Princella

The American people did not vote for 'victory' in Iraq. They voted to stop the unending bloody occupation, they voted to stop the insanity of the Bush agenda. They were sick and tired of the whole debacle and voted in protest.

It might be, since the slack jawed "American people" don't seem to have any idea what they want when they vote.

CO,

Who cares what you think?

You know, for someone who criticizes the US for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, you sure spend a lot of time spewing crap here.

Kind of ironic no?

Your country sucks BTW

Considering The Bush Administration has had four years to achieve "victory" in Iraq, three months doesn't sound that bad. That being said, I would give this congress a B in oversight (something this administration really needed), a D- in legistration passed, with an overall grade of C-.

It's Bush's job as "commander-in-chief" to achieve victory in Iraq.

It's Congress' job to pull the plug on failed policy by pulling the purse springs.

It's time Congress does what Americans elected them to do:

STOP BUSH!

Wade

They've passed bills in the House and Senate that call for withdrawal. That's all they can do. People who aren't blind followers know that this war cannot be "won" in the simplistic terms of the far right idealogues. It's a civil war to be hashed out and likely won by the Shia, unless the Saudis can support the Sunnis enough to make it a stalemate.

Funny though, that the rightists routinely dismiss the importance of the 2006 elections, constantly insist that the president and the president alone is responsible for the handling of the war, yet when the Democrats don't come up with a "victory" plan, they get all the blame?

America knows that this is Bush's legacy. If it continues downward, it's on him. However, if the surge works and they turn this thing around, it will be a monumental vindication for Bush. Stranger things have happened. I am not hopeful that it will happen, but I hope that it does. Nothing makes me feel nauseous as seeing that smirking fratboy get a win, but if that's the price for having Iraq not be a continuing bloodbath on its way to genocide, then that's nothing at all. I dislike this president and I think he's led us down a path of destruction at home and abroad. But I hope he gets this one right so that people can stop dying.

If he doesn't, though, and the surge fails, he's crippled his party for decades to come. If the war is as it is now or worse in 2008, the GOP will face huge losses again.

Here's what I want to know: If it comes to 2008 and Bush decides to withdraw troops and no funding has been cut off by Congress and Iraq spirals down further, will even one of the rightests here cast any blame on Bush or will you find a way to spin it all to the Congress?

And for CO and GOP-

Canada is a great country. Peaceful, friendly, safe, health care for every man woman and child. And then there's poutine...

Rom, have you been to Toronto in Feb? You'd change your mind if you had. My nose and ears just about dropped of at 17 below and a wind chill of a bazillion degrees!

Casper, the Dems have been there for all four years, and no one heard anything different for those years than we are hearing today. The only difference now is that they keep throwing dog crap against the wall to see what will stick. So far, not one speck has stuck, other than CO's nose, IN OUR BIZ! Butt out CO!

Navydad,
That's why I would give them a D- for legistration.

Interesting perspective, Navydad. It gets cold in Montana, too.

As for your statement to the Canadian, it is an odd one given that people like yourself frequently stick your noses, even the warm ones, into the affairs of sectarian religious clashes in the Middle East, presuming to know more about them than you do and you don't even remotely share a border with them.

You also might want to check out the work that's been going on up in Canada with regards to counterterrorism. The Canadian government has gone above and beyond in assisting the CIA in looking out for terrorists and the terrorist funders in Canada that are trying to funnel down here. I know it's much easier to just hate everyone and dismiss them as subhuman, but there is an alternative.

How about a post Easter quote by Pope Benedict:

"In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."

Democrats HAVE come up with a viable plan for Iraq.

They have introduced a bill to fund Iraq and Afghanistan for another year, then we need to consider getting out because 5 years would have been enough time to accomplish the mission.

Now, Bush only needs to sign the bill, give the Democrats the credit they deserve and be done with it.

The Holy See is telling the truth. One would think that a so-called devout Catholic, one who routinely brags about his piety with no humility, would at least consider His Holiness' perspective on this tragic war.

Mark, can you even grant that Pope Benedict has a valid perspective on this war? Or is your true fealty to your president over the Church and your Lord?

Hahaha, funny.

What is the White House's "viable" plan for victory? The surge?

