Captain's Quarters -

Ugh!

Elected GOP officials signal that politics trumps all other concerns, like say, supporting the troops, but then we already knew that supporting the troops is a convenient cloak for any politician that is usually tossed away whenever no one is looking.

Doesn't matter, the public, the media and the Democrats will hang the war around the GOP's neck like an albatross, even more so if they abandon it.

Amazing. The democratic party's betrayal of our troops has emboldened the terrorists and demoralized our alies so much that the terrorists know they can just play slow ball and let the clock run out.
Democrats should never be allowed to betray this coutnry, our troops and their own word like this again.
The President will either stand up to the challenge and lead us - really fight for this with every ounce of his still considerable strength- or not. If not, he will be saddled with having sold the war, but not being able to lead us.
This naitonal dysfunction will lead to devestating results in Iraq and here, not to mention Israel and Europe.

Democracy?

WASHINGTON: Six out of 10 Americans support setting a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq, even though a clear majority predict civil war there if US forces withdraw next year, according to a poll published on Wednesday.

The USA Today/Gallup poll also found a majority of Americans expect terrorist attacks on the United States regardless of whether US forces pull out in 2008.

Democrats in the House and Senate pushed legislation Thursday that would have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008, or sooner if certain benchmarks of progress aren't met, but the White House said the president would veto any such proposal.

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces.
">http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg2

144 (out of 275) lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

Doesn't matter, the public, the media and the Democrats will hang the war around the GOP's neck like an albatross, even more so if they abandon it.

That's the price you pay for starting a war on a false premise, not properly planning for that war, and f'ing up the post-war/post-invasion plan.

Are you saying this war shouldn't be the responsibility of the republicans?

By the way, add this guy to the list of people to attack as a traitor who only "supports the troops" as a cloak for his defeatism:

"I am outraged, as are the majority of Americans. I'm a lifelong Republican, but it's past time for change," retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste told reporters.

"Our strategy in Iraq today is more of the same, a slow grind to nowhere which totally ignores the reality of Iraq and the lessons of history," Batiste said. "Our president ignores sound military advice and surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates."

Either we continue to fight al-Qaeda in Anbar and Diyala and move out of Baghdad to secure the Iraqi-Iranian border, or we dump the whole project into the laps of the Saudis and Egyptians and wish them the best of luck. If those were the only two choices, I would argue that we should adopt the former.

I agree with this. I, and I don't think the majority of Americans or Iraqis, don't want to see American forces completely withdraw from Iraq. I think we'd be welcome in Iraq in this role.

Unfortunately, since the gratifying success of the initial invasion, we have frittered away the advantage with an half-arsed approach to pacification and occupation. In part this is a result of the President's failure to push for a declaration of war against the forces of Islamic Terror right after September 11th, 2001. America was not mobilized, and so the effort quickly became prey to complacence and liberal negativity. The effort in Iraq stalled for want of manpower and over-indulgence of Iraqi politics.

The result is the ineffectual Maliki government, unable and apparently unwilling to put down the militias and gangs in Baghdad or to enact the revenue-distribution arrangement we want them to. We don't want the Iraqi government to be seen as a 'puppet' of the United States (which is how everyone sees it, anyway), so we dither while Baghdad burns and Maliki wants to go on holiday.

America has spent enough blood and treasure to have earned the right to dictate to al Maliki exactly what we want and when we want it. Is it too late for the occupying power to start occupying again?

In hindsight, the purple-fingered elections came too soon, and have created a dilemma for ourselves: if we take over and run things, we have violated the 'will of the people'. But maybe that's better than having Iraq disintegrate, and letting Iran and Al Qaeda divvy it up.

/Mr Lynn

That's the price you pay for starting a war on a false premise, not properly planning for that war, and f'ing up the post-war/post-invasion plan.

Wow. The tragedy of not updating your rhetoric to 2007. So 2003. I wish you guys were as aggressive against Al-Qaeda as you are your political opponents.

You really need to think about getting a 'rolls eyes' smiley option here, Ed.

Elected GOP officials signal that politics trumps all other concerns

I disagree with this. I understand the sentiment, ODM, but to what extent should we attempt to help the Iraqis at the expense of American blood, if the Iraqis aren't even willing to take their hands out of their pockets to help themselves?

We have to face it: The war in Iraq is over and AQ and Iran knows it. Now it is time to set the TV cameras to record evacuation from the roof of the US ambassy in Bagdad. I hope, that the Ambassador's dog and cook will catch the ride too...
We are really a bunch of loosers.

