what a terrible drain of blood & treasure for what turns-out to have been no compelling mission...at least none that held-up to post-invasion scrunity.

but it's too late to just una$$ the AO. like kofi annin noted (& I'm no fan)-u break it, u buy it.

Biden's right that Iraq should be divided into 3 w a weak federal govt. then each territorial govt would be responsible for their own security. the central sunni territory would need access to oil revenue & the basra port would probably have to be administered by the UN for mutual benefit.

he11 - Iraq didn't even exist prior to the collapse of the ottoman empire following WW1.

this predictable mess we've created is the exact reason the saudi's advised Bush 1 to NOT invade Iraq after liberating kuwait in Gulf 1.

too bad assumptions replaced worst case planning in W's war cabinet.

Keep the following Obama quote in mind:

"by refusing the end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give then in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

a very shrewd but plainly obvious observation.

all of you "war enablers" who seek a US occupation for an "unspecified length, at undetermined cost" ($4000/sec btw), "with undetermined consequences" ought consider that the framing of the debate is going to change very soon in washington and you will be finding yourselves defending the motivations and desires of the very terrorists you claim to want to defeat. the public clearly do not buy into the views of simpleton thinkers anymore. they understand that the invasion of iraq has INCREASED (not decreased) the threat of terrorism and has elevated recruiting. the world is less safe as a result and that is irrefutable. continuing to sustain such a policy that appeases and emboldens the enemy is treasonous if not wildly reckless.

one day i hope you'll all wake up, put your partisan lenses aside, stop kissing king george's rear-end, and realize that we are doing things very, very, very wrong.

conscriptor,
There is a lot of denial on both sides. the left doesn't want to admit there has been progress on the military side. The right doesn't want to admit that there has been very little progress politically. Then you have the name calling on both sides that does nothing for resolving the debate.

good point , casper, but i was not calling into direct question whether or not we have made gains of losses on the ground in iraq, rather i was taking the position that our policy in entirety is faulty and regressive.

Casper, please don't generalize. Most conservatives have concluded that the political process in Iraq is in a failed state, so it's unfair to say that the right won't admit a lack of success.

As far as Conscriptor goes...get an enema! One that flushes your eyes at the same time and maybe you'll awaken to reality.....geeez! You just don't get it do you?

You morons actually believe that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that the terrorists would simply "leave us alone"...rigggghhhtt?

What about Afghanistan...moron! Without going into detail, AQ was based in Afghanistan and freely traveled across the borders...you just don't get it!

Borders are lines on a map, or weren't you awake for that chapter in the 4th grade?

"one day i hope you'll all wake up, put your partisan lenses aside, stop kissing king george's rear-end, and realize that we are doing things very, very, very wrong."

This statement is a sign of the highest level of partisanship and ignorance by insinuating the we conservatives kiss GWB's ass. And even though I'm not a violent person, if you said this to my face, Keefer's face, Spook's face, Kahn's face, AAR's face, A-10's face, and even Almiranta's face, we'd all kick your little chicken shit ass!

BTW, by saying what you have, you've also completely dissed the "majority" segment of our Military that supports GWB and this mission, and they probably wouldn't be as kind as I have been.

The same people who now say we are beginning to make progress on the ground, well they have been saying that since "stay the course".
Navydad.... When you insult others does ithat make you feel better about being yourself ? I sure hope it does.

I wrote this before navydad weighed in. A rumble -- cool! Then again, it's been many years since I cracked a head. Anyway, I choose to ignore him, at least for time being. And who knows, navydad might actually agree with the following...

Casper: There is a lot of denial on both sides. the left doesn't want to admit there has been progress on the military side. The right doesn't want to admit that there has been very little progress politically. Then you have the name calling on both sides that does nothing for resolving the debate.

Well said, Casper. And very pithy, too! Lol!

I know Michael Ware isn't held in high regard on this site, but he said something the other day that is undeniably true: the surge is undermining the very government the Bush administration has committed to support.

