i don't know how you write this with a straight face, but it's really beautiful stuff:

Senator McCain's argument is unanswerable - and translated into the campaign trail of 2008 (by McCain or whomever gets the GOP nod) it will prove an insurmountable obstacle for a defeatist Democrat attempt to take the White House.

another bright and sunny morning in up-is-down land, eh mark? let's ignore the inconvenient facts showing mccain now falling into third place among GOP primary voters, and a relatively anemic fund-raising record. let's face it, mccain has chosen to hook himself to bush's wagon and he's going to get dragged right off a cliff.

after his sunday stroll in the baghdad market, he's been the laughing stock of the nation - dispensing with whatever microgram of credibility he once retained.

I just found out that once again my son will not be home for Christmas. his tour was extended 3 more months.

Mr. Noonan,
Why dont you sign up with an NGO and go over to Iraq yourself?
There are no age limits with NGO's.

This war is not about President Bush.

I am so sick and tired of hearing neocons such as yourself and also the liberal left using my son as a god damn pawn.

Until each and everyone of you keyboard cowards has a son or daughter in Iraq or Afgahnistan, you have no right, NO RIGHT, to use my son as a pawn for your stupid, inane political games.

I am so beside myself right now. What a way to start the morning off.

Your son joined. And you dishonor him with your statements. Yes, foam at the mouth - you dishonor him.

I served. I have friends who serve. I have a neice and nephew over there... their mother is in uniform also. We, the people who serve and who have served reject you.

"I risked nothing more threatening than a hostile press corps."

Then why the flack jacket and the military escort? Surely, the press corps posed no threat to your person.

Your son joined. And you dishonor him with your statements.

Posted by Kahn at April 12, 2007 09:13 AM

Wanting your son to come home, safe & sound, from this unending mess is to dishonor him? How do you figure that, Kahn?

Democrats want to surrender Iraq to the terrorists. Democrats want to force American troops to leave Iraq.

Democrats are the MAJORITY party. Democrats believe they had a landslide victory and clear mandate to impose their will and agenda. So DEMOCRATS... JUST GET IT DONE!!!

Your 100 hours are up. It's time to show some results before 100 days are up too. It's time to stand up and vote your mandate. Buy whatever votes you need to override any Presidential veto. You can do that easily enough. What's YOUR problem?

Pass your bill to require America to leave Iraq. Just make sure the American people know and clearly understand that it was YOUR decision! Make sure you claim full responsibility for the bloodbath that will follow. Make sure you claim full responsibility for any future terrorists attacks originating from YOUR new terrorist state!

Let's GET 'ER DONE NOW so the American people and the American voters can see the results of the DEMOCRAT WAY before the next election! We'd appreciate your help!!!

AAR

I had a cousin killed there. Can I speak? McCain is absolutely right in what he says. There is nothing I can add. Liberal, hippie pukes make me sick to my core, like they made me sick during the Vietnam conflict (yes, I'm that old, but was too young to serve there). Our young men make me so proud, they are our new "greatest generation". We all should be pulling for the success they also want there, they don't want to turn tail and run like the Democrats would have.

oh come off it AAR? honestly - when will you just shut up? your attempt to paint everything wrong with the iraq disaster as somehow the fault of the democrats is such a feeble passing of responsibility i might suspect this is rove i'm responding to under a different moniker. democrats, democrats, democrats, democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!! god you are so pathetically partisan.. you can stomp and scream all you want but really, should you be taken seriously?

at least we know that you support the ongoing bloodbath that is occuring RIGHT NOW taking soldiers lives everyday. at least we know that you seek to continue this violence.

occurring - sorry

Pass your bill to require America to leave Iraq. Just make sure the American people know and clearly understand that it was YOUR decision! Make sure you claim full responsibility for the bloodbath that will follow. Make sure you claim full responsibility for any future terrorists attacks originating from YOUR new terrorist state!

Actually, AAR, the only reason the Donks haven't done as you suggest is that they haven't yet figured out a way to avoid responsibility for the consequences and blame President Bush for it.

at least we know that you support the ongoing bloodbath that is occuring RIGHT NOW taking soldiers lives everyday.

conscriptor, the current, historically miniscule casualties are going to seem like a paper cut compared to what will likely occur if we leave too soon. And your concern for the safety of our military -- laughable and disingenuous are the only words that come to mind.

IT, I'd gladly take your son's place if the Navy would let me come out of retirement and join the Marines. Both of my daughters are in their late 30's, and my oldest grandchild is 12, so I'm afraid the best I can do is offer my Marine Corporal nephew who is currently in his second tour in Iraq. BTW, he considers it an honor to risk his life (as I would were I younger) to advance the cause of freedom and liberty in a part of the world where it is virtually nonexistent.

