Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that the Iraq war was lost. Imagine being a trooper in Iraq and hearing THAT statement! In four short months, this guy has shown his true colors….. a complete and utter disgrace as a party leader and and an embarrassment worldwide as a national spokesman.

I wonder what he would have said had he lived in London during the Nazi raids. Churchill, I think, would have thrown him off the White Cliffs of Dover with a comment like that....

As the war wears on, as the ebb and flow of opinion fluctuates based on the day's happenings, talk like this is a direct attack on the will of the people.

I bet right at this moment, insurgents everywhere are high-fiving and doing the jihadist jig.

For all to see, the Senate Majority leader said we lost. Even if he thought that, for heaven's sake, he shouldn't have used his position to strengthen the will of the enemy! Every Jihadist web site has that quote as their lead story right now, for crying out loud!

Even though American sentiment is now against the war, I doubt that a majority think we "lost". Maybe guys like Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry do. Maybe women like Nancy Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan think the same way.

Maybe even you think that way.

Not me.

Reid doesn't speak for me....no way! I happen to think the same way that General Anthony McAuiliffe of the 101st Airborne did , who, while surrounded by Nazis during the Battle of The Bulge and asked to surrender, had the most eloquent one word answer of the twentieth century:

"NUTS! "

To Harry Reid, and all the other quitters/losers/and nay sayers out there who say we have lost the war in Iraq, I say this :


Disagree if you must, protest if you want, but for heaven's sake, don't tell the enemy that he has won....even a nim-rod like Reid should know that!

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at April 19, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #217711

He probably meant that it is impossible to ‘win’ a dishonorable war…It is lost the moment you lie yourself into it. Iraq is not a war it is a stupidity.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 19, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #217712

Unfortunately, thanks to Bush’s policies, there are plenty of soldiers in the Army who agree with Reid.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 19, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #217713

The title of this thread is an accurate description of those few who still think this is a winnable situation.

Posted by: ElliottBay at April 19, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #217714

Let’s see, under other presidents, FDR and Truman, we, with help from many other countries, kicked Germany’s, Italy’s, and Japan’s ass in less time than we have been at war in Iraq. Yep, this war to secure the peace in Iraq is lost.

But, the American taxpayer didn’t lose it, they ponied up every cent asked for. They supported our military every inch of the way. The taxpayers even supported the President by reelecting him.

It was certainly not our military that lost it, they gave it everything they had and then some. No, it was the White House that lost this war, with too little, too late, at every step of this war after the initial invasion and knocking out Saddam’s military. Yes, as Truman said, the buck stops there at the Oval Office in times of war. There is no one else responsible for our failure to meet our objectives these many years later but the Failure in Chief.

This month is on track to be the bloodiest ever for our soldiers. Makes it hard to believe that our President supports the troops. Looks more like he is spending them like Monopoly money in his futile attempt to acquire Boardwalk in the Middle East. A majority of Americans want our soldiers to stop dying over there. But this President is not listening to the people. He gave that up years ago.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 19, 2007 10:16 PM
Comment #217716

Reid has just stopped making sense altogether, and nothing he says should surprise anybody.

Another thing he did recently is attack the Supreme Court’s upholding of the partial birth abortion bill. The same bill he VOTED for. Does that make any sense at all? In Reid-world, I guess it does.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 19, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #217721


I’m glad you cleared the air…for a moment there I thought you’d actually say something. Do you think this Iraq stupidity is ‘winnable’? Has Cheney/Bush lead us in the right direction? Is Reid wrong in his statement about Iraq? Listen to Hannity a couple of times, and get back to us on this will you?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 19, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #217722
A majority of Americans want our soldiers to stop dying over there.

ALL Americans want our soldiers to stop dying over there. That’s not the issue. The question now is whether the world’s superpower runs away from a bunch of thugs who murder women and children and make the Waffen SS look like a bunch of Boy Scouts.

And in running away, give Iraq and a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves to Al Qaida and a nuclear Iran, undoubtedly ensuring a round two in which far more of our soldiers will die.

The likes of Reid WANT us to lose the war because they think that will earn them senate seats, allowing them to advance their precious goals of taxing us into a recession and ensuring unfettered abortion on demand.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 19, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #217723
The likes of Reid WANT us to lose the war because …Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 19, 2007 10:39 PM
That is simply rhetoric. If you actually believe that then there is nothing civil left to say. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 19, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #217724

Ok all of ya. Somebody was going to say it. It might as well be me. Hairy(sic) Reed(sic) is aiding and abetting the enemy. That is treason. I’ll volunteer to do the honors.

Posted by: tomh at April 19, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #217727
That is treason. I’ll volunteer to do the honors.

Exactly what honors?

No, don’t tell me. I don’t want to be an accessory to a crime.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #217728

Hey SE!!

NUTS right back atcha!!


Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 10:55 PM
Comment #217731

Marysdude, I’ve listened to Hannity all of about five minutes in my entire life.

From the beginning, I didn’t support the idea of an Iraqi ground war, but that is what Bush launched, with the willing support of Democrats. Then I didn’t support the way the war was being conducted and still don’t in many respects.

But now we’re in it and yes, we can win, though the idea of what “winning” means is in need of radical adjustment. But it’s preposterous to even think about running away now, considering the consequences.

Dave1-etc, sometimes rhetoric coincides with the truth. If you want to look at dishonest rhetoric, look at the admitted Democratic policy of “slow-bleeding” our troops to death while pretending to support them. What is the least bit honorable or honest about that?

If they think the war is actually lost, then why the hell are they still funding it at all? What they’re doing is ALL rhetoric, and there’s no other explanation except that they’re trying to trade the blood of our soliders for votes.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 19, 2007 10:58 PM
Comment #217733

I agree with you and Loyal Opposition. The securing and a sucsess in Iraq would be a disaster to the democrats. They have hitched themselves to defeat in Iraq and hatred of Bush, Cheney and at least half the voting public (republicans) for their political future. I will go furthur than you Tomh and say anyone who shares Reids view and expresses it in the media is aiding and abetting the enemy. Bloggers too.

Posted by: dolan at April 19, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #217734
What they’re doing is ALL rhetoric, and there’s no other explanation except that they’re trying to trade the blood of our soliders for votes.

That’s the only explanation you can think of? Not that overall it’s best to get out of the situation, but that it’s better to do is in an organized manner than just to completely cut funding? Not that’s it’s better to push political pressure on the Iraqi political leadership by making them realize that they won’t always have us to blame/protect them, while still having troops there to give them a chance?

I think what you have here is a failure of imagination.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #217736
I will go furthur than you Tomh and say anyone who shares Reids view and expresses it in the media is aiding and abetting the enemy.

Ahhhh…yes… the last refuge of an intellectually bereft argument: “To disagree with me is treason.”

How quaint.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 11:12 PM
Comment #217737

“To disagree with me is treason”
Where did I say that in my statement?

Posted by: dolan at April 19, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #217738
Where did I say that in my statement?

I quoted it, and then I paraphrased it. Which part did you miss?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 19, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #217740

Nice rhetoric from the left…anyone of you care to say what Reid said? Anyone of you care to step to the plate and say we lost?

Exactly which one of you back this guy’s words up?

No rhetotic, no bullshit…who agrees that we “lost” in Iraq?

Losing, by defination means the other side has won the war.

Has the other side won the war right now, tonite, this minute? Have they?


Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 19, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #217741

You quoted it then you changed it.
But ya know except for yer high falutin “intellectually bereft” your right

Posted by: dolan at April 19, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #217742

Reid seems like an honorabe (if misguided) man. I do not think he meant to do bad, but he certainly is helping the enemy, however. He does not have to make a statement like that. He can (as he is) work to withdraw the troops. He can say privately that he thinks the war in unwinnable, but he should be more circumspect in his political comments.

Neither Reid nor anybody else knows whether this war is unwinnable. What does he mean by unwinnable, anyway? The more often people like him say things like he did, the more likely we are to lose. It becomes self-fulfilling.

The test of fairness is always turn around. Let’s turn this around. Would you feel encouraged if a major terrorist leader said his struggle was unwinnable? It is, you know. There is no practical way terrorists like Osama bin Laden can achieve all, or even most of their goals. If you heard prominent terror leaders admitting that, what would you think? Now what do you suppose terror leaders think when they hear Reid?

Posted by: Jack at April 19, 2007 11:41 PM
Comment #217746

Sic. Eagle, yours is a minority view. WaPo has this:

Pelosi had a job approval rating of 53 percent, according to the nationwide survey of 1,141 adults. That’s about where she was in January just after becoming speaker.

Reid came away with 46 percent approving of his leadership of the Senate and 33 percent disapproving.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #217747

Sic. Eagle, I say it. We lost. We lost the peace which has been the goal since taking out Saddam’s army. It is self-evident. We are not getting control, we never had control, and we never will have control of the sectarian violence in Iraq. That is for the Iraqis to resolve. You see, you set an impossible goal and define your own failure. That is precisely what Bush did.

Had he declared victory after apprehending Hussein, and pulled our troops back from the civil war there, victory could right and justly have been called ours. But Bush insisted on mission creep to the point that the mission became impossible.

Now Bush is facing the choice. Withdraw from the sectarian violence and save American lives, or continue to order more of our soldiers to their deaths in order to save face with his paltry 30% supporters.

That is precisely what this boils down to. Bush has chosen to continue to kill American soldiers and Iraqis to the day he leaves office to save face with the minority of supporters he has left in America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #217748

dolan if those opposed to Bush’s war are aiding and abetting the enemy, conversely, those supporting Bush’s continuance in Iraq are killing our soldiers and not supporting the life or limb of our troops.

Such simple arguments lack something in sophisticated rational thought.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #217752

“We lost the peace which has been the goal since taking out Saddam’s army”
David Remer

What is that? We never had peace after taking out Saddam’s army. And we never had peace before. The goal was to free Iraq, and create a friendly alliance. Had the goal been to remove Saddam and let the Iranians and Al Qaida have Iraq, Bush undoubtedly never would have gone in. You talk about Bush being short on vision. How much more short-sighted is it to say we should have pulled out when we could have claimed victory in removing Saddam? That is not victory if it does not produce a stable and supportive Iraq toward the United States.
Many still have faith in the people of Iraq. Many still hope that the majority of people in Iraq will stop hating the United States. If we pull out now and turn these people who want freedom over to the terrorist factions within Iraq, then the War is lost forever. They will never forgive us for that, and rightly so.
Come now, Remer, do you really believe Bush is letting soldiers die to keep his supporters? You’ve got to be kidding. Bush knows that both Afghanistan and Iraq are the most important and strategic positions we can hold in the fight against Islamic terrorist enemies. He said from the beginning we would be in this for the long haul. If liberals wish to determine and define victory by the number of dead on the battle field, Normandy was America’s greatest defeat. Using the liberal standard for war, we should have pulled out of WWII after Normandy.


Posted by: JD at April 20, 2007 1:04 AM
Comment #217759

JD said: “The goal was to free Iraq, and create a friendly alliance.”

OK, have it your way. But that goal was accomplished years ago. Stupid Bush couldn’t leave well enough alone, they were free in 2003. And they had a friendly government to the U.S. 2005. You see, JD, you, Sic. Eagle, and Bush all have this burden to bare, of supporting an indefensible occupation that is killing Americans unnecessarily. And your devotion and loyalty to your Presidential candidate pick at the polls is admirable, but, you can’t claim to be for this president and for our troops in the same breath.

We won years ago. Stupidity in the White House insisted on upon a westernized Islamic nation in Iraq. It hasn’t happened in Iraq, and it is not going to happen in Iraq, no matter what we do. It is up to the Iraqis. But Stupidity in the White House is apparently unable to recognize that fact and act appropriately to safeguard American lives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 1:55 AM
Comment #217761

JD, our presence in Iraq does not require being engaged in the sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. Our soldiers can assume a training role, a government - border protection, and anti-al Queda role, without making targets out of our soldiers as police corner cops throughout Baghdad and other area’s of sectarian conflict. Bush’s and Republican’s insistence on killing our soldiers to fight Iraq’s civil war is what cost your party the election and continues to erode popular support for your party.

It takes character and courage to admit when one is wrong and do what one can to do better afterward. Bush has no character or courage of this kind - and nothing even close to the courage an character of our soldiers who perform their deadly tasks whether or not their orders are prudent and responsible.

Bush said we would NOT honor the Geneva Convention and for that, our soldiers at Abu-Ghraib were tried and sentenced for not honoring the Geneva Convention. Bush said we had no legal obligations regarding the detainees at Guantanamo. And millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on sending most of them back home in the end because Bush was wrong.

Bush out of one corner of his mouth says he relies on the generals on the ground for how to proceed in Iraq. Yet, when Generals on the ground advised the President we did not have sufficient resources to stem the Civil War coming in Iraq, he spoke out of the other side of his mouth when replacing those generals rather than taking their advice.

Bush supported to small lean volunteer military of Donald Rumsfeld. When Bush’s military could not achieve the impossible, Bush let Rumsfeld go. Now Bush has Gonzalez sitting in the hot seat for him, taking the responsibility for US Attorney firings rather than taking the executive responsibility for the decisions, of which his office was a part.

This President seems to find sacrificing others an all to easy thing. Which would explain why even his Republican Congress persons in the Congress are increasingly hostile toward his policies.

Loyalty is no substitute for competence and the ability to respond appropriately to situations that arise. Yet that seems to be the trade off made time and again in this White House. And among Bush’s supporters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 2:20 AM
Comment #217767

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…there is no way we’ve lost the war, because there is no war. What we have in Iraq can’t be part of the so-called ‘war on terror’. because there was no terror threat in Iraq. It cannot be war with Iraq because we’ve overthrown the legal leadership (Saddam), and are now fighting Iraqi citizens who think they are protecting their country against infidel invaders and foreign occupiers, which they are.

Cheney/Bush got us into this stupidity and the only honorable thing to do is say we are sorry, and bow out.

Only an idiot would call that reason.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 20, 2007 4:27 AM
Comment #217770

He probably meant that it is impossible to ‘win’ a dishonorable war…It is lost the moment you lie yourself into it. Iraq is not a war it is a stupidity.
Posted by: Marysdude at April 19, 2007 09:46 PM

Well said Marysdude. As for Sicilian Eagle, well you may think that Reid is an embarrassment worldwide as a national spokesman, but to many people outside the US, what he said represents the voice of sanity. The Iraqis don’t want you in their country, they don’t want you stealing their oil with your production sharing agreements designed to rob them of their national treasure. They don’t see you as the good guys, the cavalry riding to the rescue with bugles blaring to save them from the Indians. They see what this war is really about; making Iraq a client and servant of the US.

Now, if your country had been invaded by another country who, despite your clear desire to see them go, continued to maintain an army in your country, and build massive permanent bases there, together with the biggest embassy in the world in your country, what would you think? If you saw them move to steal your countrys resources, would you be sanguine? Or would you feel it’s time to reach for the pike in the thatch?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 20, 2007 5:39 AM
Comment #217771


When will Bush, following the NUTS analogy, send the “4th Armored Division” to reinforce troops in Iraq?
The besieged 101st Airborne will have lost at Bastogne without their reinforcement, as you should know. Saying NUTS to germans didn’t made that much a difference. Tanks did.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 20, 2007 6:24 AM
Comment #217772


Neither Reid nor anybody else knows whether this war is unwinnable. […] The test of fairness is always turn around. Let’s turn this around. Would you feel encouraged if a major terrorist leader said his struggle was unwinnable? It is, you know. There is no practical way terrorists like Osama bin Laden can achieve all, or even most of their goals.

You failed at your own fairness test, Jack. Turning around means turning all around: neither you nor anybody else knows whether OBL goals are unachievable.

If you heard prominent terror leaders admitting that, what would you think? Now what do you suppose terror leaders think when they hear Reid?