Personally though, I'm becoming more and more convinced that undermining the Maliki gov't is the right way to go. Almost every day reports are coming out indicating just how dysfunctional the Iraqi gov't is. Major reconstruction projects have been poorly done, poorly managed, and/or left untended. Corruption it rampant, and no one is held accountable. In fact, those responsible are actively protected. It's a mess. And if there is to be any real way forward, it's probably best to treat the gov't like burnt toast: turn it over and scrape off the crud.

Of course, the problem with that idea is that if the Maliki gov't disintegrates, it will take time to replace it. That may ultimately be inevitable. But over here, if or when it happens it will require considerable political resolve on the part of the GOP to resist the Dems. And right now anyway, the Dems' position is more or less consistent with the majority of the American people. So I think it is very possible that such a stand will doom the GOP in 2008. Nonetheless, I think it's the right thing to do -- at least for now.

The other problem is that there is no guarantee that what replaces the Maliki gov't will be any better. But in Iraq, we basically have to deal with trying to decide the least worst among bad options, not the best among good options.

On the other hand, maybe the Maliki gov't will suddenly shape up. But personally, I think a snowball has a better chance in hell at this point.

rico - the issue with the maliki government is that it's a cart before the horse scenario. the maliki government is powerless to oversee much of anything right now because the security situation prevents much administration of anything - nothing profound here. if the security situation cannot be addressed, how can there be any expectation that coalition-building will occur among the governing counterparts? a major sunni coalition, the sunni iraq accordance front, just withdrew from maliki's government because they could not get assurances that certain demands would be met with respect to shiite militias infiltrating iraq security forces. there is such a level of distrust between the factions that any meaningful efforts to quell the violence are met with suspicion from one side or the other.

so then i return to your question: how do we decide among the least worst of the bad options?

dissolve the government, tell the factional leaders they've got x months before the US is out of there, then tell them they have to decide whether or not they choose a path of continued chaos, or some sort of power-sharing arrangement... if they want to continue to keep f**king it up, so be it. we can't simply babysit while dumping in bails of hundred dollar bills anymore.... [any other ideas?]

I don't think defeat will come in the form of the green zone being over run like the American embassy in Vietnam. Defeat will be a slow bleed on our troops and the people of Iraq until someone (most likely the next President) realizes that the government we have been propping up over the last several years simply does not have the power or inclination to form the sort of democratic government the planners of this war were hopping for.

And again I was under the impression that the surge was intended to give the Iraqi government the needed time and lull in violence to get something, anything passed that would restore some bit of national unity to Iraq. The fact that the Iraq law makers had to take August (last month of the surge) off for vacation because it is to hot should infuriate all Americans of every political stripe. Not only did they accomplish nothing but the Sunni representatives walked out! When does this free pass on American lives and dollars end?

"Casper, please don't generalize. Most conservatives have concluded that the political process in Iraq is in a failed state, so it's unfair to say that the right won't admit a lack of success."

You are right. It was an overgeneralization, but then about half of comments on this blog are, from both sides.

"the "majority" segment of our Military that supports GWB and this mission"

According to the last Military Times Poll, only 35% of our military supports the President's handling of the war. And before anyone reminds me, I know that a lot more Republicans serve than Democrats. But then, not all Republicans support Bush.

That said, there are two other points I would like to make. First, we can't sustain the level of military operations we are at forever. It is putting a tremendous amount of strain on our forces, especially the army and marines. For us to sustain the level of operations we are at for years, we need to (I hate to say this) bring back the draft and probably look at raising taxes.
My second point is that we also are not in a position to pull all of our troops out tomorrow. To safely bring back 150,000 soldiers and their equipment, without the whole Middle East going up in flames will take some very careful planing at anywhere from 12 to 24 months.