Khan,
Apparently, you've forgotten that an important tenet of military order is that loyalty must go both directions on the chain of command. People who serve pledge to put their lives on the line on the assumption that their lives, if called for, will be spent wisely, and for good reason.

By choosing to go to war with Iraq (even as a lefty, I count invading Afghanistan as a perfectly legitimate action) when it was not necessary, by choosing to keep our troops in combat when it is not possible to actually succeed via military action, this administration has reneged on their part of that trust. It is Bush who dishonors the troops.

Dulce et Decorum Est.

/sigh

Spook

I can't say what I would have done in my youth...that was a long time ago, but I concur with your statement: "BTW, he considers it an honor to risk his life (as I would were I younger) to advance the cause of freedom and liberty in a part of the world where it is virtually nonexistent." As has my Son (yes caps) and many of my friends and my Son's friends, and all have said, they felt it to be a noble cause.

The kooks will call this "brainwashing", and we patriots call it loyalty.

Spook,

You are absolutely correct... Democrats haven't yet figured out a way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own words, deeds, and actions, and blame President Bush for it!

It's much harder to blame others for the consequences when DEMOCRATS are the ones at the wheel and aren't doing their job!!!

......

conscriptor,

Ohhhhhh, come on now. Really...

DEMOCRATS own the Iraq war... NOW! DEMOCRATS voted for it in the first place... go back and check the votes! And NOW... DEMOCRATS control Congress. Surely YOU haven't forgotten that, have you?

DEMOCRATS have encouraged and continue to encourage terrorists to kill our AMERICAN soldiers and Iraqi families. Terrorists are only providing what in effect DEMOCRATS have asked them to do. Terrorists are only providing the violence and AMERICAN bodies DEMOCRATS so willing and freely use in their INCESSANT anti-American propaganda to sap the will of the American people to fight and defeat terrorists and our enemies. Terrorists are only providing the violence, death, and destructions YOU DEMOCRATS continually and so effectively use in your campaign ads.

TERRORISTS know their HOPE and VICTORY lies with DEMOCRATS!!! DEMOCRATS hold the key to stopping the terrorist killings and violence, just as they held and turned the key to start it! STOP using the terrorist violence, killings, and AMERICAN DEATHS in YOUR propaganda, misleading news, and your campaigns. If DEMOCRATS STOP USING the violence and killings terrorist are so anxious and willing to provide, terrorists will have not have the need and encouragement to provide those American bodies!

I heard a few comments from John McCain earlier this morning. He is getting closer and closer to telling the American people the REAL TRUTH about YOUR DEMOCRATS. Why don't you encourage your left-wing blogs to agitate McCain a little more and maybe he'll really unload a broadside on the Democrats. That's what we need and have needed! Republicans and Conservatives need to let the Democrats have what they really need and deserve -- and repeat it over and over and over every single day until the message begins to get through to the American voters!

DEMOCRATS have the MAJORITY now... So just GET 'ER DONE!

Quit your complaining, your whining, and blaming others for your own inaction , stalling, and inability to get things done!!! Just GET 'ER DONE!

If QUEENIE PELOSI would stay home, do her job, and stop playing up to our enemies, perhaps DEMOCRATS could do a little work... and GET 'ER DONE!

The AMERICAN VOTERS need to see and feel the REAL DEMOCRATS before the next election!!!

AAR

legion

Your theory has many holes in it.
1) Prove that bordes on a map prevent terrorists from entering their country of choice as Iran has proved.
2) If terrorists had fled Afghanistan to Iraq (before we invaded Iraq) for safe harbor, would the left condone following them, or would you consider Iraqi borders off limits?
3) If Iranian terrorists infiltrate Afghanistan, do we now have the right to follow them back to Iran, or do we let them go?

These are tough questions, but deserve responsible answers.

Although you consider Afghanistan a legitimate war, there are many other issues to consider since neither has been a traditional war.

vitriol unseen in American politics since just before the Civil War.

You were comatose during the Clinton administration, then?

Also, using McCain as a source regarding Iraq? That is just plain comical--he has zero credibility after his little market fiasco, and his argument is only "unanswerable" if one is ridiculous enough to accept the alternate reality of the 28 percenters. Which, clearly, you are.

The Democrats are not fighting the "War Against President Bush" hard enough.

When the government becomes corrupt and works continuoulsy against the best interests of the American people it is time to use legal means to remove that government.

As Bus continues in his willful disrepsect of the wishes of the American people, it is time to really consider impeachment.

Wade

Navydad,
OK, fair enough.

1) Prove that bordes on a map prevent terrorists from entering their country of choice as Iran has proved.
Ummm, they don't. Does that justify invading & occupying a sovereign country?

