That visit tied up troops who could had been elsewhere.

Nice photo op... 71% of the US wants ALL troops out by April 1. Many of those would rather have them out now. When will the politicans do the will of the people?

Right now, the political alignment is all in favor of victory, with Democrats forced back on the defensive and trying to cherry-pick out bad news to excuse their continued and increasingly foolish defeatism.

Wait a minute, Mark--we're the ones who cherry-pick, according to all the troll pukes who pollute this blog. Now I'm confused--is Reid-tard gonna call for surrender, or is he gonna finally see the light and not run for cover like the rest of the Donkaroaches?

Magnum,

Just as soon as you demonstrate to us how you know 71% of the American people want us out now...

Ted,

Yep...just as we cherry-pick the data which has the President in the very province the left said was irretreivably lost last year...

Mark: Yep...just as we cherry-pick the data which has the President in the very province the left said was irretreivably lost last year...

Why doesn't Bush take a tour of Basra? That was a big success story last year. It was, in fact, one of the models upon which the surge strategy is based.

Bush-

Has no credibility any longer. Did anyone read the NYT article yesterday which took excerpts from an upcoming biography of OUR DEAR LEADER? He said it was his policy to not disband the Iraq army in 2003 and does not know how it occurred. UNBELIEVEABLE.

Anyhow, this trip is just part of the pr surge on the surge. Bush only needs his Republican mates in congress to hold on until to he leaves office, they will back him, I believe. We are going to have troops in Iraq well into 2009. Though we will have to draw down some troops in 2008 because the army has no fresh troops to replenish the tired and over used forces currently in country. This isn't a democrat talking point this is from military officials within the pentagon.

cherry picking bad news?

(1) 1/3 of the population does not have proper sanitation, water, food, or basic health services
(2) violence in civilians is UP from 2006
(3) all reports indicate that the Iraqi government has failed the vast majority of the benchmarks

No Mark - YOU are the one cherry picking good news. With stupid little reports of groups of 40 people coming together or politicians agreeing on vague resolves while the overall situation is still disaster.

What a joke

sleepy, and the dwarfs...

RE: "...the NYT article yesterday which took excerpts from an upcoming biography..."

An article from the Left's premier liberal biased newspaper about a "biography" which anyone can write, cherry pick and include the facts "they" want, and slant it the way "they" choose?

I'll wait for the review of a biography a few years from now from a good conservative author (perhaps Mark and Matt), after Iraq has stabilized, and after history has had a chance to judge the Democrat (Liberal) hatred, destruction, and assess the damage it has caused!

As far as the disbanding the Iraq Army, have you ever sat in on policy briefing? There are many topics discussed and many opinions given. I know you believe President Bush should have a photographic memory, but with all the discussions, he probably answered truthfully when he said he didn't recall the final and overriding reason or reasons (of the many given) for disbanding the old Iraq Army.

Perhaps they though the existing Iraq Army was too infiltrated with those loyal to Saddam and disloyal to the future government to risk maintaining it in the form, structure, and organization that existed at that time. Perhaps they knew all of the officer and leadership positions were filled with those people who had, for the most part, supported and carried out the orders of the "Butcher of Baghdad" (who else would have been promoted to those positions), and they knew those leaders might revert to the tactics of its old leadership, overthrow the new government, and throw Iraq right back into the same killing, torture, world threat we had just eliminated under Saddam. Once those officers and leaders were removed, there would be no organized army, so it made more sense to start anew -- training new the new leaders who would serve Iraq in the future.

The last time I wrote about Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi Army, I said I thought it was one of the worst decisions of the war, and I would have fired Bremer. Now, however, as I write and think about the real problems associated with keeping the former officers, I'm not so sure but that it wasn't in fact the correct decision; although, I still don't know why those reasons weren't adequately conveyed to the American people. Having the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, however, I would have implemented it a little differently, but now that I know last week's lottery numbers, I would have chosen different numbers too!

Perhaps they were correct in that decision, and perhaps I would have made exactly that same decision if I had been privy to all the facts, briefings, and discussions. I do know decisions of that type aren't made without considerable discussion and input from many different people.

AAR

AAR-

Maybe Bush does not remember everything from policy meetings, but it is so revealing that it was HIS POLICY NOT TO DISBAND the army yet it was disbanded nonetheless. Who was at the wheel? Anyhow, IMHO the number one reason why the insurgency was able to gain a foothold was to have 500000 armed men out of work. AAR, you should go see the movie NO END IN SIGHT, it is a revealing movie about the missteps following the overthrow of Saddam. Before you pooh-pooh it as propaganda, it is interviews of people who were Bush officials on the ground trying to make this train wreck work.

liberalT,

The DO NOTHING Democrat Congress has done better?

Oh, that's right, the Democrat Congress did manage to pass some "non binding" resolutions while working for America's defeat and surrender. They did manage to give the Iraqi terrorists even more hope and encouragement, knowing that Democrats were working on their behalf to hand terrorists a victory while working to undermine and defeat America!

Democrats... Liberals... the DO NOTHING Democrat Congress...

What a joke -- ALL!!!

AAR

sleepy, and the dwarfs...

If there had been more discussion on that statement, you would find out that it was President Bush's original policy, that of his Administration, that of the planners, and mine, not to disband the Army. After assessing the situation later, based on more facts and information, that policy changed! President Bush should have clarified his statement and known that it would be misconstrued and taken out of context!

I would rather watch a "revealing movie about the missteps", mistakes, and bad decisions of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter! If it weren't for Clinton and Carter, we might not be in Iraq, North Korea might not have nuclear weapons, and the situation and crisis with Iran over nuclear weapons might not have occurred!