They hear that their strategy in Iraq works above best expectation and that they should plan soon for the next months.
How is different than what they were already thinking the day before Reid public admission?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 20, 2007 6:42 AM
Comment #217773

Phillipe Houdoin

I think any living member of the 101st would dispute your contention. To this day, each would say they were fine and Patton’s help was unnecessary.

On sending in help, however, that is exactly what the new defense sectrtary has done. However, squeeling like what is being done by the left is negating the surge and emboldens the enmemy. Had people zipped their lips for another six months, two things would have happened; first, more bad guys would have been killed,captured,or would have gone over to the right side and Baghdad be much more secure, and second the central government there would be that more stronger. I suppose that you disagree with those two comments though.

Dave 1-20-2009

No need for the f-word here. You write well and get your point accross, and that type of language, at least on this thread,serves only to obscure your thought, not to mention getting you tossed by the Watchblog Manager. My view,anyways.

David R. Reemer

Lost the peace? No, I asked: Do you think we lost the war? Your partially parsed the sentence, then digressed. I asked the question for one reason: Do you agree that the war is lost? Look at yourself in the mirror before answering. Did we lose? The war? It’s either a yes or no answer, my friend. If you agree, then my response is what McAuiffe said to the Germans. If it is no, then agree, for once, that Reid mis-spoke. THAT’s the issue. Let’s stay on point.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 20, 2007 6:55 AM
Comment #217774


ALL Americans want our soldiers to stop dying over there. That’s not the issue. The question now is whether the world’s superpower runs away from a bunch of thugs who murder women and children and make the Waffen SS look like a bunch of Boy Scouts.

I guess then that superpower is quite weak against thugs, because 4 years later they’re still there, in more numbers.
Which is *the* issue.

And in running away, give Iraq and a large percentage of the world’s oil reserves to Al Qaida and a nuclear Iran, undoubtedly ensuring a round two in which far more of our soldiers will die.

And we all knows that Al Qaida didn’t have access before to a large(r) percentage of the world’s oil reserves and their petrodollars!
In fact, Al Qaida is in Iraq for oil, nothing else.
Also, We also all knows how well having troops next door was effective to stop Iran nuclear ambition. And having no troops in Iran is actually stopping Al Qaida to be in a soon-to-be nuclear Iran, too.

Oh yes, it make sense.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 20, 2007 7:01 AM
Comment #217776
I think any living member of the 101st would dispute your contention. To this day, each would say they were fine and Patton’s help was unnecessary.

They held the siege without Patton’s help. no debate. But by siege definition, they couldn’t have hold it forever. And the siege was broken when Patton tanks entered, not before, neither by McAuliffe’s NUTS!.
And it doesn’t remove anything from the 101st heroic defense to say that.

Back to Iraq war, sending 15% more troops doesn’t looks so far like Patton’s tanks, sorry.
180 death two days ago in Bagdad. Prime ministers died right in the most highly secure area in Bagdad, the green zone.

Iraqis are besieged in Bagdad. When and who will relieve them?!

squeeling like what is being done by the left is negating the surge and emboldens the enmemy. Had people zipped their lips for another six months, two things would have happened; first, more bad guys would have been killed,captured,or would have gone over to the right side and Baghdad be much more secure, and second the central government there would be that more stronger. I suppose that you disagree with those two comments though.

As far I could recall, I’ve read you periodically posting since years “give us another six months…”. How many?
How many “another” six months it will take before progress, not utter failure over failure, could be see by everyone? How many before a switch from failure to success can be see?

4 years already. That’s 8 extra 6 months to give more time to stay the course. How many failures do you wait before declaring failure a failure?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 20, 2007 7:29 AM
Comment #217777


Everyone is dodging your question.

Let me answer loud and clear WE HAVE NOT LOST THIS WAR.

Having said that, I’m very afraid we will with support like we get from the likes of Harry Reid.

Posted by: tomd at April 20, 2007 7:43 AM
Comment #217778

Phillippe Houdoin

You won’t hear those words from me…”failure”….ever. Even if the hordes of Darius and Xerses came back from the dead. They won’t,of course.

No sooner did this government in Iraq assume power….probably the sme day..did the manta of failure continue by the left. THEY never gave peace a chance. THEY emboldened the enemy.

That said, today I see that a 3 mile protective wall is being built around a Sunni enclave in western Baghdad. Good. The sectarian hatred must be seperated before cooler heads can prevail. 99% of the Sunni residents in that enclave ARE cooler heads, and walling off a district will promote security.

The Romans did this there a millenia ago, and it worked. I wrote here many months ago that both Shia and Sunni enclaves must be seperated and protected until the politicial situation takes hold.

I also say this: The radicials jihadists on both sides must be eliminated and their mosques closed. The religious schools that teach hatred must also be closed, and that the new generation of kids must be educated in MODERATE Islam.

Indonesia is controlled by 2 huge MORERATE parties,who have the support of the vast majority of Muslims there. Maybe there is a 5% radicial element and the bombings like the Australian Embassy and the Bali bom,bing will continue. However, they are looked on with horror there. They support the government. Here, that is not yet the case.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 20, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #217779

I don’t think the troops out there are such idiots as to require an outright statement like Harry Reid’s to know what the belief of most Americans is concerning the war, and what the belief of Reid’s party is concerning the war.

In fact, I wasn’t even aware that nobody had said this up to this point. I mean, folks have been calling this war unwinnable left and right (literally), which basically implies that it is lost already.

The real talking point here is that it is because the Democrats aren’t true believers that things aren’t working. Well, the Republicans are free to employ the Dead Tinkerbell defense (basically, you bastards out there didn’t believe enough) but no amount of clapping would change the strategic position that over four years of Bush policy has inflicted on this war.

This is another made-up scandal, by people who are out of touch with what most Americans believe, who are out of touch with what even many Soldier in Iraq believe. These people talk about the damage to morale inflicted by words, yet they continue in practices that are essentially breaking our army, denying it the ability to train, to re-equip, and to take a long, well deserved rest from the horrors and tensions of war

The people who gloated as Zell Miller angrily accused John Kerry of wanting to send soldiers to battle armed with spitballs are silently standing by while Bush’s policy has our soldiers essentially training on spitballs. Bush has soldiers rushing from Basic Training to the Iraq, to be thrown right into the intense, hazardous environment with no training for what they will encounter.

And of course, Bush has us on a course that not only most Americans oppose, but which most in the military don’t like anyways. The retired generals, who can complain without fear of being brought up for insubordination, have almost uniformly thought that Bush’s plan is a bad idea, and worse, one he isn’t even sufficiently putting forces in to support.

The Republicans want to make this to be a failure of political support. They seek to once again draw a bright line between themselves, and those who betray the soldiers by not putting 100% faith in the war, and Bush’s battleplan.

Once again, the Republican approach to fighting a war is to further divide the homefront in a fruitless attempt to stop the bleeding of support from the average American, to pile shame on those whose objection to the war’s continuation have nothing really to do with having a weak stomach, or divided loyalties.

Once again, the Republican party looks read to take a foreign policy mistake and enshrine it as a litmus test of true belivership.

The supporters of Vietnam, doing this a generation ago, not only needlessly divided the country in their efforts to maintain support for a policy whose practical failures had drained support, they addicted their intellectual heirs to a superficial philosophy of how one wins wars.

For the next generation, these people, trying to make excuses for the failures of the previous war, would define winning wars in the superficial terms of body counts, positive coverage, and those who felt negatively about a war, or how it was being waged biting their collective lips.

They taught that generation that it wasn’t so important to get things like the strategy, or the logistics, or any of that other basic stuff right, that it was faith in the war that won them. Although on one level this is true, faith in a war cannot compensate forever for failures of manpower, logistics, and most importantly, strategy, and the Bush administration has taken the superficial measures of victory, and used them to provide political cover for all three.

Our soldiers, though, have had direct experience of the consequences of that. No matter how cowed they could make the critics at home, the soldiers lived the consequences of being forced into wild goose chases as they followed the insurgents from town to town, only to have them reclaim their lost territory. They lived the consequences of lacking basic resources like translators, and armor for their vehicles. They are the ones who have to see their plans fail, and the the bodies pile up among the civilian population.

They fight and die now, for the most part, because the Bush administration didn’t do its job in arranging the post-war phase, which if we want to be precise about things, is right where we are. Though the Iraq war will long be characterized by the insurgency, and all that followed, the fact remains that the war was won first, in Baghdad and elsewhere, before the policy lost it.

If the morale is in the toilet, don’t look to Harry Reid to blame him, because he is simply saying what most Americans are. No, if you want to know who is doing the most damage to the morale of our armed forces, look to the President, and all those who defined victory by their plans for public relations, rather than for the Battlefield.

The truth is, by reviving all the old tropes of Vietnam in trying to suppress dissent and maintain willpower in the face of the war’s failures, the Right revived the very attitudes and errors that made Vietnam impossible to win. They were not straight with the American people or themselves. They did not accept counsel contrary to what they wanted to hear. They encouraged a pathological need to persist in policies that were not working in the hopes that willpower would win out over adversity. They divided the homefront with highly charged accusations of betrayal and disloyalty against dissenters, which only made people even angrier at the failures of policy, and the blind stubbornness of the Administration.

Worse yet, they put themselves up on a pedestal, and allowed nobody to question how they were thinking up and carrying out policy. People make mistakes, and people who isolate themselves from criticism and second-guessing also isolate themselves from any force that can save them from themselves, from their own errors of thought.

If the Republicans don’t like where morale is on the war, they only have themselves to blame. They wanted this war all to themselves, for various reasons, and now they have it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 20, 2007 8:31 AM
Comment #217780
Let me answer loud and clear WE HAVE NOT LOST THIS WAR.

Having said that, I’m very afraid we will with support like we get from the likes of Harry Reid.

Another bit of lovely rhetoric: if we lose, it won’t be because of incompetent planning in an unnecessary war where the political leadership didn’t prepare at all for the occupation and made sure that the number of troops was insufficient. No, it’s because people noticed that things weren’t going well.

How much more ridiculous can this argument get?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 8:36 AM
Comment #217781
Well, the Republicans are free to employ the Dead Tinkerbell defense (basically, you bastards out there didn’t believe enough) but no amount of clapping would change the strategic position that over four years of Bush policy has inflicted on this war.

Once again, Stephen, very well said.

The rhetoric I decried above is completely a rehash of Vietnam rhetoric.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 8:42 AM
Comment #217782

You can’t lose, or win, a war you aren’t fighting. We aren’t fighting this war - the Iraqis are. It’s a civil war, and we just happen to be in the way. Shi’ites fighting Sunnis, both of us seeing us as an obstacle to their own fight.

So in a way, you’re right; we aren’t losing. But nor are we winning. We just need our troops to come home.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 20, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #217785


” Dave1-etc, sometimes rhetoric coincides with the truth. If you want to look at dishonest rhetoric, look at the admitted Democratic policy of “slow-bleeding” our troops to death while pretending to support them. What is the least bit honorable or honest about that?

If they think the war is actually lost, then why the hell are they still funding it at all? What they’re doing is ALL rhetoric, and there’s no other explanation except that they’re trying to trade the blood of our soliders for votes. “

It is idiotic unreasonable thought and rhetoric such as this that has enabled our moron in chief to continuously extend this farce with a multitude of forecasts of progress. Show me a clear indication of progress, a clear view of an end and I will show support. Four years later and the violence is escalating. I think that makes an all too clear statement that we all have seen many times over now.

The loss of life and phenomenal amount of money being thrown away in Iraq simply does not justify remaining in the area to protect the oil interests of Exxon etc. Let them take the matter into their own hands and fund their own security. Let them pay the big bucks to the private security contractors to secure thier precious treasure. After all we all know that oil is the real motivation behind our involvement in the area.

The dems are still funding it in order that we may give the Iraqis time and motivation to get their sh-t together before we leave where we are not welcome and have been for much too long.

Posted by: ILdem at April 20, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #217786

The thing is that Senator Reid is correct to say that the war is unwinnable given the constraints the President has placed on it. The only way we could possibly quell the civil war, maintain the parliamentarian government and resist incursions by Iran, Syria etc… would be to reinstate conscription and fight the war with 100% effort by militarizing the economy and doing other things. Of course this would be a great cost and the benefits of the result probably would not be great enough to warrant the extreme measures above.

Posted by: Warren P at April 20, 2007 9:11 AM
Comment #217788


We LOST this stupidity that you call ‘war’, when we deserted Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. Had we continued in our pursuit of Osama, knocked him and his central command out, we’d have taken a serious chunk out of the heart of the ‘war on terror’. As it is the terrorists are laughing in our face. Ried didn’t start this stupidity and he won’t finish it…only Cheney/Bush did and can.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 20, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #217790


The jihadists began high fiving the moment we decided to sustain our presence in the area. They were well aware that we were not trained or prepared to engage in a sustained war of subversion. The fact that we are in their backyard where they can freely and easily attack must be like Christmas for them. They have been engaging in this type of battle for thousands of years and know the ropes much better than we do. Are we prepared to outlast them? I do not think anyone of reasonable sensibility is willing to say yes.

The Iraqis for all intent and purposes are in a civil war of which is not our concern. We can not decide the outcome for the latter. That only leaves the oil interests for our motivation. For us to remain in their yard simply to provide security for the interests of the oil moguls is ridiculous.

Yes this conflict is lost in the sense that there can be no victory in the near or distant future which will benefit our nation. People like you would have us stay and throw away lifes and money for decades so that we can protect and sustain the money interests of the wealthy. It is the short sided narrow minded views of an incompetant president and a small percentage of the population that allows this facade to continue against the larger percentage who are capable of seeing the simple realities of this fruitless effort in futility.

Senator Reid is not nuts. He is a frustrated realist who has the balls to throw the truth into the faces of those in denial.

Maybe it is time for you folks to step up and accept responsibility for the actions of an inept and irresponsible administration instead of trying to put the onus of blame on us who rightly do not support their follies.

Posted by: ILdem at April 20, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #217791


Mind as well have another showdown between you and I right now. Pardon me if I parse you out:

Paragraph 1&2

There is a vast differance between calling the war lost and unwinnable,Stephen. A national leader said yesterday that we LOST the war. Don’t parse,the facts are very clear as to what he said. He even made the unusual step of appearing on the Senate floor to “clarify” his remarks…which, by the way, were all over television last night.

That means that they were all over Al Jazzera too, not to mention Jihad Central. Words motivate the enemy. Surely you can see.

The rest of your post:

The likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy poisoned the well over three years ago,and the tradition has been abley carried on by Pelosi,Murtha,and Reid.
Signals were send YEARS ago by that crew…Kennedy himself was one of the first to use the Vietnam analogy…said while the Provisional Government was in its nacent phase. These peole HATED Bush since the election was “stolen” in 2000. Since then, they have set the course for division nationally by belittling everything done by this president.

I have said many times here on Watchblog that the president,Rummy,the intelligence community…everyone…. made one mistake after another…but every single war since
the dawn of time has been replete with mistakes.
The fundamental problem is that most of you on the left do not agree, and have not agreed that Iraq is/was a central front for the war on terror. What started our (erroneously) as a hunt for WMDs,quickly mutated into this phony mantra. Meanwhile,2/3 of the terror leadership was eliminated and not a single attack has taken place in America since September 11.2001.

Right now, thousands are being trained as Arab/Farsi translators, our armed forces are light years ahead of where they were in 2002 in respect to fighting an atypicial enemy,our intelligence is much much better…featuring a a tecnocrat who is now running the show and throwing out all the career “go through the motions” intelligence guys like Richard Clarke who have laughed all the way to the bank over the 9/11 tragedy.

Homeland Security was created FROM scratch,and now is running smoothly…put in this way..far more smoothly than when the predessor president was in power.

Airports and ports hare safer. Computer financial profiling systems are in place that identify and can trace financial movement of money…cells have been broken up in America.

Most importantly: regegade states like Lybia were scared shitless in giving up their nuclear ambitions.