2) If terrorists had fled Afghanistan to Iraq (before we invaded Iraq) for safe harbor, would the left condone following them, or would you consider Iraqi borders off limits?
Is it the first time, or the 20th? When countries have disputes like this, sane people use diplomacy first, and military action last. Bush has repeatedly disregarded this concept. If the Iraqi gov't refused to, or was incapable of doing anything about the raids, then yes - following them over the border would be reasonable. But not invading the country.

3) If Iranian terrorists infiltrate Afghanistan, do we now have the right to follow them back to Iran, or do we let them go?
I'm honestly not sure what the current ROE allow in that case. But I would expect the concepts in #2 above to still apply.

But let me put it like this:
AQ is still run by Bin Laden. He and his inner circle have been hiding in the mountains on the AFG-PAK border for years now. Tha Pakistan gov't (and our lack of manpower in the area) prevents us from seriously tracking him down. Since OBL and AQ are who attacked us on 9-11, and since AQ in Iraq was one of the various excuses for invading Iraq, and since AQ continues to be a major terror threat, not just in Afghanistan, but actively growing throughout the Moslem world (esp. Africa), andsince the Pakistan gov't is not terribly cooperative with us or effective in keeping the peace in their region, and since they seen to be at least passively supporting OBL, and since they have an exponentially more advanced nuclear program then either Iraq or Iran (as well as a significantly likelier target in India), and since they exported nuclear weapons technology and skills to North Korea, why haven't we invaded Pakistan? How could Iraq have ever hoped to be a greater threat to the region, the US, and overall world safety than that?

DEMOCRATS own the Iraq war...

Posted by: AAR at April 12, 2007 10:58 AM

We all know it was instigated by a Republican President and at that time had the support of most Americans. There were, however, some brave citizens who stood strong on their principles (Russ Feingold, being one of them) and opposed the war from the very beginning. But I would say, America itself, owns the Iraq war.

CO,

Do we really need to go back through all of the archives to show you that even a weak Democrat like President Clinton recognized the need to remove Saddam and was working to "eventually" do just that. Clinton just couldn't bring himself to take the final action.

That's were Saddam made a BIG mistake. Saddam was used to seeing the way Democrats work. Saddam thought that President Bush would continue the same weak minded responses as Clinton had. Saddam was sorely mistaken and paid the price!

Check the Internet. It's full of quotes where Clinton recognized the need for action... just not the will to take that action...

"President Clinton on Sunday modified his own Iraq policy and moved closer to a Republican-led plan. Late last week, critics like Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., along with former Bush administration officials like Paul Wolfowitz, had urged the Clinton administration to adopt a long-run strategy toward ousting Saddam Hussein."

"On Sunday Clinton said that while the United States will continue its policy of containing Saddam by working to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction, 'over the long-term the best way to address that threat is through a government in Baghdad -- a new government -- that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.'"

"Clinton administration officials say they have no intention of repeating past mistakes. Instead, their policy is designed 'so the next time this set of circumstances present themselves the results will be different,' says the White House official."

AAR

AAR-- you keep saying that Democrats should get their jobs done in congress. If you really mean that you want them to pass legislation they want, then you should be opposed to Bush's threatened veto on the troop spending bill.

You haven't really made an argument FOR your cause. You've just yelled at Democrats for going against you. Try to act your age.

You fool.

ThELefTYFoOl

Clearly the insurgency is in their last throes.

The fault that Iraq has been a complete failure is not because this administrations reasons for going were based on lies. There was no connection to Al Queda, no WMD's, no threat to American interests. Not because this administration ingnored the advice of people like Gen Shinseki. It's because of people like me who criticize our Dear Leader.

Do we really need to go back through all of the archives to show you that even a weak Democrat like President Clinton recognized the need to remove Saddam and was working to "eventually" do just that. Clinton just couldn't bring himself to take the final action.

Posted by AAR

What Clinton did, and what you neocons yelled about, was to use missiles to destroy Saddam's WMD capacity. He was never readying for military action. What you fail to realize is that even your own party thought removing Saddam was a bad idea (Until Bush). Dick Cheney has a 200 word quote detailing why going to Baghdad would be a TERRIBLE idea. But when he's elected, that's exactly what he does (goes to Baghdad). And the war was NEVER about removing Saddam, until you jackals in the right wing found out that the real reasons for going to war (WMD, al Qaeda link) were disproved. OK, it was about removing Saddam, but was NOT mainly because he was a terrible dictator, but because he had WMD, and loved al Qaeda. Both of these were disproven. Ha. Ha ha. YOU FOOL!

ThELefTYFoOL

A little long, but I think worth it.

CNN: (December 16, 1998)...

Transcript: PRESIDENT CLINTON explains Iraq strike (ecerpts):

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

I think President Clinton spoke quite well and presented excellent points about the dangers and long term threats we and the world faced from Saddam Hussein... it just took President Bush to complete the task!