AAR

When will the politicans do the will of the people? - magnum

The US has never been, and never will be governed by polls. Every four years, there are POTUS elections wherein the winning candidate is given the power to proceed with their stated policies. Just FYI. You might want to attend a US history class.

(1) 1/3 of the population does not have proper sanitation, water, food, or basic health services - kblock

Well, first of all, people like you continue to encourage the following:

"Unknown gunmen attacked, last night, al-Doura power plant causing it to shut down it, depriving thousands people in and around al-Doura of electricity," the source, who spoke on anonymity condition, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

And then people like us do the following:

The Iraqi electricity ministry announced on Saturday that 150 new power generators were set up in different areas in the Iraqi capital Baghdad to enhance supply and lessen the cut-off hours.

See how that works. You encourage destruction, and we rebuild.

(2) violence in civilians is UP from 2006 - kblock

And who do you suppose are responsible for the killings kblock?

On the other hand:

The Iraqi government statistics showed 472 militants were killed and 2,019 captured in August.

Are they civilians kblock?

(3) all reports indicate that the Iraqi government has failed the vast majority of the benchmarks - kblock

And then, just when liberals are giving up (which is everyday) good things can happen.

August 27, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Iraqi Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish political leaders have signed a statement aimed at fostering reconciliation among the country's ethnic and religious factions.

Can you ever imagine depending on a liberal?

Well, we have the "it's a photo-op" already, but, why has no one questioned the timing? ;)

Liberal,

You do realise that 90% of the Iraqi people lacked basic services during the Saddamite regime, right?

Or is that not in your talking points?

....why has no one questioned the timing? ;) - william

Beacuse that's what liberals with agendas do.

And please spare us with the emoticons. Are you in fifth grade?

90% - you totally just made that number up Mark - admit it..

Anyway - the fact that Bush is not as bad as Saddam is suppose to make me happy? Of course he is not as bad as Saddam - what a joke you guys are. Saddam was a brutal dictator - nobody denies that. Saying things are somewhat better than a brutal murderous dictator is hardly cause for celebration.

I understand that there is horrible sectarian violence - I am not saying that Bush is directly responsible for it. I am saying that your evidence for progress is pathetic.

Finally - no the Democratic congress isn't doing any better. What does that prove - incompetence is not partisan - unlike you I can think for myself. I think its time to throw all the bums out

Neocon, it was done in humor, so lighten up. Did someone remove your humor bone?

unlike you I can think for myself. I think its time to throw all the bums out...liberalT

First of all, regurgitating left wing propaganda is not "thinking for yourself". Secondly, I guess your plan then is to pull out of Iraq immediately and then recall every elected US representative, right? And how again will this help the situation in Iraq?

Good plan!

neocon,
What is your plan for Iraq?

i am not regurgitating propaganda. all of the things i stated were known facts. Nobody has ever offered any evidence that they weren't true - you just say- oh but it was worse under Saddam.

My plan for Iraq? Here goes:
(1) not immediate - but staged withdrawal - first getting the UN to put peace keeping troops in as we stand down for a limited time. I am thinking on the time scale of a year or so

(2) massive reparations to the the Iraqi people to pay for all the infrastructure damage we did in the bombing,etc. In the end probably trillions of dollars - sorry but Bush did the damage...

The simple fact of the matter is that it does not matter what Bush wants. It doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what the Iraqi people want - and they have been quite clear on the issue - they want a timetable for withdrawal and thats what we should give them. Only an imperialist who thinks they know what is best for the rest of the world (like Mark or Bush) thinks they have the right to decide these things

Oh good lord liberalT. What matters is what the elected representatives of Iraq want as they were put into that position by the majority of the Iraqi people. Their desire is for us to continue to help them secure the country and defeat the foreign insurgency while they find common ground.

The simple fact of the matter is that it does not matter what Bush wants

Yes, it does matter what Bush wants. Or do you not believe the American elections hold any credibility? Should we just ignore elected representatives of our own country?

sorry but Bush did the damage...liberalT

um....NO, he didn't. The Islamic extremists have done 90% of the damage. Do you even recognize them?

massive reparations to the the Iraqi people - liberalT

The typical liberal band aid. Throw money at it.
You are such a waste of flesh and complete blithering idiot.

Casper,

I don't pretend to have a solution. I will leave that to those more experienced and versed. I am glad Gen Casey was replaced, he obviously was losing control of the situation. Gen P has so far proven to have a better understanding of what needs to be done.

I think we need to continue to find the balance between military and diplomacy and to stay in the theatre until the job is done. The factions in the middle east have known conflict for centuries, we are fools to think that we could resolve it within a matter of years.

People like liberalT are part of the overall problem. They continue to give hope to the minority of radicals who seek to do harm to the civilized world. And they also disparage allies from becoming fully involved for fear that we may give up.

AAR-

If you want to ignore relevant facts about the problems with the occupation that is your right. But your claim that Bush changed his policy on disbanding the army because of facts on the ground but failed to get that message out is flimsy at best. In todays LA Times Douglas Feith, famous for stove piping intelligence, admitted he isn't sure how the NEW policy came about. Both Bremer and Rumsfeld declined comment.

Again, I ask. Who was at the wheel of this runaway train?

April Gallop Poll

71% of US Citizens want out by April First many want out before.

Cheer up sleepygene (that's just fun to say)

There are two schools of thought on disbanding the Iraqi Army in 2003. One is that it was rife with corruption and Saddam loyalists and we needed to disband completely and start from scratch.

The other is that it left a huge void and a large number of angry unemployed Iraqis which led to a more fierce insurgency.

As for the who made the decision, I believe it was Bremer, but I the buck stops with GWB.