Meanwhile,this president has done this while under complete and utter attack by the left. Not a siungle grain of credit has been given this administration. Millions of jobs…millions…have been created during this presidency. The nation’s economy is at unprecenteded levels..the stock market at at all time high. Every retiree on Social Security who invested in the market prudently now gets a fat dividend check. Yes, Stephen…even retired teachers own Exxon Mobil…it’s not all for the rich.

Now, the leader of your party says we lost.

Maybe to you we lost,my friend.

To me,we have kicked the ever lasting shit out of them…and have done so ab initio

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 20, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #217796


I’m not Stephen, but I’d like to know these two things…

Kicked the shit out of who?

Why should we be proud of it?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 20, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #217797


Normally I would agree that the use of vituperative vulgarity as emphasis is unnecessary. But I would rather recieve explitive encrusted explanations of why my positions are counter productive to our common goal of a strong nation than politely pronounced a pernicious partner to terrorists.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 20, 2007 9:59 AM
Comment #217799


Did you catch the recent story of those Iraqi government officials loyal to Muqtada al Sadr withdrawing from the Iraqi government?

If they no longer believe they can have a voice in their own government, howw do you suppose they will make themselves heard?

It is not possible to IMPOSE democracy and we cannot shoot and bomb Iraq into being a peaceful and stable place.

Posted by: RGF at April 20, 2007 10:09 AM
Comment #217801


The comment is a direct counter to the term “lost”…we lost nothing. We captured Baghdad before the next credit card has come in.
Saddam’s forces were evicerated (sic)in a blink of an eye.

If you chose to fight, you win.That’s the point.

Dave 1-20-2009

No harm. I think your posts insightful. I wante to make sure that you don’t get de-watchblogged,that’s all.


Simply: THAT entire crew has to eliminated. End of sentence.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 20, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #217803

I didn’t read any of the above but wanted to add my two cents. We say the war was lost all the time on this blog, and it’s about time some politicians started saying it too. Claiming this comforts the enemy is a bs scare tactic of the worst kind. The British have BANNED (remember, they don’t have free speech there) referring to the Iraq debacle as a war, because they believe it promotes terrorism. Seriously, they don’t believe that a bunch of sicko individuals merit a “war”. It just adds fuel to the flame and gives them purpose.

To recap. Who has been fanning the flames of terrorism? Who increased it? Who gave them a purpose? Who united them? Who made it into a cause celebre? Not Osama. Don’t argue he had that kind of power. It was Bush.

Posted by: Max at April 20, 2007 10:18 AM
Comment #217804


To say that I completely disagree with you is not giving my true thought justice. Tell you what: I am finishing a piece on the War With The Barbary Pirates and will post it next week. Thomas Jefferson knew back then that Islam was a threat to democracy. I have found excerpts from the Congressional Record back that that mirror word for word what Islamic terrorist say today. To say Bush is at the bottom of this pile of crap goes to your historical uynderstanding of what we really face.

Do me a favor: Google the Barbary Coast War just fot giggles.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 20, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #217810


And just why should we be proud of it?

If you choose to fight, you win…wow! If the USA ‘chooses’ to invade a lesser nation, we automattically win? Yeah, if we’re the bully kicking sand in the weakling’s face, we win…but, how much more is lost by that action?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 20, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #217814

Thanks SE,

It was late. I was tired. One too many insults. I would’ve really liked to debate WHY people think that continuing to fight this battle is necessary, productive, and with a positive outcome without resorting to name calling nonsense.

As marine pointed out, yes, we destroyed a smaller ill equiped army in a matter of a few days. But Bush had almost 4 years to fight without any real political opposition at home and where are we now? I keep hearing about how internal dissent is keeping us from “winning” but there is nothing I’ve heard that comes close to supporting that.
Good points BTW to Stephen. An emotional house of cards, perhaps, but thta’s for another thread ;-)

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #217817

With so many good posts already posted in this thread, I think I’ll just speak in metaphors here…

What the Sic Eagle seems to be saying in this “nuts”y article is that the cheerleaders are really the ones who are responsible for the team winning the game. The fact that the team has never had a decent coach leading them, or any equipment with which to play the sport (although they went into debt buying their uniforms) is inconsequential and has nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome. Towards the end of the game when the other team is so many points ahead that there won’t be the hope of a win, thats when the cheerleaders need to cheer loudest. Because it’s terrible to act as though you have lost, even when it’s certain that you have.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 20, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #217821


You say:
“Towards the end of the game when the other team is so many points ahead that there won’t be the hope of a win that’s when the cheerleaders need to cheer the loudest….”

I say:

You would never make The Mighty Eagle Cheering Sqaud, for sure…although I think you would probably have the loudest voice…

Nonetheless, being my very favorite dissenter, I will make you honarary captain…in the true Republican tradition of compassionate conservatism.ok? :)

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 20, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #217822

Thanks Sic Eagle, but I’ll pass. It’d be unsporting to be an honorary captain yet only give out Bronx Cheers. ;^p

Posted by: Adrienne at April 20, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #217827

I don’t know if the Iraq War can be lost. We had nothing to win. Supposedly we went to build democracy there and in the region. You can’t bring democracy through war.

Since there is no way to win anything, you might as well say the objective is lost.

Let’s get out of Iraq.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #217829


So you’re saying we have always been at war with Oceania, I mean, err, Barbadian Muslims? Wow, you’ve enlightened all of us. We’ve been at war all this time and no one but you knew.

Posted by: Max at April 20, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #217830
I bet right at this moment, insurgents everywhere are high-fiving and doing the jihadist jig.

SE, why would jihadists be high-fiving each other? The fighting in Iraq has nothing to do with jihadists. 90% of the violence is driven by sectarian hatred and has nothing to do with America or our troops.

America’s war was won the day we toppled Saddam Hussein. President Bush’s war — the military intervention in Iraq’s civil war — is lost.

Let me ask you this, Are you going to eat crow this fall when all the other Repulicans in Congress — and guys like Jack — decide refereeing Iraq’s civil war is pointless? Or are you just going to try to blame liberals for the lack of planning, troops, diplomacy and resources that that caused the failure of Bush’s little adventure?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 20, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #217831

SicEagle….I’ve been following your diatribe on here, and it just screams for someone to find the ability to break through and convince you that this debacle is over !!! We have lost, and in fact,we started losing shortly after “the statue” fell. Our illustrious idiot in chief started strutting like a banty rooster and he has been deaf to critics on both sides of the aisle ever since. He won’t even listen to his own military advisors…..just fire’em if you don’t like what they say. The fact that nobody wants to step into the “War Czar” postition speaks volumes!
He is like a person demented, driven with need to establish this legacy that is already so laughable, and hated at the same time.
Just look at the death toll in the last few days…and answer how you can continue to condone our participation, then go to sleep with your conscience clear.
As for dubya…..he probably just hires someone to sleep for him………..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #217832

I took Reid’s comments at face value. No parsing necessary. An unwinnable war is a war that has no longer can be won. The opposite of a war that can be won is a war that can only be lost. That’s the implicit logic of the term “unwinnable”.

I took conservatives to task for the Dead Tinkerbell Syndrome they seem to be selling as the reason for this wars failure, and I will do no different here. First, the Arab Media has been showing all the carnage and unrest, and it is they to whom the insurgents and terrorists play.

Even by your logic, then, you could censor every reporter here, gag everybody in Congress, and threaten dire consequences for those who speak ill of the war, and still, the people in Arab world would see what was going on. The only difference would be that people here would be badly misinformed about how well the war was going. That itself would be and has been bad for troop morale. How do you speak of problems at the front with people who are just sitting there blissfully unaware of it? How do you win a war when people don’t feel motivated to push for good strategy and logistics?

The truth of the matter, is that the public image of the war was going great when things were going great. When looters started stripping builders to the girders without us being capable of stopping them, when we didn’t find the WMDs, when we failed to take control of the situation, then the media coverage began to sour, and only then.

Even so, it took time, and as I recall it, most Democratic politicians stayed clear of that minefield until Howard Dean started agitating things in early 2004. Many of the failures of the Bush Administration that have caused us such trouble in this war were made in the first year, before criticism from major Democratic politicians and pessimism were a factor. Do recall that in early 2004, Bush had just captured Saddam Hussein, and few people were going to push the anti-war line that enthusiastically.

These mistakes were not inconsequential. They directly contribute to the strategic environment we’re dealing with right now. You can only brush aside the mistakes that you’ve corrected. Many of Bush haven’t or can’t be corrected, at least not at this late date. All wars have errors, but most commentators are realistic enough to consider them setbacks and problems, rather than minor quibbles.

I have never seen Iraq as a central front in the War on Terrorism. I see the Iraq war as it is now as the blowback of a strategic failure. There was no real al-Qaeda presence in Iraq to make it a central front. That presence only came after we shattered Saddam’s brutal but effective security apparatus. In my view, the only legitimate targets in the War on Terror should have been pre-existing hotspots. Therefore, support for fighting it Indonesia and Afghanistan was legitimate, going into Iraq was not. Making a hotspot where none existed before, for any reason, would be a setback.

For the longest time, the reason why I believed we should support things all the way to victory was that leaving prematurely would make that setback permanent. However, if things are so bad that we’re no longer in control, and Bush will not reintroduce the draft, then we simply don’t have the soldiers to win. I’d love to win, but Bush waited too long, and is not willing to ask the sacrifices necessary to even keep the peace there. I have no wish for this country to go through the motion of trying to win, when we have neither the money, the manpower, nor the time to spare.

It is not erroneous to assume that WMDs were a big part of what made the Iraq war desirable at the time to the American people, not with Bush insisting on disarming Saddam throughout the 2002 campaign, not with rhetoric of the next smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over one of our cities. The very fact that this war was concerned with WMDs is written into the authorizing bill. These were the real phony mantras of the war. If people were decieved, they were not decieved by the Democrats, they were deceived with them, by the Bush administration.

Despite your airy claims that we’re training thousands of translators, Bob Woodward, in State of Denial reports that even very recently, with all the necessity for contact with the community with the counterinsurgency, commanders on the ground have been desperately begging for translators.

Counting off dead al-Qaeda members doesn’t quite work, because they are replaced from below. I don’t mourn their passing, mind you, but without destroying the organization, you haven’t done much good.

Throwing out all the guys who are like Richard Clarke is not a good idea. It might be attractive to you to get rid of your critics, the Bush Administration’s critics, but the politicization of the intelligence agencies is one of the primary reasons for all the trouble that has ensued.

If Homeland Security is running smoothly, then what the hell happened with Katrina? By the way, it was not created from scratch, and that could very well be the problem. It was a wire-chart shuffle, putting a number of agencies formerly of other departments into it. It’s not that widely respected, and Katrina shows just why.

As for Airports and Ports? Well, the TSA has taken pre-flight screeners and made them glorified pre-flight screeners, and I seem to recall all this talk about the need to secure the ports being put down by you and yours, since we’re fighting the terrorists over there to keep from fighting them over here. Right?

Libya was scared into giving up its WMDs. It was actually something of a deal. We did a lot of talking and negotiating with Ghaddafi before he gave them up. He didn’t personally give them up. Somebody made some sort of claim about a ship, which was then raided. Ghaddafi pretended to fume over the betrayal from the guy who was giving him the technology, and was glad that we let him do that to save face from his decision to give in to the west.

This has not been a tremendously productive presidency. You may think he’s kicking ass, but most people recognize the truth: the Bush Administration’s policies have been a step back on almost every front.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 20, 2007 1:42 PM
Comment #217839


I like your sports analogy. I’ll have to use it.


Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #217846

“Let me ask you this, Are you going to eat crow this fall when all the other Repulicans in Congress — and guys like Jack — decide refereeing Iraq’s civil war is pointless? “

I would like to raise my objections to crow-eating—in any form. Perhaps they should eat cake, or eat pundits, for that matter.:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 20, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #217852

I love that we have open/porous borders in our own country yet we areBuilding walls to protect people in other countries.

Posted by: bandman at April 20, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #217856

Without conveying my personal thoughts on the war itself… it will be interesting to see what happens, if a D wins in ‘08, over there and how fast we pull out once Clinton/Obama/Whomever is actually sitting in the chair in the Oval Office instead of just hurling verbal rounds at the prez from some campaign stump…

For all y’all Bush-haters out there about to attack me… I am in NO WAY saying I support his handling (bungling?) of this thing…there isn’t too much I do support him in… All I’m saying is that when the campaign ends and someone besides McCain is actually sitting in the chair, it will be interesting to see if they fulfill any promises and pull out immediately (like they are all calling for) or if they get in position and realize it just isn’t that easy.

Oh… and being from Nevada (Reid’s home state), I could have told y’all he was crazy a LONG time ago! ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 20, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #217857

Doug, Im also from Nevada and Im proud of Reid and his honest assessment of the situation. Ive lived with our current Govenor as my rep in Congress for the past few years and well I understand crazy. Reid is not crazy he’s realistic.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #217859

Which war? We won the war to remove Saddam from power. Or is it the war against terrorism?

If it’s the latter we have, so far, lost! I can hear the disgruntled cries now, “We haven’t been attacked since 9-11”! True but Al Qaeda is growing. We’ve created an absolutely great recruitment ground for the terrorists.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees have fled to neighboring countries where Al Qeada recruitment thrives. Remember, this is the “central front” in the war on terror. So, yes, we’ve lost!

Our troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq are unsustainable because our CinC is an idiot. Bob Schieffer recently said that only about one-half of one percent of Americans are personally “invested” in this war. Sounds about right to me.

This has been “war on the cheap” for about 99.5% of America. Over four years into the war we’re still using “emergency appropriations” to deal with the cost and just adding it to the national debt. Sure, we buy “yellow ribbon” magnets and show up for parades, but still TOO DAMN FEW are sacrificing too damn much!

McConnell and his ilk love to say that Reid’s words are harmful to troop morale. Really? Which would be more demoralizing to you - hearing that your tour-of-duty had just been extended three months or hearing that a politician was questioning the CinC?

It’s time to get real about this. The PNAC and AEI blueprints failed. The only way this project can produce anything but catastrophic disaster is to rid ourselves of the architects, beginning with Bush and Cheney!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #217860

Stephen D,

Thanks for the link to Tony McPeak’s opinion. I’d not seen that.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #217861


A fellow Northern Nevadan… excellent! Listen… I am certainly not proud to have a Governor who was elected after that whole groping-the-cocktail-waitress-while-drunk-in-a-Vegas-casino-parking-garage thing… I agree, how could we vote in such a nutcase… but Titus was certainly no better… for the first time in my life I voted Green (I feel so dirty!).

But Reid’s carzy, too… ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at April 20, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #217862

Doug Langworthy,

While the chances are just about equal to snow falling in Phoenix in July, what if Tommy Thompson were elected POTUS?

We’ll just ask the Iraqi’s to vote on whether or not we should stay?

Just FYI I’m still in the Biden camp, albeit another “snowball in hell” chance.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #217865

I think the majority agree(look at the polls), the war is lost as it is right now. The surge is not going to do anything other then get more military killed. Bush might have had a plan for the war, but not for the so-called peace after the mission accomplished bs he stated.
Hey even the VFW wants a time table set for the pullout of troops, and who is probably more patrotic then the VFW, well it ain’t bush, cheney, or rove.

Posted by: KT at April 20, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #217882


I’m glad you feel that way! Why don’t you put your LIFE where your rhetoric is? Enlist in the US army and volunteer for a tour (or twelve) in Iraq.

I don’t have to tell those of you with sense that the parallels SE tries to draw between the IRAQ MESS CREATED BY GEORGE W. BUSH and WWII are supremely artificial, to say the least. To say the most about SE’s “analysis” would be an utter waste of time and language.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 20, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #217899

I’m glad that Reid wasn’t around to declare failure to win the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. I’m sure he would have done it, too. We were easily in the worst position to win that war that day since there was no logical way to win. We won anyway (and would have even without the “bomb”).