AAR

ThE LefTY FoOl,

Really!!!

AAR

legion

Because Saddam was the only dictator to use chemical weapons on his own people (indisputable)in modern times and the entire "sane" world believed he had WMD's, (indisputable) and he violated 17 UN resolutions (again indisputable), and after 911 happened....it gave us every right to invade Iraq and anyone else we felt to be a direct threat to our national security.

I, unlike the left, believe in a good offense, and 911 has proven that if we're not proactive in this WOT, that we'll only have ourselves to blame for the demise of this great country.

In a nut shell, I believe in killing them before they kill me, and if they run across a border to seek refuge in a country that will "harbor" ( al-zarqawi was proven to have been harbored in Iraq)them, we should instruct that country to either turn those perpetrators over using all diplomatic options, but not 17 redundant resolutions, or face the wrath of the US military.

Additionally, regarding Pakistan; they have shown signs of willingness to work with the US and even though A. Q. Khan sold technology to NK, it was a clandestine operation in which Musharraf supposedly knew nothing of the program.....we'll need to take him at his word.

Now, if you honestly believe that UBL continues to lead AQ, that's your prerogative, however, if you know much about product distribution, you'd understand how AQ has franchised their product of terror throughout the globe and the need to track these AQ franchises down and destroy each and every one is, in my opinion, the most significant undertaking of our time. Sure, you can say that we've encouraged terrorism by invading Iraq, but I believe that people don't wake up one morning and decide to become a terrorist, or a doctor for that matter. No, I beleive there is some compelling inheritable trait, desire or religous belief that creates an overwhelmingly, uncontrollable urge to sacrifice their body and their children for the sake of Allah and/or dozens of virgins.

Legion, your side thanks God for Keefy Doberman and Alfgore....my side thanks God for our morals and our mighty military.

Yes! Yes, I do thank God for,

Keith Olbermann. A common voice of common sense and reason. Unafraid to tell it LIKE IT IS.

I thank God for Utah's (Utah?) Mayor, the Honorable Rocky Anderson. Telling it LIKE IT IS.

I thank God for Nancy Pelosi, unafraid to lead. Unafraid to work for peace through diplomacy. Unafraid of the rightwing smear machine. You go Girl. I thank God your from the best state in the Union, California. (I hate the south)

I thank God for Al Gore. Our next President of the United States of America. Statesman. Leader. Someone whom I would really like to share a beer with. A man to bring RESPECT back to the United States of America, and at last, represent us with dignity, humility, and HONOR we all deserve.

ND, I pray for the safe return of your friends and family in harms way. May peace be with you and yours.

Legion wrote, " (even as a lefty, I count invading Afghanistan as a perfectly legitimate action)"

I don't understand this; Afghanistan never attacked us; Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11; how many innocent Afghan civilians are you “lefty’s” willing to sacrifice for this failed cause? When will you admit Afghanistan is just a civil war of tribal interests and we're wasting our blood and treasure on centuries old rivalries? Are you "lefty’s" proud of yourselves for beating up on a stone-age nation?

Thanks Raker...truly.

However, Alfgore must be the most laughable politician this country has ever seen. I could list hundreds of occasions in which he has made statements that we're purposely scripted to pray on the ignorance of his base.

Rocky Anderson, whom I'm familiar with, misled his constituents in SLC and I'd bet a Rodizio Grill dinner that he doesn't last another term.

If you can't take me up on that bet...go there anyway..it's great.
Trolley square SLC.

Last but not least...really Raker, how can you defend a feminist that kisses the ring of a terrorist thug like al-Assad? He's openly a terrorist and has not expressed "real" interest in peace with Israel.

AAR,

Which Democrat said "Bring em on"?

Ooops.

Because Saddam was the only dictator to use chemical weapons on his own people (indisputable)in modern times and the entire "sane" world believed he had WMD's, (indisputable) and he violated 17 UN resolutions (again indisputable), and after 911 happened...

You're rational right up until that last bit. As all intelligence evidence supported, both now and at the time, Iraq was not involved in 9-11. I'll say that again:

IRAQ WAS NOT INVOLVED IN 9-11.

Invading Iraq was nothing more than bloodthirsty outrage looking for an outlet.

In a nut shell, I believe in killing them before they kill me, and if they run across a border to seek refuge in a country that will "harbor" ( al-zarqawi was proven to have been harbored in Iraq)them,
Before or after we invaded & made Iraq AQ's number-one recruiting stand?

we should instruct that country to either turn those perpetrators over using all diplomatic options, but not 17 redundant resolutions, or face the wrath of the US military.