However, congratulation on identifying and regurgitating a four year old mistake.

Today:

The number of trained and equipped ISF has been an often cited benchmark of progress in the Iraq War. As of August 2007, there were 359,700 ISF trained and equipped.

Care to bring up a more current situation?

neocon,
Like you, I don't a plan at this point, at least one that would lead to results we could live with. We are between a rock and a hard place without any obvious solutions.
As for liberalT, at least he is willing to make some suggestions. While I don't think they are workable, (I doubt the UN wants anything to do with Iraq and how would we get the money to the Iraqis if we wanted to) they are worth reading in that they may inspire someone else to come up with a better plan. IMO Iraq is an American problem and the only way we have any chance of solving all the problems that go with it is to listen to each other.

Casper,

The UN is a joke, plain and simple. Their peace keeping missions are neither peaceful nor effective, and the insurgency would gun them down within a matter of days.

Reparations would only be squandered by the new dictator, but it would be a "feel-good", "do-nothing" strategy that liberals love.

I concur it (Global terror) is an American problem and moreover a "civilized" community problem that America must once again rectify. And to do so we must demonstrate strength and resolve to the majority of peaceful people in the middle east until they find the strength and common ground necessary to realize that they don't have to live in fear and oppression.

clearly my plan is just a broad outline. I am the first to admit that I am not qualified to try to actually plan this for all of Iraq. Of course the sectarian violence is the fault of the people perpetrating it - but also part of the blame goes to the people who toppled Saddam's government without a realistic plan of how to deal with postwar iraq. Either they were really as naive to believe their own hype about being greeted as liberators and forming a democracy out of dust - or they just didn't care. I think its a combination.

More importantly - I wasn't the idiot who sent the cavalry in without thinking of the consequences. No plan is perfect - and I think Bush has put us in a position in which we have to choose between to alternatives - bad and horrible. I cannot conceive of anyway that this will come out good. Its a matter of cutting everyone's losses and doing what we can realistically. History has shown over and over again that you cannot intercede and stop a civil war unless you have overwhelming military presence . We would have to re start the draft and send millions over to be able to do that. It is a country of 15 million or more - even if you felt it was the right thing to do (which it isn't) it just isn't remotely possible

Neocon-

I am not regurgitating four year old errors. I think most would agree that disbanding the army was a mistake. What I find incredible is that the President was against disbanding the army yet it happened and apparently he does not know how it occurred. I know people will say we have to look forward and not backwards. I agree, but this administration's incompetence in the past is staggering. So much so, many americans have no faith in whatever this governement says or does.

It is a country of 15 million or more - even if you felt it was the right thing to do (which it isn't) it just isn't remotely possible

First of all, Iraq has an estimated population of 27 million. The estmated number of radical Islamic fighters is approximately 20,000, and the current number of our military is approximately 160,000.

So what you're saying is that 27 million Iraqis and 160,000 US military personel stands no chance of defeating 20,000 radical Islamists.

Defeatest like you are part of the problem.

this "its not important to look backwards" nonsense is part of the problem. If you don't learn from your mistakes you are doomed to repeat them.

Its just the people who were wrong not wanting to admit that they were wrong. Look - you guys are still talking about the failure of Clinton to take on Terrorism in the 90s. However, there its suppose to give us some great lesson while looking back at our mistakes in Iraq are "not important" or defeatist. No - its just that you like Bush cannot admit that you were fundamentally wrong.

without looking back at our faiures (wether it was a liberal or conservative failure) then we are doomed just to repeat them over and over and over again

sleepyjean,

If you want to rehash previous American mistakes, let's start with the grand daddy of them all:

By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year. I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

No war is perfect and no administration operates in a vaccuum. Previous administration miscalculations have led to the current situation. I don't fault them however, because I believe all US administrations generally have noble intentions and hindsight is always 20/20.

No - its just that you like Bush cannot admit that you were fundamentally wrong. - liberalT

Bush WAS NOT fundamentally wrong. Ridding the world of a dangerous murderous dictator and fighting the radical Islamic extremists IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Only apologists like you see that as fundamentally flawed.

People like you perpetuate human misery.

The Islamic extremists have done 90% of the damage.

Posted by: neocon at September 3, 2007 03:49 PM

Well then, neocon, Bush should accept 90% of the blame as it was the 'shock & awe' invasion and subsequent occupation that ignited the Islamic extremist fuse that exploded in Iraq.

sleepy, and the dwarfs...

The only runaway train is the Democrats who have done everything they possibly can to undermine and defeat our efforts in Iraq. The nutty Left-Wing kooky bloggers start salivating at the mere mention of negative news and go into depression when the headlines are positive. In between, they are feeding and fanning the anti-Bush, anti-American propaganda mill!

And, I told you why the decision was made to change course and disband the Army. The situation and assessment changed and the policy changed!

(Don't tell the press.)

AAR

the problem , neocon, which has been clear to every real mideast expert both here and abroad for a long time is that terrorists are not the whole problem in Iraq. That makes up maybe 5% of the total violence in Iraq - the majority of it is sectarian violence between different groups. If it were as easy as you said - then it would have already stopped in the last 4 years.
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that the problem is deeper than some crazy guys out in the dessert blowing things up at random. They have a real political, social, and religious divide in that country. The problem isn't so much the absolute number of people - but rather the form that it takes. It is not an organized army of 20k we are fighting - but part of the Iraqi population itself. Study after study has shown this - and further have shown that the US is making the problem worse not better.

Well then, neocon, Bush should accept 90% of the blame as it was the 'shock & awe' invasion and subsequent occupation that ignited the Islamic extremist fuse that exploded in Iraq. - CO

The stupidity amongst our lefty posters today is staggering.