Let’s give winning a chance. Oh, by the way, we have won the war in over 80% of Iraq already. When was the last time YOU had an 80% success-rate and declared yourself the loser?

Posted by: Don at April 20, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #217903

By all means, keep killing and maiming our troops in a pointless and futile occupation, just so we don’t disappoint them. Yeah, that makes sense.

The right’s support of the Bush fiasco is bankrupt.

Posted by: mental wimp at April 20, 2007 7:25 PM
Comment #217906


once again the mighty eagle steps into the room hurls another stink bomb, and hauls ass. YOU GOTTA LOVE IT !! don’t wait so long in between posts SE they’re great !

Posted by: dbs at April 20, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #217907

Don….how does ONE day after Pearl Harbor relate to FOUR YEARS after Baghdad??????
And you can’t get much apple-ier and orange-ier than that.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 20, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #217909

“Why don’t you put your LIFE where your rhetoric is? Enlist in the US army and volunteer for a tour (or twelve) in Iraq.”


I’m on your side of this fight, but that’s below the belt! It’s just ridiculous. I went off real bad not long ago because I was stupid enough to play into the “have you ever served, have your kids ever served, etc” crap! In this day and age it’s nonsense.

Bush never served in a war, Cheney never served at all. Clinton never served. While I’d prefer that all of our nations leaders had some service experience that’s just no longer true.

Whether you’ve served or not, as an American, you have every right to criticize your government and anyone else. As much as i disagree with SE his voice hardly needs any qualification.

For that matter we even have people post from foreign countries and they hardly need to become naturalized citizens before they post.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #217916

“And you guys thought I was nuts?!”

Weary Willie,

Uhhhhh, no! You sound like 80% of the people I meet every day.

Although you might give us a clue who or what you’re responding to.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 9:01 PM
Comment #217917

Geez….I leave for a few hours to teach at the law school…and I come back to this! My,my…there are plenty of candidates on this post alone that qualify hands down for this year’s Mighty Eagle Award!

Kansas Dem

Welcome back to the red side.It has been a while since you visited my post. I was worried that you were so mired over there on the left column that you forgot about me! Looks like everyone joined the fray today…you…Adrienne, Stephen, AP…why even Elliot Bay threw a stone at me today! Now, this Kim-Sue lady wants me to enlist…a grand post indeed!

Fact is,the point of the post was that Reid embarrassed himself and I jumped him, that’s pretty much it.

Now,getting serious for a minute,back in January I threw out the though that partition may be an option down the line. Building a wall,I think, is a good step. In a street fight the first thing the cops do is seperate the fighters. Seems like that is what is now being done. Then, the cops make sure the fighers kiss and make up…or else. We haven’t gotten to that stage yet, but we will.

Saying we lost means that the troops were defeated. Fact is, every Iraqi combatant shits their pants every time they see a trooper. Fact is,every battle has been won by UF forces virtually without breaking a sweat. Fact is that an Iriqi security force is beginning to get experience…a mid-level officer coprs…non-existent two years ago…is beginning to yield dividende. For once,the security force is actually doing the heavy lifting.

How many bad guys are there? 50,000 max? So what. What has been lost,iI think is the will of the American people…a loss of will directly traced to the ppeole I mentioned up above.

All in all, the president is a stubborn son of a bith, and that is exactly what is needed with these guys?

In ‘08, hopefully McCain, Guilliani (he’s my guy right now) or the Mitt man( he also will be very tough on terror) will take over.
For now though, guys like me have to keep the playing field level…something that I am more than willing to do. The Eagle can take a punch.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 20, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #217918

Then again, Waxman just might bring an end to this reign of terror:


Anyone ready for President Pelosi?

That would be interesting. Almost impossible, but interesting. I love these new pain meds!

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #217919

Sorry for the typos…I was so excited that my talons were tapping ahead of my tiny eagle-brain!

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 20, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #217924

“Now,getting serious for a minute,back in January I threw out the though that partition may be an option down the line. Building a wall,I think, is a good step.”


Much further back than January you talked about “partitioning” and I thought it was stupid. Then i saw Biden pushing a similar plan and of course i listened better because I’m a biased SOB.

I admit I’m biased, but I won’t let my bias interfere with the facts. Bush has. Several months ago, when asked about Biden’s plan, Tony Snow (speaking for the white house) said it was a “non-starter”. Bull Shit! To a minor degree what Biden suggested is happening and it seems to hold some promise, but the Bushie’s can’t just accept his plan and run with it FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

Bush and Cheney are still playing the “party” card. The Kurdish north is now teetering on edge against Turkey. If that blows up where are we going to get 100,000 more troops overnight? If we take Turkey’s side what happens to our Iraqi support? If we take the Iraqi Kurdish side what will a “cold-war” look like with Turkey? Or will it be cold?

Have you actually looked at South America lately? Things are looking more and more volatile. We’ve slept thru years of Central American unrest. We’re tightening up our southern border finally, but Mexico has a hell of a problem with Central and South American immigrants coming into Mexico to escape starvation.

No problemo, huh? We could reinstate the draft anytime and have a couple million new troops ready in…………..? How many months SE? We can’t do some 8 to 12 week quickie training job like we did in WWII.

Without specialized training we’d be setting our own neighbors up as clay-pigeons. We’re in deep shit already.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #217927

Kansas Dem

Glad that Biden picked up my idea and ran with it. :)

I always liked Joe. He shot himself in the foot at the Roberts hearing by rambling on with a 30 minute “question” as I recall,and he was an Imus regular, but he has ,what 1% right now? Stick with Hillary. If she gets elected you have 2 presidents for the price of one,no?

I like Rudy,and I hope he can pull it off. The jury is still out however.

Funny you should mention Venezula. I hope you are boycotting Citgo. I know Joe Kennedy doesn’t. Joe, the son of Robert, is making $400,000 a year running Citizen’s Energy Corp, an oil company that gives Chavez’ oil to the “needy”. He can’t put two consecutive sentences together,yet when uncle Teddy steps down, he’ll be the heir apparent.

I wouldn’t worry about Turkey. That secular military junta will administer an ass kicking to the Kurds,and the US will let them. They are an EU country now, aren’t they, and membership has it’s benefits. An autonoumous northern Iraq is a possibility, and the US will end up with 2 allies,I think.

Pakastan is what worries me. That country is one assassination away from being a radicial Islamic state, and that will make 2 Islamic states with nukes.

At this point, the iron boot is the only language these animals understand, and that is the primary reason I back the president. Everyone on your side wears sneakers, and we need an ass kicker.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 20, 2007 11:26 PM
Comment #217928

No question, Reid is right: Iraq is a lost cause, and Congress should refuse to fund it any longer.

Because Iraq does not involve the survival of America nor threaten national security, and because Iraq really represents a failed attempt at effective annexation through occupation, it is not a war in the traditional sense; losing does not carry the same connotations as losing a stereotypical Third Generation style of conflict.

Comparing Iraq to WWII exemplifies the mindset that caused the US to lose in the first place. Many in this column seem to believe invasion, conquest, and occupation in Third Generation Warfare style should mean we won. Overwhelming technological superiority seemed to make the result in Iraq a foregone conclusion.

Welcome to Fourth Generation Warfare. Or rather, re-welcome. The Powell Doctrine rose from the lessons learned in Vietnam, and was intended to prevent exactly what has happened in Iraq.

By the way, references to Churchill in this thread are particularly ironic. Churchill played a pivotal role in the creation of the British Mandate of Mesopotamia after WWI. The British went in as “liberators,” and found themselves facing a bloody uprising in 1920. Churchill was an enthusiastic advocate for gassing Iraqis, using aerial bombardment.

The Brits solved the Iraqi problem by installing a pliant figurehead as King, arming the minority Sunnis in order to repress the rest of the country, creating conditions of economic dependency, and controlling the oil.

The US chose to overthrow the Sunni minority rule, and replace it Shia majority rule.

As long as the Iraqis believe the US is there as a permanent occupying force, there will be violent resistance. The refusal to set deadlines has been disastrous, and no matter how much the US escalates, that underlying dynamic will cause the resistance to increase, not decrease.

Partition makes sense, but that train left the station a long time ago. The mistakes made early on resulted in a situation which is unrecoverable for the US.

We need to leave. Now. It is what the majority of Iraqis and Americans want.

Posted by: phx8 at April 20, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #217930
I wouldn’t worry about Turkey…They are an EU country now, aren’t they?

No, and quite far from it. In fact, keeping them out of the EU was one of the reasons that the French and Dutch voted the new EU constitution down a couple years ago.

You’re completely wrong on this. Sadly, this is the rule, not the exception.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #217932

Let’s see: WWII- We get attacked, We declare war in defense, Axis powers declare war on us, no question of who needs defeating to win the war. Beat the governments of Germany, Italy, Japan, and all their allies and subordinates, and we win. Oh, and this country goes all out to get the men and equipment necessary to pull it off.

Iraq War? We attack first, but don’t bring in enough soldiers to contain and secure the place. Our original premises for fighting turn out to be false, and there’s a good chance that these people knew how bad their evidence was to start. They stall for years on end, using up our forces and using a variety of stopgap measures and political stall tactics to avoid having to admit that even the small presence they’re keeping can’t be sustained.

What also can’t be sustained is patience with the claim that victory is around the corner when we never see results. You have to actually make consistent progress. We’ve gone, with little interruption, from a relatively calm post-war period to a civil war. That’s not progress, unless you’re thinking of the kind that leads to defeat.

As for an 80% success rate? We are right now struggling unsuccessfully to secure the capital against attack, a capital of about 8 million people. We should not be having to do that. Additionally, many of the places outside that percentage are precisely the places that need to be under control. Most of Iraq is either Shia or Kurd, and most of them don’t mind things settling down, because they benefit.

The Sunnis, though, are the major troublemakers, and this administration has failed by either force or political persuasion to pacify them. Bush’s strategy of concentrating forces back in Baghdad will not help things there. What is the plan for getting the Sunnis back in the fold? Is there a plan?

Weary Willie-
Strings attached, eh? Consult with the UN, as he promised; Disarm Saddam, as he promised; and of course, destroy the terrorist harbor he alleged Iraq had become. These were the strings he attached himself by making the claims he did and asking for the power he did.

You’re blaming us for making him accountable for the false claims that he made. There were no weapons to be found. Having claimed certainty on the matter, how could this be? If he really had investigated with due diligence? Iraq was no harbor for al-Qaeda. This too, he claimed with certainty.

On the basis of that false certainty, Iraq begins as no better than a distraction from the real war on terror. What makes this even worse is that Bush’s poor security lets al-Qaeda in and makes Iraq a haven for the terrorists as it otherwise wasn’t, not to mention a means to get fellow Arabs and Muslims to join their ranks. Iraq is, in fact, a counterproductive fight in the War on Terrorism.

You claim that this is all meant as political revenge against Bush. You claim that if Bush won, it would be a disaster for us. Yet, beyond the vague assertion that Iraq’s failure has been caused by some sort of PR problem or moral problem, you don’t show how this deals with the actual policy and the actual results of what’s going on. In a Democracy, there’s always a second guessing of the leaders in war. Those who do well are not those who get paranoid and chase after reporters and dissenters with a bullwhip, it’s those who silence the doubters with successes. Bush has not had to wait four years to change direction. He chose to do that, with his very own party dominating the legislative branch, and in the early parts of the war, around three quarters of the population in support.

You allege “Nuts!” saved the army there. It didn’t. The decision behind that response did, and the resources and wisdom which backed that decision made it a successful one. It’s superficial to make it all about defiance and not giving up. We don’t send our commanders into battles with Bullhorns to throw wit and taunts the way of the enemy. This isn’t Monty Python, and telling your enemies that their fathers smelled of elderberries generally will not prevent a panzer division from running you over. We give them tanks, artillery, and other kinds of weapons to make them an effective fighting force.

It is said that near the end of the European part of WWII, Hitler was moving nonexistent regiments around on the board. Perhaps his strategies were brilliant. Perhaps he believed he could win. But without those regiments, the plans did nothing to help him. Means are a necessary adjunct to will in order to win battles.

As for your analysis of what condition Hitler would be in? There’s a little problem with that assertion: Berlin. As in who got there first. The Russians did. They would have pushed further into Germany, if we hadn’t broken the German lines.

Additionally, the significance of the Battle of the Bulge, was that it was essentially the final large-scale German counterattack. It happened because we won France. The reason we could break the German lines there was that we had additional resources and troops to bring to bear.

The significance of the Bombing of the Mosque is not the positive of having the Germans on the ropes attempting to prevent further victory. The significance is, things were so out of our control that we couldn’t protect the strategically important structures of our Allies, such that they would maintain the necessary detachment from our efforts to contain the Sunni Insurgency. It also benefited the radicals like al-Sadr among the Shia, giving them the excuse they needed to attack Sunni Enclaves within Baghdad and other Shia majority places.

In short, that’s where we started to journey towards the land of being well and truly screwed, because then our allies would make things more difficult for us. And they have. This reinforced the Sunni Insurgency. The Surge, being restricted mainly to Baghdad, has not succeeded in backing down the security threat. We don’t have the men to even clamp down on Baghdad. This, friends and neighbors, is the sickening irony of all this. You might claim we’re winning now, but the fact is, we’re still failing, and can do little but fail with the resources at hand, to bring order to Baghdad, quell the civil unrest, and bring a settlement between the factions in Iraq.

At the Battle of the Bulge, we were poised to win, if only we could break the German Counteroffensive. What are we poised to do here, without the resources necessary to our success? We’re prepared to claim that we’re not losing because we’re still there and we’re still fighting.

It would be nice to believe that our enemy was running scared, but the way these guys use ambush and Guerilla tactics indicates that they have already considered and discarded the approaches of direct confrontation, and instead are just playing dirty, in what amounts to a methodical, planned, and adaptable approach to fighting the most powerful military in the world.

These are not human-wave mass casualty attacks we’re seeing. This is people blowing these bombs remotely. This is people setting up turkey shoots and traps to blow away our soldiers in. This is people developing IEDs capable of piercing armor, instead of giving up.

These militias are doing more than posing for the cameras, mailing videos to al-Jazeera’s funniest home videos. Theirs is not a media centered campaign like Bush is. They are taking and holding ground, asserting de facto government control over their territories. They’ve materially hindered reconstruction projects, the distribution of oil, the reconstitution of the police and the Army. These are not random acts of dead-enders. They are calculated efforts to deny control and authority to us and our Iraqi allies.

The sad thing is that they have been a success, in no small part thanks to a superficial understanding of war on our part that confuses obstinacy with persistence towards victory.

The loss of will is due to the fact that this President, despite visible failures to push back the enemy, persists in conducting the war in a way that the American public no longer has faith in. If Bush had jettisoned the plan, and thought of something else, something to turn the tide, and catch the enemy off-guard, people might have seen fit to let the war continued unhindered.

However, no such reform ever took place. Not only that, Bush persisted in staying the course, even as things got nightmarishly bad, with thousands dying a month in Iraq, purged in sectarian violence.

There has been a failure of will on the part of the American people, but not because of what the Democrats have said or done. The failure has come because this President annihilated people’s confidence in his ability to wage war, and has made it clear that nobody will work things any differently while he’s around. Not only that, but after the American people tell him to start wrapping things up, he decides to put even more troops in.

Bush could not maintain support, and still can’t maintain support for this war. You will not get a big push on the side of will when most people, even a number of Republicans are counting down the days until the next Commander in Chief comes along.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2007 12:19 AM
Comment #217934

“It is lost the moment you lie yourself into it.”
Mary’dude: April 19

“For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them.”
Bill Clinton- 1999 State of the Union Speech

“Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation’s wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”
Bill Clinton- 1998 State of the Union Speech

You’re right Marysdude, Bush’s biggest mistake was believing the lies of the former Administration and his predecessor. He should have known better!