I simply don't see it as a failure at this point to let Maliki and his happy little band of thieves sink or swim on their own. I don't know how it would work if we just pulled back to Anbar, but my top priority in Iraq is to protect the Kurds in the north.

The Sunni's and the Shiites and the Maliki government are all welcome to spend the rest of their miserable little lives being "on vacation" and killing each other.

If we *did* give it to the Egyptians and the Saud's, they'd be funding the Sunni side up against the Iranian-funded Shiite side. I love the smell of Muslims killing Muslims in the morning.

You really need to think about getting a 'rolls eyes' smiley option here, Ed.

Actually, that would help your argument.

I rather wish we had used John Derbyshire's "First Way" plan for Iraq back in '03:

First Way: Punishment. Smash up their country. Kill as many of their troops as you can identify. Lay waste their barracks, ports, airfields. Wreck their infrastructure: Destroy their power stations, refineries, waterworks, bridges, tunnels, railroads, canals. Mine the waters around their shores. Insult their nationhood: Bring down their treasured national monuments, the dictator's palaces, the luxury apartment buildings of their elites, their grand sports stadiums, and other prestige projects. Include a small number of religious shrines in your swathe of annihilation — not to show contempt for their faith, but to make the point that your general commitment to religious tolerance will not be a major restraint on your present or future actions. Make the rubble bounce. Avoid killing civilians when you can, but don't lose sleep over it. (Remember them dancing in the streets at the killing of our civilians.) Then pack up and go home, leaving behind only these words: "Behave yourselves, please. Next time it'll be worse."

BTW the other two were:

Second Way: Empire. Go in there in major force. Defeat their armies in swift precision campaigns. Kill or arrest the dictator and his clique. Announce to the world that from this day on, for the indefinite future, this territory will be run by us, as a colony. Willing locals will be encouraged to participate, but no-one will be expected to, and all the big decisions will be ours. Set up an administration charged with maintaining public security, getting infrastructure working, reforming the civil service, the legal and education systems, and so on. Ruthlessly suppress all opposition in First Way style, but make it know that you are determined to get the place up and running as a viable economy under colonial administration. Show respect for the culture, defer to religious leaders (so long as they do not incite violence), leave ordinary non-violent citizens alone as much as possible. Give every possible encouragement to commerce. Make it clear that you regard the locals as, from the political point of view, children, who need to be raised up into political maturity, with a firm hand to guide them. Plan to stay for 50-100 years.

Third Way: "Nation-Building." Go in there in major force. Defeat their armies in precision campaigns. Kill or arrest the dictator and his clique. Announce to the world that you are going to administer the place temporarily — for a year or so — while local constitutional democrats get their act together. While running the place, you will spend a ton of your taxpayers' money repairing the infrastructure and training civil servants, and will be exquisitely sensitive to local cultural and religious sensibilities. Of course (you will make plain) you know that the age of empire is long gone. You would never be so unspeakably patronizing — colonialist! imperialist! RACIST! — as to think that the inhabitants of this place are political infants in need of tutelage. They can run a democracy as well as anyone else, given a little encouragement and support. To clarify matters, set a date certain at which you will hand over the reins of government to locals and withdraw to leased military facilities.

The Dem's psy-ops are working well here, I see. Imagine if we just had them on our side instead of on the side of any vile thing in the world that would buy a vote.

Tom S,

Lol. Your side aren't effective debaters here, you're just repetitive, so don't flatter yourself. And has been proven by the media, if you repeat a lie long enough, Tom, it becomes true. I've been refuting the "false premise" lie for 4 years now, and by people better at it than you, junior. For you Iraq=wrong, and everything else has to fit into that equation, regardless of facts, regardless of eyewitness accounts of our military, regardless of knowing that Al-Qaeda is broadcasting the words of people just like you as evidence of their success, regardless of what Kay and Dulefer actually wrote (the part ignored by the media), regardless of the history of occupations. None of that matters to you, that is why we constantly see you guys standing on your heads and tying yourselves in knots anytime anything that could remotely construed as positive comes out of Iraq. I remember all of you trying to convince us that Iraqis throwing flowers and naming their children after Bush and having two democratic elections were actually a bad thing. So you're getting what you wanted. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory.

In part this is a result of the President's failure to push for a declaration of war against the forces of Islamic Terror right after September 11th, 2001. America was not mobilized, and so the effort quickly became prey to complacence and liberal negativity. The effort in Iraq stalled for want of manpower and over-indulgence of Iraqi politics.