IMO, at this point we (meaning the American people) need to be discussing the best ways to stabilize the Iraq government while drawing down our forces.

conscriptor, I'm not sure whether or to what extent we disagree here, because I basically agree with your last paragraph. The only point of contention I have concerns your comment about dissolving the government. Even there I'm not inclined to argue that it would be a bad idea. In fact, I'm inclined to think that it couldn't hurt, might help. But the fact is, it's not our call. We can influence it to be sure. But ultimately the Iraqis have to decide.

As for your "cart before the horse" argument, I'd say it's too simple. But by the way, Bush himself has defined the "cart" as the "horse" and vice versa at different points in time. Specifically, before the 2006 elections he claimed that political accommodation must take place before security can progress. Now he's saying the exact opposite. Clearly there's some BS involved there somewhere. And I argue that both are BS. Both can and should proceed together. In that respect, the Iraqi gov't could contribute in both big and small ways. The big ways are obvious: complete the damned constitution already! But even excepting the big ways, there are some small ways that are obvious. Namely, stop refusing to fund reconstruction projects in Sunni dominated areas. Stop preventing Sunni volunteers from being integrated into the Iraqi security forces. And start paying regional officials in Sunni areas. Those aren't exactly cart-type issues. Those are carrots.

As you mentioned, the Sunni IAF has (again) withdrawn from Maliki's government -- because they could not get assurances that certain demands would be met with respect to shiite militias infiltrating iraq security forces. What do you think that was about? It was in retaliation for the fact that the gov't is refusing to integrate the recent volunteers from Anbar and elsewhere into the Iraq security forces. The gov't argues that they are nothing more than insurgents. And for the most part, they have a point. Then again, that's largely true of the uniformed security forces too. Keeping them separate and discriminating against them will continue to breed contempt. And that contempt will continue to have effects on both the security and the political situation.

IMO, at this point we (meaning the American people) need to be discussing the best ways to stabilize the Iraq government while drawing down our forces.

therein lies the million dollar question, casper and it is my belief that this government is not worth stabilizing. and i think that is because we really do not know what we mean by 'stabilizing'? not knocking on you by any means, but the term sounds so amorphous (kind of like 'winning' or 'victory') without any discrete parameters.

rico - you are clearly more knowledgeable and more concise on this subject than i. i defer to your observations and conclusions.

"And who knows, navydad might actually agree with the following..."

Actually Rico, I completely agree with Casper's statement. However, I'm a bit sick and tired of the kook libs (con and the rest) impuning anyone's integrity that chooses to support this mission.

What they don't get, although I think that you do, is that the Dems in this country believe that they have the right to say what they please...which they do of course, but they don't have the right to say things that place my Son and our military's lives in jeopardy...period! At least without consequences.

Additionally Rico, it was Michael Ware that presented, via his insurgent connections, the "Insurgent sniper video" that lit me and most conservatives off like you couldn't believe. It's also quite coincidental and a bit bizarre that he was captured by AQ and released....hmmm, sounds a bit fishy. Why has every other journalist been offed by terrorists, and MW walks away, unscathed?

I'm not saying he's a terrorist sympathyzer, but he surely has had more unimpeded freedom to move about than any other journalist...that's a fact.
Sounds like a sympathetic deal was cut to me.

Now, on to the Maliki government topic: Maliki is a Shi'ite first and foremost(with ties to Al Sadr) which seems to be a major problem to the Sunnis, and since the factions have proven to be unwilling to compromise on just about any level, I'd say, you're right. Let the government fall and pick up the pieces, however, the demands placed on Maliki by the Sunnis are simply ridiculous. Governments don't internally negotiate the release of criminals in exchange for political reconcilliation...that's absurd! This reminds me of a liberal Democrat rationale....LOL!

"by refusing the end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give then in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

What makes you or Obama think we should give the terrorists' "desires", whatever these may be, any consideration whatsoever? I personally don't care if the terrorists are grinning like chimpanzees as we blow them to Paradise: As long as they get blown away.