Are you saying that Islamic extremism was bourne out of the Iraqi invasion there CO?

And do you realize that the Iraqi infrastructure was completely decimated by Saddam after years of economic sanctions (of which people like you fully supported) because he kept funneling the oil-for-food money into his own coffers?

No, CO.

It's the Democrats who are to blame.

They are the ones who have provided aid, hope, and encouragement to the Islamic extremists (terrorists). The terrorists know if they provide the violence, destruction, and death, Democrats will use that to sound the call for retreat and surrender.

Now the terrorists are just waiting for their representatives in Congress to cut the funding, complete the surrender, and hand Iraq over to the terrorists and extremist for their new homeland and base of operations -- the ones that haven't set up shop in Canada, that is!!!

AAR

kblock,

When are you going to realize that you are a defeatist, negative human being that serves as a useful tool to those who want to oppress and destroy?

On August 27, 2007, leaders from the Sunnis, Shi'as and Kurds have found new common ground for agreement. Also, Muqtada al Sadr has called for a 6 month cease fire to give the new coalition some time. These are incredible advancements. NOTHING is impossible and if the civilized world did not have to fight people like you along with fighting the insurgency, we may be further along in this effort.

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

I can't say that any more clearly.

Well then, neocon, Bush should accept 90% of the blame as it was the 'shock & awe' invasion and subsequent occupation that ignited the Islamic extremist fuse that exploded in Iraq. - CO

Secondly, isn't this just the atypical liberal response to nearly every problem. BLAME SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN THOSE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE.

Another case in point is the liberal response to those addicted to drugs. It's not the persons fault, it's the governments fault for allowing drugs to be too accessible.

Liberal,

Only 5% of the violence is terrorism? And just where is your backup for that?

And even if 95% of the violence were sectarian in nature, that still ignores the fact that it was al-Qaeda which deliberately and with malice aforethought triggered the violence by attacking Shia holy places.

neocon-

I like the name change, very clever. I agree, all administations make mistakes. But usually they are made with the full knowledge of the President. It just seems that sometimes in this administration the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And in this case it was a big deal. That is all I am saying. Neocon, is it NY Giants or SF Giants?

Mark,
Here's a suggestion on a future post. The purpose
of this post would be to see what kind of ideas we (meaning the posters on BFB) can come with.

How do we best resolve our involvement in Iraq?

I would like to propose some special rules to go along with the post.
1. No name calling.
None. Zip. Zero. No Bushbots, A**hats, libtards, robots, etc. That includes public officials. If you are going to refer to a president past or current, use their last names (Bush, Clinton, etc). All name calling does is tick people off and make them want to defend themselves or those they support.

2. Attack the ideas not the person.
Better yet, explain why a person"s ideas won't work. Better yet, put forth a better idea of your own.

3. Cite your sources.
Have at least one source behind any "facts" you present. We can argue about the credibility of the source later. Did you know that 80% of the statistics used on blogs are made up on the spot (ok, I made that up. LOL).

4. Don't dwell on the past.
Most of the conservatives on this blog know mistakes have been made in Iraq. Most liberals know Clinton and other democrats have had their share of screwups. If you are going to bring up something from the past, use an example of how a policy worked rather than failed.

The thing I like about Blogsforbush is that the comments people make get me to think. There are some very smart people (probably people a lot smarter than me) who comment on this blog, representing a lot of different viewpoints. wouldn't it be fun to see what we could come up with together?

What do you say Mark? If you don't like my idea for a post, come up with your own, but it would be interesting to see what kind of solutions to different problems we could come up with.

millions of people live in squalor, thousands of people die each month from violent deaths (countless more from disease and starvation due to inadequate services), and the government has failed almost all of the laid out benchmarks. I am not being negative - i am being realistic. You come to me and say that a few people agreed in principle to start talking as a sign of great progress while thousands die and suffer? Please - its not that I am a defeatist it is that I am caught up in those pesky things called facts and statistics and reality.

Mark - its from the Iraq Body Count Project - of course you will just say out of hand that you don't believe it so its not worth arguing about - because instead of coming up with a counter fact your "gut feeling" is suppose to trump all facts and evidence otherwise.

Look the simple fact that you can not respond beyond insults and calling me a defeatist to the original points i brought up proves my point. Things ARE a disaster

"this "its not important to look backwards" nonsense is part of the problem. If you don't learn from your mistakes you are doomed to repeat them." --- liberalT

So your saying we havn't learned from the many mistakes made in Iraq? Your grasping at straws here liberal. But while we're on the subject, how about the pullout of Vietnam? Was that a good idea? I think many people learned from that mistake, except the kook leftists like yourself.

i am grasping at straws? What are you talking about - the Bush administration refuses to even acknowledge its mistakes in Iraq let alone learn from them.

The lesson of vietnam - my friend - was not that pulling out was a bad idea. The lesson was that it was a horrible idea to be there in the first place. If we had stayed longer nothing different would have happened except the death and carnage would have been even worse. What did we do in Vietnam - name one thing that came out of that was good. You are distorting history and simply ignoring the years of death and carnage that were involved when we were then and accomplished nothing. The fundamental lesson of Vietnam was that you cannot force a government on people. It was a continuation of the failure of the Imperialist project in general...

Wow - denial is a powerful thing

Look the simple fact that you can not respond beyond insults and calling me a defeatist to the original points i brought up proves my point. Things ARE a disaster - liberalT

You are one of the thickest liberals I've encountered. I have countered everyone one of your assertions with factual rebuttal. Yet you continue to claim that all I am doing is insulting. DO YOU NOT READ?

You are conveniently ignoring every single advancement made and instead concentrating solely on the violence.