“It was certainly not the military that lost it, they gave it everything they had and then some. No, it was too little, too late, at every step of this war after the initial invasion…”
David Remer: April 20

“Had he declared victory after apprehending Hussein, and pulled our troops back from the civil war there, victory could right and justly been called ours.”
David Remer: April 20

OK, David, which is it? Bush didn’t send anough troops after the initial invasion? Or, we should have pulled out after the initial invasion? Sounds like some conflicting Presidential counsel to me!

“What the Sic Eagle seems to be saying in this nutsy article is that the cheerleaders are really the ones who are responsible for the team winning the game.”
Adrienne: April 20

No, Adrienne! What the Sicilian Eagle is saying is that when the home team fans take it upon themselves to belittle and ridicule the home team for the purpose of public humiliation after every play, the home team will give up and quit playing hard. There is no longer a desire to perform for such a bunch of ingrates. Usually, the home team simply packs up and moves to another city. So, if the home team fans can keep ridiculing and humiliating the home team long enough, (four years usually does the trick, except in the case of the Chicago Cubs), (Sorry Chicago), maybe they’ll pick up, call it a loss, and move away.

Oh, that was the purpose all along, wasn’t it Adrienne! Let’s just say “perhaps mission accomplished” by the home team fans- “the Democrats”.


Posted by: JD at April 21, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #217935

Remember the USSR in Afghanistan? They faced no critical opposition at home, and no media reporting negative stories. Remember how that ended? The USSR “stayed the course” until their military was utterly demoralized, and their nation bankrupt.

Posted by: phx8 at April 21, 2007 1:18 AM
Comment #217937

Doesn’t wash. Bush had a fresh opportunity to review the evidence, to go out there and search for it, to seek definitive answers, and decide not to act if they weren’t there to support the plan. Clinton didn’t decide on a pre-emptive war, much less do so on evidence that should have been left in the garbage can where they found it.

As for humiliation? The fact is, this argument is basically a superficial approach to the war. The reality of the war is making our soldiers look weak to the world, and Reid’s comment had nothing to do with that. It’s time for Bush to stop hiding behind his employees on military policy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2007 1:40 AM
Comment #217940

Would some one tell me just how we could win this war? Outside of bombing the H@ll out of them (and I mean nuclear, as well)and completely clearing out the country of all its people and just leaving land, exactly what else is there we can we do?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 21, 2007 2:01 AM
Comment #217944

From the Washington Post’s polling.

18. All told, do you think the United States is winning or losing the war in Iraq?

Winning Losing Tie No opinion
4/15/07 32 53 12 2

19. All told, do you think the United States will win or lose the war in Iraq?

Win Lose Tie No opinion
4/15/07 35 51 11 3

Posted by: Max at April 21, 2007 3:19 AM
Comment #217949


“Everyone on your side wears sneakers, and we need an ass kicker.”

It’s easier to walk in sneakers than “jack” boots.

The time to kick ass was 4 years ago. With security comes allies.
For the last 50 years the Iraqis have lived with a boot on their neck. We removed the boot but didn’t replace it with security.
Why would we expect them to fight for us? For Democracy?
They don’t know what Democracy is. The only example of Democracy most Iraqis know is the “play” elections that were put on for show by Saddam.
Merely having elections doesn’t make Iraq a Democracy. If elections were all it took Iraq already was a Democracy before we invaded.
No, people standing up for their rights, and taking control of their own country, and their own destiny is what makes a Democracy.

Do you see the Iraqis taking control in their own country?


Staying the course doesn’t win wars, adapting and changing strategies according to circumstances does.
It is those that blindly follow a losing strategy like “stay the course” that will be the cause of a loss in Iraq, not the troops that have worked their asses off for a failed strategy, and certainly not those that asked for change.

Are the Iraqis better off now than they were in 2004?

Posted by: Rocky at April 21, 2007 7:31 AM
Comment #217962

So exactly how many troops do we have to lose for you to be satisfied? Is it still around 50,000 like Vietnam?Reid is correct although a smarter political strategy would be to declare victory and get out. Saddam is dead ,we made sure there were not WMDs, etc.
Your comparison with ww2 is just silly. England was under attack. Iraq did not attack the US,ever.
Have you or any of your relatives fought in Iraq?Is Siclianchickenhawk more fitting? When do the Bush twins enlist?

Posted by: BillS at April 21, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #217963

Linda H. Good question I have been asking this same question for some time now to no avail. The best I can figue Bush and the neocons still need to get contol of Iraq’s oil into the hands of their oil buddies and comletely bankrupt our Country, then once again W can say “Mission Accomplished”.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 21, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #217974

“Pakastan is what worries me. That country is one assassination away from being a radicial Islamic state”


True! That’s a perfect example of how we might find ourselves in need of deploying tens (or hundreds) of thousands of troops almost overnight to more tightly secure the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Where would we get those troops?

If we must stay in Iraq then the only responsible thing to do is reinstate the draft.

Chuck Hagel has an interesting article in the Washington Post:


“We must start by understanding what’s really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a “self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis” and also includes “extensive Shia-on-Shia violence.” This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias — not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration’s rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.”

“American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq’s anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.”

Posted by: KansasDem at April 21, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #217983

Gee, here’s more good news:

Iraq surge may be extended

Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #217996

womanmarine…. I don’t know how much longer we can rely on “good news” like this to carry us.. I’ts looking like there are greater efforts to keep things concealed until it’s too late to do anything about it. Bless this administration for honesty and righteousness…

The Marines added about 4,000 to their contingent in western Anbar province, the focal point of the Sunni Arab insurgency. In March the Marines made a little-noticed move that gives them the flexibility to continue at the higher rate in Iraq at least into 2008. They extended the tours of Marines in Okinawa, Japan, which freed up other Marine units in the United States to deploy to Iraq later this year instead of Okinawa.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #217999

Oh, it just keeps getting better:

“TAL AFAR, Iraq, April 20 (Reuters) - Authorities in the volatile Iraqi town of Tal Afar have imposed an indefinite curfew after militants distributed leaflets threatening to carry out chemical attacks, local officials said on Friday.

Dozens of families have fled the religiously mixed town in northwestern Iraq in recent days after militants urged Sunni Muslim residents to leave the area.

Suspected Sunni al Qaeda militants killed 152 people with a truck bomb in Tal Afar last month — the deadliest single insurgent attack in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

That attack sparked reprisal killings by Shi’ite gunmen and Iraqi police in a Sunni district that left 47 dead.”

Posted by: phx8 at April 21, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #218006

Stephen D-
For a “smart person” you sure find it easy to miss the obvious. My point was not about WWII but about Reid. If Reid HAD been in congress the day after the Japanese raided Pearl Harbor he would have declared defeat and begged the U.S. to give up. YET we didn’t give up and we won a mighty victory! The point is about REID.

Here we are with over 80% victory and he declares defeat (har har). I’d like to play poker against that dude! I sure could use that kind of “walking around money”!

Posted by: Don at April 21, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #218009
Here we are with over 80% victory


Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #218013


I have said many times (I understand that General Petraeus says so too) that we will know by fall whether or not the surge is working. Harry Reid just knows more than Petraeus, since he already knows. His comments may contribute to the result he predicts.

Maybe Reid can actually show up and ask Gen Petraeus before he talks about such things again.

Reid is just a little to eager to proclaim that America is the loser. You would think he would give his own country the benefit of the doubt.


I do not believe Osama can accomplish his goals. If you believe he has a chance of establishing his caliphate, you should probably behave more subserviently to your future Muslim overlords currently occupying the Paris suburbs. BTW - Is there a significant Muslim population in Tours or Poitiers?

Posted by: Jack at April 21, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #218017


“Reid is just a little to eager to proclaim that America is the loser. You would think he would give his own country the benefit of the doubt.”

So, after four years of steadly escalating violence, total inability to effect any positive impact on rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, the constant announcements of “insurgency in it’s last throes”, the billions and billions of reconstruction dollars disappearing down a corrupt rathole, the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and the four million displaced, not to mention the 25,000 plus American casualties, Reid et.al. are being “just a little hasty?”

Please, your myopic facetiousness is showing again, Jack.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 21, 2007 6:03 PM
Comment #218018
Here we are with over 80% victory and he declares defeat (har har).
Don, I’m really glad that you added that har har to your comment…….that way we all know the 80% victory comment is a really huge joke !!!!! I’m not going to rain on Stephen’s parade, because he can communicate far better than I can…..but you’re talking about one day after Pearl Harbor, and FOUR YEARS after Baghdad. We have gone from conquering (?) to barely surviving in this fiasco. Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 6:03 PM
Comment #218019

Blindness, denial, and misplaced loyalties are not patriotic virtues. In fact, they cause great harm. Failure to see the situation in Iraq for what is is has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, with uncounted wounded, unmeasureable suffering, and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.

But this partisan blindness of conservatives and Repubicans has been the hallmark of the Iraq misadventure.

Posted by: phx8 at April 21, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #218029

“America will stand down when they Iraqi’s stand up” is no longer our offical policy in Iraq. It’s just one more bloody lie they’ve shamelessly thrown out as a catchphrase.

Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. “We are just adding another leg to our mission,” Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly.

Our soldiers will never be removed from Iraq at all unless this adminstration is IMPEACHED, or until sometime following the next election — but only if a Democrat, or Senator Hagel, can manage to win. I wonder how many more people — American AND Iraqi — will needlessly die by then?

PS. I got some very sad news yesterday about a death in my own family, so you won’t see me posting here for little awhile. I had read this piece yesterday morning, and just wanted to make sure I passed it along to some of you before I go to be with my folks. It’s just the kind of article that should get an enormous amount of attention, but likely won’t. Rather than let it fall completely through the cracks with little or no notice, I thought at least a few of you should be made to wrap your minds around what exactly you are continuing to support with this administration and their “surge.”

Until the next time we meet,

Posted by: Adrienne at April 21, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #218030

Sorry to hear it. Best wishes, and come back soon.

Posted by: phx8 at April 21, 2007 7:31 PM
Comment #218031


i’m very sorry to hear that. god bless. i’ll say a prayer for your family.

Posted by: dbs at April 21, 2007 7:38 PM
Comment #218032

Condolences Adrienne…….we’ll save you a place.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 21, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #218039


Distressing news—my condolences and best wishes for the family’s emotional healing.

You will be missed.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 21, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #218040

I didn’t miss the obvious.

Hidden in your argument are some assumptions.
The obvious one is that Reid would behave exactly in 1941 as he would now. Behind that assumption is the assumption that Reid would act like a coward in the face of the enemy. And of course that assumption is backed by the notion that it is cowardice and not something else like disillusionment with Bush’s policy or (God help us) knowledge of the facts that motivates this.

Behind that is a comparison of the Iraq War to WWII. The Moral necessity, the clear cause, the need to defend America, the difficulty, and ultimately the winnability of the war become borrowed from that older battle to be applied to this one.

But on what cause? The assumptions about Reids behavior are simply taken for granted. This, you tell us, is Reid’s true character, and you discern this from the fact he opposes the surge and thinks the war is lost. It’s a circular argument. To believe that Reid’s actions are cowardly, you must believe what a typical Bush supporter does about the war, in terms of its necessity, winnability, and moral purity.

And why believe Iraq is winnable? We’re not even seriously expecting the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down. We’re extending the surge. Why do that if it’s working? Where’s the Iraqi government making the agreements? Is Bush holding these people to their word?

You talk of 80% victory. Meaning 80% of the territory isn’t mired in violence. Yet that 20% keeps us from leaving. Why? Why not let the 80% that is on our side deal with the rest? Could it be that the trouble spots have more population, and also, a politically important minority, that so far has refused to cooperate?

That last twenty percent is of greater strategic importance. So it becomes a hundred percent of the war, and unwon, makes that war a failure.

The center of gravity here are the Sunnis. The Sunnis hate us, and the more we try to tamp them down, the more that aggravates their resistance. We can only make our problem worse by using full military force, at this point.

They are the reason that even Bush’s people say we cannot win this war militarily. They have to agree to lay down their arms. They will not do that. They have no reason to do it, and worse for us, they know they can wreck all our plans simply by continuing the insurgency.

Because of the way Bush has fought this war, he has made it impossible for us to prevent the Sunnis from acting accordingly. We can’t stay forever, and shouldn’t.

But Bush would have us wait on these unwilling participants, to wait until they calm down to leave. That way, he can claim victory. Unfortunately, that’s what the Sunnis will never allow, and we don’t have the manpower or the clout with them to make the crucial difference

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #218041

We will be awaiting your return.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #218046


Condolences to you and your family! Will await your return.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #218047


My friendly intelligent and articulate adversary….the Eagle will remember you in his prayers…

Stephen Daughtery

I hope others have enjoyed reading your powerful posts as much as I. I have said it once and I will say it again…you are a profoundly gifted and talented thinker.

Of course, so am I…so until the next time my friend :)


Thank you all for a very powerful and thought provoking thread. Someone should print the entire thing,as it lays out for all to see key arguements on both sides.

Terrific job!

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 21, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #218056


Myopic would imply I do not see the what you are saying is true, while facetious would imply that I do indeed see it but am pretending otherwise. I do not think it is possible to be both at the same time.

I just do not share Reid’s losing opinion. Even if I did, if I was in his position I would not say so publicly until our troops were safely home.

Reid is so absolutely certain that America has lost. Anybody who reads history knows that such certainty is never justified. Leaders act with certainty only when they are trying to affect the results and inspire their followers. What is Reid trying to inspire?

Posted by: Jack at April 22, 2007 7:39 AM
Comment #218060

There’s a logical gap in your formulation.

If you believe the war is lost, then it follows that further military action will not do any good. If you think the war is lost, what are you protecting by keeping this thought to yourself? You’re failing to protect the soldiers from what you see as a losing war. You’re also failing to protect the citizens of this country from the consequences of the failed war, the failed policy.

The only persons you are really protecting are the policy makers. That is, of course, why such a talking point is passed around. Rejecting the war, but keeping your mouth shut is the worst of both worlds, taking the easy way out of one’s duty as a citizen.

Reid has the guts to stand up and say what he truly thinks, what many Americans have no difficulties expressing. Why should a leader have less courage than those he represents? Why should the Democratic Senate Majority Leader not speak the words his people overwhelmingly believe?

Why shouldn’t he, as a matter of fact, say what most Americans believe? Why should the majority of Americans be silent in a Democracy about what they believe about this war?

Again, the only answer to this question is deference to the policymakers who got us into this mess. So, Jack, please tell me why so many who do not believe as you or they do should defer to these people, and remain silent in a Democracy where it is the will of the majority that is meant to prevail?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 22, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #218077

Reid is not an ordinary citizen. He is in a postion of power and should put his deeds where his words are. If Reid has the guts, let him try to cut the funding and stand up for what he believes. Those with other opinions will do otherwise and we can see what happens. That is how democracy works.

Reid is a powerful man. Let him act like one and not just talk like a college kid.

Posted by: Jack at April 22, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #218083

Why do you assume that the average Democrat, the average opponent of this war wants that drastic action taken? That’s not the consensus position. The consensus position is gradual withdrawal. Bush just doesn’t want any position that isn’t “stay the course” in one form or another.

The Surge isn’t working. Violence is elevating in other provinces, and not stopping in Baghdad. The parties are nowhere near agreement, Sadr has walked out of talks. I could be happier if I said this whole thing was working and would work, but I’d also be deluding myself, given the news coming out of Iraq.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 22, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #218091

“Myopic would imply I do not see the what you are saying is true, while facetious would imply that I do indeed see it but am pretending otherwise. I do not think it is possible to be both at the same time. “

Obviously, you have not read 1984 in a while—and the power of double think; in other words, to fervantly believe in something that has no support in reality, and by that lack of support, believe it all the more fervantly, despite obvious contradictions staring you in the face.