Well said. Unfortunately, what we are overindulging is the treason in our midst. Lincoln and Rooselvelt would never have tolerated some of the behavior of outr leftist friends. However, as you pointed out, those counties were at war, and they behaved as if they were at war. For some of us, on both sides, especially the politicians, this has just been another exercise in vicarious living, without real effect in our day to day lives. We enter into that view of "war" at our peril. War is ugly and painful, which is why it should be avoided.

Without a dramatic turnaround (Sherman overrunning Atlanta), I agree that we're in endgame here. I'd prefer that we fight on until we break the back of the resistance, but infiltration from Iran and Syria feeds the opposition.

The nation is war-weary. In 1864, Democrat candidate George McClellan tried to ride such sentiments to political victory on a "peace with the Confederacy" platform. Sherman's late military victories turned around the situation, and Lincoln was re-elected.

Above all else, the American people want to win. Right now, they doubt that the Bush team can deliver victory. That's what we're stuck with. Either the GOP proves they're wrong, or the GOP bleed to death, politically speaking.

These GOP congressmen have it wrong. They can't save themselves by jumping ship now. It's simply too late.

Looks like the traitor scum Democrats have almost succeeded in losing another war.

Their constant lies about our President, our military coupled with their efforts to undermine both in a time of war, have almost succeeded.

What's our big prize, then? Millions of dead Iraqis. Empowering of Islamofascists. Democrats spit on the graves of our heroes in Arlington, once again.

But the Grand Prize is a few more absolutely worthless, corrupt and incompetent Democrats in elected office.

Because that's all this traitor scum "strategy" to undermine the war effort, was ever about - electing Democrats. Anyone too stupid to see that - your Democrat heroes are laughing at you.

Maybe we shouldn't have been in Iraq. Maybe the war that we needed to fight was closer to our shores.

America's enemies are in the halls of the Capitol and they laughingly call themselves "Democrats".

We will never be able to properly defend this nation, as long as "Democrats" have influence.

The one saving grace, in my mind, is that President Reagan and Pope John Paul II died before all this came to fruition.

They paved the way for real worldwide liberty by confronting totalitarianism. They gave us a shot, but we squandered it.

Without even blinking, this gutless generation has welcomed a pro-martyrdom nuke-weilding totalitarianism into the world, and even willed its growth, in the name of a bizarre abstraction they called the "global test" which really meant: "all we are saaaying is give Al Qaeda a chance."

Libs, if you really want Hillary to have a chance to be president, why don't you help us ensure that there will be an America to preside over in 2009?

Members of Bush's own party are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and its all the Dems fault?

You kool aid drinkers need to come to grips with two things. First, the WH had no exit strategy when the went into Iraq. How stupid of them not to read the history books and conclude that we would not be greeted with open arms, but would be seen as an occupying force.

Second, the WH has done an absolutely miserable job of selling this war. That is not the fault of the MSM. Bush has a soapbox and either (a) refuses to use it or (b) is completely inept at getting his point across.

The WH has lost credibility on Iraq, and that is why the republicans are jumping ship.

beneath contempt,

Are you naive enough to believe that we can win wars in that region of the world, when half of the political leadership in this country is actively undermining the war effort?

From the moment the first boot hit the ground in Afghanistan, Democrats have been sending signals to the terrorists, that if they target and kill enough innocent people along with our soldiers, that the gutless traitor scum Democrats will trot out the old "cut and run" strategy that worked so well in Vietnam.

Bin Laden knew it, wrote about it and the Democrats followed his "plan" to the letter. Democrats are very good at following plans for failure. And at stabbing US troops in the back.

:"the WH had no exit strategy"

Tired Democrat talking point, masquerading as wisdom. Are you even semi-coherent? Do you even know what an exit strategy means, or are you just parroting some pundit clown on TV?

t"he WH has done an absolutely miserable job of selling this war."

Oh, that's all it ever was, huh? Marketing! The Democrats, on the other hand, did an outstanding job of "selling" defeat! So they win!

Congratulations Democrats! You've succeeded in losing a war and in condemning millions of Iraqis who believed in us, to death. Your next triumph will be encouraging another attack on our soil, so you can parlay that into further election gains, by selling the lie that "Bush knew".

When is the victory parade scheduled for? It can cut and run down Constitution Avenue.

Or more appropriately, Democrats can merrily trample the graves of the fallen in Arlington.

