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and we would have removed Saddam Hussein from power then, if it had not been Saddam’s agreement to the cease-fire. Kuwait was not satisfied with Iraq’s non-compliance, which is why they joined the coalition to remove Saddam and the Bathist from power.
The Taliban in Afghanistan was providing safe haven for terrorist, alleged, at the time - confirmed later, to be responsible for the 9/11attack. The Bathist in Iraq supported financially the families of homicide bombers, ignored the presence of terrorist seeking safe haven within Iraq, had threatened the region with nuclear ambitions, used biological and chemical weapons against Iranians and the people of Iraq. Iran supports terrorism, allows safe haven of terrorist and is seeking nuclear capability. Bush’s “no plan” was to remove al-Qaida’s safe haven, resolve whether Saddam did or didn’t have WMD’s and end his threat in the region and sandwich Iran between two democracies, providing the opportunity of reforms from within Iran by it’s own people.
Such bold initiatives take time and money to be successful. Democracy brings greater freedoms, providing a more free press, providing a different view of the rest of the world than what has been previously provided. It provides a greater chance of greater economic opportunities for all in that region, and such opportunities lessen the chance of terrorist in recruiting the youth in that region, when such youth see that they have other options than being a martyr. That will help our future generations from the threat of terrorism. To achieve such hope for or grandchildren and their children, what price tag do you place on that?
To plant the seeds of democracy in a region of turmoil for thousands of years is not a slam-dunk but to be pessimistic and say it can never happen, doesn’t achieve anything. Just think, what if it did succeed? That is why the troops are there, that is why they re-enlist, they believe that despite the risk, they are making a difference.

Rusc,

unfortunately the war in iraq has nothing to do with either of these things

1) most of the hijackers in 9/11 were Saudis as well as Osama bin Laden and many elements of al queda. In fact, it is pretty clear that the country that has the most ties to terrorism is saudi arabia. Yet, they are the Bush's biggest friend in the region.

Why do you think that is? If Bush wanted to go to war against terrorism - why go through all the trouble of trumping up false charges - making up WMDs etc, etc, when all the proof in the world that there are elements in the Saudi royal family who support terrorism against the US.

Why? Because they are the ones who will comply and give us good oil deals.

2) democracy argument

again - demonstrably false. Saudi Arabia has one of the worlds worst records when it comes to democracy and civil rights. Yet we have huge oil contracts with them - and militarily support the regime. If Bush cared at all about democracy in the middle east - why not go after saudi arabia - or at least pressure saudi arabia and not have it as our closest friend?

3) terrorism
No - the war on terror is a farce. Terrorism is of course a very real threat. However,
a) the saudi's are more closely related to this then the saddam ever was
b) 16 federal agencies came to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is INCREASING the risk of terrorsim..

thats 0 for 3 want to try again?

"In fact, it is pretty clear that the country that has the most ties to terrorism is saudi arabia" - kblack

demonstrably false. Syria, Pakistan and Iran currently have the most ties to terrorism.

Saudi Arabia has one of the worlds worst records when it comes to democracy and civil rights. - kblack

demonstrably false. The Sudan and Ethiopia far exceed Saudi's abuses of civil rights.

"No - the war on terror is a farce" - kblack

Strictly opinion, no basis in fact.

"the saudi's are more closely related to this then the saddam ever was.." - kblack

demonstrably false. Saudia Arabia never paid families of suicide bombers and that's just one example.

"16 federal agencies came to the conclusion that the war in Iraq is INCREASING the risk of terrorsim.." - kblack

And what would lessen terrorism kblack. Why can't the Democratic brain trust come up with that answer.

0 for 4, care to try again?

From AP,
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.
I guess the ball's in the Senate's court, eh?
This will surely put some heat on Senate Democrats -- and those endangered GOP senators that have to face the voters in November, 08.
Looks to me like a good plan -- either a bunch of GOP senators will have to vote with the Democrats, forcing Bush to veto -- and thus, take complete ownership of the Iraq fiasco -- or, they can block the legislation and take their lumps at the polls.
Somehow, I'm missing the cloud around this silver lining.

thats 0 for 3 want to try again?

Posted by: kblack77

I read all the posts and it looks like Kblack77 has more facts and historical accuracy than everyone else posting on this topic. You may not agree with him/her, but they are correct - and you are wrong. All of the flimsy, hilarious reasons the right has for keeping their chosen dictator in power (screw the USA) will make them a laughing stock into the future. In their darkest moments, when reality pushes through, they know they are wrong. Dicipline to the bush doctrine drives their passion, and that passion has to be re-fueled once in a while with more kool-aid. I feel sorry for them.