This only seems to be a contradiction—you are myopic in denying the reality on the ground in Iraq, and simultaneously facetious in thinking we believe you are that stupid.

But perhaps I’m giving you too much credit for not being that stupid.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 22, 2007 7:01 PM
Comment #218092

The underlying premise to all red-column arguments regarding this ongoing Iraqi debacle is that all criticism of this catastrophe is partisan in nature. Which also ignores the fact that most Dems in Congress voted for this nonsense, fearing they would be beaten to a bloody pulp by the Right Wing shriek machine.

If a Democrat had perpetuated this criminal enterprise, I would be saying the same things. And I’m one of the few on the Left that have condemned the Democratic Party on many occasions at this blog for enabling this criminal fiasco.

For once, just for once, I would like to see a fervant, deliberate, no-holds-barred pursuit and prosecution in international court of the people who perpetuated this criminal war. Wherever they go, whatever they do when they get out of office, they will spend the rest of their lives looking over their collective shoulders.

It would be fitting retribution for the carnage they have inflicted.

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 22, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #218102

The BIG problem with a withdrawel is it would mean the real reason we went in would not be fulfilled,control of oil. It follows that timetables,exit strategies or anything else that threatens that goal must be deafeated by this administration no matter how many lives it cost. Its just working class kids getting killed anyway. The Iraqis? They’re Arabs so who really gives a sh..Besides the middle-class is picking up the tab. They did not really expect to recieve the SS pensions they have been paying for for twenty years now did they?

Posted by: BillS at April 22, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #218113

The trouble with your attitude is that you want Reid to assume that the same thing that you think is best for the country is best for the country. You’re applying your norms to his behavior and judging accordingly.

If he, as a Senator, believes that the war is lost, He’s got no business sugarcoating that for constituents or soldiers. Fact is, there are a large number of soldiers who believe the same thing as him. Should we punish you Republicans for saying things that would hurt their feelings, that they would find offensive?

Playing mindgames like that, will never win you a war, especially if the policy doesn’t line up behind the attainment of the goals. Morale is one element among many in attaining victory in battle, and the things that are actually going on feed back into it. I think the feedback in that direction is much stronger than vice versa.

Or, put another way, it’s a great deal easier to increase morale by winning battles than it is to increase victories battles by morale alone.

Unfortunately, it’s so often the first and the last problem that the Republicans are looking to solve, getting in the way of attention to everything else. I know I’ve raised all kinds of practical issues about how the war is being waged, and yet every time, at least some part of the argument has been about appearances or about not quitting a certain approach, or not signalling the enemy that we’re having trouble.

The Bush administration has a bad habit, though, of underestimating what people can figure out for themselves, and what secrets really aren’t secrets. The insurgents know much better than we do what’s going on. They know what’s succeeding, and what’s failing, and they have us either perpetually on the defensive, or playing whack-a-mole on the offense. We’re getting so desperate, we’re trying to build walls around Sunni Neighborhoods. Additionally, you have the Arab news channels covering it, and doing so in even more gruesome detail that our media is, with them not even under our control

When it’s convenient, the Republican argument about troops is how strong and devoted to the cause the soldiers are, and how close they are to success. But on other occasions, the poor little dears are sensitive to any pessimistic or critical thing we say, and by the tone of Republican responses, will give up and sulk like Achilles if we don’t unquestioningly support them.

I think they’re ordinary human beings who often have little time to sit in front of the tube and watch the news. Those that do, who spend hours out of the day getting shot at, blown up and otherwise assaulted, are not likely to be so uncommitted or so sensitive that the negative tone of the news is going to send them crying back to their room like a spoiled teenager.

The sad part is that this is what many of them coming back will be told, and we’ll start this whole culture of victimhood all over again, once again doing what this country never should have done: politicize the military.

This was not a war that was lost because somebody fouled up the marketing. It was badly planned, and badly mismanaged, by people whose first priority was not getting results, but looking like they were getting results

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 23, 2007 12:37 AM
Comment #218127


keeping them [Turkey] out of the EU was one of the reasons that the French and Dutch voted the new EU constitution down a couple years ago.

That’s not why I voted against the EU constitution. I’m for Turkey joining the EU, but as many europeans I also think we needs first to consolidate EU construction first. And the proposed constitution, more about economic union than anything else, was not the text we did expect to ease such construction.

Whatever. SE, Lawnboy is right. Turkey is not an EU member. And recently behave like she didn’t join anymore.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 23, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #218128

Philippe Houdoin,

I didn’t mean to imply that was the only reason that people voted against the Constitution. Heck, I’d have trouble getting myself to vote for that 2000-page (or whatever) document.

Hope there’s no confusion.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 23, 2007 8:51 AM
Comment #218130


I do not believe Osama can accomplish his goals.

Me neither.

But the point is if, as you said, neither Reid neither anybody could know if this war is unwinnable, then the reverse is equally true: neither him or anybody else (you included) could know if this war is winnable.

Which is the same as saying “neither you or anybody else could know if OBL war against us is unwinnable.”
Uncertainty is uncertainty, whatever the side from which you look at it.

BTW - Is there a significant Muslim population in Tours or Poitiers?

I dunno. Less than around Paris, Marseille and Lyon, I’ll guess. But there is no proof that in an hypothetical muslim tsunami over europe will be any particular in these two cities just because in the past they were…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 23, 2007 8:57 AM
Comment #218131

It’s like saying the current religious right bigotry in US would explode at Salem.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 23, 2007 9:00 AM
Comment #218133

Would anyone who thinks that this war is “winnable” kindly explain what a “win” would entail…how you would define a “win” and what would it take to get to that “win”????

Then please evaluate whether the money and lives necessary to get to the “win” are really worth it…

Posted by: Rachel at April 23, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #218148

By Bush’s definition victory is a peaceful ally in the war on terror. The problem is the Iraqi people don’t seem to want a peaceful Iraq. They seem more interested in a divided Iraq or one where one sect or another dominates the others. Or maybe it’s an Arab versus Persian feud. But whatever it is, it’s not a peaceful ally and shows no signs of becoming one.

It’s hard to image our brave troops not being frustrated by the situation. They more than anybody must see how hard it is to get people to believe in a democratic Iraqi when more and more Iraqis are polarized by the death squads and bombings. Fighting that our troops are trying to stop. The enemy is warfare among the Iraqi people and warfare certainly seems to be winning.

The problem is not so much that there is an enemy to defeat as getting people to believe in democracy. It would appear they just don’t believe it will work for them. No amount of force will change their minds. Just as no attack on us will convince us that democracy is not the way to go.

So, I don’t see how chaos can be emboldened, I don’t see how our troops can be more demoralized than by continuing violence.

Posted by: JohnBoy at April 23, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #218153

Bush is NUTS!

Posted by: chuck at April 23, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #218157

We don’t like the truth of the messenger. So, let’s kill the messenger. That Senator Reid stated simply what most military & foreign relations authorities (including the Baker-Hamilton commission) have been saying for some time, let’s organize a lynch mob. God forbid that the idiocy of GWB be revealed for all to see.

Hint: the American people already know he is a dangerous idiot. His 33% approval rating is comprised of church nuts and neo-cons. Fortunately, the majority of Americans are not so stupid.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 23, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #218158

Interesting. The Iraqis have asked us to quit building the walls.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 23, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #218176

Every war is winnable at any point, this has been proven in history time and time again.

Mind you poor, starving, oppressed Ireland over powered the mighty British empire in the great rebellion of 1922 when Britain was at the highth of its power and Ireland is now a free country to this day.

I think the probalem with this war is that no one, on either side, has stated an actual goal for having ‘won’ the war.

If the a ‘win’ is no defined how can we work towards such a thing.

The first step in any goal is to define the goal.

If Iraqi freedom is the goal, the we have already won, Suddam is dead, so is his blood line, the Hussein regime can not rise again.

If Iraq stability is the goal, we are half way there, granted it is the easier half completed, but half no less.

If transforming Iraq into a first world industrialised country is the goal, then the war is ‘unwinnable’.

So before any one can say wether or not the war is winnable, first the must say what winning is.

We ‘won’ WWII, because before we even started the goal was stated to take out the ruling powers of the axis, with the only exception being total surrender, which Japan did, hence they still only have a subsitary defensive military to this day.

No goal, no win.

Even Sun Tzu knew this nearly four millenia ago.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 23, 2007 4:50 PM
Comment #218181
Every war is winnable at any point, this has been proven in history time and time again.

I disagree. For example, I’m curious at what point you would say that Khalid bin Bargash could have won the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 23, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #218183


We have the superior firepower yet can’t use it because of the concept of “collateral damage”.

We are fighting a foe with nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

The question isn’t whether we can win, but whether we are willing to do more than not lose.

Posted by: Rocky at April 23, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #218190


I was not attempting any “have you served” arguement in my post. I was simply stating that if SE believes so strongly in his rhetoric (and I doubt that he does) then it should not be too hard for him take action in support of what he advocates. Of course, SE (like everyone else touting this BS about “winning” in Iraq) would never put their lives in jeopardy to support this cause in which they claim to believe and for which they pledge unwavering lip service to the moronic GWB.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 23, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #218195

“The question isn’t whether we can win, but whether we are willing to do more than not lose.”

No, Rocky, in the case of the Democrats the question isn’t whether or not we can win, but whether or not we are willing to do more than lose.


Posted by: JD at April 23, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #218205

The real question is whether we can throw this enemy from it’s center of gravity. The insurgency has popular support. This government, among the people who decide whether it succeeds or not- the Sunnis- does not.

Our military cannot force public support for the government, nor remove it from our enemies. If we could just blast away and destroy the enemy in total war, we could win this, but unfortunately, that’s not the war we’re fighting.

Attrition is not an option. They will replensish the numbers lost, and they are not in the habit of making themselves easy targets for our superior firepower. Only if we could cut off what was bringing new recruits in, could attrition be part of the solution. One big trouble is, our presence itself brings about new recruits, and we’re not well liked enough by anybody that we can stop that.

We’ve asked Maliki to rein in al-Sadr, and many people in Bush’s government talk about isolating him, but the truth is that we don’t have the clout with folks to isolate. Isolation takes control. Moreover, Maliki is dependent on Sadr’s good graces, due to the structure of his government.

We can’t hang around forever. We’ve already got units operating with deficient numbers, broken equipment, and little or no training for what they’re about to face. This is all so Bush can keep soldiers in Iraq without having to admit he needs much more.

I don’t like that things have gone this way. I bitterly opposed the policies that lead to this. I demanded that Bush take care of the manpower problem, that he bring all those soldier in before it was too late. Since I believed that the Iraq war was a mistake that we had to fight our ways back out of, I insisted on us doing what was necessary to win, and making the sacrifices in taxes and in materials to get it done. Bush, instead, insisted on staying the course. It’s not merely alternatives of Withdrawal and Peace that Bush has rejected and neglected, it’s alternatives of different, strategically wiser approaches that he has not taken.

Bush doesn’t want this war to end, because ending without success would be an admission of weakness. Unfortunately, you can’t resolve the mistakes and weaknesses you refuse to admit you have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 23, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #218227


“No, Rocky, in the case of the Democrats the question isn’t whether or not we can win, but whether or not we are willing to do more than lose.”

Can we do better than talking points?

All it would take to turn this around is security. You’d think that the world’s supreme super power, the country that defeated Iraq’s army, not once but twice, could secure a country the size of California.
We can’t even call the “Green Zone” secure any more.

No, this administration hasn’t done what it takes to win this.
This administration has only done what it takes not to lose.
We started this gambit on the cheap. If there were indeed WMDs we didn’t have enough of a force to secure them even if they were found.
We now don’t have enough equipment for our reserves here in America to train with, and that isn’t because of the Democrats.

No, the guys you believe in are hosing America’s soldiers. They never gave our brave young men and women a fighting chance to complete the job. Your guys never asked for the support and help of the American people.
Just like George W. at Yale, we have been asked to be merely cheerleaders, and our team is now paying the price for the mistakes at the top.

And you can’t blame that on the Democrats.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #218232


If there were indeed WMDs we didn’t have enough of a force to secure them even if they were found.

Thanks God, Bush knew there was WMDs.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 24, 2007 4:20 AM
Comment #218264


Well, for starters I would not have made a palace my base of operations, nor would I have fought a battle on the water with the Britains with an ‘armored yacht’.

I think the more strategic option for figthting a battle where you outnumber your enemies ground forces would have been a more gurilla tactic.

I would have split my forces into small tactical units spread out in small fox holes in the country side and took hti and run tactics on the British flanks.

It would then become a war on patience. The damage the British would have recieved would have out wieghed the value of the win.

A similar thing happened with Romans in Ireland, hence they didn’t stay long despite having won each battle, the cost did not justify the gain.

You should check out Sun Tzu’s Art of War, if haven’t already, it is pretty interesting what kind of tactics are represented for all scenarios.

Even better yet is Zhuge Liang’s Mastering the Art of War.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at April 24, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #218270
Of course, SE (like everyone else touting this BS about “winning” in Iraq) would never put their lives in jeopardy to support this cause in which they claim to believe and for which they pledge unwavering lip service to the moronic GWB.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at April 23, 2007 08:34 PM

Would you?! Would you or the ones “touting BS about losing or lost in Iraq” ever enlist or fight for the cause?! If not Iraq, how about Afghanistan?!! Did you believe that was the place to go?! Do you believe that’s where we should be (exclusively)?! Or, is it Pakistan?!! Regardless, the question still stands, would you go fight or (even) enlist when we are at war with a country you “think” is acceptable or not; with a President that you think is acceptable as Commander in Chief?!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 24, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #218273

It is clear, both in the military and in the public that the fight in Afghanistan enjoys bipartisan support. Yet, in this battle which Republicans have touted as the defining, central front in the existentially important fight against terrorism, we see no strong movement towards volunteering. Comparisons to WWII abound, but even among the President’s own party, people are not volunteering.

This is war that has long been justified in terms of abstract slogans and priniciples, but has not been well supported in terms of logistics, manpower, and attention to the critical needs of the mission. The Republican’s unwillingness to respond in droves in any organized fashion indicates the Republican’s true measure of his policy and his war.

It’s great to talk abstractly about helping the troops, but where are the Republicans like you saying “I know the Democrats are making a big deal out of it for political reasons, but this is a serious issue, so why aren’t we taken care of it?”

It seems so often, that when we raise significant, objectively troublesome concerns, the Republican’s response has been to draw attention to the possibility of political biases at worse, and then to give the matter no more consideration, no more attention.

Bush talks about what the Generals have told him they wanted, as the war has become worse and worse, and this obvious question comes to mind: If Bush is doing things on the advice of the Generals, and things are getting noticeably worse, why is he taking that advice seriously? Secondly, if he is actually getting advice, are things they know he does not like to hear affecting thing? And Third, of course, has Bush ever really cared what the military actually wanted, or has he relied mostly on a few highly placed officials for his view of military affairs?

Much has been made of what the commanders on the ground want, but I hear stories time and again about generals and other individuals approaching officials and members of the press and contradicting that sense of things, begging for translators, more troops. We have a State Department report in 2004, by Philip Zelikow saying that Iraq was a failed state. Three years ago.

I think the President and the Republicans are insulated from the reality of the war, and that’s how they want it. They want the military to be professional, because a professional army is self-contained, has lower numbers, and guarantees lower casualties. They want to fight wars where the bulk of the commitment are only a year or two, and don’t want to acknowledge that things could or should be any other way.

To go all the way, Bush has to acknowledge, at least implicitly by his actions a number of politically damaging realities. He must acknowledge that troop levels for the last four years have been insufficient to the task. He must acknowledge that a professional volunteer army is insufficient to the task. He must acknowledge that the situation in Iraq is serious enough that a Vietnam scale counterinsurgency is necessary. Bush’s stubbornness before requires greater stubbornness now to justify. That stubbornness limits his response, both to escalating the war, and withdrawing from it.