If you are so concerned about the violence and consider America to be the fault thereof, why then does violence continue in places like Darfur and Gaza? Why wont you acknowledge the Islamic extremists?

The answer is because you have a single objective, and that is too bolster your BDS. Your agenda is completely transparent. You could not care less about innocent life and that is why i will say again:

YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. You have just as much culpability in human misery as do the Islamic radicals and I wish we could take people like you down as well.

The world needs to rid themselves of Islamic radicals and weak minded people like you.

Liberal,

You do get yourself into really bad positions in your comments, you know? For instance, you say, "thousands of people die each month from violent deaths". Well, according to the leftwing extremist and anti-American website, "Iraq Body Count", the maximum number of deaths in Iraq resultant from the war is 77,566. That works out to 1,464 per month. Not even two "thousands", let alone the "thousands" you use, which is intended to convey an impression of people just being slaughtered in huge numbers every day.

Now, IBC, as I said, is an anti-American organization - they hold, for instance, that a death is caused by the war if it is a response by anyone in Iraq to anything America has done...so, their figures are inflated. In my estimate, they are probably two or three times higher than actual. But they are an excellent "worst case" scenario - and if they aren't reporting "thousands" of dead each month, then there are simply not thousands of dead to report.

I hope that eventually you'll start to see that your view of Iraq is colored not by fact, but by your desire that it be horrible.

Liberal,

As a comparison, in the United States Civil War, an average of 12,000 men died per month due to the war - and that doesn't include civil deaths. That is a civil war - that is thousands of people dying a violent death each month. Even norming for population (Iraq has 22 million today, the US had 31 million in 1861), you still have a vastly higher death rate in the US back then - when, by the way, the primary weapon was a muzzle-loading, single shot rifle - than you have today in Iraq.

Grab a couple clues, ok?

Magnum Serpentine says - "71% of the US wants ALL troops out by April 1". Hmmm, well I heard that 76% of statistics are just made up.

What do mine and Magnums posts have in common?

Actually kahn it's 80%. LOL
If you don't like that figure I can make up a new one.

Sure seems to be a lot of wasted energy here trying to rationalize what Kblockhead and the other trolls say.
I could have sworn most here had agreed that this guy was just not worth a response???

No matter what happens, he'll continue to spew his third grade venom, so why waste the effort?

What an energy vacuum.

Mark - nope you are still so wrong...You are the laughing stalk of the world - just google your name and see how many sites come up mocking every post you make

(1) I can't believe you are arguing semantics - fine "ONLY" 1400 people die violent deaths per month in Iraq. That makes it so much better doesn't it?

(2) a civil war is a civil war - its not a matter of how many people die each month - its a war between rival factions in a country struggling.

Liberal,

That is rather curious, isn't it? "Google" my name and you'll hardly get any of my actual posts, but plenty of people taking issue with my posts...wonder how that happened?

Anyways...you said "thousands". You are wrong. Admit it. It is the first step towards rational discussion on your part.

sigh-- i did i said that it is ONLY 1400 per month. Making it one and half thousand dead Iraqi's every month dying from violent deaths. Is that suppose to prove something? Only 1400 per month?? Unbelivable

LiberalT,

But, as I said, even 1,400 is probably thrice the actual number of dead. We're building a better future for the Iraqis, and they are helping us in their hundreds of thousands...what price liberty, Liberal? Is there a number of dead where you would then go, "better to be a slave?".

What a fantastic surprise for our troops and you could see the love and admiration the troops had for President Bush. God bless our troops and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.

liberalT,

RE: "You are the laughing stalk of the world..."

Speaking of which, what exactly is a "laughing stalk"?

Are you referring to the "Laughing Stalk Blog", the "Laughing Stalk Syndicate", or something similar?

I have heard of "laughing stocks" and "laughing-stocks", but I've never seen or heard a stalk of celery laugh!

If a person is laughing at Mark's posts in general, that person is a most probably a nutty Left-Wing Liberal DIMwit!

Didn't you hear "There Is No Such Thing As Bad Press! It's All Good!"?

AAR

the number is 3 times larger than reality? What evidence do you have of that. There are several organizations - including the government of Iraq which post numbers on that order. But you - have decided that it is much smaller - based on absolutely nothing but your desire for it to be smaller.

Further - you know what Mark - it IS NOT YOUR CHOICE to decide that 1400 dead Iraqi's a month is worth whatever the US is bringing Iraq. Even if it was bringing the ideal democracy and security (which it isn't) it still wouldn't be your decision to make. 70,000 dead Iraqis - I am sorry Mark but where do you get off deciding this for other people. Would you accept if if some one in Europe decided that having all of your friends and family blown to pieces was worth "liberating" the US.

Your fundamental problem is that you don't understand democracy. Iraqi's are very clear that they want the US out of Iraq on a very definite timescale and that is all that matters - not your ideological mistakes

But if the dead Iraqis are insurgents or Al-Queda, then thats good, right? I mean, you wouldn't cry about Iwo Jima and the 29,000 dead Japanese, or White Horse Hill and the 10,000 dead Chinese.... would you?

liberalT,

UNICEF officials estimated in 2000 that 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children were dying each month primarily due to sanctions -- in a nation of only 18 million -- every month for the past decade or more.

How many more children would already have died in the past four years alone while Democrats had Saddam contained? Possibly a quarter of a million, or more! And even more in the years beyond, while Democrats had everything contained and under control with Saddam (and his even more barbaric sons) still in charge, still killing, and still torturing!

Things will get better in Iraq, but that would not have been the case under Saddam and his two sons after him!

AAR

Casper: Did you know that 80% of the statistics used on blogs are made up on the spot (ok, I made that up. LOL).