I think things are going very well, and we just need to give it a few more years. Hopefully, the decision to bomb Iran will be made soon. That should help matters greatly.

More seriousness from the chattering Marxists. Because an atomic Iran will be oh-so-preferrable.

quickjustice...
...Above all else, the American people want to win....

Forgive me for changing your verb, but I think the American people need to win this war.

We simply cannot run away, regardless of what the Democrats, moderate Republicans, or Iraqi legislators say.

Like it or not, the world runs on oil. It is unfortunate that that oil resides in the Mid-east, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Stability--on our terms--is in our national interest. (It is also in the interest of the rest of the West, but they have the luxury of being able to carp without having to pull the weight.) Leaving Iraq now leaves the Mid-east dominated by the nutcases in Iran. Ignoring their threats to Israel and Europe, simply factoring in the instability that Iran would bring to the region into the price of oil should make all of us question leaving.

The effort in Iraq has not gone as well as I would have hoped. I've never believed that we would ever leave, but I did hope that the level of hostilities would have ebbed by now. Looking back, Rumsfeld's "small footprint" strategy probably was not the way to win, but regardless of past errors, we simply have no option but to stay to win. It is entirely short-sighted to think that by leaving, we will find ourselves in a better world.

That is not the fault of the MSM.

WRONG. Every republican shortcoming and failure is the fault of the MSM. Don't you know anything, junior?

JohnnyMO,

If you really want to debate, I'll debate you any day of the week. I think if you read most of my posts you'll find I use facts, including citations with links, to back up my opinions.

I also don't have to resort to bragging about past conquests and calling people "Junior."

And we can start with this thread if you want to debate. Bush says his goal is to put democracy into Iraq. Well, that democracy has now spoken, along with America's democracy. Both countries want a timeline for US withdrawal. The people and those they have elected have spoken.

Do you think the president should keep up his Resistance to a timeline in the face of such support for a timeline?

Speak polls all you want, but speaking for myself, I'll follow a leader and refuse to lead a follower.

George Soros ain't running this country, yet.

"I'll follow a leader and refuse to lead a follower."

Why would you follow someone who is doing something you yourself would not do?

But AD, just logically speaking, Bush's whole deal has been he wants a free and democratic Iraq. If their parliament votes that the US needs to give them a timeline for when they will leave, and the US refuses to do that, doesn't it cease to be a free and democratic state?

"Speak polls all you want"

Democrats speak "polls" only when they can rig them to the point they can demonstrate "popular" support.

When Democrats lose in the courts of popular opinion and legislation is enacted they don't like, do they give up?

Of course not. They sprint to our kangaroo courts and sue to overturn the real will of the people.

When the Republicans won Congress in 1994, I somehow don't recall Democrats asking Bill Clinton to bow to the popular will.

In 2006, Democrats lied, cheated and stole enough votes to win a razor thin majority in Congress. That's all that they "won".

President Bush will be in office until January, 2009. My sincere hope is that he vetoes every single piece of legislation this Clown Congress sends to him, that's not completely to his liking.

Tom Shipley said:

"If you really want to debate, I'll debate you any day of the week. I think if you read most of my posts you'll find I use facts, including citations with links, to back up my opinions."

Care to back up your claim that we went to war with Iraq under "false premises" with facts? And credible links? You used neither in your second post in this thread.

Once again the MSM becomes the boogeyman to the Conservative Agenda.

"If it weren't for the MSM, we'd be winning!"

I'm sure somehow the MSM over here was responsible for:

--ALQ and Insurgents infilitrating the Iraqi Security Forces
--Billions of dollars "lost"
--Polls from Iraqi where the majority of the populace think it's "OK" to attack US troops
--Tribal strife that has existed for *hundreds* of years
--Lack of WMD
--Reconstruction efforts (crumbling buildings we just built) failing

Here's an argument that applies to BOTH sides.

"If all you have is blame, then you've already lost".

The false premise was that Saddam Hussein was a growing and gathering threat – and immediate threat – to the United States of America that needed an immediate invasion to counter.

There are many instances of the administration giving the public false information to bolster this claim. Most notably, Colin Powell’s UN speech. Powell himself has said this speech has damaged his reputation.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092

Even if Hussein did have WMDs, I was still never convinced that an invasion was necessary because we did have him “boxed in.” We did have inspectors in the country. The situation with Iraq at the time was not perfect, but I also don’t think it warranted an invasion. And with all that has been discovered or not discovered since, I think my belief was well-founded.