The showdown isn't going to come over the war.
Just as with Vietnam, it wasn't the war that stopped the president. It was the cover-up of third rate incident.
The firing of the lawyers is something the dems can get behind because it's not loaded with any war issue. Instead it focuses on legal issues,going to the heart of Bush demonstrated disrespect for the law, ans civil liberties which prove to be a threat to his position, rather than a threat to national security. Sooner or later, someones going to say he or someone close to him is going to say something that will land him in a whole lot of problems.

personally, I think that congress should simply withdraw funding for the war in Iraq. Whats the worse that can happen? People get killed? Iraq split apart? Iraq become a staging ground for terrorists?
---Oh wait, all of that has already happened!!
Many more Iraqis have been dying under US occupation than under Sadaam. The terrorists were not there until we invaded. So what is the point for a continued American presence there in Iraq? A democratic Iraq? No, chances are Iraq will NOT end up a democracy (at least in the American sense of the word) and the Bush Admin. hardely even mentions democracy in Iraq any more. Democracy is out the window.
Some argue that America must stay in Iraq to preserve American power and credibility in the world. This is obviously incorrect because we lost credibility and power internationaly when we invaded Iraq. And, only leaving Iraq will 'help' to restore America's image in the world.
So, why not withdraw the funding?? Better sooner than later.....

Morris:
you said:
) there were no WMDs

"But Duelfer's report clearly details under "regime strategic intent" that Saddam had issued an order to defy UN resolutions (as he'd already done by developing missiles capable of reaching Israel); that he was gathering scientists with WMD skills; jacking up his military industrial budget to dozens of times what it was in the mid-1990's (when that liar Bill Clinton pressured the CIA into releasing only information confirming Saddam already had a WMD program); and using the Oil for Food money not to feed starving Iraqi children dying by the thousands in his country, but to bribe Russia and France into dropping sanctions for the purpose of developing WMD.

b) there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq

There is without question a link between Iraq and terrorism. He was rewarding the families of suicide bombers in Israel with tens of thousands of dollars. Of course that only matters if you believe terrorism against Jews is terrorism, and most lefties like Jimmah Carter think of it as freedom fighting or insurgency when a Palestinian blows up and ice cream parlor killing Jewish children. Further, Saddam had lost control of Iraq by 2002, because Al Queda was operating there, and if they didn't have his permission, then he didn't have the power to stop them. Michael Moore's Iraq is manufactured dissent, a myth, and both soccer players and government sanctioned rape victims could tell you that."

----First of all, almost everything you said is either wrong or completly fabricated. IRAQ HAD NO WMD's AND IRAQ WAS NOT A HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS!! To argue otherwise is to prove how ignorant you truely are. You say that Sadaam was gathering scientists to create WMD, which is not correct. Stating that Sadaam was increasing military spending before the US invasion is misleading. Of course Sadaam would increase military spending, he knew that the US was planning to invade his country. The US military spending also increased before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that does not really prove much. Saying that Sadaam lost control of Iraq to Al Queda in 2002 is also incorrect. He was a dictator who ruthlessly ruled his country with an iron fist. He would not share power with any group, not the Kurds in the north and definatly not an Islamist terrorist organization. That is completly false. Also, you argue that palestinians blew up ice cream parlors, and that is also not true.
---Everything you said is either misleading or wrong. And yet, you feel like it is your responsibility to lecture to other people. You are an idiot. Perhaps you should do a little more research into what you are talking about before you attempt to demonstrate your knowledge. (For next time)....

To argue otherwise is to prove how ignorant you truely are.

Dud of Life,

When you're gonna call someone ignorant, you may want to spell "truly" correctly.

kblack is a talking-point-parrot retard. He/she/it has no credibility. Anyone who thinks that the administration manufactured the intelligence has no credibility. Had the inetl been manufactured, charges would have been brought against the administration.

There were no stockpiles of WMD found; we didn't go to war based on a link between Saddam and 9/11. How many times do you lemming trolls have to use this tired b/s rhetoric? You should be banned from this site, but Mark and Matt are very tolerant.

Colin,

Here's a quiz for you...

In what country is the following election being held? Muslim Women will have to Remove the Face Coverings of their Burqas to Vote in Election

...in Pakistan?...in Iran?...in Iraq? No, in Quebec, Canada!

QUEBEC (CP) - Muslim women will have to remove their face coverings if they want to vote in Monday’s Quebec election.

