Go back to the school yard where this type of garbage belongs.

Yea Reid, go back to the schoolyard!

Reid is just expressing what we all already know. They cannot afford a Victory, they must bring about defeat. A Victory proves them wrong for the past 6 years and they will lose control for a very long time.

Cut and run, as they prefer, is not a Victory. In fact, the word isn't even in their vocabulary.

It seems Reid is just repeating what the U.S. military commander General Petraeus saying:

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

Or what Henry Kissinger said in Tokyo that there is no military victory in Iraq.

The war is lost in a sense that Bush's policy can, and never could, achieve peace in Iraq.

This fiasco just proves that while you can have the best army in the world, it is the commanders who can still lose a war.

Bush lost the war, not the armed forces.

Wade

Why can't Democrats admit that they want us to lose?

Because they don't, but contrary to the wishes of the Democrats and the American people, Bush has done just that.

I think we need to send Pinky back to Nevada, obviously he does not know what he is doing in Washington.

Harry Reid is far from a military strategist.

500 people were killed in Bagdhad this week... Surge in Death, maybe?

Things might have been settled down, and our troops would be drawing down, by now, if only the Democrats weren't giving aid and comfort to those who wish harm against the USA.

Surrendercrats on the retreat!!! AIIIEEEE!!!! We're winning!! Run away!! Run away!!! Flee before we do something like win!!! Politics before national defense!! AIIEEEEE!!!! Circle wagons round Henry Reid-reat!!! Circle wagons round Nazi Pelosi!!! Circle wagons around Runaway Murtha!!! AIEEEE!!!!!

Perhaps what Mr. Reid is saying is that Mr. Bush is a failure.
Like it or not, all Bush supporters must admit the possibility that the insurgents are getting around the surge because of Bushs failed leadership on this matter, rather than his assumption that they attack because support for him is waning.
This is a reality Mr. Bush will no doubt have to deal with more as time goes on. I see no reason why it should go otherwise.
Look forward to your responses.

" "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists."

Yeah, there is that good old American "can do!" attitude. Thank God today's Defeatocrats weren't in charge in 1776.

Like it or not, all Bush supporters must admit the possibility that the insurgents are getting around the surge because of Bushs failed leadership on this matter, rather than his assumption that they attack because support for him is waning.

Like it or not, you're a moron who can't type a coherent thought. What in the hell dod you just say in the above senseless sentence?

Also, JAT, we don't admit things just because you insist we must. Who the hell are you, other than some stupid idiot who can't convey thoughts?

I look forward to your clarification, but don't expect it...

Unbelieveable. It is time for harry reid to resign for these comments. Our military has not lost a single battle in Iraq. According to reid all the terrorists have to do to win is blow up some cars. JFK and FDR are turning over in their graves. I'm sure after the Battle of the Bulge, when we had 85,000 casualties in one battle, harry reid would say that the military has already lost. Disgraceful would be too kind a word. Resignation is appropriate.

Today, top Democrat Harry Reid SURRENDERED to terrorists in Iraq!

Top Democrat Harry Reid is a TRAITOR to America!

So, if Bush were to propose laws cutting off funding for schools that don't show adequate progress on standardized tests, it would be appropriate to entitle the article "Bush: U.S> teachers suck" or would that be enough to mark one an obvious ass-hat?

I propose this post be retitled "Margolis: there is no end to my douchebaggery"

Matt...

That isn't at all what I read from that statement.
Look - the problem isn't that the US military sucks or that the soldiers aren't good enough or something like that. And Reid didn't imply that by his statement.

What he is saying is that this strategy is akin to trying to put together a ship in a bottle with a jackhammer. It isn't that the jackhammer isn't strong enough or that it isn't well oiled enough - the problem is that it is the wrong tool..

In the context of Iraq it goes as follows. If you had one group of well identified enemies that you were trying to defeat in a military battle - you couldn't think of a stronger , more skilled, more competent machine that the fine men and women of the armed services..