If they would have had a viable plan for victory in 2003, Iraq wouldn't be the place it is today.

The right is frightened because the Dem's were voted into office to accomplish what they campaigned on; namely bringing the Iraq policy to a sensible position.

Now that they are actually doing it, the GOP is quickly running out of excuses.

I've wanted victory in Iraq for over four years now; but the commander in chief has continually put forward people and policies that seem to have run contrary to this goal.

Bush can talk tough and act like he's the decider, but in truth the only true solution to Iraq is multilateral diplomacy that brings everyone to the table, especially the very "extremists" that are doing much of the killing.

If the administration continues to insist on the "we're too strong to negotiate" track, our soldiers and Marines are going to continue to be put in the unnecessary situation of policing a civil war.

And as for the Pope's Easter quote, I too wondered what people around here's reaction was to it. Also, I was wondering what the reaction was to his recent claim that rich western nations are personally responsible for the poverty throughout Africa and Asia?

GOP

What you do within your own borders is entirely your own business but when you start invading, occupying and creating havoc on foreign soil, GOP, you have lost the right to admonish anyone from voicing an opinion. I have absolutely no apology to offer about coming here to 'spew crap'.

CO

It's good to see we agree that you come here to "spew crap".

Your point of only being concerned about issues within our borders is nonsense. Who, my dear neighbor, does the world call on each and every time there is a catastropy? Who, my dear neighbor does the world call on to protect them from genocide? Who, my dear neighbor would be there to thwart a nuclear holocaust by the NKs or Iranians? And last but not least, who my dear neighbor, will be there to prevent terrorists from entering the country on a mission to blow up one of your largest International Airports? OH...now you rememeber the Millenium Plot!!!
Oh how ye has such a short memory.

Just how nice to the terrorists do we have to be?
By RACHEL MARSDEN

NEW YORK -- While Canada's Liberal party is busy pandering to terror suspects, an NYPD report this week actually named my street as a potential target of Mideast terrorists. Such an attack wouldn't even rattle Liberal leader Stephane Dion's champagne glass, but it would transform my neighbourhood into Beirut. This might explain why Dion cares more about trees than I do.

In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to have Parliament rework the security certificate program for foreign terror suspects on Canadian soil, Dion said that he "never liked" the certificates, used to deal with our suspected wartime enemies. Spoken like a true Frenchman -- as in France.

Then, in a recent vote on the anti-terror provisions brought into force by the Liberal government after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Dion and his party struck down the ability of police to hold terror suspects for even three days.

Would it really be too much to ask people who might want to blow stuff up to forego a few home-cooked meals? Mind you, three days may seem like a long time to Dion.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2007/03/04/3694564-sun.html

Some of the other libs here seem confused. When the Pope criticizes what you do, he's irrelevant. It' only when his words support criticism of others that he's relevant. So, when he speaks agains tthe war, that affects all American Catholics, so he's just a dude ina funny hat. But when he's against gays or sex ed, that doesn't affect people posting here, so he's the source of all wisdom.

I didn't expect to see the Democrats bring any new...legistration that would bring about some sort of political victory through military force. I expected them to attempt to stop the nonstop waste of soldiers lives and our tax money.

Democrats aren't in command of the military. A spoiled, dim man child is

Come on Democrats. You've had 90 days and you haven't solved the amazingly messed up situation in Iraq that took the administration 4 years of incompetence and irresponsibility to create.

The Democrats never promised a plan for "victory" in Iraq -- they promised to get our people out. That's what they've been working on against an administration that cannot admit failure and its minions in Congress.
Dad and company -- your day is through -- you just aren't quick enough on the uptake to see it yet -- stand by!
When you consider the "accomplishments" of the last Congress, you'll have to admit that the bar has been set awfully low when it comes to meaningful legislation. One thing that you can count on though is that this Congress won't waste any of the public's time trying to pass flag burning, Pledge of Allegiance, or gay marriage amendments -- they will go after the rampant corruption and attacks on the Constitution that have charachterized our government for the last six years -- something else the voters elected them to do.

There are TWO paths to peace. I choose peace through victory.