The fact is that wherever Americans are the terrorists will follow. When we weren't invading Iraq and Afghanistan they were blowing up our embassies in Africa and hijacking our planes into US skyscrapers. During the 1990s they were training tens of thousands of jihadists to take the fight to us and we weren't even really fighting them. If you think that if we bug out of Iraq they'll say, "Ah, shucks! They don'wanna play anymore!" and go home you're sadly mistaken. They'll be on the first plane out of Baghdad and into La Guardia they can board.

The ironic part is that this is just a game to you; "What can I say to screw with the GOP today?" You think it's a game and no matter what happens you can't get hurt. It's NOT a game: you have a big fat target on your chest like every other infidel Westerner who doesn't bow and scrape towards Mecca 5 times a day.

navydad: however, the demands placed on Maliki by the Sunnis are simply ridiculous. Governments don't internally negotiate the release of criminals in exchange for political reconcilliation...that's absurd!

Apparently you have a short memory. The Iraqi gov't released over a thousand detainees in the middle of last year. In fact, we had a big debate about that on this blog at the time. Interestingly, a couple of months thereafter reports started coming out about the MNF making deals with local sheiks in some rural parts of Anbar province. You think that started with the surge? No. It started before that. Am I sure the amnesty program helped? No. But I doubt it hurt.

Rico

I stand corrected. BTW, my memory is better than some..but not many...LOL!

However, the initial amnesty program of "proposed" reconciliation elicits concern with me that those that have killed our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will ultimately go un-punished. So where's the middle ground Rico? How do we conjure up a government that can appeal to the masses while fighting the insurgency at the same time? It seems to me that they need a stronger more independant leader that can arouse a sense of nationalism amongst the political leaders...but how?

The right doesn't want to admit that there has been very little progress politically.

Ya know, Casper, just when I start thinking that you're okay after all, you come up with a stupid-assed comment like this. I've heard, seen, and read a number of folks on "the right" who've lamented the fact that the political process is a mess in Iraq.

I admit that it is, but then again, who am I? However, I don't think that political success will precede military success. And since you and your buds think we've lost this battle in the GWOT, we won't have political success. Right?

Gosh, Casper, you can be an idiot sometimes. But I still love ya, bro...

keefer,
I admit (again) I over generalized when I made that comment.
I don't know that we have lost this battle. I certainly would love to see us win it. I think at this point, things are going to be resolved one way or the other in the next 6 months.

One thing that gives me hope for our future, is that I'm seeing a lot more thoughtful comments on this blog about how we got into this mess and suggestions on how we can get out of it.

"It seems to me that they need a stronger more independant leader that can arouse a sense of nationalism amongst the political leaders...but how?"
Navydad,

Very good question. Wish I had an answer, but that is one of the bigger problems Iraq faces if it is going to continue to be a country.

Casper,

You know I was calling you an idiot in a most friendly manner, don'cha? I know I used to give you hell, but I have come to understand where you're coming from, and I'm sure I'd be more than happy to drink a beer with you, given the opportunity. Of course, mine's got to be an O'Douls--keefer just can't handle adult beverages responsibly.

I also know that you aren't a DefeatocRAT, and that you want success for our country in Iraq. If we had gone in with more foresight, I think it would've been over now. Only time will tell, but the politicisation(sp) of this war, especially by the left, has sickened me to no end. Iraq is merely a battle in the "long slog;" it doesn't end there. It won't end for a long time...

navydad: However, the initial amnesty program of "proposed" reconciliation elicits concern with me that those that have killed our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will ultimately go un-punished.

YOu can't say that with any conviction without realizing that many of the guys we're now teaming up with in Anbar, Diyalah, and elsewhere, are the same guys that were shooting at us just weeks or months before.

So where's the middle ground Rico? How do we conjure up a government that can appeal to the masses while fighting the insurgency at the same time?