Quebec’s chief returning officer has reversed an earlier decision and is now telling Muslim women who wear a niqab to show their faces when they vote. Facing threats from ordinary citizens that they would show up at polling stations wearing masks, Marcel Blanchet said in Quebec City Friday that voting day must proceed without incident.

Boy, this is really giving me angst. Angst over which champagne to drink on Nov 4 2008 when HRC is president and the Democrats have a veto-proof majority...Kristal or Dom? Seriously this is the frist step to forcing the Republicans to take full ownership of this fiasco. And once that happens, they won't be able to get elected dogcatcher...

God is Great

Of course the Bush administration lied about Iraq and WMD, that's why other members of the Security council had the same intel.

and the reason why when asked after the US invasion began, the UN cheif insprector responded when asked if he believed Saddam had WMD, he replied "I don't know but removing Saddam will be a good thing"

All the NO WMD found people, who accuse Bush of misinforming the public, distorting information.. do exactly the same thing the accuse Bush of.... distorting the facts.

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

No; NO!! That is a lie; A LIE. This was a HUGE victory for the Republican Party, an absolutely monumental victory that will go down as one of the greatest blows for liberty in the history of the United States, and certainly among the most outstanding Republican political achievements since Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Just ask the greasy little crap stain who calls itself God is Great--Libs I Hate, who whines "How many times do you lemming trolls have to use this tired b/s rhetoric? You should be banned from this site, but Mark and Matt are very tolerant."

See, nothing gets members of the Republicanism cult more agitated than any statement of facts that threatens to intrude on the elaborately constructed fantasy world they inhabit. That's why the vast majority of rightwing blogs permit no comments at all from non-cult members. Unlike liberals, they loath any actual political debate, and just want a place where they can congregate and think happy thoughts as they continue to get their teeth kicked down their throats. Incredibly, the most popular fantasy seems to be that the electorate is going to rise up in sputtering indignation and kick the Democrats out of office to punish them for their Appeasement, Treason, Surrender, Cut-and-Run, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey, half-wits: You already lost that one!

"NO. NO, IT'S NOT TRUE!! The public didn't vote for the Democrats, they voted against the Republicans; they just were upset that Republicans strayed from their true conservative principles. Or because Democrats stole Republican positions. Or because their hands slipped. BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT! THEY JUST COULDN'T HAVE. Waaaahhhhh!!"

Incredible. Another fantasy seems to be that liberals really give a crap if the troops are out of Iraq by next year. Hey geniuses, guess what: WE COULDN'T CARE LESS! Of course there's no chance that the Imbecile-in-Chief will actually bring the troops home before he's kicked out of the White House. What we DO care about is making sure Republicans are tarred with exclusive responsibility for their disgusting little vanity war in Iraq, and that's exactly what votes like today's will accomplish. The entire Republican Party went on record voting for keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely, and the electorate will reward them in 2008 in even greater numbers than they did in the midterms.

Of course, that's not ALL we care about. Nope. We care very much about pursuing a lengthy, exhaustive investigation of the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. And the Walter Reed scandal. And the Halliburton/Iraq contractors scandal. And the torture/illegal rendition scandal. And about repealling rancid parts of the Patriot Act one filthy piece at a time. (We'll have to see if we can make the next one unanimous, instead of only 94 to 2). It's something called ACCOUNTABILITY. And to reinforce that lesson, we're going to keep taking Bush by the back of his head and rubbing his snout in the different piles of dogcrap he's left all over the White House lawn.

So you keep right on telling yourselves what a great victory today's vote was for Republicanism. But if, for some reason, you decide you'd like a brush with reality, try to remember what our political objectives are. They're really quite simple; they consist of using every day to humiliate the Imbecile-in-Chief, the Snarling Savage and their cronies, exposing their stupidity, incompetence, corruption and fanaticism to the public at large, and insuring that by the time 2008 comes around, we won't have to put up with the foul stench of Republicanism for at least another 8 years.

A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress' boldest challenge yet to the administration's policy.

No; NO!! That is a lie; A LIE. This was a HUGE victory for the Republican Party, an absolutely monumental victory that will go down as one of the greatest blows for liberty in the history of the United States, and certainly among the most outstanding Republican political achievements since Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Just ask the greasy little crap stain who calls itself God is Great--Libs I Hate, who whines "How many times do you lemming trolls have to use this tired b/s rhetoric? You should be banned from this site, but Mark and Matt are very tolerant."