Crush and disarm the Iraqi militias. Seal the borders with AC130's. Punish bombers and bomb builders with public execution. Shoot them with pork coated bullets. Throw their bodies into pits filled with dead pigs.

Nationalize for a real damn war. Draft (yes - I said it) if necessary. Double, triple the number of troops in the field. The world will never love us. I'll settle for respect (to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt). Give every infantryman a rocket and bring back flamethrowers.

Instigate the sedition act and inform the US press that they will actually put people on the ground - in uniform - and report the actual events. Or they will publish nothing. No more daily bomb reports - unless other news is reported. Lists of the deed soldiers and Marines performed and the medals and awards they recived will be published.

That would be "characterized." My bad.

Oh, and tell the Air Force and the Navy to eliminate Iran as a threat. End of operational order. Just eliminate the threat.

Sal is right. The Democrats never promised a plan for "victory" in Iraq. They just wanted to cut and run, wave the white flag, accept defeat, etal.

As far as the Dems having "only 3 months" to come up with a plan, that's total crap. They were campaigning two years before the election. Plenty of time, in my honest opinion, to come up with a plan ... and not a plan for defeat as Sal hopes for ... but a plan for VICTORY.

I don't think Republicans are scared, Annilo. It's the Dems who are scared. Scared the surge is going to bring peace to Iraq. And then what will they say?

Wade: I've always wanted to ask you why you sign your name after your posts when your profile name is "Wade". It looks pretty silly.

Kimberly4bush

So, what do the AF and Navy do with the other 22-1/2 hours that are left in that day Kahn?

Sal, have you ever heard the term "blind perception"? It stems from narrow-minded people (like you) that derive their so-called facts from typically one-sided sources. So far, the conservative bloggers here at B4B are more worldly (unlike you Philistines), and do far more research of the FACTS, then the kook libs that post here. In fact, I've noticed that the kooks have come here with mainly talking points that can be found on most liberal sites, such as the Daily Hogs and the Huffingpot Post. I also notice how your buddies like to come here, hit the site with un-sustantiated BS and drop the "f-bomb" on the way outr the door. Real good for your cause Sal...real good!

Like Kahn..please xkuse the spelling! Not a good morning.

One thing is for sure my friends, the American people are getting exactly what they're asking
for from the Democratic Party.
Sad indeed..
We have Mr. Byrd here from West Virginia, he uses two canes now instead of one to steady himself as he strolls the isles of the Congressional Suites.
West Virginia voted for this man after he has had over 256 buildings, bridges, sinage, etc. named after him.
Mind you.. folks.. 256 and counting higher.
Why couldn't Mr Byrd have named these buildings, signs, bridges, etc after those who have given their lives in line of duty for this country.
Instead, he likes his names displayed everywhere.
That's beyond my understanding.
Our politicians give the world to these folk and they vote them back into office.
Now Senator Rockefeller is using this deal with the Veterans Administration to have a local VA hospital inspected. (Why? -. lets come down to earth folks...to hurt the current WH administration).
A brave USMC person wrote an article in the Newspaper locally and praised the hospital for their many works and helps to the local veterans.
Why would Mr. Rockefeller do this I ask again??
The elected democrats are bringing this country to its demise I'm afraid.
Just watch Nancy Pelosi. Shameful I say Shameful.
God help us as a nation.

As far as the Democrats plan for Iraq?
You'll have to ask the Terrorist supporting countries that have just met with the delegation from the Democratic Party. They (Terrorist Supporting Countries) know more than our current Administration.
How sad folks.
Yes, the folks elected them and this is what we get. No plan, No plan, No plan,
it spins my mind to think this is happning to America.

My heart goes to those folks in West Virginia that voted for the Republican Party.

I think Byrd should name a few of those buildings after the people the KKK murdered ... you know the organization to which he belonged for many years.

I can't comment on that Ms Kimberly.
I think those folks in West Virginia should wise up and elect some new face for leadership of that state.
Same ole promises.
Same ole faces.
Same ole name.
No plan,
No game,

The dems have had congress for 3 months and have not done a thing about anything. Zero accomplishments. This must be the worst do nothing congress in american history. When are the dems gonna do something about the gas prices. They are in charge now. I guess the dems must be in bed with big oil and the saudis. The high gas prices are now on the dems heads and they have done nothing.

navydad

If the world calls on you for your help, by all means, do so. I have no problem with that. But the thing is, the world did not call on you to invade & occupy Iraq. Bush did that all on his own.