If this thread is any indication, I'd say you're pretty accurate. Lol!

Mark:"You do get yourself into really bad positions in your comments, you know? For instance, you say, "thousands of people die each month from violent deaths". Well, according to the leftwing extremist and anti-American website, "Iraq Body Count", the maximum number of deaths in Iraq resultant from the war is 77,566. That works out to 1,464 per month. Not even two "thousands", let alone the "thousands" you use, which is intended to convey an impression of people just being slaughtered in huge numbers every day."

Yes! Mark! In Iraq people are being slaughtered in huge numbers every day! I've watched tv and tell me that 50+ die in car bombs each day for days on end. Do you refute that? Do you own a TV Mark, neocon? Or do you just not read anything nor watch TV and then go through life like that? Do you realise 1770 people have been killed in Iraq last month? Or do you refute that?

The liberals aren't kooks or nuts, you guys are! What you conservatives are doing is calling people who actually believe in reality: defeatists. Liberals are seeing all this destruction and saying "whoa whoa, hold on, back up." And you conservatives have the weird idea that we WANT(?) defeat.

Rico,
So what do you think of my proposal? Am I nuts? Stupid question. Of course I am.

It would be great though to see what kind of answers this crew could come up with. With Retired Spook, you, navydad, Mark, Matt, Leo, Thrower, keefer, some of the libs, etc. all working towards a solution instead calling each other names, who knows what we could come up with.
Of course I have way to much faith in people. I truly believe that if I do my job right that all 135 of my students will graduate from high school. How crazy is that?

UNICEF officials estimated in 2000 that 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children were dying each month primarily due to sanctions -- AAR

I will say this again. liberalT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE LOSS OF INNOCENT LIFE.

Many women were raped and killed under Saddam and Iraqi children and their families were starving to death under the sanctions put into place and fully supported by people like liberalT. They had not a care in the world about the deaths of those people under those sanctions and under his rule.

For liberalT to feign care and concern for the loss of life now is a complete joke.

liberalT,

RE: "Iraqi's are very clear that they want the US out of Iraq on a very definite timescale..."

Specifically, to which "very definite timescale" are you referring?

(Some of our military will likely remain in Iraq for years, but not as occupiers, police, or peace keepers.)

RE: "Further - you know what Mark - it IS NOT YOUR CHOICE to decide that 1400 dead Iraqi's a month is worth whatever the US is bringing Iraq."

So, liberalT, you believe instead it should be the DEMOCRATS' CHOICE that Saddam should still be in charge, with those sanctions in place, killing an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children each and every month, in addition to those Saddam's regime added to the total by their killing and torture?

RE: "Would you accept if (it) if some one in Europe decided that having all of your friends and family blown to pieces was worth 'liberating' the US."

You and your nutty Democrat friends and the Democrat controlled Congress have no problem encouraging Al-Qaeda to do exactly that to our troops and the Iraqi families!

AAR

Liberal,

No, its not my choice - but the American government, democratically elected, and the Iraqi government, democratically elected, have determined that it is worth it.

USA,

You actually watch television news from Iraq?

The camera is the great falsifier of our time - I don't develope my opinions based on pictures.

As for liberalT, at least he is willing to make some suggestions.

Puhleeeeeze, Casper! I hold you in higher regard than that foolish assertion. liberalkblockT77 is an idiot, and nobody here with any sense takes any of her posts seriously. She can't even write one sentence without making thousands of errors, so her (expletive deleted) is difficult to decipher. And she suggests the U.N. send peacekeepers? You call this a good suggestion? The U.N. cut and ran early on, remember?

As for your later suggestion about a thread without insults, looking back, etc.? Maybe you should start your own blog, and ban those who don't conform to your rules.

I could have sworn most here had agreed that this guy was just not worth a response???

I know I did, navydad--kblock should be banned for making (expletive deleted) up. She tells Mark "your(sic) so very wrong" all the time, and never, ever cites any proof. Just ignore her; she obviously doesn't have a life and craves attention. Kahn, AAR, do the same. Ignore the idiot.

No matter what happens, he'll continue to spew his third grade venom, so why waste the effort?

navydad, you're--not your, kblock--giving her way too much credit. With her lack of writing skills, there's no way she made it past first grade.

btw, I had a post deleted in the Bush Radio Address thread, and I ain't happy at all about it. These troll pukes can say what they wish here, over and over, for years, and they're allowed to. I stated cold, hard opinion, and my post was deleted.

Is this any way to treat the attack dog?

again - you do not understand how democracy works - over 70% of Americans want America out of Iraq. The vast majority (something on the same order) want America out of Iraq on a definite short time scale. Democracy is not electing someone and letting them be a dictator for 4 years - democracy is doing what the will of the people.

And Mark - you don't base your opinions based on pictures? How about number, opinion polls, facts, realities - any of those either - we already know the answer to that

of course I care about the loss of human life and I was against the sanctions as well. Clinton was horrible wrong - and just like Bush - is a mass murderer. Clinton killed countless thousands with the sanctions and he was simple horribly wrong to do it. Only in your simple little minds is it the case that if I disagree with Bush I must agree with Clinton

Democracy is not electing someone and letting them be a dictator for 4 years - democracy is doing what the will of the people. - liberalT

There it is folks. Verfiable proof of kblocks stupidity. And if the above statement doesn't convince the following will cement kblocks position as possibly the dumbest poster I have ever encountered here or on any other site.

of course I care about the loss of human life and I was against the sanctions as well. Clinton was horrible wrong - and just like Bush - is a mass murderer. Clinton killed countless thousands with the sanctions and he was simple horribly wrong to do it. Only in your simple little minds is it the case that if I disagree with Bush I must agree with Clinton

I feel sorry for kblock. The world is a very complex place and people with your intellect and reasoning skills have no place in it.