However, this is manifestly NOT the situation in Iraq. There are many intricate social , religious, and political relationships. The Sunni /Shia divide, the Kurds, the pro and anti western elements, terrorist organizations, Bathtist loyalists. You can't solve long standing political struggles, religious disputes, and complex social interactions by putting army patrols out on the streets. If there there are fundamental underlying issues - you can't hope that the situation will
improve unless you address them.

Unfortunately this administration has failed miserably to do anything about these. Its not hard to see why - from day 1 they assumed that we would be greeted as liberators and that somehow everything would magically work it self out. I have never seen a cohesive specific plan to deal with this. And this should have been drafted BEFORE any thought of invasion occurred - of course it would have to be updated with changing conditions - but it simply didn't exist...

If this is really the "battle of our time" why aren't we re-instituting the draft and sending millions over to Iraq - after all the argument is that if we "lose" then the world will come to pieces and an Islamic empire will emerge and kill and destroy us.. Yet they should have known - and have known for years - that the troops on the ground were not sufficient for this..
Ever wonder why?

Here's the email address for Senator Reid http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm.
We too can tell him how we feel!

Yet they should have known - and have known for years - that the troops on the ground were not sufficient for this..
Ever wonder why?

Clarification, please. To say "they should have known - and known for years," makes absolutely no sense. Also, what the hell do you mean by "ever wonder why?"

Maybe you should tell us why, since you think you know...

minnowhead, when are you going to post a new thread in your threadbare blog? Is DAV keeping you up too late every night?

I meant the should have known before going into Iraq..,

and subsequently - for the last few years - it has shown that although the force that was put in was sufficient to overthrow the government and defeat the Iraqi military it was not sufficient to quell insurgency.

What do I mean ever wonder why? I mean that just as the primary motivation for this war was not
a) WMDS - there were none
b) Saddam - 9/11 connections - there were none
c) Promotion of Democracy in the Middle East - some of the worst abusers of this Bush holds hands with and supports their brutal dictatorship - the house of Saud.
d) The war on "terror" - All of the lead Al-Queda members are most likely in Pakistan or Afganistan. And our intelligence agencies reported that our military actions have *INCREASED* the threat of terrorist attacks on the US not decreased it...

If its none of these things - then you have to wonder why we are in this war? Well - its the elephant in the room - Oil and hegemonic control..

I know its hard to accept when you want to believe that the President has your and the worlds best interest at heart. But they don't ...

Go read Wolfowitz's doctoral dissertation. Its not even hidden - he lays it out quite clearly that he believes that the US should use its military might for conquest of the middle eastern oil supply - not only because of the oil that it gives us - but because of the control it would give us over other world powers....

And they have tried to act according to it

The war on "terror" - All of the lead Al-Queda members are most likely in Pakistan or Afganistan. And our intelligence agencies reported that our military actions have *INCREASED* the threat of terrorist attacks on the US not decreased it...

Meanwhile we just went on soaking up attack after terrorist attack before going into Iraq. Help me out with this fuzzy math...did 9/11/01 come before or after 3/20/03?

Im also desperately trying to figure out this grand liberal logic: you support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq. Wouldnt our attempt at hegemonic control in either country cause more terrorist attacks against the U.S.? Yet you want to continue the dastardly occupation of Afghanistan after we threw out its legitimate government?

What are you, some power-hungry warmonger?

Are you talking about Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East: The Politics and Economics of Proposals for Nuclear Disarming by Paul Wolfowitz (1972)? I suggest you actually read it and not rely on left-wing blogs or propaganda hit pieces for explanation. It makes you look like a "black helicopter conspiracy nut-job".

The thrust of the paper is that bringing fissile material to the Middle East is risky, and it wouldn't be economically viable.

"I meant the should have known before going into Iraq..,"

Well, kblack has just proven that all men are NOT created equal.

Harry is only repeating what AQ said the day before.

Have you ever noticed that if you look at a list of quotes from AQ and dems, you can't tell the difference?

What does this say about the Dems and thier supporters in AQ? The must have the same press agency.

Sorry - your right of course I meant the "US Strategic Plan" document from the early 90s.