Oh, but you're so wrong, CO. The world knew Saddam was evil and had WMD. All you have to do is search for newspaper articles around the world and they all state what we knew about Saddam. They just didn't have the nerve to do anything about it. Or, in the case of China, Russia, France, and Germany, didn't want anything done about it because then the Oil for Food Scandal would come to light.

BTW, don't ya just love Rachel? ;-)

Mr Canadian,
You're flat wrong my friend.
Every member of the United States Congress had the information before their two eyes, this includes every Democrat in office.
They the CONGRESS voted and went along with the terror threat before us.
If you want to sit in canada and allow the terrorists to invade your land, that's ok my friend, but you don't know the politics in this Nation as much as you think you do.
And for further info, I spent 6 years for my country serving here and abroad.
I would do what the President of this great country asked me to do. Especially when it comes to protecting my family and the great citizens of this nation.
Wise up. Get out of the spin zone.
God help Canada.
You have better leadership there than what you're speaking don't you?

"...they all state what we knew about Saddam. They just didn't have the nerve to do anything about it. Or, in the case of China, Russia, France, and Germany, didn't want anything done about it because then the Oil for Food Scandal would come to light."
Posted by: kimberly4bush
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe the other leaders were smarter? After all
We are the only ones dying in Iraq, 'keeping the world safe from terrorists'.....

We are the only ones spending billions upon billions of US dollars in Iraq....

We are the only ones that have soldiers coming back with TBI which is going to cost us billions upon billions in additional health care costs...

And really lets be honest...China, France, etc. could have really have cared less about the food for oil scandal coming to light...
What exactly did we do to punish those countries involved in that scandal? Not a darn thing.

It wasnt a matter of 'not having the nerve' to do something about it. It came down to the fact other countries (having had vast colonial experience at occupying African and middle east territories) did not want to get involved in a a region that has experienced sectarian violence for 2000 years.

And to think everyone here bought in to Rumsfeld BS that we would only be in Iraq for 6 months tops. I bet you feel pretty stupid for believing that?

I would do what the President of this great country asked me to do.

Posted by: truthisright at April 9, 2007 02:16 PM

Well there's a statement to scare the bejesus out of a person. What's even more frightening; I am sure there are many more just like you. Citizens willing and able to blindly follow wherever Bush may lead. How in the blazes did this madness start?

You won't find many cowards when you cross south past Niagara Falls.

IT,
The bottom line is that these guys don't know "up" from "sic 'em." The thought that their ideological leaders have failed the country (and them too) is something that they can't even admit to themselves -- let alone some "lefty troll."
As for the "Oil for Food" scandal -- the criminals included enough American oil company types that any embarassment that fell on the Allies would eventually find its way home -- hence, no prosecutions.
As for the billions we've spent -- if Wolfowitz hadn't played the "oil revenues will pay for reconstruction" card, I doubt Bush could have sold this war to anyone except those that post on this site and a few mouth-breathing dittoheads.

You won't find many cowards when you cross south past Niagara Falls.
Posted by: truthisright at April 9, 2007 03:05 PM

I'm happy to see that you are not calling U.S. citizens who disagree with the war policies of GWB, cowards. On this point, we both agree.

Yes CO - Then you should definately pull out of NATO so we don't have to protect you any longer. So long, Tovarich.

If it wasn't for America, where would Canada, France, Germany be today?

Or would they?

IT: Quit lying! The Americans are not the only ones giving the ultimate sacrifice. The UK, Australia, Japan and other allies have also lost troops ... not to mention the Iraqi troops. Geez!

You've misunderstood me.
You notice I didn't mention any of the countries you just mentioned.
Why?
Because they've stood with the US in their War on Terrorism.
They see what the threat to the world is.
BRAVO to those countries.
I apologize for not making myself clear Kim.

