There is absolutely no way our military could be beaten by the terrorists, or by anybody else. We have the best men, the best weapons and intelligence systems and the most treasure to sustain a long campaign. Who here think our military could be beaten by the terrorists?

No one disputes the fact that the United States of America has the mightiest military in the world but can that guarantee a successful outcome when their commander-in-chief is such a total failure.

Canadian Observer,

The only failure I can see is the left's treasonous attempts to undermine this country's national security for political gains.

Shame on all of you.

Our military cannot be defeated by terrorists, but as Vietnam shows, they can be defeated by politicians.

If our military were only 1/16th the size it is today no one could defeate it still. Our militry is way too big and we could still do the things that are needed with a much smaller military.

The military should only defend the nation, not occupy other nations. And we should only go to war if another true Nation attacks.

Going after Terrorist is in the realm of Interpol and the FBI and no one else. In 1993 President Willian Clinton got the mastermind who bombed the Garage of the World Trade center with-out the help of the military.

Let the Military do what the Military is built to do, let the Law Enforcement community go after the common criminals like Terrorist, Bank Robbers and currupt Obstructionist Republican Senators who play in the bath room.

All war is inherently political -- if we've learned anything from the irregular conflicts since the end of the Second World War, it's that the quality of an army engaged in a colonial war doesn't matter much.
The British Army, the Australians, la Legion Etrangere, the Soviet Army and the Americans were all considered to be among the best of their day. They were certainly better than the rabbles they tried to suppress -- and they all lost.
We're on the wrong side of history and are going to be defeated one way or another.
Whether that defeat comes as a rout (Dien Bien Phu)or the colonial power just decides to leave and cut their losses (Brits in most of Africa), in the end, diplomats and politicians will end the conflict.

OK, are our Marines (and soldiers, sailors and airmen) engaged in the symmetrical, military-on-military warfare for which they have been trained? Or have we essentially assembled the greatest basketball team the world has ever seen and then asked it to win the world championship in soccer?

Let's see the callow, chest-thumping evasion that will be the conservative's "answer."

Your word for the day is "stalemate," Mark. Learn it, think about it, think about it some more, and see what parallels you can draw. Good luck!

Our military cannot be defeated by terrorists, but as Vietnam shows, they can be defeated by politicians.

Bigfoot, let us not deny the drive-by media their due. They defeated LBJ--Walter Cronkite, anyone?

President Bush is officially morally bankrupt. First of all see Keith Olbermann's special comment at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20593445/
Not to mention that in the new book on Mr. Bush written by Mr. Draper his priorities upon retirement are headed by plans to go on the speech circuit so he can 'replenish the ole coffers'. Yes, that's Mr. Bush's priority when he leaves office, to make money for himself while our brave men and women are dying and being maimed for life. I wonder why if he values the troops so much he doesn't plan to spend time raising money for the Veterans Administration (or similar programs like the Fisher Houses) so our heroic troops that have been so horribly mutilated in W's war can get the treatment (both physical and mental) that they deserve. President Bush is a callow, bloodthirsty coward who doesn't mind spending as much blood as he can to further his fatally flawed ideology. This 'Potemkin' President is the leading candidate for the USA Hall of Shame.

Oh, Mark.
It's liberals', not liberal's. Why do you guys have such awful writing habits?

Oh, NewJerkoffLibtard,
It's "ol'," not "ole." "Ole" is what we hear at bullfights. And you're not about bullfights; you're about bullsh*t. The suggestion that we watch anything by Keith Overbite proves that.

Also, libtard, it's "", not ''. Now run along, mommy needs the computer...

NJ,

How much money did Slick rake in? How about Hillary? How much has Gore made? Carter?

At any rate, anything on the Olberman program has to be taken with 100 lbs of salt...given that Olberman is a leftwing lunatic.

How typical, conservatives indulge in name calling and 'insults' when someone disagrees with them, especially when facts are cited. If you spent any time actually thinking about reality you would realize what a house of cards you are attempting to defend.
NJ Liberal

NJ,

Yeah, whatever - and typical liberal "change the subject rather than address the issue" comments...

Mark,
Oh I see, the 'blame Clinton' talking point, I should assumed that this would turn up. I don't recall the former Presidents Carter and Clinton boasting about how much $ they would make when our brave men and women were dieing on the battlefield. I don't have any problem with former Presidents making money on the lecture circuit but it's especially crass for W to dream about how much $ he'll make when our brave soldiers and marines are dying and being mutilated on in Iraq. How many troops died or where maimed for life for the policies of This invalidates anything he says while using the aforementioned troops as props for his lies about how great the surge is working.

Dear Left-handed 180,
Thanks for making my point for me. Why waste time citing verifiable facts whey you can just try to smear me using juvenile name calling.
You are pathetic.
NJ Liberal

Hey, NewJerkweedLibtard, what's with the use of apostrophe's? I thought you came here to correct everyone's writing, loser, yet you can't write yourself.

Olberman's a fruitcake, like you, Libtard...

sic

Thanks for making my point for me.

Somebody had to--somebody with brains.

"whey?"

sic

The suggestion that we watch anything by Keith Overbite proves that.

Posted by: Left-handed 180!!! at September 5, 2007 06:55 PM

Keefer, you really should watch him. If you take in and digest what he has to say, you might learn a little something; you know, something that hasn't come from the Right Wing spin machine.

At first it may pain you to hear the truth expressed so eloquently but in the long run it will prove beneficial. It doesn't hurt to see the other side of the coin every now and then.

”President Bush is officially morally bankrupt.”

“Bush is a callow, bloodthirsty coward who doesn't mind spending as much blood as he can to further his fatally flawed ideology.”

“How typical, conservatives indulge in name calling and 'insults' when someone disagrees with them, especially when facts are cited.” – NJLiberal

Wow – talk about hypocrisy. You throw a pile of insults, present nothing resembling a “fact” and then try to accuse conservatives of this. No wonder why Liberals aren't taken serious (unless by another Liberal). Besides being wildly illogical they’re totally transparent.