"Instruct" them? That's one hell of a swagger you've got there, navydad. That's a great way to declare ourselves to be the open enemy of every other sovereign nation in the world - "enact US policies or we will destroy you" has already gone pretty far in uniting large parts of the planet against us. Yeah, the US has the strongest military on the planet, but you know who we _can't_ beat? The entire rest of the planet. The sort of behavior you describe would, in the old west, have drummed up a lynch mob to hang us.

[Side note to anyone whose immediate reaction to that last sentence was "bring it on!" - Do the gene pool a favor and shoot yourself now.]

No, I beleive there is some compelling inheritable trait, desire or religous belief that creates an overwhelmingly, uncontrollable urge to sacrifice their body and their children for the sake of Allah and/or dozens of virgins.

Yes, it's called desperation. If a hostile foreign power invaded your town, executed your leaders (even if you didn't like them), replaced them with a quasi-puppet gov't you had next to no say in, trashed the economy for generations to come, caused uncounted tens of thousands of deaths of your fellow citizens, and then raped and murdered various members of your family, leaving you with a terrible burning rage and absolutely no power to change things, I wager you would strongly consider the fatalism of taking as many of them out with you as you could.

And before the flames start, I'm not condoning the slaughter of Iraqis by other Iraqis (or our troops by anyone), I'm just trying to point out where that impulse comes from - it ain't birth and it ain't religion. It's helpless desperation. And there is no military solution to that threat.

Ya know what Legion, I was about to unleash a post that would have incited a riot, so I refrained due to the length and time that would have been wasted trying to respond to your second to last paragraph...so I won't.

It dawned on me that you support guys like Saddam and most likely UBL and that you hate GWB, his Adm. and our Military. So, it's really not worth the argument.

Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission.- McCain

What a lie. This is why the war candidate will never be President. If $120 Billion is not enough than McCain should state how much. He should be telling his fellow Republicans to write the President and demand he sign the bill containing the money for our troops equipment and training.

"Yes, it's called desperation. If a hostile foreign power invaded your town, executed your leaders (even if you didn't like them), replaced them with a quasi-puppet gov't you had next to no say in, trashed the economy for generations to come, caused uncounted tens of thousands of deaths of your fellow citizens, and then raped and murdered various members of your family, leaving you with a terrible burning rage and absolutely no power to change things, I wager you would strongly consider the fatalism of taking as many of them out with you as you could."

After these remarks, you may not want to show your face around a military base.

Navydad,
You might want to try reading the entire post. Particularly the last paragraph.

And I'll meet you at the club. I'm on base and in uniform as I type this.

It dawned on me that you support guys like Saddam and most likely UBL and that you hate GWB, his Adm. and our Military. So, it's really not worth the argument.

Also, referring back to my earlier comment about swagger, if you said that to my face it'd get you decked. I don't like Saddam, UBL, _or_ Bush, and an increasing number of Americans - including my colleagues in uniform - feel the same way.

OK Legion, I'm not getting the second paragraph. Could you explain?

What am I missing here?

I think you may have forgotten that at first, the Iraqi people were receptive and excited about the overthrow of Saddam, however, the one thing I'm sure that was never pre-planned was the secular division between the factions.

Also, if your colleagues are so displeased with GWB, why the high re-enlistment stats?

My Son left a year ago after nine years, and even though he knew he'd be going to the Gulf...again, he still re-enlisted. It can't be just for the $.

"Also, referring back to my earlier comment about swagger, if you said that to my face it'd get you decked. I don't like Saddam, UBL, _or_ Bush, and an increasing number of Americans - including my colleagues in uniform - feel the same way."

What I get from this comment is that your hatred for GWB runs parallel to your hatred for Saddam et al. If so, why and was it a pre-existing condition before the military? Because ya know, there are cures for liberalism out there.

Ya may want to tune into Rush more often.

legion - watcha do? What are you in?

I thank God for Nancy Pelosi, unafraid to lead. Unafraid to work for peace through diplomacy.

You neglected to add "even if it means lying and cozying up to thugs and dictators" at the end of the sentence. A telling abuse of her office when Pelosi arbitrarily decided to speak for Israel in a manner to which they did not acquiesce.

Also telling that Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to meet with the POTUS but had and will soon have plenty of time to gladhand with the likes of Assad and Achmadinejad. I pray to God that the esteemed Speaker travels to Iran to meet with their 'president', the photo-ops alone will sink any democrat chance for the White House in '08.

This was reportedly done by Steny Hoyer. If true, you dems are officially banishing your party from power for years to come. Wow.

The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.

Navydad,
The part where I try to point out that becoming a suicide bomber isn't necessarily driven by birth or religion - it comes from living in a situation the person sees as intolerable & sees no way out from. Such attacks, and the insurgency, and the secular divisions, and the chaos, unrest, and growing dislike of our forces there were all predicted & described in advance - Bush and his senior planners conciously chose to ignore that advice, press on, and failed to plan for post-combat operations in any acceptable way.