It wasn't toward you, truthisright, but to IT for life. :-)

He sounds like a trapped little mouse in a corner.

we we we we

You won't find many cowards when you cross south past Niagara Falls.
Posted by: truthisright at April 9, 2007 03:05 PM

I'm happy to see that you are not calling U.S. citizens who disagree with the war policies of GWB, cowards. On this point, we both agree.

Lists of the deed soldiers and Marines performed and the medals and awards they recived will be published.
Posted by: Kahn [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 9, 2007 12:59 PM

Never, then Neocons will have their names for future Swift-Boating.

And to think everyone here bought in to Rumsfeld BS that we would only be in Iraq for 6 months tops. I bet you feel pretty stupid for believing that?

Not everyone did, and it was a statement, not a guarantee. I bought into Bush's logic about a long war...

"The Democrats never promised a plan for "victory" in Iraq -- they promised to get our people out"

Well that's not entirely true, during the Novemeber elections the Democrats camapaigned on various platforms depending on the constituency.. which ranged from..
1. Withdrawing Troops
2. Redeplyoing troops outide of Iraq.
3. Dividing Iraq into 3 states.

If you go back and review the close races in the Senate you will find that except for one , the other Democrats ran on a platorm other than the withdrawl of US troops.

During the elections, the Democrat strategy was to win the House and the Senate. not to establish a Democrat

Here is the Iraq offical strategy from the 2006 Democrats election campaign.

Iraq
To Honor the Sacrifi ce of Our Troops, we will:
Ensure 2006 is a year of signifi cant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises
necessary to unite their country and defeat the
insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

As taken from link to Nancy Pelosi's website Dated October 13, 2006

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Oct06/PortSecurity.html

No mention of time table for troop withdrawl or troop withdawl at all.

please give a reference for your Rumsfeld "quote".

Interesting way to live. Everything is either/or. Binary.
The mess in Iraq is not going to be cleaned up with a bumper sticker solution. There is currently a plan to keep on keepin' on but that does not solve the problem and certainly doesn't create "victory".
I don't know if the Democrats can't solve what will have to be a years and decades long solution but they have not lost all of their credibility in a mere 90+days and that leaves them with a whole lot more credibility than the administration which has shown itself unable to address the mess they created there with anything beyond too little too late ideas.

...but they have not lost all of their credibility in a mere 90+days...

They don't have any to lose...

Kahn,

Since you asked (and don't know how to use Google) here ya go..

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

-Rumsfeld 2003.

From "Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war" @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

But, but, Eric, we're not at war anymore. We took Baghdad in what, two weeks? We're just occupiers now--the war's been over for years.

Rummy was right...

Nobody likes war. It's not pleasant, it's not even good to talkabout. The lost arms, legs, lives, not counting the many tears shed by those families that have sent loved ones into the battle.
The heat is certainly on with this war, but I have seen so much hatred on both sides of the aisles. The left says come home the right says stay.
But you know the war could be fighting right now on American soil, Canadian soil, German soil, British soil, and who wants that.
So what do you do? Pull out and let the Iranians take complete control of the factions warring in the boundaries of their country, or do you keep the escalation from mounting to greater porportions causing much, much more bloodshed.
As it stands right now the Iranians are on the verge of the completion of one of the most horrific killers of all time. You have a leader of that country that cares nothing for life. Death is apparently his agenda and he's insistent on carrying out his Ji-Had on those who disagree with him. He especially wants to take the life of every Israeli and probably even American.
Why?
Why would he want this kind of hellish, horrific bloodshed on his hands.
Think about that?
Unless you understand his ideology and political aim, then we could better understand the purpose and aim he has.
Where does it all end?
What do we do?
Take this into consideration for just one moment.
What if he did take over the White House or the Canadian Parliament or the British Monarchy?
What next?
What would be the next goal in mind?
Have you considered?
I don't want to be enslaved to any. America have been a free nation for hundreds of years and the American people have fought, bleed and died for that freedom, along with all of our allies. And thank God for each one of them because they valued that freedom, they valued that peacefulness, they valued living in accord with one another.
But just suppose these things would happen?
What would you do?
What would your answer be?
God help America and her allies to REMAIN FREE.