See, nothing gets members of the Republicanism cult more agitated than any statement of facts that threatens to intrude on the elaborately constructed fantasy world they inhabit. That's why the vast majority of rightwing blogs permit no comments at all from non-cult members. Unlike liberals, they loath any actual political debate, and just want a place where they can congregate and think happy thoughts as they continue to get their teeth kicked down their throats. Incredibly, the most popular fantasy seems to be that the electorate is going to rise up in sputtering indignation and kick the Democrats out of office to punish them for their Appeasement, Treason, Surrender, Cut-and-Run, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey, half-wits: You already lost that one!

"NO. NO, IT'S NOT TRUE!! The public didn't vote for the Democrats, they voted against the Republicans; they just were upset that Republicans strayed from their true conservative principles. Or because Democrats stole Republican positions. Or because their hands slipped. BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT! THEY JUST COULDN'T HAVE. Waaaahhhhh!!"

Incredible. Another fantasy seems to be that liberals really give a crap if the troops are out of Iraq by next year. Hey geniuses, guess what: WE COULDN'T CARE LESS! Of course there's no chance that the Imbecile-in-Chief will actually bring the troops home before he's kicked out of the White House. What we DO care about is making sure Republicans are tarred with exclusive responsibility for their disgusting little vanity war in Iraq, and that's exactly what votes like today's will accomplish. The entire Republican Party went on record voting for keeping the troops in Iraq indefinitely, and the electorate will reward them in 2008 in even greater numbers than they did in the midterms.

Of course, that's not ALL we care about. Nope. We care very much about pursuing a lengthy, exhaustive investigation of the U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. And the Walter Reed scandal. And the Halliburton/Iraq contractors scandal. And the torture/illegal rendition scandal. And about repealling rancid parts of the Patriot Act one filthy piece at a time. (We'll have to see if we can make the next one unanimous, instead of only 94 to 2). It's something called ACCOUNTABILITY. And to reinforce that lesson, we're going to keep taking Bush by the back of his head and rubbing his snout in the different piles of dogcrap he's left all over the White House lawn.

So you keep right on telling yourselves what a great victory today's vote was for Republicanism. But if, for some reason, you decide you'd like a brush with reality, try to remember what our political objectives are. They're really quite simple; they consist of using every day to humiliate the Imbecile-in-Chief, the Snarling Savage and their cronies, exposing their stupidity, incompetence, corruption and fanaticism to the public at large, and insuring that by the time 2008 comes around, we won't have to put up with the foul stench of Republicanism for at least another 8 years.

kblack,

I never have disputed where the origin of those who attacked us on 9/11 or of bin Laden was, but Saddam posed the greater threat to those in the region, his actions speak for themselves. The Clinton Administration even deemed Saddam as our greatest threat. US policy, law was to support his removal before Bush came to office, the same can not be said of King Abdullah. Also, this war is not just with al Qaeda but with all terrorist groups. We’ve had to deal with terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists, against the US abroad long before al Qaeda ever existed.
The point of creating democracies in that region is to create pressure within for reforms in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Syria. If the people in these countries see the Afghanis and Iraqis voting, having greater freedoms, women having the right to a education, having the right to vote, running and holding office, as an example, Saudi women will ask, why not us? Democracy can move mountains but it doesn’t happen overnight, especially contending with systems that have existed as long as they have in the Middle East. They are slow in coming but some reforms are already being seen in Egypt. I hope because those who attacked us on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, your not suggesting we should have taken out that government? For if that was the case, attack the home of Mecca, your truly talking about setting off a Holy War. Right now, we want to do battle with Islamic extremist, not the entire Muslim population.

Dude writes:
"IRAQ HAD NO WMD's AND IRAQ WAS NOT A HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS!!"

As convincing as you are with your all caps, you're lying or misinformed. The 9/11 commission report describes an OBL supported extremist group operating in Iraq in 2001:

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

In case you haven't heard of them, they claimed responsibility for a February 1, 2004 attack in Arbil that killed more than a hundred people and injured more than a hundred as well (two bombs at the same time).

"Saying that Sadaam lost control of Iraq to Al Queda in 2002 is also incorrect. He was a dictator who ruthlessly ruled his country with an iron fist. He would not share power with any group, not the Kurds in the north and definatly not an Islamist terrorist organization. That is completly false."

Okay, let's make it simple. Either he'd lost control, or he was sharing power with an Islamist terrorist organization, or they were acting with his approval. They were acting in Iraq in 2001, so your assumption is wrong.

"Stating that Sadaam was increasing military spending before the US invasion is misleading. Of course Sadaam would increase military spending, he knew that the US was planning to invade his country."