We were also told that the post-invasion situation would be favorable to a pro-American democracy springing forth:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein had a deliberate strategy, a deliberate calculated plan, not to have the big battle of Baghdad but rather to dissolve away into the mainstream population and then mount this guerrilla war?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

In the end, this is the false premise:
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
“VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?”
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

There are two sides. In the middle there is consensus, a politically comfortable place to stand where the media and the polls all agree.

As Maggie Thatcher is famous for saying "consensus is the absence of leadership."

Draw your own conclusions.

"Once again the MSM becomes the boogeyman to the Conservative Agenda."

Gee, can't you provide a few useless links, featuring misleading, irrelevant nonsense, that we can all actively ignore? Because we're all ready to be persuaded here to support the surrender strategy. Just itching for it.

No Ty, our enemy is the Democrat Party. The MSM is just their unethical, kneepadded, lickspittle chambermaidens.

Cut off the Democrat head and the MSM will be reduced to the only thing they're good at, which is following the random ruttings of intoxicated Hollywood idiots.

ush has put the entire "conservative agenda" down a hole. Well, he did this when he selected Harriet Miers. Thinking it was his job to reward his friends.

What was he thinking?

I know on the right, here, people went crazy. But the real truth is that within the White House, those who were trying to "train her" to pass her hearings test; found her to be a stupid boob, who wouldn't listen. And, she treated answers to questions with mumbles. She also held on tight to her "ticket." Unaware that the donks have mastered the art of the "hearings room." She could have been toasted browner than Gonzo Gonzales. And, no. She was not going to get propped up on a Supreme Court bench.

I know, lots of right wingers are sure "they own the ballot boxes." But they don't.

And, what lays ahead? The biggest trap of all. Picking someone they "like" who wouldn't garner national support.

Way back in 1860, that was Lincoln's pitch. He talked to all the teams who were boosting the 3 competitors who were ahead of him.

While Bush's cards are looking more and more like deuces every single day.

He's also got no great alliances in DC. This means that a lot of GOP members of the house and senate have not made friends with him, at all.

That's unusual in the political world. The last time you saw this? Jimmy Carter was president.

You could also turn the question around, and ask, after five years, what does Bush have to show for all the tax money we spent on trying to get the Saud's more real estate? Trying to design fresh borders on the map of the Mideast.

And, why is Israel now in the brunt of it? Olmert's weak. He's not stupid. While, in Israel? Hey, that's politics as usual! SInce it's the politicians who are vying with each other. And, Olmert who set up the store to give the 61 WEAKEST ministers very expensive seating. They won't get, again. When the public goes to vote.

Besides, this new Rice lunacy? Takes the pressures off the "usual business," and tracks back to what the public is really thinking.

CLUE: Harry Belefonte isn't the only person who called Condi "a nothing." No. Harry Belefonte did not say that about Obama.

By the way, I liked DeLay's new book a lot! He's a wonderful politician. And, very honest. Which is rare for the breed. And, in his book he details over, and over again, how the GOP members failed each other. And, how in government the best skill is to learn the art of compromise.

You'll notice, as you're making fun of the Ma and Pa Kettle Show; that's its the GOP that lost its own heads. Or, look what happened to Newt, DeLay, Livingston, Hastert, and others. Kicked by Goody-Two-Shoes, I suppose? But you don't have replacement pairs, honey.

Shipley and others here that will concede defeat should really pass their "wisdom" on to General Petraeus (the General that was confirmed 98-0 to attempt to bring stability to the region) so the good general doesn't run into a stray bullet or a knife in his back.

What's a few more million slaughtered Iraqi's as long as Tom and his cronies can win their debates. I mean, gosh, let's certainly get our priorities straight.

This war is not over by a longshot. And this is one deck-hand that refuses to go down with a ship full of defeated losers. But don't look for the "big picture" to fit into small minds.

Rovin,

I do not base my support for a timeline and commencement of troop withdrawal on my opinion that we started this war under false pretenses.

I've only gotten on this "false premise" path because someone said Dems are trying to pin the blame for this war on Republicans. I responded that the blame should be on Republicans...

I support a timeline for withdrawal because I don't think Iraqis will come together as a country with a large US military presence in the country. I don't think we should take out ALL our troops, but many.

Right now, I don't think Iraqis feel they own their country. And that won't change with a large US military force stationed there. I think this is a necessary step to make progress politically.

Tom,

I have to say that every one of your responses contain honest opinions. What I don't see is anywhere you consider what the direction of our immediate enemies (al Qaeda ) will take when this "surrender" comes about.