Nobody likes war. It's not pleasant, it's not even good to talkabout. The lost arms, legs, lives, not counting the many tears shed by those families that have sent loved ones into the battle.
The heat is certainly on with this war, but I have seen so much hatred on both sides of the aisles. The left says come home the right says stay.
But you know the war could be fighting right now on American soil, Canadian soil, German soil, British soil, and who wants that.
So what do you do? Pull out and let the Iranians take complete control of the factions warring in the boundaries of their country, or do you keep the escalation from mounting to greater porportions causing much, much more bloodshed.
As it stands right now the Iranians are on the verge of the completion of one of the most horrific killers of all time. You have a leader of that country that cares nothing for life. Death is apparently his agenda and he's insistent on carrying out his Ji-Had on those who disagree with him. He especially wants to take the life of every Israeli and probably even American.
Why?
Why would he want this kind of hellish, horrific bloodshed on his hands.
Think about that?
Unless you understand his ideology and political aim, then we could better understand the purpose and aim he has.
Where does it all end?
What do we do?
Take this into consideration for just one moment.
What if he did take over the White House or the Canadian Parliament or the British Monarchy?
What next?
What would be the next goal in mind?
Have you considered?
I don't want to be enslaved to any. America have been a free nation for hundreds of years and the American people have fought, bleed and died for that freedom, along with all of our allies. And thank God for each one of them because they valued that freedom, they valued that peacefulness, they valued living in accord with one another.
But just suppose these things would happen?
What would you do?
What would your answer be?
God help America and her allies to REMAIN FREE.

Whatever Queefer (sip), just supplying the quote for Kahn.

Cheers!

'scuse my spelling. Meant keefer not queefer. My bad. Gotta learn to preview...

The Democrats continue on course clearly opposed to by the Iraqi Survey Group "sttting a time table for withdrawl"

While Bush continues implementing the Iraqi Survey Group eccommendations:

"The foreign minister announced at the weekend that Iraq's neighbours, the five permanent members of the UN security council and the G8 group of industrialised countries would meet in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on May 3 to discuss the security situation in Iraq. US officials have said that US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, will attend."

The ISG reccommended that US tallk to Syria and Iraq within the Iraq Summary Group and that either GWB or Condeleza should represent the USA.

Seems the Democrats are way off line in their appraoch.

And no they don't have the support of the American people, they didn't campaign on a platform of withdrawing troops or even setting a time table for withdrawing troops.
(read my previous post with reference link from Nancy Pelosi website)

"Nationalize for a real damn war. Draft (yes - I said it) if necessary. Double, triple the number of troops in the field."

Kahn posted this. And yes it would bring victoty. But it will NEVER happen, at least not while Bush is in office.

The administration decided to invade Iraq with some sort of idea of why and how it would go. I don't believe they told us the exact "why" but it certainly didn't "go" anywhere near how they predicted. They lost support of the American people as a result and the - wow, lookit that, even keefer's calling it an occupation - the occupation has resulted in more American deaths per month than the initial invasion.
Without support of the American people they can't accomplish whatever goal they had in mind yet they also can't admit it was a mistake so they are claiming the cheapest way to militarily occupy is also the best way.
And we end up with this:
"In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country - a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."

Oh, I forgot the big tagline:
"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.

Carsick says "Without support of the American people they can't accomplish whatever goal they had in mind." Thanks Carsick for the admission of guilt.

Rumsfeld was grossly underestimating the job required to rebuild the Iraqi society and national institutions. He was wrong. Agreed.

Note - dpearture from agreement..... I think we needed to use three times the force we did. Would you (liberals) have permitted that? Would you now?

I wouldn't agree with it now but I think you'll find a number of folks on the Left who were not happy that Shinseki and Powell were sidelined at the time they were sidelined.
Many folks on the Right however called them foolish or uninformed for not being up to date on Rumsfeld's smaller faster ideal.
By the way, you can blame Rumsfeld all you want now that he's out of office but ultimately the responsible one is his elected boss.

Curiously, BlogsforBush doesn't allow you to search their archives. Hmmm.

Oh, and kahn, do you truly believe that 60+% of Americans are on the Left? Those are the numbers of people who are not supporting the presidents Iraq strategy.
One poll I read claimed the president had a 34% overall approval but his Iraq support was 27%. I think that, by necessity, includes people from the Right.