As for Bush, UBL, and Hussein, I certainly wouldn't equate them, but I do strongly disagree with what each of them is doing & how they're trying (or tried, in Hussein's case) to do it. Whether I agree with, or even respect, the people giving me my orders doesn't change my duty; and if you think I'm not proud & willing to serve, you're mistaken. Frankly, I voted for Bush over Gore in 2000 - because Gore came off as a petulant schoolgirl in the campaign & Bush had assembled a solid team of advisors/future cabinet members. Unfortunately he has systematically chosen to ignore and then eliminate any advice that doesn't coincide with his own pre-conceived ideas about any subject - that's why I didn't vote for him in '04.

Subject:

Has McCain's recent speech promoting Bush's Iraq surge policy increased his chances at the GOP presidential nomination?
Answers:

Yes
(17 %)

No
(83 %)

Ok Legion, I'll give you that.

Now, where you're wrong is in your belief that the suicide bomber mentality is created overnight. In fact, it is proven that very much like racism, sexism, drug abuse, alcholism, spousal abuse, etc., this mentality is learned, and by whom? The parents and family members that we're taught to hate from their parents and so on. BTW, if needed, I'll reference easy reading if you require further proof.

However, you're probably correct in that there is a very small percentage of extremists that join the nutcake brigade that truly believe that those virgins will be waiting in the wings after they splode themselves.

You might also ask yourself this question: Do I really believe that anyone could do a better job as President up to this moment? Sure it's easy to play MMQB, but the tough part of being a leader is predicting the future, and if anyone could, then step up...please, because thus far, all I hear are commiserating idiots and MMQBs.

If you really want to draw parallels to another time when a war was unpopular (and it is, there is no silent majority out there that thinks with the B4B mindset) we can go right back to our first Republican president. In 1864 the American people were sick of the Civil War. The Confederacy was growing weaker everyday, but it didn't seem that way up North, where bodies kept coming home and Commanding Generals of the Union Army were coming and going like in a revolving door while Lee commanded an army of Southern boys who would follow him into hell. A former Union General named Mclellan ran on the Democratic ticket against Lincoln promising to end the war.

Lincoln made some tough and painful decisions. He brought in a General named Ulysses S Grant who quickly earned the nickname "The Butcher" because of how many soldiers died in his relentless assaults on Lee's forces. Lincoln started a draft which caused rioting in the streets of New York City. He allowed General Sherman to loot and pillage all across the South. But the tide turned, the secessionist states fell one by one, Lincoln won reelection and the war finally ended on April 9, 1865.

In contrast, President Bush has repeatedly made a series of essentially the same speech for years, insisting that victory is the imminent and that those who disagree with him support militant Islam's destruction of Western civilization. He has not called for a draft, won't include the cost of the war in the budget, borrowed from the Chinese to fund the war; and calls a reshuffling of existing troops a "surge" a strategy which had been done the year before and didn't work then. He even recently called for a "war czar" to run the whole operation, essentially abdicating his role of Commander-In-Chief. So far nobody wants the job.

Will Iraq turn into even more of a bloodbath than it already is if American forces "cut and run"? Yes. But that's going to happen anyway, whether the last American soldier leaves tomorrow or years from now. America is in the precarious position of propping up an elected Shiite government that is supported by Iran, an anti-American Islamicist nation currently developing a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile those still primarily responsible for attacking American troops are Sunni insurgents who are being supported by Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia who are supposed to be our allies. The war between the Shiites and the Sunnis had been going on long before the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime and will be going on long after the last American is gone from Iraq.

President Bush didn't show up for the Correspondent's Dinner this year, but even more surprising is that no one made an issue of it. Increasingly isolated, President Bush appears to be trying to hunker down and run out the clock on Iraq. His speeches claim that a timetable on withdrawal from Iraq would be admitting defeat, but he has a timetable: On January 20, 2009 he leaves the White House and he doesn't have to worry about Iraq anymore.

navydad: You might also ask yourself this question: Do I really believe that anyone could do a better job as President up to this moment? Sure it's easy to play MMQB, but the tough part of being a leader is predicting the future, and if anyone could, then step up...please, because thus far, all I hear are commiserating idiots and MMQBs.

Be honest ND. No matter who anyone offered, you'd find fault with them. But personally, I think McCain could have done a better job. Maybe even Bill Richardson. But speaking of QB's, it appears Bush has been searching deep into his bench to find one. Still unsuccessfully. Already five generals have declined the invitation to become the new "war czar". According to SecDef Gates, "one of the arguments that we hear frequently and frankly are very sympathetic with is that we and the State Department are about the only parts of the government that are at war."

What a remarkable thing to say after more than four years. Petraeus said something very similar during his confirmation hearings. He said there needed to be better inter-agency cooperation, or the "surge" wouldn't work.