Bush definitely wants to win, but he’s never set any real priority on what he wants to win, the political battle or the one in Iraq.

If he were willing to go all out, the question would be simply answered. He doesn’t. If he were willing to take what is obviously the politically favorable way out, with most Americans, again, his priority would be simply expressed.

But because he has politicized this war, and his own policy, he is not allowing himself to unpoliticize it, and so he presents himself with the Surge, a weak escalation that gets him nowhere near what he actually needs to win, and at the same time puts a thumb in the eye of the majority of Americans, who wanted Bush to beginning shipping our soldiers out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #218352


When are you going to get it?

you said:

Simply: THAT entire crew has to eliminated. End of sentence.”

…do you really believe that will accomplish anything? By “eliminate” I can only assume you mean, KILL.

But we live a complex world. People are connected all over the place. We all have friends and family, even the people who we don’t agree with. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT KILL EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH!!!

…and even if you TRY, you will only accomplish the creation of an exponentially larger number of enemies; not only the friends and family of those you try to exterminate, but also all those who see and hate such a horrible tactic from near or afar.

What you are proposing is nothing short of genocide and chaos.

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #218416

As a solider serving in Iraq the Senators comments are nothing less than the ramblings of a idot and fool. we have not lost and won’t if politicians stay out of it . The best way to win is to take the gloves off and go to it period.

Posted by: Sgt Steven Boucher at April 25, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #218422


Isn’t this where some of our more unctious Right wingers ‘thank’ Sgt. Boucher for his ‘service’?

Posted by: Tim Crow at April 25, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #218427

We deserve to lose. We did something horrible. Those that can’t see that the war is already lost can’t see the horrible thing we have done. We caused a war. There are thousands dead. Thats the result of war. Do something horrible and suffer the consequences.

Posted by: sassyatheist at April 25, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #218463

Sgt. Steven Boucher-
This is Marine General John Shaheen’s reasons for not taking control of the situation

To be frank with you, I think the biggest problem with the Bush Administration is that they never wanted to take the gloves off. They put the gloves on the army on purpose. They intentionally kept your numbers low, and put you in a position where you and you alone were put in charge of all kinds of things that previously were handled by other parts of the government with more training and experience.

If you want to know who’s tied your hands on Iraq, look up the chain of command.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 8:50 PM
Comment #218518

Even if we nuked the Middle East into dust, we still would not win the war. Sticks and stones cannot break an idealogy. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Posted by: chuck at April 26, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #218528

The reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because Clinton and the other idiot libereals did not respond to the attacks by Al Queda earlier.

Also, the reputation of the Democrats for folding in Viet Nam after the 1968 Tet, when the Norht Vietnames had been defeated, sent the signal to enemies that the US was weak kneed and vulnerable because then liberals had turn the country into a bunch of cowards. It is not my words but those of the North Vietnames military. Of course, I do not expect the whiners above to be educated enough to learn from history.

When the next attack in the US comes, liberals and Democrats will have a lot for which to answer.

Posted by: The Owl at April 26, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #218546

Uh…’Owl’ (?)

That is a completely prepsoterous and false comment you have made.

Our pull-out from Viet Nam came on the watch of a republican commander in chief.

Ho Chi Minh was famous for saying that “If we kill one American for every ten of us, we will still win.”

So we never had a chance in hell. You cannot FORCE a form of government on a people who don’t want it. Not even if it is democracy.

Besides, RESPONDING to violence with violence is no indication of doing the right thing at all. Quite the contrary. So if Democrats are going to garner respect and supposrt in the world while republicans are only going to take an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth…I’ll vote DEMOCRAT.

Posted by: RGF at April 26, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #218547

Owl said: When the next attack in the US comes, liberals and Democrats will have a lot for which to answer.

But the fact that Bush has wasted 3200+ lives, a half a trillion dollars and 4+ years of time for some oil profited fiasco a half a world away will have had nothing to do with it?

A half a trillion could have paid for a lot of security….and a whole lot more.

Posted by: chuck at April 26, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #218579

Sgt. Steven Boucher,

Thank you, sir, for your service!

But, alas, the politicians have not stayed out of it. So, has all the talk of surrender and pullout by the Democrats in Congress emboldened the enemy against our troops? Has declaring the war lost caused a psychologically more aggressive Al Qaida.
You bet it has!
The last six months since Democrats took over the House and Senate, threatening to cut off funding and force the troops out, has been the second deadliest six month period inflicted upon our troops in the four year long war. Hmm, I wonder why?
Want to know when the deadliest six months occurred?
Just before the 2004 election.

It seems Al Qaida gets it. Unfortunately, the Democrats and much of America do not! Pretty impressive terrorist strategy, you must admit.


Posted by: JD at April 27, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #218585








Posted by: jm healy at April 27, 2007 7:59 AM
Comment #218610

This is bullshit.

All this talk of “surrender legislation” is a load of crap. This kind of thinking stems from the unbelievably 2 dimensional. thinking of those who foolishly believe we can BEAT, SHOOT, KILL or BOMB Iraq, or any other place into becoming a peaceful nation.

The world sees our tactics and our foolishness and we are developing enemies all over the globe because of it. This war fuels the anger that feeds the fire that grows in the hearts of those who reach a point of desparate and passionate anger which is capitalized on by the trainers and recruiters of terrorists who wish to do us harm. The anti-American hatred is GROWING as a result of this war, NOT DIMINISHING!!!!

This rather simple reality seems lost on Bush and all those who still support this war. Pulling out is ABSOLUTELY necessary to our safety and very survival as a nation. Remaining, in the forlorn hope of BEATING and KILLING a nation into democracy, is a wasteful and wanton disregard for life…as well as an IMPOSSIBLE task on its very face.

It’s like saying that we can more easily teach kids to swim if we put rocks in their pockets, the more the better.

Posted by: RGF at April 27, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #218626


Funny that one should talk about all the anti-American hatred going on around the world now that the Sunni tribal leaders are cooperating with the new Iraqi government and has joined in the fight against Al Qaida in Anbar Province. Anbar province was, by the way, the main outpost of the insurgents, and had been deemed lost by the Democratic Press machine in their coverage of the war as of (surprise surprise) last September. Though Al Qaida has increased its attacks on our soldiers, obviously to fuel the Democratic pull out, they seem to have acquired a few more enemies in doing so.
Since the turning of tribes against Al Qaida in that region, there are reports that as many as fifty Al Qaida have been killed and another twenty-five captured recently because the tribal leaders claim to be able to “find where they hide”. Al Qaida has taken to attacking these Sunnis’ villages because of their support for the U.S. and Iraqi government. These same Sunnis are beginning to go back to work, school, etc. whereas last September, it was told they could not leave their houses to bury their dead. Perhaps, the Sunnis are beginning to understand what it is to be able to choose leaders instead of being forced at the barrel of an AK-47. Ahhhh, sweet Democracy; it wins over forced dictatorial submission every time if given the chance!


Posted by: JD at April 27, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #218632


“…killed…captured…joined the fight”

Nope. Truth and reality still elude you.

“Democratic Press machine”…who do you think you are foolin’ ???

Posted by: RGF at April 27, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #218652


So, Reuters news service is just a member of the vast right wing conspiracy out there against the Democrats since that is exactly what they are now reporting?


Posted by: JD at April 28, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #218666


Believe what you wish. Perhaps, you get your news from the major networks, who have refused to pick up on any of the new information that is coming out of Anbar province which includes the cities of Fallujah, and Ramadi, which were the most trying hot spots for our troops, primarily because the Sunni leaders were not cooperating.
Recently, a Marine Commander released a report that Anbear Province has “turned the corner”, and is seeing many improvements. Unfortunately, only a handful of news agencies have chosen to pick this up; Reuters, and Fox News being two of those. None of the major driveby networks have run these stories on new developments that I have seen, except to report on General Petraus’ comments that “improvements will take time”- time that the Democrats are not going to give him. One CBS report that did not “focus on improvements”, but rather the time it would take to finish the job in Iraq had a quote from one imam as he told a U.S. Colonel, “If you are leaving, I will not support you. If you stay, I will be neutral.”
Someone should play that one over and over again for the Democrats in Congress!!


Posted by: JD at April 28, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #218679


I am not questioning the truth of what you or Reuters are saying. I am questioning the wisdom of what is happening that you and reuters are talking about.


There IS NO WINNING with regard to Iraq or the war on terror. The more we chase are our tails, the worse off we, and the whole world are.

The foolish thing to believe is that we can somehow create peace, stability and hope through killing and destruction. We are earning only a lasting and dangerous hatred among those who watch our actions.

LOSING involves remaing in Iraq and earning more(and more dangerous) enemies than we already have.

Posted by: RGF at April 28, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #218695


I understand that you think we should not be there. However, the premise of your argument is that we should not be there because violence begets violence. In order to believe that, you must believe that the U.S. is initiating the violence. You seem to believe that the violence would stop if we were simply not present. That is the key misunderstanding of the left regarding the entire Iraqi situation and the misrepresentation of the U.S. military. We are defending the Iraqi people so that they will have a chance at democracy. The violence would stop if Al Qaida and other insurgents from Iran and Syria were not there. When we leave, Al Qaida will still be there and the violence will continue. Thus, the imams quote, “If you are leaving, I will not support you.” No doubt the Iraqi people are scared to death that we will desert them and leave them with nothing more than an empty shell of a nation. The Democrats compound that fear every time they demand a withdrawal from G.W. Bush making it even more difficult to get cooperation from the tribal leadership who know their decisions could mean the destruction of their villages if Americans leave. The destruction of villages represented by these tribal leaders is exactly what Al Qaida is trying to carry out right now in Anbar Province. The choice right now is for the imams and leaders of Iraq to either hope that Americans will stay long enough for a stable Iraq, or choose not to support the U.S. because Democrats and the President are not “both” committed to the cause of a stable Iraq. Therefore, their lack of support for the U.S. may save them the destruction of their villages by Al Qaida. The tribal leadership can not fend off Al Qaida attacks without the air and ground power of the U.S. fighting with them. They are not equipped to do so. How could we possibly blame them for not supporting us wholeheartedly under their present circumstances, when we do not wholeheartedly support them? That is why Democrats for the last four years have compounded the difficulty in Iraq by refusing to support and commit themselves to a free and independent democracy in Iraq. That is why many Republicans believe the Democrats have been aiding and abetting the enemy.


Posted by: JD at April 28, 2007 10:10 PM
Comment #218752


Don’t give me that “key misunderstanding of the left” Bullshit. It doesn’t wash.

Yes. whether we remain or not, there will still be violence in Iraq. That is STILL not the point. EVEN if we were not contributing to the despair and anger that breeds the animosity and hatred that creates terrorists who wish to do us harm, there would remain violence in Iraq. HOWEVER, Al-Qaida layed a trap which we walked into. There had not been so much sectarian violence in Iraq PRIOR to our invasion. True, Sadaam kept a lot of that in check through fear, but even after Sadaam, it took some rather extreme efforts by the likes of Al-Zaqawe to foment the civil war that is now taking place. The reason Al-Qaida wanted to create such a civil war was BECAUSE we were there. So our presence IS creating problems in Iraq.

Further, the longer we stay, even if we do nothng more than DEFEND OURSELVES while there, the more horror young Iraqi’s will see. They will naturally and humanly-predictably blame the invading force rightly or wrongly. The result of our being there is FAR less safe world…a far less stable Iraq and more enmies as well as more dangerous enemies for America.

Yes. Violence begets violence…
That is until somebody has the moral fortitude to NOT respond with violence.

…Ever heard of a fellow named Jesus?
…Ever heard the exortation, “Turn the other cheek?”

…I thought not.

Posted by: RGF at April 29, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #218772

Wrong once more RGF!
Our presence is not the root cause of the violence. The presence of terrorists and extremists who will not tolerate a democratic Iraq is the root cause of the violence. The Iraqis are not blaming the U.S. for violence in Iraq as I have said above. There are factions in Iraq that are turning to our side now, who were suspicious and uncooperative with us only nine months ago. This has caused further blood shed for them, not at the hands of Americans, but at the hands of the terrorists. Many are beginning to see who the enemy really is in Iraq, unlike the Democrats in Congress and many Americans on the left here at home!
Yes! Violence begets violence in some cases.
Fanatical violence by an evil extremist begets death to anyone that does not turn the other cheek.

Ever heard of a guy named Jesus?
Ever heard the phrase, “Resist the enemy, and he shall flee”?

Didn’t think so!


Posted by: JD at April 29, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #218809

The above post is the product of delusion and mis-understanding.

What is this “…in some cases” BS? you can’t realy think that can you?

You still miss the point. Regardless of whether we are right or wrong, we ARE VIOLENT! …and innocents still get caught in the middle and die.

That violence gets seen by the region and by the world at large. The result is that hatred and mis-trust of America grows in the world. The ranks of those who do harm to the US grows. OUR LEVEL OF SAFETY IN THGE WORLD DIMINISHES DRAMATICALLY WITH EVERY DAY WE ARE IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

Violence begets violence. Ultimately, it doesn’t even matter if the increase in violence is in any way attributable to US or to any faction. WE will still catch hell for it as long as we are there. The only to deny any culpability, is to get gone ASAP. Otherwise, we are floundering in the trap of those who wish to portray us as a corrupt and imperial power forcing our will on others.

We don’t have a choice, JD. What you see as positive, namely the recent actions in Iraq and the factionalizing of Iraq you mentioned in the post above, is more like swatting at a hornet that happens to be sitting a tree branch containing an entire nest of hornets that you are not seeing.


We can only further anger and convince our enemies to see us as an intoleralbe imperial power that needs to be cut down. WE ARE FUELING THE TERRORISM.

I disagree with you about who initiated what in Iraq. We have already proved the WMD’s were not there. The war itself was declared in a way that was illegal and perhaps even rises to the level of TREASON. While it is true that Sadaam was evil and was a tyrant exerting control of Iraq through fear and the exercise of secret police and torture…
It is also true that we are seen as no better by many in the muslim world. We have engaged in the same sorts of things. It is these facts accompanied by our continued presence that fuels the fire of world wide terrorism against us.

Saladin was a Shia.

The violence between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq now, is the result of horror and strife and bloodshed caried out by Al-Zarqawe and Al-Qaida who entered Iraq after our initial invasion for specific purpose of stirring up the animosities between the Sunni and Shia in order to prevent any stability from being possible, even at the point of US aimed guns. It worked.

We MUST leave. We very much are the source of horror and violence in Iraq, not the only source, but our presence fuels the fire. I never offered that were the root cause. We don’t have to be. We are gas on the fire. There is nothing good, peaceful, stable or lasting to be accomplished militarily in Iraq. We MUST leave.

Posted by: RGF at April 30, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #218821

NUTS! to those who fight a war without any clear goals or even knowing what winning means. What needs to be accomplished to win this war? Well, nobody really knows, and even when you think you know, they go and change it. I say that is NUTS!

Posted by: Dr. Gnostic at April 30, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #218823

I agree with you completely, Dr. Gnostic

The war itself was illegal and treasonous to begin with! The fact that it is pointless is icing and the whole SH*T cake!

Posted by: RGF at April 30, 2007 3:18 PM
Comment #218839

“Violence begets violence. Ultimately, it doesn’t even matter if the increase in violence is in any way attributable to US or to any faction.”

Hmm! Using that analogy, now we can understand why liberals blame us for 9/11!! It happened because we were there, right?


Posted by: JD at April 30, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #218842


THAT is 2 dimensional thinking!

The reason it doesn’t matter is because regardless of who is ultimate violent actor in any given scenario over there, as long as we are there, we are fueling the fire and we are going to get the blame.

Just BEING there amid that civil war means we are contributing to more anger, venom animosity and hatred which fuel the fire and fill the ranks of the terrorists who intend us harm.

YOU (and other bush apologists) not getting that simple fact is profoundly disturbing to me. I NEED to believe that the average voting American is capable of greater understanding and insight than that.