Ahhhh - But I don't support the current strategy. I think we need three times the force. Don't suppose that everyone agrees with YOU.

Pulling out now, just pulling out will lead to carnage and regional war. Is that OK with you? It seems to be.

Staying, without crushing the militias and sealing the borders accomplishes little.

So, on the one hand, you say - just get out. But you ignore the consequenses. On the other hand, I say mobilize for the damn war we are fighting and increase force enough to win.

Both positions start with the fact that the current situation is flawed. See how statistics work?

Four years into his war Bush still has no viable plan for Iraq. Not for victory, not for getting out, nothing. I am a conservative Rep and will remain one, but who can support this nonsense? I cannot imagine who the 30% or so of voters are who still support Bush. He has been the greatest possible recruiter for the Jihad, so Jihadest voters should be enthusiatic. The country was on track to pay off the national debt before he came to office, so I guess govt bond traders should support him. Top .1% of income earners could appreciate the only tax cuts ever in war time. Surely Jihadests, govt bond traders and the mega-rich do not make up 30% of the electorate. But who else is there?

'scuse my spelling. Meant keefer not queefer. My bad. Gotta learn to preview...

Whatever you say, Eric--it's not as if I haven't been called "queefer" many times before you were hatched. Your apologizing for not "previewing" would be akin to my apologizing for calling you a moron. I'm sure you've been called a moron many times...today...

kahn
The president has lost the confidence of the people who voted for him so how do you think he can mobilize Americans to support a draft for what they think is a mistake.
Hoping for three times the troops in Iraq is like hoping for your own personal spaceship to Mars - it may be a cool idea but it is pure fantasy.
Earlier in this thread I wrote about the binary thinking that's employed by many on the Right. You are exhibiting it here.
Here's what I said:
"Interesting way to live. Everything is either/or. Binary.
The mess in Iraq is not going to be cleaned up with a bumper sticker solution."

The choices are not victory or defeat. The choices are between bad and worse and worse still.

Kahn,
I couldnt agree with your post more.
The neocons in the defense department and elsewhere truly caused the situation we have in Iraq now.
If th Army Secretary and Powell had not been sideline, I think the situation would be much different in Iraq.

I never understood why Rumsfeld could not see th difference between defeating a standing army and occupying a foreign country. I think this comes from the fact that he was ex-Navy. If we had someone like Powell running the show in the very beginning things would have been so much different. That POS Rumsfeld dismissed people such as Powell and Shinseki and scared, cautious soldiers who were scarred from Vietnam.

Yeah maybe they were slow and cautious. But then again they saw combat up close and personal while Rumsfeld was pushing papers at the Whitehouse.

I never ever understood why Bush stood by someone that obviously was incompetent as Def. Secretary. he will go done in history as truly the worst Def Sec. this country has ever had.

That fact alone makes me wonder of Bush's judgment as a president. Why exactly did he stick with him for so long?

Back to the present topic: we really need to give Gen Petreaus the benefit of doubt. At least he is being honest in saying we will need another 5yrs in Iraq.

Fair enough keefer, but can you please come up with something a little more derogatory than moron. Take my name and run with it...you're bound to come up with something. Lets keep it interesting!

Cheers!

Carsick - what does the President have to do with it? OK, I know - but consider this: The war is necessary or not idependernt of who is in the white House. The consequenses of leaving too soon are dire independent of who is in the White House. We have always said that the lefts hatred of Bush blinded you to policy.

Sit back, pretend Bush is not the president (I know you'll like that) and say to yourself..."what will happen if we just pull out of that region leaving the situation the way it is now?" Please, no preconceived notions... what do you think will happen if we just leave now?

The Senate Democrats' proposal I read by Webb et. al. does not say run for the border. In fact even if the benchmarks are not met (A quick aside: Some folks are calling for secret benchmarks but that is an unreal expectation because at some point we need to let the Iraqi leadership know what those dates are and that place has so many divided loyalties that the dates would be leaked within an hour of receiving them)...anyway, even if the benchmarks are not met, which means automatic redeployment, the bill leaves troops there for the following reasons:
(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

That's quite a bit of folks. It does get the US out of the way of the civil war though.