Actually, if you ever bothered to read Duelfer's report, you'd know that Saddam didn't think we would invade:
"By late 2002 Saddam had persuaded himself, just as he did in 1991, that the United States would not attack Iraq because it already had achieved its objectives of establishing a military presence in the region, according to detainee interviews."

Besides, also according to Duelfer's report, Saddam began rebuilding his military industrial complex in 1997. Do you honestly believe he was expecting Clinton to invade Iraq?
"By 1997, MIC was on the verge of collapse. The
Ministry of Defense, MIC’s primary customer, had lost confi dence in its ability to meet military production requirements. To halt the slide, Saddam plucked ‘Abd-al-Tawab ‘Abdallah Al Mullah Huwaysh from nine years of bureaucratic exile, and installed him as the Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh instituted strict organizational and financial reforms, centered on mandatory planning and personnel accountability. By 2002, MIC was thriving, its total revenues increasing over forty fold as had its revenue base, despite continuing UN sanctions and coalition attacks on its facilities."

"Also, you argue that palestinians blew up ice cream parlors, and that is also not true."

"Israel's latest sweep in the West Bank came after a Palestinian blew himself up outside an ice cream parlor and cafe crowded with women and children in a Tel Aviv suburb Monday, killing Ruth Peled, 56, and her 18-month-old granddaughter, Sinai Kenaan.
The Al Aqsa Brigades, linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility and identified the bomber as Jihad Titi, 18, a cousin of a leading Al Aqsa militant Mahmoud Titi, who was killed in an Israeli tank attack last week."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/28/israeli-students.htm

Before you accuse other people of lying, you may want to do your homework so you don't end up looking like an idiot.

oh Jay,

its really funny actually - almost everything you said proves my points more.

1) that there are other countries that have more ties to terrorism that we ignore in deference to Iraq - score one for me
2) the fact that there are other places in the world that have very bad human rights abuses and we do nothing about - score one for me
3) the fact that the democrats don't have a solution to terrorism has no baring on if what the bush administration is doing is the right thing..
I mean for example - I can't cure world hunger - but I know the solution isn't to stop giving aid - does that mean that someone who would stop giving aid is any less wrong??

Nope Jay -you proved yourself even more wrong - congradulations

Look guys - I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this.

Because, kblack, if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it. Fortunately for you, your side is mostly brain-dead, so you won't have to repeat it as much. However, you can repeat it as much as you like to my side, and we'll never believe it. It's all b/s.

Nope Jay -you proved yourself even more wrong - congradulations

kblack, it's "congratulations," with a "t." Now face the audience and say, "I am not smarter than a fifth-grader..."

"I mean for example - I can't cure world hunger - but I know the solution isn't to stop giving aid - does that mean that someone who would stop giving aid is any less wrong??"

Kblack,
You make me smile. The theory held by some is that as long as outsiders provide aid, those countries will not develop their own resources to feed themselves. It may sound familiar, because Barrack, Hillary, et al claim that if we stop giving (military) aid to the Iraqis, only then will they stand up and handle their own problems. It's nice to know you too believe that's a bunch of BS.

yep - democrats can be stupid too..

I don't defend them - thats your job to be the mindless puppets

Kblack,
Then of course if you agree Obama and Hillary are being stupid in saying we need to exit Iraq so Iraqis would solve their own problem without our military aid, then doesn't it follow that we need to continue to give Iraq military aid?

I know you want to make this all into a personal attack on me, but what do you stand for? If like the Dems it's nothing, then that implies that you, like the Dems, are incapable of constructing a solution.

The war was over in 2003, this is simply an occupation having to deal with an insurgency and sectarian violence. Saddam is gone. There is no threat to the US mainland. Our military should be used to defend our country and secure access to essential resources, not to act as law enforcement in foreign countries. I have no objection to keeping a military base in Iraq to replace what we gave up in Saudi Arabia and which can be used to protect Iraqs oil. But let the sectarian violence be handled by Iraqis, and if the consequences of that means a new government, or the partitioning of Iraq, so be it.

"the bill will never clear the Senate with a deadline for withdrawal"

So what? If the bill doesn't pass, then no more money for the war. Money can only be spent on what Congress authorizes. No money, then the war is over.

>No money, then the war is over.

Exactly! The president can whine and moan all day about not supporting the troops, but unless he pulls them out, *he* is responsible for their problems. He deserves no support from anyone who loves this country. He alone is at fault when the funds are cut off because the public has finally had enough of this.