Search me. In a very real sense, we are between Iraq and a hard place. But I suspect the answer to your question requires paying attention to underlying principles rather than any one faction -- to the concepts of "nationalism" and "secularism" themselves, and remaining flexible as to who or which factions to support along the road. In Iraq the definition of "insurgent" has always been much more slippery than Bush has generally allowed. The rhetoric has proven to be infinitely malleable, the reality not so much. Back at the end of 2005, after calling everyone that was shooting at us "terrorists", he finally made the distinction between a) jihaddists, b) Saddamites, and c) nationalists. But almost as soon as he said it it seemed as though he reverted to the blanket term again. Only months later did the break between a) and b) on the one hand, and c) on the other did the distinction re-emerge. And when it did it confused everyone. Now Bush constantly talks about AQI, folds them into AQ Pakistan, and talks as if they are the only threat we are faced with. That again is misleading on at least three levels. First, AQI and AQ Pakistan are certainly related, but they are not the same. Second, and more importantly, AQI and JAM are not at all related, except insofar as they both represent more or less jihaddist ideologies. Third, AQI and JAM are not the only threats we currently or potentially confront in Iraq.

I should point out here that I define "JAM" as a rubric to identify any Shiite militia group with an extreme Islamic agenda. In that sense, JAM is loosely composed of break-away factions of mostly Sadr's Mahdi Army (from which the term comes from), but also includes the more extreme factions of the Badr Brigade and the Fadihla front. As of yet they are not as organized, nor as distinct as AQI came to be. The Quds guys from Iran are trying, but so far with limited success. Then again, neither was AQI organized or distinct until the MNF started going after them back in 2005. As of yet Petraeus has only conducted forward operations against JAM in their strongholds in and around Baghdad. Those operations are conducted by special forces (MNF and Iraqi), and are designed to trim their command hierarchy. He has yet to really start clearing those areas. But once he does, I'm pretty sure things are likely to get really complicated. For one thing, I suspect it will sound the death knell for Maliki. I may be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

It seems to me that they need a stronger more independant leader that can arouse a sense of nationalism amongst the political leaders...but how?

I agree with the first part. As of yet, no one has emerged as the Iraqi equivalent of Karmal Attaturk. And to be perfectly honest, I have no good idea how Attaturk managed to pull off what he managed to pull off. But I'm pretty sure he managed to gather considerable support among all of the three pillars of power in any society: a) the government, b) the military, and c) the people. In order to make things work you really have to dominate at least two of the three. And I don't see anyone in Iraq coming close -- with the possible exception of Muqtadah al Sadr. Unfortunately, he seems to be the most likely candidate at the present time. Others include Ayad Allawi (he has considerable backing among the Iraqi military), and Ibrahim al-Ja'afari (Maliki's predecessor, and who appears to have a broader base within the Iraqi gov't).

Personally, I wish the surge happened three, or two -- or at the very least -- one year before it happened. It seems to me that as it stands now, ANYTHING we do in Iraq is like walking around in a mine field. I have expressed my opinion. I have derived it by way of extensive reading, weighing as many facts as I can get my hands on, and considering as many independent opinions as I can find. I have read Petraeus and Matthis's counter-insurgency manual rather thoroughly. I have examined other nation-building efforts by us and others. I have done so because I do take the question of what to do in Iraq very seriously. It has had, and will continue to have, a profound impact on an economic level, on a national security level, and on a moral level. I do not claim that I am right. Rather, I believe that someone else confronted with exactly the same facts, and considering the same opinions and the same theoretical and historical accounts I've considered, could come to a very different conclusion. And my research hasn't been exhaustive by any stretch. But I do get impatient with fools -- especially those that are quite content to remain fools. Just so you know, I don't mean to include you in that group, navydad. Not by a long shot. While that characterization may apply to some people here, it's really directed at our politicians. Up to this point, I don't get the impression that many of them are really saying what they mean -- on both sides. We the people want leadership. And we're not getting it. Not by a long shot. And it's getting down to crunch time. Unless a whole bunch of imaginary troops suddenly attain reality status, this surge cannot be maintained for even a year, much less indefinitely.