Here's an interesting overview of two othercproposals (it's from Slate so you may not trust it but please read it anyway for the information).
http://www.slate.com/id/2163598/fr/flyout

It gets back to my point that it is not an either/or situation between "victory" and "cut and run". I have not seen a realistic definition of victory in Iraq. And "cut and run" is a term used by the administration to get people to not look at the details of the Democratic proposal.

Funny, that plan sounds excactly what we're doing right now. Can't they come up with something ORIGINAL?

kimberly
And yet the president is promising to veto it.

Carsick -

You forgot to mention that the deadline for the Iraai government to meet the deadline for those benchmark was March 31, 2007.

The date coincidently given by the ISG in their reccommendations.

The same reccommendations that Bush has been trying to implement since February but Democrats continue to provide the funding for.

You can't have it both ways, you can't stall the implementation of reccomendations and then expect the Iraqi government to meet deadlines.

and the Democrats are smart enough to know what they are doing...

If Bush signed the current funding bill, the Democrats would simply call for implementation of the timeetable for troop withdrawl because Iraq government hadn't met benchmarks.

Thus the Democrat plan for retreat and surrender.

Besides the fact they don't have constitutional authourity to set strategy during war anyways.

Just be real, if there is no change in Iraq before the end of the year, US troops will begin redeplying outside of Iraq, anyways.

No need for Democrats to be jerking around, ecept to appease the antiwar supporters.

DougH
"Just be real, if there is no change in Iraq before the end of the year, US troops will begin redeplying outside of Iraq, anyways."

The president has shown absolutely no indication he will do what you suggest. I've been hearing 6 to 12 month prognostications since the invasion began. Here we are four years later and we are escalating the effort at the cost of our military readiness.

Uh oh, looks like your support for the presidents same-o same-o plan is slowly crumbling:

"The group includes five Republicans, diverse in geography and ideology: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, Mac Thornberry of Texas and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland. Of the five, only Gilchrest broke with his party to support a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Now, Gilchrest says the group will encourage the White House to compromise on negotiations with Syria and Iran and on setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq. And the group has national security bona fides that will help it be taken seriously.

Hoekstra is a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and is now its ranking Republican. Thornberry is the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee's terrorism subcommittee. And Gilchrest is one of few decorated combat veterans in the House.

The GOP negotiating team's argument will start with Gen. David Petraeus' public assertion that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily but requires a comprehensive political solution. Part of that includes letting Iraq know the American commitment isn't open-ended, Gilchrest said.

"The president needs to let the Iraqis know we won't be there forever," he said in an interview."

And it looks like the administration is planning for the end of the year:

"THE STRESS ON THE ARMY HAS BEEN COMPOUNDED BY THE SURGE OF ADDITIONAL FORCES THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IN JANUARY -- A SURGE IRAQ COMMANDER DAVID PETRAEUS WANTS TO EXTEND. SENIOR OFFICIALS TELL ABC NEWS THERE'S CONSENSUS AT THE PENTAGON AND THE WHITE HOUSE THAT PETRAEUS IS RIGHT, THE SURGE NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO WITHOUT EXTENDING THE TOURS OF THOSE ALREADY IN IRAQ, OR DRAMATICALLY CUTTING THE TIME SOLDIERS SPEND BACK AT HOME.

THE ARMY IS PROPOSING THIS, IN PART, BECAUSE AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD EXTENSION SEEMS MORE FAIR THAN PIECE-MEAL EXTENSIONS ON INDIVIDUAL UNITS. IT WILL ALSO ERASE UNCERTAINTY. SOLDIERS WILL KNOW AHEAD OF TIME HOW LONG THEY'LL NEED TO BE IN IRAQ. THIS PLAN WOULD BE UNWELCOME NEWS TO SOLDIERS WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO AND SOMETIMES THREE DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ. BUT OFFICIALS AT THE PENTAGON SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE A SILVER LINING. WITH THIS PLAN, THOSE SOLDIERS WOULD BE GUARANTEED TO HAVE AT LEAST 12 MONTHS BACK AT HOME BETWEEN THEIR DEPLOYMENTS."

Sorry for the caps. I cut and pasted this and it is a transcript in caps.