His doctoral dissertation has something to do with the desalination of water in Israel - arguing that they shouldn't have nuclear plants (as not to escalate tensions)- though this was pretty much irrelevant given that everyone knew that Israel had nuclear weapons..

"Have you ever noticed that if you look at a list of quotes from AQ and dems, you can't tell the difference?" Posted by: Joel

So true!

Posted by: William Teach:
"Yeah, there is that good old American "can do!" attitude. Thank God today's Defeatocrats weren't in charge in 1776."

Jeez Teach, by any definition, any sane sensible person recognizes that the Bush administration tactics and plans in Iraq have been and still are a total failure but this obvious fact does not compute in the bushbot brain.

You had 4 years, yet that administration cannot do the ‘can do’. The whole Iraqi adventure is ruining your country. You and the other deadheads(not to be confused with the musical fans of the Gratefull Dead) should give your blockheads a shake. Wake up, man, smell the coffee!!

Republicans who don't speak up against this administration have blood on their hands and are responsible for all this death. Bush knows the reality. He wants the surge to continue up until the day he leaves office. Then he will slither out of town and let it up to the next President to solve the problem. What a weasle!

Iraq is three sets of people who don't like each other cobbled together by the British back in 1921. They were fighting each other long before we got there and will be fighting each other long after we are gone. The End.

You As*Holes who keep talking failure are Hoping for failure as you and your Demofeats have been doing ever since THIS President fought back at those who Want to Kill Americans. I don't quite
remember your outrage during Clinton's Reign about
much of anything: INCLUDING his ineptness at doing
much against Terrorism(guess that's why Berger stole all those incriminating papers from the archives that showed too much info that was just overlooked)

If Clinton had done something from "day one", THEN
we would NOT have had to face the continuation of attacks(about 6 wasn't it?)and the runup to 9/ll.
Just as they perceived the U.S. being weak and very vulnerable during the Clintons Reign, it took
THIS President to show otherwise. But, of course
in your hatred of the man, you and your wussy Demofeatists will never admit to this, and YOU WANT this war to be a failure. You all did the Same Thing during VietNam days, and you are trying
the same thing during this war against Terrorism.
You all play right into the hands of these savage
murdering radical Terrorists, who HEAR YOU, RePeat
You, and Quote Your Rhetoric back through their rants, videos and they are also "RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA, JUST WAITING FOR THE NEXT BIG BLAST-AND
THEY USE THESE LEFTIE WEAK-KNEED POLITICOS TO EMPOWER THEM, AND EMBOLDEN THEM IN THEIR FIGHT.

"KEEP TALKING DEMS, THEY LOVE KNOWING THEY HAVE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THEIR BARBARIC, MURDERING WAYS AND YOU TO THANK AS THEIR SUPPORTERS".

Why do you think they have been "pouring it on, as far as the attacks on the civilian population"?-
It is YOU, encouraging them, and they feel that in
your Treasonist Rhetoric(you wouldn't have gotten away with this crap during Franklin D.Roosevelt's terms, that's for sure) the people of the U.S. will "once again loose the stomach for the ongoing
fight/and standing by the people who should have freedom to live in peace". You and the Cindy Sheehans, along with the Reid's, Pelosi's, etc.
are only looking for a political platform, and you
want a return to power, with a white flag waving.
For your to say it's what the rest of the country wants is also disengenuous-there are many polls out there that state the people do not want to lose this war----ONLY THE DEMS WANT THAT, IN THEIR HATRED OF BUSH.

Josh:

Do you mean the way the Clintoons left 6 attacks
for the next President to handle, since They Didn't? You need to look at my post, and try to
read it without your hatred of Bush for once. At
least Bush stood up to the fight of Terrorism, whereas his predecessor DID NOT. Why the hell do you think 9/ll occurred? And, don't you wonder WHY the Clintoons tried to block the movie about their reign of power and the ineptness that led to 9/ll? The movie they tried to stop was:

"The PATH TO 9/11"....get it? Isn't THIS why Berger stole the papers that incriminated the LACK
OF FIGHTING THE TERRORISTS?