Isn't Crossing Jordan on?

I feel sorry for kblock.

I feel sorry for kblock's relatives. I would say I feel sorry for kblock's friends, but if anyone claims to be her friend, well, they brought their--not there, kblock--misery upon themselves, and they must be just as stupid.

neocon, you'd do well to ignore liberalkblockT77; she's a colossal waste of oxygen, and a colossal waste of time. Sort of like Keith Olberman in drag...

Liberal,

There was a vote in the United States in which 70% of the American people voted in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq? I don't seem to recall any such thing happening...can you tell me the date of this vote?

Sort of like Keith Olberman in drag...

The perfect description.

LiberalT says "over 70% of Americans want America out of Iraq. The vast majority (something on the same order) want America out of Iraq on a definite short time scale."

And I say 95% of statistics are just made up. But 66% of people polled think LiberalT is a jerk?

But why take word for it? Lets poll here?

Question: Is LibearlT a jerk?

I vote YES.

Regarding the great ‘what if’ of this Iraq saga. What if the Iraq army was not disbanded? An army follows orders and I suggest that if that army was kept intact with just a replacement of the toady generals and the worse of the worse officers, how different things would be. I believe things would be much more in favour for the American efforts to have a stable and more democratic Iraq.

liberalT,

You were opposed to the sanctions because they were killing people. You were opposed to leaving Saddam, his two murderous sons, and regime in place, because they were killing and torturing hundreds of thousands, and not just Iraqis. You were opposed to President Bush removing Saddam and his regime, because people have died. What hypothetical, text book type action were you for that did not involve people dying or being killed?

I don't like anything about President Clinton, but even I don't consider him nor President Bush to be mass murderers. I think Bush senior and Clinton should have taken stronger action, but the world wasn't ready to support it at that time.

Only rarely do world events, opinions, capabilities, and leadership come together to permit the removal of a person and regime like Saddam's. Those opportunities are even rarer still in today's nuclear world with all of its economic and military ties. That rare moment in history happened under President Bush's watch. He and Tony Blair recognized the opportunity; they knew what needed to be done; and most importantly, they acted!

Yes people died and will die, but that will stop (or rather decline to "normal" levels), and hopefully Iraq and the world will be better off than they were under Saddam. Had he remained, Saddam would likely have killed and tortured his people, and threatened the region and the world for years to come, and even longer under his sons who were his likely successors.

What will be the final outcome? Only time and history can provide those answers.

What would have been the outcome if President Bush had not acted? We will never know!

AAR

are you serious Mark? Take any of the hundreds of polls that are done almost weekly. If you are saying you don't believe hundreds of scientific polls taken almost constantly I just don't know what to say.

Kahn - you don't believe in statistics. Ah - I see - well actually statistical inference is the base of most research of complicated systems. It is equivalent to saying you don't believe in algebra. Seriously - statistics is a branch of mathematics. Of course - both Mark and you use polls and statistics all the time when they suit your needs and completely ignore them when they don't.

Sad.

BTW, do you Bushbots get the feeling Bush is getting ready to cut and run, disguising it as a gradual controlled reduction with the Iraqi army stepping up. Come on, admit it.

Kahn,

Isn't asking that question sort of like stuffing the ballot box?

AAR

BTW, do you Bushbots get the feeling Bush is getting ready to cut and run, disguising it as a gradual controlled reduction with the Iraqi army stepping up. Canuckguy

I doubt it, but is that what you Reidbots believe? Bush has more strength, resolve and integrity on his worst day than any of you liberal lemmings do on your best.

Unlike you Reidbots, who make decisions based on polls because of the absence of any foresight and intellect, Bush will make decisions based on the information given to him by the very competent, and well informed military generals on the ground.

Sad. - liberalT

What's truly sad is your plan for Iraq. Which is phased surrender and massive repaprations to the Iraqi people (of course will only go to line the pockets tyrants and you're too stupid to realize that)

This plan of course would only revert Iraq back to the horrible days of the past. And that is what liberalT wants. An oppressed middle east people, unable to govern themselves, unable to participate in the free world, unable to speak out against injustice and unable to control their own destiny.

What a kind soul you are.

Canuckguy,

Getting ready to cut and run?

No, not at all!

The fact that you make that statement means you don't and wouldn't know the difference!

AAR

Not believing in statistics is like not believing in algebra! Ha!

I wouldn't believe in algebra if someone told me it proved that 5=30.

55% of Statistics are just made up on the spot.

liberalT,

I think most people would think of algebra more as black and white where x plus y equals z, while statistics would be viewed more as shades of gray where x plus y might (or might not) equal z!

AAR

Liberal,

Ah, but you referred to the will of the people, not the will of the poll...or do you really want our government to be driven by public opinion polls?

As it is, the will of the people vis a vis the Executive was expressed in a forthright manner in November of 2004 - the next time the people will express their will on that subject will be November of 2008; and, so, the last expression of such will carries through for now.

Mark - either you are being incredibly obtuse or you are just abusing things for your own needs. "driven by polls" - you mean actually doing the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Iraqis?
First of all - I think you need to go back and get a real civics lesson - not one taught to you by Fox news. Democracy is not simply electing people every 4 years and then letting them do whatever they want. Thats just elective dictatorship.
Secondly you conveniently forget the 2006 election and the anti-war platform most of the new people rode into congress with. That my friend is an actual election.

And for the record - yes I would like this government to do the will of the majority of the people - you are just playing with semantics...