The surge also won't work if the Iraqis don't step up. And they need to start doing it now, because time is running out. I just found this intriquing little insight into the Dem's strategy. It's basically a "letter to the troops" type of memo to other Dem congressmen. In it, two things figure prominently: (1) the President's willingness to provide Iraq with an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops, and (2) the President is walking away from the Iraqi benchmarks he laid out in his January speech. Emanuel goes on to say, "The major difference is that Democrats believe the Iraqi people must meet the strategic benchmarks the President outlined in early January, while the President has walked away from those benchmarks."

So that appears to be the plan -- start hammering away at the fact that the Iraqis aren't meeting their end of the bargain while our guys continue to fight on their behalf in increasing numbers.

I suspect he's right. If the Iraqis don't start stepping up post haste, I think you'll see more and more GOPers start to abandon ship -- especially considering the violence is starting to bump up again.

navydad

Legion has written some very interesting and astute comments and I can see that you are struggling to understand the essence of his posts. If you could open your mind and think seriously about the points he brought forward I'm sure you will see clearly the sincerity of his words. It is evident that he cares deeply for his country and is heart-broken at the direction it has taken.

Perhaps your son would not agree with his position, but as legion has said, a growing number of the military do.

CO, Legion can make any claim he wants regarding "growing numbers of dissenters", yet when we conservatives mention that the military's re-enlistment rate is up to record levels, statements like Legion's become questionable.

As far as an open mind CO, let's be reasonable here. With all the economic work GWB has done for the country and African American home ownership at record levels, Libya offing their WMD program, NK finally crackin a bit and on and on, we never hear anything from the left other than "Bush sucks" and "Bush lied" and on and on. SO, please don't preach this open-minded crap to me CO cause you're wasting your breath.

As far as Legions posts are concerned, he leans to the left and since he wears a uniform, he probably feels it his right to conflate the facts as if all Americans speak with one voice....which we do not, internally, but we should internationally....get my drift?

And even with your posts CO, you tend to use words and terms that make your argument sound as though this huge majority of Americans, or Canadians for that matter, agree with you, which again, is simply not true, and if it were true, re-enlistments would be down, not up.

My main concern though, is that the easily swayed younger voter in America will join the "easy way" crowd of politicians such as Hitlery, Kerry, The Swimmer et al., and this great country will crumble due to mounting pressure to take the easy path. The path that led us to 911.

"I thank God for Nancy Pelosi, unafraid to lead. Unafraid to work for peace through diplomacy"

So maybe you can enlighten us, as to when "peace thru diplomacy", has ever actually worked??

I need a good laugh.

And please don't forget to mention how many decades the fighting lasted and the number of people killed and displaced, before diplomacy actually worked.

"The part where I try to point out that becoming a suicide bomber isn't necessarily driven by birth or religion - it comes from living in a situation the person sees as intolerable & sees no way out from"

Nevertheless, Islamist militant organisations (including Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad) continue to argue that suicide operations are justified according to Islamic law, despite Islam's strict prohibition of suicide and murder.[34][35] Irshad Manji, in a conversation with one leader of Islamic Jihad noted their ideology.

"What's the difference between suicide, which the Koran condemns, and martyrdom?" I asked. "Suicide," he replied, "is done out of despair. But remember: most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives." In short, there was a future to live for--and they detonated it anyway.

It sounds like Irshad Manji, disagress with the posters comments about what drives people ti become suicide bombers.

and let's not forget..
In short, the experts kept saying suicide bombers are not necessarily irrational, and noted that lots of people in lots of places have been honored by their societies for choosing to kill themselves in order to kill others. Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II did it. So have Tamil guerrilla fighters in Sri Lanka.

Now, where you're wrong is in your belief that the suicide bomber mentality is created overnight.

Oh I agree with you there - if I've given the impression that I think it happens 'overnight', let me correct that. Suicide in general and murderous suicide in particular goes against social norms pretty much everywhere. Breaking down a person to the point that such an act is even contemplated takes a long and systematic assault on the psyche. But bear in mind we've been in combat in Iraq for over 4 years now - that's probably long enough...

And do I think anyone could do a better job than Bush? I could come up with some suggestions; I'm sure anyone on this board could, but we can't really know for sure. But what irks me most about Bush is that _he_ could have done better - if he'd listened to honest advice, or expert opinions, or ever honestly tried to work _with_ anyone (in Congress or the international community) rather than go straight for the old 'my way or the highway' routine. The GOP's own internal documents suggest that the narrowness of the 2000 election prompted Bush's entire team to abandon the 'uniter not a divider' schtick before he was even sworn in, and while it consolidated his personal power, I believe the country as a whole is worse off for it. That's probably the crux of my complaints about Bush.

