April 19, 2007
"NUTS!"
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 :
"NUTS!"
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 09:14 PMHe 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 PMUnfortunately, 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 09:56 PMThe 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 PMLet’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.
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.
LO,
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 PMA 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 PMThe likes of Reid WANT us to lose the war because …Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 19, 2007 10:39 PMThat 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
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 PMThat 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 PMHey SE!!
NUTS right back atcha!!
:)
Posted by: womanmarine at April 19, 2007 10:55 PMMarysdude, 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 PMTomh,
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.
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 PMI 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 PMLawnBoy,
“quaint”
“To disagree with me is treason”
Where did I say that in my statement?
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 PMNice 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?
Malarkey.
Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 19, 2007 11:31 PMLawnboy,
You quoted it then you changed it.
But ya know except for yer high falutin “intellectually bereft” your right
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 PMSic. 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.Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2007 12:09 AM
Reid came away with 46 percent approving of his leadership of the Senate and 33 percent disapproving.
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 AMdolan 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“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.
JD
Posted by: JD at April 20, 2007 01:04 AMJD 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 01:55 AMJD, 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 02:20 AMI’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 04:27 AMHe 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 05:39 AMSE,
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.
Jack,
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?
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 06:55 AMLO,
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.
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 07:29 AMS.E.
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 07:43 AMPhillippe 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 07:51 AMI 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 08:31 AMLet 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 08:36 AMWell, 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 08:42 AMYou 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 08:49 AMLO
” 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 08:53 AMThe 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 09:11 AMse,
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 09:40 AMSE
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 09:42 AMStephen
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 09:42 AMse,
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 09:56 AMSE.
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 09:59 AMALL,
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 AMMarysdude
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.
RFG.
Simply: THAT entire crew has to eliminated. End of sentence.
Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 20, 2007 10:16 AMI 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 AMMax
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 AMse,
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 AMThanks 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 ;-)
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 AMAdrienne
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 PMThanks 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 PMI 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 01:11 PMSE,
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 01:20 PMI 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 01:22 PMSicEagle….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………..
SE-
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 01:42 PMAdrienne,
I like your sports analogy. I’ll have to use it.
Thanks
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 20, 2007 02:11 PM“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 02:46 PMI 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 03:16 PMWithout 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 03:23 PMDoug, 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 03:32 PMWhich 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 03:43 PMStephen D,
Thanks for the link to Tony McPeak’s opinion. I’d not seen that.
Posted by: KansasDem at April 20, 2007 03:47 PMj2t2,
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… ;-)
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 03:52 PMI 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.
SE,
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 05:19 PMI’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 07:03 PMBy 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 07:25 PMSE
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 07:28 PMDon….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.
“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.”
Kim-Sue,
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 08:01 PM“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 09:01 PMGeez….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.
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 09:39 PMSorry 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 09:39 PM“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.”
SE,
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 PMKansas 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 PMNo 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
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 PMDon-
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.
SE-
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“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”.
JD
Posted by: JD at April 21, 2007 12:49 AMJD,
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.
JD-
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 01:40 AMWould 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 02:01 AMFrom 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
SE,
“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?
JD,
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?
Eagle
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?
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“Pakastan is what worries me. That country is one assassination away from being a radicial Islamic state”
SE,
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 PMwomanmarine…. 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 04:25 PM
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 04:53 PMStephen 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 05:22 PMHere we are with over 80% victory
Huh?
Posted by: womanmarine at April 21, 2007 05:26 PMAP
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.
Philippe
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?
Jack:
“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 06:03 PMHere 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 06:03 PM
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 06:08 PM“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.
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 wi