By the way, say what you will, but at least when Bush stood up to the savages of 9/ll and Terrorists worldwide, we did NOT have another attack here in the US to date, did we? You should
be grateful to this President whose only interest has been to keep Americans safe. In the meanwhile
fly your white flag along with the other wimpy Dems, cause they have always been "anti-military,
Anti-Bush-Period, and only believe like the French
"VivalaSurrender"

Thanks for clearing that up for me, kblack. I knew I could count on your dumb ass for the talking points, and for the lazy, phonetically-typed nonsense you are good for. You and JAT must've attended the same college.

kblack,

Please stop with the "no ties with 9/11" nonsense. Here it is again, just for you:

Did you know that Saddam and his sons, Ebay and Cujo, were on a U.S. airliner that they had planned to hijack, on 9/11, but that the plane was grounded once the attacks started. It's true, kblack; Saddam, Ebay, and Cujo had been in the U.S. for months. Mohammed Atta got them a job, in St. Louis, working at Ghandi's gas station. From there, they helped coordinate the attacks.

Efforts were underway, prior to Saddam's execution, to have him rendered to Git'mo, where a confession would be beaten out of him by our torture machine. The man was a sucker for Doritos and Froot Loops, so the torture would have been successful. Alas, the hangman's noose could wait no longer, and Saddam's secret died with him.

But now you know, kblack--Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. And those fires he set in the oil fields of Kuwait in '91? They caused global warming...er, climate change.

The truth has set you free...

"id you know that Saddam and his sons, Ebay and Cujo, were on a U.S. airliner that they had planned to hijack, on 9/11, but that the plane was grounded once the attacks started."

keefer,

This wasn't funny the first time you posted this, either. Maybe you should write for the McCain campaign...he needs a "joke" both mocking 9/11 and showing that the Iraq War was unnecessary to finally give the coup de grace to his campaign.

Gar Wood

"Ebay and Cujo"? That’s hysterical!

Why is it when they present an absurd conspiracy theory (“Wolfowitz's doctoral dissertation […] the US should use its military might for conquest of the middle eastern oil supply” or “bin Laden’s family was allowed to leave the country when all other planes were grounded”) we’re supposed to think them quite the genius for seeing through our evil plot, but when you present an equally absurd theory they refuse to discuss it. Are they afraid of the truth?

I happen to know that Poosay Hussein was supposed to win American Idol but the oil-for-food payments were intercepted by Halliburton and redirected to the RNC to be used to pay off Diebold in Ohio!

The majority of the American people can no longer support Bush or his debacle in Iraq.

John Ryan. I once knew a John Ryan that died of a brain tumor...back from the grave JR?

John Ryan...isn't that Mahmoud Awannajihad in English?

John Ryan. I once knew a John Ryan that died of a brain tumor...back from the grave JR?

I think you're onto something, navydad. If that's all he can come up with, parroted talking points, then he is clearly brain-dead.

What's your point, JR? My guess is you just want a reaction. You got one, actually two. Now go out and celebrate, moron...

Matt,

Why is it that you think that any questioning of the war is a statement that the military sucks. Why must you reduce sentiments that differ from your own into emotional buzz words? Don't you have the spine to argue against Reid's suggestion head on rather than infantilizing the debate and yourself in the process? I'm a little embarassed for you.

Mark Christopher
New York, NY

Keefer, Keefer, Keefer,

A little trouble with the "mife" (Your spelling if you recall. The one whose car you fill up). Or have you gone, as you put it in an earler post, off your meds.
Time to get back on them.
As you look for fault in the posts of others, you might consider, there've been no praises for your own rants occasionaly laced with epithets.
Whatever school I've been to, its not been anywhere near the gutter. People wonder if the same can be said of you.
Have a nice day.
Oh, and considering the case of Harry Reid, you have to consider the possibility that insurgent successes have resulted from Bushs' failed leadership rather than waning domestic support for him. Like it or not, that's the way most Americans feel.
Till Bush and his supporters address problems endemic to Iraq and her peoples, the war effort will continue to founder.