Legion

I'll address most of your post, but first, I'd like to argue that the contry "is" better off.

1) We've not had another attack on our soil, which is NOT just coincidence. I bring in containers from China every 45 days and whether you believe it or not, each is x-rayed and prior to loading in China, the contents are inpsected. But there's still work to do as far as security goes.

2) Our economy is resilient and certainly shocked AQ with how fast we recovered post 911. I'm sure they felt it would bring us to our knees....guess again punks (AQ)!

3) Bush did make mistakes and was resistant to outside opinion, and to a certain degree, I disagree with his (adm.) tactics, and if he would have listened to those that advocate "overwhelming force", this war would be in the bag. But if we're to talk about stubborn Presidents, just remember Clinton's reluctance to attack UBL for the sake of his legacy, and you might think twice about condemning GWB. Everyone makes mistakes in war.

4) The reason I believe that the insurgency has grown, other than the faction aspect as you pointed out in an earlier post, is that the Sunni population, who was in total power before the invaision, simply wants their power back and will do anything to reinstate their past lifestyle. Which leads me to believe that there are several Sunni pawns, including ignorant Sunni's from other countries that need "a cause", ( I equate this "cause" to our anti-war crowd in America and if you check the backgrounds of many anti-war activists, you'd find "it" is innate) and powerless women and children being forced to be suicide bombers and shields. Sunni's were brutal to the Shiite population, and now the reverse has happened, however, it is incredible and eye-opening to know that these people will kill each other, and themselves over a religous technicallity, so it must be power too. I believe it is that simple, and those that try to make this into some deeper theological feud are reaching to far to find answers. The answer is in having this feud arbitrated by a stronger power, but we're not to that stage yet, and until the majority of Americans are on the same side, which is victory, not defeat, the terrorists will believe they still have a chance at re-taking control of that power. Isn't it ironic that the terrorists think so highly of our opinion, when they hate us so deeply??

As an example, take a look at the Kosovo conflict and you'll see many parallels that go back thousands of years and the only way this was settled was through the intervention of a superior force, but we're still there.

GWB got it right when he said "this will be a long war" and I'll never forget when he made this statement, I thought, "he does understand the long term effects of war". Unfortunately, there have been many mistakes made and premature end- zone victory dances that I'm sure he'll look back on and wonder why he allowed them to happen. But overall, I'm positive he realizes the concequences of war.

Well, we did have those anthrax attacks, which have never been fully explained. And on #2, I agree, though many economists make a living these days arguing about whether that has anything to do with Bush's tax cuts.

The way Bush handles this "long war" still bugs me though. Absolutely nothing in this country seemes to be on a "war footing" except the people actually out there doing the shooting. Bush has adamantly refused to put the expenses for ongoing GWOT/Iraq ops into the regular budget, forcing supplementals that hurt our economy more and more. Just this morning I read that, until this most recent supplemental gets hashed out (please, lets all save the 'Bush/Dems are abandoning our troops' debate for another thread, guys!), the SecDef is pulling $1.6 trillion from the AF and Navy to cover Army bills. I'm actually very glad to hear what you do with shipping containers, but I've travelled through a fair number of airports the last few years, and DHS simply doesn't take airport security seriously - if they did, they would pay more attention to the people they hire than knee-jerk stupidity like banning drinks. I hear a lot of lip service from the administration on GWOT, but very little actual effort where the rubber meets the road (again, besides in DoD)...

Legion

There's a reason for the wartime $ not being placed in the budget, but I can't remember the exact reason, so, I'll refer to Spook, Mark or Kahn, maybe they can answer that one. This is one area I tend to sit back and absorb from those that know government and finances better than I, so I submit that we respectfully request assistance from a superior being....you out there Spook?

I agree about DHS, especially the hiring criteria for screeners. Sorry to keep using China in these posts, but it's amazing how their security is so much better than ours, although they don't need to worry about terrorists for obvious reasons.

In the past ten years, the worst I've seen is on the Canadian side, where they'll pretty much let anyone in with a pulse. The same applies to TSA hiring criteria. If you can fog a mirror, you've got a job.

Your comment regarding "knee-jerk" reactions is typical and problematic of a bureaucracy that's under the gun to perform, and that really never had to in the past, therefore, reform is change and change costs dollars. I don't think they were thinking low bidder syndrome, I personally think the people creating job descriptions are basically no better than those they hire.

We all know it was instigated by a Republican President and at that time had the support of most Americans. There were, however, some brave citizens who stood strong on their principles (Russ Feingold, being one of them) and opposed the war from the very beginning.

We all know it was instigated by a Republican President and at that time had the support of most Americans. There were, however, some brave citizens who stood strong on their principles (Russ Feingold, being one of them) and opposed the war from the very beginning.

sorry for dublicate comment, please delete one.