Posted by: RGF at April 30, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #218850


You completely missed the point.

Our location in this world, whether it be military, financial, or otherwise does not matter to the terrorist. They are out to destroy the U.S. whether at home or abroad, including anyone and everyone we touch and have good relations with. Do you think they are only targeting us in Iraq? You don’t read the papers much if that is the case. WE are not fueling anything. WE are the defenders of the Iraqi people. WE are the defenders of Israel. WE are the defenders of every other democracy in the world, and all of them are being targeted, too. Wake up, RGF! If we were not in Iraq, Al Qaida would be full force in Afghanistan. If we were not in Afghanistan, Al Qaida would be targeting the U.S. further and the rest of its allies. Look at all of our allies. Look at the terrorism that is happening all over the world, and has been happening throughout the last five decades.
Many said that Israel would never last in the Middle East when it was re-established in 1948. Much of what was said then about Israel is now being said about Iraq. Though the butchering of the Iraqi people by Saddam may not compare to the Holocaust, still the Iraqi people now have the chance to be free. Is it worth the fight to help the Iraqis attain to what the Israelis have attained in the last sixty years? If you believe not, then perhaps, we should disband the nation of Israel also. That is just what the terrorists want!! It would be no stretch at all to say that what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is paying the debt to the Muslim world the exact same treatments that we gave Israel in 1948. This could prove that we are indeed just as concerned about the Islamic world as we are about Israel in the Middle East. The Democratic agenda of abandoning the people of Iraq is a slap in the face to every peace-loving Islamic person that Americans claim to care about and defend. The Democratic agenda of abandoning Iraq has a root of hatred for even those in Islam that love peace. Was it not a Democratic President that helped the establishment of Israel in 1948? Just wait till you begin reading signs that say Democrats backed the Jews / abandoned the Iraqis! That should really go over well in the Islamic world, don’t you think? So much for Democratic leadership in the world and better relations with the Islamic countries! This is a real chance for Americans to prove that the ideals of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, etc. are nothing but bunk. It’s time for Americans to put up or shut up in their efforts to win the hearts of the people of Islam.


Posted by: JD at April 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #218867


“…still the Iraqi people now have the chance to be free. Is it worth the fight to help the Iraqis attain to what the Israelis have attained in the last sixty years?”

The Israelis were self determined, they started their own revolt against the Brits.
The Iraqis don’t appear to be quite so motivated.
Why didn’t the Iraqis stand up for themselves after the fall of Saddam?
Why, if what you’re saying is true, has it taken them so long to stand up to the insurgents?
And please don’t tell me fear. Anyone that truly wants freedom and Democracy, wants it bad enough to die fighting for it.
Voting and purple thumbs haven’t make Iraq a Democracy, self determination will.

We have done all of the heavy lifting so far, it’s far past time for the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own country.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2007 7:35 PM
Comment #218902


If al Qaida could take down the largest building in NYC, what do you think they could do to the small towns and villages of Iraq? Do you not remember the photos of our soldiers in Somalia being dragged around the streets. Have you not seen the vehicles equipped with 50 calibur guns? What kind of devastation could al Qaida do to a village without our protection with air and ground power? Most of the Iraqi peace forces have been police units. We are still training Iraqis for an Army. If we leave now, how are they going to defend themselves against Iran, as well? This is an undertaking of massive proportion. Bush expected it to be so. He was right when he said we would not take heavy casualties. We didn’t in the initial ground war, (approximately 200 troops)and we haven’t since, (approximately 3200 in four years of fighting for and re-building Iraq).
However, you are right, as well. We have done all the heavy lifting, with the help of our coalition forces who are also weary. Yet, the risk of dropping everything, saying we are done, and moving out, is just too great. When Bush says we must stay the course, he does not mean we need to do exactly what we have done in the past. His meaning is that we can not afford to “turn the page on Iraq”, to coin a phrase from Barak Obama. Yes, the cost is great now, but envision a free Iraq that supports the U.S. policies of democracy and freedom for its citizens. Then imagine being forced to give up on that vision. That is why Bush is steadfast, not because he is stupid, but because he has caught the vision of a free Iraq, a vision that Democrats need to try to catch. Americans are a generous people. It is time to mend fences with our Arab friends.


Posted by: JD at May 1, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #218905


“Yes, the cost is great now, but envision a free Iraq that supports the U.S. policies of democracy and freedom for its citizens.”

The Iraqis need to share the vision as well for it to happen.
Iraq was free the moment that Baghdad fell.
That was 4 years ago.

Where is our support from the Iraqis?

You can’t tell me that the Iraqis don’t know the difference between an Iraqi and anyone else of “Arab” descent in their country.
The fact that the Iraqis have allowed the “insurgents” to exist in Iraq this long without a fight or at very least turning them in is very telling as to who is on who’s side.

The Iraqis don’t seem to grasp that Iraq is their country.
Our presence in Iraq isn’t helping them to stand up for their own country.

“We are still training Iraqis for an Army.”

You guys on the right seem to enjoy the comparison of Iraq to WW2.
How many men were we able to train in mere months to go into battle for WW2?
How long have we been training an Iraqi army?
How many men loyal to Iraq are now trained?
We’re not training an air force or a tank corps.
The Iraqis, if they’re truly serious, should be lining up around the block to defend their own country.
Where are they?

The Republicans in Congress seem willing to blame the Democrats for the lack of preparedness, and the lack of equipment our forces now are suffering from.
The Democrats have been in power, gosh, 3.5 months.
What happened to that 3.5 years of blank check money?

The reason that the Arab world is looking strangely at America is that Mr. Bush’s vast vision has yielded half-vast results.
Our lack of preparation going in has placed us at the crossroads we now stand at.
We are now reaping the “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want” attitude we have sown, and it is the Iraqis that are taking it in the shorts.

The Democrats have given Mr Bush all of the money that he asked for, and while I don’t necessarily agree with their tactic, they are now asking for the results that should have been forthcoming 3 years ago.
Mr. Bush should screw the politics, sign the bill, and make damn sure we get the results that he had in his vision.

And if the results aren’t forthcoming we need to leave.

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2007 1:30 AM
Comment #218907


“If al Qaeda could take down the largest building in NYC, what do you think they could do to the small towns and villages of Iraq?”

The Twin Towers attack cost only 20 airline tickets, some rent, some flight training, and the time to plan and coordinate. The Airlines supplied the bombs.
Attacking your “small towns, and villages” would cost much more, both in money and in PR.
You and I may have a hard time telling the different nationalities of the people in the Middle East apart. I will guarantee you that the Iraqis don’t have that problem.

Besides, General Petraeus seems to think that there are few al Qaeda in Iraq anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at May 1, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #218942


It you who are missing the point. You attribute some sort ultimate evil power torrorists out to get us no matter where we are in the world.

Look at the number of terrorist suicide attacks? How do you think they recruit? They must convince young angry muslims to join their ranks bsed on THEIR characterization of who we are and what we are about. It is rediculous to imagine that such angry muslims hate the freedoms we enjoy within our own country. That is preposterous to say the least. What they hate is the injustice us to be imposing on their part of the world.

It does NOT matter how right or wrong they are about the injustices being done by us. It matters only that we are SEEN that way. When we continue to have amilitary presence in their part of the world, when they see friends and neighbors die in the streets in fron of them from American bullets, regardless of the how or why of those things, they become more likely to join forces with the terrorists who want to do us harm. That is REAL human nature.

We can do NO GOOD WHATSOEVER be continuing to have a military presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. We can only contribute to making the world less safe.


Posted by: RGF at May 1, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #219165

I want them home just like the rest of us, but lets not who signed the dotted line to defend, fight and honor…now that the _hit’s been hitting the fan, some are crying the blue’s…and of course turning DEM!!!

Posted by: Kevin at May 2, 2007 11:19 PM
Comment #219238

Comments about signing anything on the dotted line or about honor…are just silly in light of reality.

The Iraq war is both illegal and treasonous. We went in unilaterally after agreeing NOT to in article 1441. Bush lied to Congress in order to gain support for this action and he lied to the U.N. It should rise to the level of treason becuse American lives are being lost every day as a result of the lies and manipulations of this administration.

The war was supposed to be about the clear and present danger of WMD’s in Iraq. Now we know the only WMD’s were in a wherehouse guarded by the U.N. with the U.N. seal on doors that were locked. Those doors, which we forced the U.N. troops to abandon, were forced open in their absence. Then we didn’t even check the place out for months. The substance being gaurded there was tons of left over high-explosive from the Gulf-War which is now being used the build IED’s to kill our troops with.

There is nothing honorable about any of our actions with respect to this war. The only way to give victory a chance is to stop playing into the hands of defeat. We must leave.

Posted by: RGF at May 3, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #219490

I am so tired of the cut and run rhetoric that surronds Iraq. I believe that when it started everyone, and i mean everyone supported it. And the president said it would be a long hard struggle and now everyone is amazed that it has been a long hard struggle. But the bloggers here seem to forget to put things in proper perspectives ( this position has been fueled by an angry democratic party and onesided media coverage. Let’s look at some facts shall we?
Less than 4000 troops have died in over 4 years in the Iraq conflict. If you take a look at some other statistics you see how this is the least of our worries in the US.
Last winter over 30, 000 people in this country died from some strain of the flu yet two years ago we didn’t have enough flu vaccines to go around. Yet where was the democratic outrage about that.
Over a 100,000 people die in this country every year due to violent crimes (murdered) yet there is no cry to the public that something needs to be done.
Gas prices in this country could reach $4 a gallon but the congress and senate exonerated major oil companies (who have posted record profits for the last 3 years) in investigations that were over in two weeks. Does this inspire rage in our elected officials?
If you have noticed that the mainstream media has stopped scrolling the coalition death totals for the last six months you understand that the facts would change American opinion and destroy the Democrats anti-war rhetoric. Even Hanoi Jane was given more notice than she had gotten in two decades.
While the war in Iraq is unpleasant and nobody wants to see another slain soldier, these numbers pale in comparrison to other losses Americans incur everyday.
The bottom line is our government is continually out of touch with the people they have been elected to serve. They use subtrefuge and rhetoric instead of cutting through the muck and actually doing what they were elected to do.
One more point and I’ll get off this rant. There are presently about 20 people who are seeking to become the next commander in chief. All of these folks are elected officials (some elected as recently as last November) but they are busy jetting around the country in private jets (so much for the new ‘green’ push by the left) and fundraising and spouting the same election rhetoric that has been present in every American election since this country began. Who is doing their jobs while they are away? And if we can do without them for the campaigns then maybe we can eliminate their jobs all together. Then they can join the ranks of Americans who have been downsized and they can actually claim to be a canidate for the people.

Posted by: dave at May 5, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #219500


“I am so tired of the cut and run rhetoric that surronds Iraq. I believe that when it started everyone, and i mean everyone supported it. And the president said it would be a long hard struggle and now everyone is amazed that it has been a long hard struggle.”


While everyone supported the war on terror, there was almost universal condemnation for Bush’s plan to invade Iraq.

When faced with literally millions of protesters world wide, Bush said he knew what he was doing.

Well it has turned out that he didn’t.

Personally I was not terribly disturbed by the fact that our soldiers were dying in Iraq. It is a fact of life that when there are armed conflicts, people die.
But when good men and women are dying needlessly to make a failed political point, that is a crime against all of what America stands for, and it should be stopped.
This administration doesn’t seem to want to win. It seems to want only to do enough not to lose.
If Mr. Bush was to come up with some brilliant strategy that would assure success in Iraq, hey, I’m all for it.
With his history of doing things on the cheap, I just don’t see that happening any time soon, and if that means more wasted American lives, he should do the right thing and get America out of there now.

Posted by: Rocky at May 5, 2007 1:03 PM
Comment #219531


The flu is a force of nature that cannot be predicted. We do what we can with the information, and vaccines, that we have. There are still losses and that is sad…

However, the Iraq war was forged by lying to the UN and to Congress, distorting intelligence reports, violating international law, manipulating the press…and because American lives were put in risk (and ultimately are still being lost) these actions also rise to the level of high crimes and are a clear a present threat to the country. They are therefore, treason.

…or is it just about labels with the GOP and it doesn’t matter what criminal acts get done, so long as the GOP still holds the office and controls the administration?

Posted by: RGF at May 5, 2007 6:58 PM
Comment #219561


Treason? Hey, your Party holds both houses of Congress. The House can bring Articles of Impeachment any time it is ready. The Senate sure has nothing better to do than hold the trial, since they can not even come up with signable legislation to fund the war. What’s wrong with your guys? I guess they must disagree with you, or else it would have been a done deal. Looks like you’ll have to find a new Party.


Posted by: JD at May 6, 2007 2:05 AM
Comment #219597


Correction: The democrats most assuredly DID come up with signable legislation regarding war funding…it was to NOT fund anything that will end up being pointless hole of death and an economic sink-hole, to boot.

The problem is that the current pres appears to be to too illiterate to sign his name to it.

Perhaps you need a new party.

Posted by: RGF at May 6, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #219743


I finally see what it is that bothers me so much about your previous comment and about much of what I see on these blogs and among the republicans still supporting Bush:

You genuinely don’t care.

Bush and his administration have committed open and documentable acts of treason, they have lied to Congress, the U.N. and to the American people, Americans are DYING as a result of these acts…

…and you just don’t care. It appears to be about the label with the Bushies. Damn the consequences, damn the crimes, just support-support-support…because he wears the right label.

You are suggesting that the impeachement, if it happens, should be the result of one party holding sufficient sway to make it happen. That seems disturbing to me.

Are you suggesting that republicans, in general, will not support impeaching a president for breaking both American and International law, wasting american lives on an illegal war and committing acts of treason that are clear, public and complete so long as that president is a republican?

Perhaps we should run your whole party up on treason charges for being accessories after the fact!

Posted by: RGF at May 7, 2007 6:13 PM
Comment #219953


I’m saying that if your guys really agree with what you say, why are they not acting upon it? Where are the impeachment charges? Why isn’t the Senate pressuring the House Democrats to go ahead with prosecution so that they can run him out of Dodge? Maybe because they know they could never get the 2/3 majority needed? But, that didn’t stop them from trying to over-ride the President’s veto on the so-called funding bill, right? Maybe it is because they know they have nothing they can try him for that will not be political suicide for them with the American people if they try it. That is my guess. So much for Democratic jurisprudence and rule of law.


Posted by: JD at May 9, 2007 10:37 PM
Comment #220667


The implication from your above comment is that you think it would in accordance with rule of law to impeach but you disagrre with it out of political reasons.

I don’t know why the impeachment movement has not achieved the proper goal yet, but for the sake of the American people, our nations image in the world and for sake of American and International rule of law, I hope and pray it achieves success VERY SOON.

However, I am more worried about this attitude I see in your above comment. It appears that law is less important to you, perhaps even irrelevent to you, than politics.

That’s scary. I hope that attitude is not the reason (among republicans) why the impeachement for crimes that are now wholely irrefutable (…and crimes for which all the elements are now a matter of public record) is not already taking place.

The frightening implication is that republicans care less about morality and the criminal conduct of their leaders than they do about the labels their leaders wear (republican - democrat).

That makes the more important question here: Why is it that an insufficient number of republicans have joined the call for impeachment?


Posted by: RGF at May 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #222398

All we need to do right now is support our troops. If you do not believe in the war and do not believe what Bush is doing… then why the hell dont you try to become pres. My husband was in Iraq fighting and he read some of the things that some of you are saying and he just laughs. Half of you do not even know what you are talking about. You talk about how Bush needs to pull our troops out because of our soldiers dying… but most of them are proud to be there!!! Do you honestly believe that you bashing about the war is helping our fighters?? If you do then you are really off track in the way you believe. Give them support. They are over there busting there asses and all some of you can do is bash on the war!!

Posted by: chloe at June 6, 2007 2:04 AM
Post a comment