Finally - neocon - yes I do care about the people in the middle east. Which is precisely why I don't think we should be overthrowing governments with reckless abandonment, ignoring the will of the people when they tell us to get out, and support corrupt dictatorships in the middle east. If Bush cares so much about democracy and the people in the middle east - why continue to support some of the most corrupt regimes there. Why? Because of oil - and if you think it is anything else consider Saudi Arabia. Consider Darfur where the slaughter continues unabated for 4 years. No action there - why? Because it isn't in the strategic or economic intersest of this country. Why don't you just come out and say it like Wolfowitz has

Keefer,

As I read more and more threads like this one, I'm certain that Mark has been sucked into Kblockhead's little pathetic game, therefore, we should boycott B4B until Mark wakes up and bans the little a-hole!

Unless Mark likes looking like a fool....what say you Mark?

You're, (not your or yer) right about his level of intellect. Just take a look at this:

"sigh-- i did i said that it is ONLY 1400 per month. Making it one and half thousand dead Iraqi's every month dying from violent deaths. Is that suppose to prove something? Only 1400 per month?? Unbelivable"

WTF??? I've read statements from heroin addicts that just mainlined, that are more intelligible!!

liberalT,

I might consider further addressing some of your posts when you actually base yourself in reality. You really don't understand the complexities of foreign involvement and constantly speak from a "ivory tower" pollyanish position.

I assume you to be a college freshman taking your first world history course. It's quite quaint and amusing to read some of your posts.

When you grow up, come on back. I will be anxious to see how you have matured.

You keep saying the overwhelming majority and you said there were lots of polls to prove it. But you couldn't even cite ONE. Thats what we call a credibility problem.

Casper: Rico, So what do you think of my proposal?

I think we should wait a couple of weeks. We're about to get a wealth of info from Petraeus, Crocker, and a variety of others.

The very fact that once again Bush had to schlepp into Iraq like a thief in the night speaks volumes about the actual security situation there.
I'm not sure what the actual purpose of the visit was -- I mean we all get the photo op part with the customary human backdrop of fobbit marines (with a little notification they probably could have arranged to have the troops hum "Onward Christian Soldiers" quietly while Bush spoke)-- I find it hard to believe that he really needed to hand of Patraeus' talking points, since they are supposedly in weekly contact.
FYI -- did you notice that Bremer released some personal letters that make it clear Bush was informed that the CPA was planning to disband the Iraqi army and police? I guess he was a little upset that Bush claimed to have been uninformed.

I'm not sure what the actual purpose of the visit was -- salvelinus

Let me help you out with that Sal..

....Bush, Maliki, Petraeus, Talabani, and Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency.

Sal, it looks as though you, the left and AQ are soon to lose this battle. Strange bedfellows indeed.

neo,
All those people are involved in secure conference calls each week -- it is hardly necessary for Bush to meet head-to-head with them. Of course, it gave him the chance for the ultimate softball interview with Katie Couric, who polished off her best Today Show deference (she didn't even break out the black-frame glasses that she uses to signal, "this is a 'serious' interview) who just happened to be on site.
Face it, it was nothing more than a chance to use the troops for yet another "Commander Guy" photo op.
And why bother meeting with al Malaki -- he's toast anyway.

"Secondly you conveniently forget the 2006 election and the anti-war platform most of the new people rode into congress with."

Wrong. They ran on a "change the course" platform, which was taken care of by Bush as soon as they were elected. If they had run on an anti-war platform, they wouldn't have taken the majority. Which is why they never really discussed Iraq in the weeks prior to the election. They wanted their base to think they were anti-war, and they wanted everyone else to think they just wanted to change our strategy. However once they were elected, the people who "bought and paid for" the Democrat party wanted their bidding done.

And why bother meeting with al Malaki -- he's toast anyway. - Sal

First of all, I totally get the Couric/glasses reference. That cracks me up.

Secondly, it was important Bush get face to face with Maliki and Talabani. Maliki, while under heavy pressure, could still pull this together and it is in our best interest to give him full support.

I see thought that you are, once again, prematurely claiming defeat by calling maliki "toast". Face it, we are on the way to victory.

I assume you to be a college freshman taking your first world history course. It's quite quaint and amusing to read some of your posts.

Funny, neocon--I picture liberalkblockT77 as a second-grade dropout, working on her third tube of airplane glue today...

therefore, we should boycott B4B until Mark wakes up and bans the little a-hole!

Maybe so, navydad--a few of my posts have been deleted lately, yet jerks such as kblock, Magnum, and CO can spew their redundant garbage, over and over, and nothing comes of it. And it irks me that someone comes here, posing as an adult, and can't put together one coherent sentence. They just don't teach English in school anymore, do they?

as a second-grade dropout, working on her third tube of airplane glue today...left-handed

ROTFLMAO. Great!

neocon: Let me help you out with that Sal... Bush, Maliki, Petraeus, Talabani, and Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency.

The sheiks and other local authorities do so need this to happen. It may be the very lowest common denominator -- in other words, it is the least of all carrots they could offer, but it is a very needed one. It should have happened already. Be that as it may, if it doesn't happen after Bush, et. al.'s visit, it doesn't augur well for the future. Nonetheless, it does exemplify how dealing with the current Iraqi central gov't is like pulling teeth.

The question I have about Bush's visit to Anbar is, if Anbar is such a success story, why does he have to secretly fly "...11 hours to this air base in a remote part of Anbar province"? Doesn't that strike anyone as proof that Anbar is still incredibly dangerous and unstable and that the escalation has failed?

I also find it more than disheartening that Republic party members complain about what the Democrats are doing as if they took over in a military coup. The Democratic party is trying to do one of the things it was elected to do, get us out of Iraq.

For the Republics to complain about the Democratic victory in 2006 is just whining.