Moreover, better and more knowledgeable minds than mine seem to agree with a very high level of consensus that the surge will not work without meaningful political accomodation. Petraeus says it. Pollack and O'Hanlon said it. Sec Def Gates said it. Gen Keane (one of the primary architects of the surge) said it. The nominated JCS Mueller said it. I'm missing some that really should be mentioned, but that should be enough shoe leather belonging to people with boots on the ground to provide plenty of chewing. And basically, that's who I listen to on this issue. I listen to both those that agree with me and those that don't. I listen to the journalists on the ground -- Michael Yon, Bill Roggio -- and yes, even Michael Ware -- among others. The ones I rarely listen to are politicians, and when I do I try to hear between the lines. And as far as pundits go, all I listen for is ways to think about things I haven't thought of before. And that doesn't happen very often.

keefer,
I took it in the spirit it was intended. If you were really pissed, you would have called me an Asshat. LOL.
Just so you know, you and any of the other regular posters on this blog (right or left), have an open invitation to stop by and sit on my back deck and knock down a cold one (beer, ice tea, water, whatever) if you ever get to Wyoming. Just don't insult my dogs or the Denver Broncos in my house and we will get along fine.

One thing you and I agree on. It is going to be a "long slog".

"I listen to both those that agree with me and those that don't.

Rico,
What you said, was worth repeating. You need to listen to both those you agree with and those you don't. We may not agree with each other, but if we at least listen, we may learn something. Let me give you an example. For some time I considered
Robert Novak an idiot. However, once the Washington Post started publishing his columns, I began reading them and I found he has a pretty good idea of what is going on in Washington and has some interesting ideas.

We all need to listen to as many different voices as possible.

Just don't insult my dogs or the Denver Broncos in my house and we will get along fine.

I love dogs--three Mini Schnausers and a Collie here--and I was actually over my Elway-hating and happy that he finally won the big one. Why did I hate Elway? Well, when I was an ardent fan, I supported two teams--the Redskins and the Baltimore Colts. And you know what Elway did to the Colts...

We have two Samoyeds. I'm sure there are a lot of Elway haters out there. My brother has been a Colts fan since the 60s. the only team I have a problem with is the raiders. I told my kids, growing up, I don't care who you marry (color, religion, etc.) as long as they aren't raider fans. A man has to have some standards.

Yeah, I've never rooted for the Raiders either, and I have pulled for teams I used to despise to win the big game--Denver and New England.

My mom-in-law used to have a Samoyed--Lacy was a pretty dog...

Enough already, Reefer and Casper, get a room.

Some facts just seem to escape the Bushbots:

1. You can't win in Iraq. The original Bushbot definition of victory(a united democratic moderate somewhat secular Iraq) is a shattered dream, in total tatters. Wake up and smell the coffee.

2. You Bushbots will have to settle for Iraq ending up partitioned. It is a totally failed state as is.

3. Unfortunately the USA military will have to leave eventually and their mission will be regarded as a failure by future cleared eyed historians.

4. Just as the USSR collapsed under the military and economic pressure put upon it by the USA, so will your country if you don't stopped this stupid wasteful failing Bushbot war enterprise.

Yes, I know the truth hurts but unfortunately you Bushbots are immune to the truth and thus you can not see the light of sweet reason. You can't see the forest for the trees. For us Canadians it is clear as day what is happening; that's the advantgage having a detached non-partisan view.

Canuckguy: Yes, I know the truth hurts but unfortunately you Bushbots are immune to the truth and thus you can not see the light of sweet reason. You can't see the forest for the trees. For us Canadians it is clear as day what is happening; that's the advantgage having a detached non-partisan view.

From the supposed clarity of your detached view, pray tell us: what's the alternative? Where does sweet reason lead us?

Well Rico, I was not offering a solution because it is such a mess that I don't have a solution that is acceptable.

BTW Rico, 'sweet reason' would have kept the USA out of Iraq to being with.

jeez, 'begin' not 'being'

Canuckguy: Well Rico, I was not offering a solution because it is such a mess that I don't have a solution that is acceptable.

You aren't likely to get much argument from me on that score. But it doesn't help much. You can bitch, moan, whine and complain about how much of a clusterfuck it was for the US to get involved in Iraq in the first place. However that question is answered, it does not obviate the fact that we're there. In the context of the present, the question of what we should or should not have done in the past is irrelevant. And I wish people would understand that, and stop mixing them up.

You're absolutely right, Rico. What we need to do now is win this battle, and get our troops home for some rest before the next battle.

Especially if Earbama wins the WH, because we may have to take out Pakistan next.

Geez, I hope stevomoron didn't interpret my last statement as me threatening to take out Pakistan. I said "may have to," stevo. Disclaimer time!!!

Got to go with Rico on this one, guys-----.

The argument that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place depends on two things. One is the assumption that if we had not, the Iraq of 2007 would be the same as it was then. Sure, we could probably live today with the Iraq of yesterday, though they would be a pain in the beeehind and cause a lot of trouble. The thing is, Iraq was developing a lot of programs and plans that, if allowed to proceed, would have been a lot more than just a pain the beeehind to us now. There is no way for that 20-20 hindsight to tell us what Iraq would have become, if left alone, but we can look at the direction in which they were moving, and the means they were using to get there, and make some pretty accurate predictions about where they were likely to end up in four years or so, if left uninterrupted.

So the complaint that we should not have gone in has to rest on an assumption of what things would be like now if we had not, and with what we do have to work with it's a fair guess that it would have been just as bad, just different.

As far as what to do now that we are there, I suggest that the simplest and most effective thing to do would be the impossible---that is, to shut up and let the leaders do what they think they have to do. To stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by letting them know we will do whatever it takes to distract, undermine, and even unseat the president, just 'cause we don't like him. To stop telling the enemy what we are doing, and how. To stop impeding efforts to find out what the enemy is up to.

And to stop the ridiculous insanity of ascribing all sorts of evil and satanic characteristics to people who are just trying to do an impossible job as well as possible. Of course they make mistakes, just as your guy would be if he were in office, just as you would, just as any leader in any complicated situation will.

So many of you radical Libs just totally disqualify yourselves from being taken seriously at all by your juvenile and hateful rhetoric. All you really do is support Mark's point in this thread, which is that your own petty partisan sniping is more important to you than the best interests of the country. His point is that to many, what is good for the country is bad for them. Stop proving him right.

George Bush is not the enemy. Your insistence on casting Bush as the cause of every single thing you don't like is just stupid, and it is wearing very thin.

When the terrorists strike again---and they will---they will kill you as quickly and gleefully as they will kill us. You should be focusing on how to keep that event at bay for as long as possible, on how to make it as minor as possible, and on how to take out as many of the enemy as possible in the meantime.

If you would, COULD, just drop the BDS BS for a while and figure out how to work with others, we could possibly come to some sort of agreement that the most important thing for all of is to deal as well as possible with the threats to our lives and our way of life.

The election of the President will end up being on other issues, because when push comes to shove even the most radical appeasement minded candidate will take a hard look at the reality of what this country is facing and will try to do the best he or she can to head it off. I just hope that if that president is a Democrat, we will have more honor and dignity and above all more concern for our country than the radical Libs have shown, and will address substantiative issues rather than try to undermine the leader whose job performance is affected by what we say and do.

Almiranta stated "that is, to shut up and let the leaders do what they think they have to do"

Yeah, and how is that wotking for you?? Huh huh? Why don't you bring back Rumsfeld, yeah, apparently the Bushbots still think he had all the right answers. Opps, there I go again, harping on the past.

Rico, it's true (that water is well past the bridge) that moaning about how the USA got into Iraq in the first place does little to the discussion on what to do now, if you don't believe the old but true adage "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it" or something to that effect. At least the USA should think twice before future military adventures. Or will it?