"I think this is a necessary step to make progress politically"

I hope by this you are implying politically in Iraq----cause the political madness here is disgusting to say the least.

And ,IMHO, for the Iraqis to consider taking a summer break in a time of war when our soldiers are dieing for them is a total disgrace, and I'm sure that is just about what Cheney is saying to Maliki-----"Here's your timeline, now get back to WORK"

Folks, it is real simple: who here, (I suppose all red-blooded Americans like me), wouldn't fight an invader on our sacred soil to the death until he goes away? It's the invasion, stupid...
Americans must go home, forget dreams of an American Empire, and restore our Constitutional Republic. Then we will really lead the world to Democracy.

What I don't see is anywhere you consider what the direction of our immediate enemies (al Qaeda ) will take when this "surrender" comes about.

Well, in another thread I agreed with Cap'n in saying we should keep troops in Anbar province to battle AQ.

I also think that whenever we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda will declare it a victory. Things have not gone well the past four years and the dream of Iraq becoming a strong democracy while the US provides security seems dim -- for many reasons. We can't let what we think AQ dictate our policy in Iraq.

There's really is no good solution at this point. But what many don't want to see (a majority of Americans and Iraqis included) is the current situation where the US is trying to referee battles between sunnis and shi'ites while Iraqi politicians make little to no progress in figuring out what Iraq will be in the future.

I think many people are of the opinion that reducing the American presence there will force Iraqis to think long and hard what they really want for their country and come to some hard decisions.

"I think many people are of the opinion that reducing the American presence there will force Iraqis to think long and hard what they really want for their country and come to some hard decisions."

That is, the ones whose heads won't be removed by one of the Democrat's "freedom fighting jihadis".

Do you seriously believe that your worthless Democrat Party is going to support keeping troops in Anbar? For how long? 10 minutes?

Maybe we can bring back the "no-fly" zone and the "oil for bribes" scheme, while we're at it.

Once we surrender in Baghdad, it's over. And in our wake, the slaughter will begin. The people who believed in us and helped us, will be beheaded in the streets and it will all be broadcast on Al Jazeera.

I'd trade every single last one of the "Democrats" in Congress to Al Qaeda, in order to save just one of the Iraqis who believed in us. (Actually, I'd trade the "Democrats" for a dead goat, an old shoe or a utility infielder, but I'd prefer the live Iraqi.)

Maybe we can bring back the "no-fly" zone and the "oil for bribes" scheme, while we're at it.
In case you didn't notice, the only real success is Kurds, and that's only because of "no-fly" zones.
Once we surrender in Baghdad, it's over. And in our wake, the slaughter will begin. The people who believed in us and helped us, will be beheaded in the streets and it will all be broadcast on Al Jazeera.
What people are you talking about? There are a) religious extremists/Iranian puppets/America's friends -- Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim; b) nationalists/patriots. The first want America to stay so that they can get more money and weapons to to slaughter Sunnies with. The last want US to leave, so that they can build their own Iraq. Do you feel so sorry for Islamic fanatics that you want to protect them forever? Are you, by chance, a Muslim fanatic yourself?

It's strange to see the United States defeating itself in Iraq. By any historical standard, the enemy in Iraq is incredibly weak. Compared to any war prior to the first Gulf War, our losses have been insignificant. We are being defeated by the Democrats and their media allies, not by the shooting enemy. If the media publicized the number of Americans killed on bicycles every day (greater than the number of troops killed in Iraq), bicycles would be outlawed in short order.

The consequences of the defeat the Democrats are preparing will be enormous. Al Qaeda and Iran will fight it out for the spoils, and whichever wins, Iraq will become a terror state like Iran. Our military credibility in the Middle East and throughout the world will be shattered. Terror supporting states will be free to launch whatever attacks they want against us, knowing that our politicians can be cowed by any armed opposition. Just as in Vietnam, thousands or millions will be murdered by the monsters who have won the fight against us. And Democrats will try to shift the blame for the catastrophe they have created, so the gullible among us won't realize that they are allies of our enemies.

Only General Patreaus holds the keys.

ANd, the American public will believe him when he lays it out there.

There's two kinds of terrorism in Iraq. The easier of the two to deal with, are the home grown variety of unemployables. Cement walls can inhibit slum tenants from graining access their prey.

The other, which is more difficult. And, IS funded by the Saud's on one side; and the Iranians on the other ... is something that's been going on in at area of the world, now for more than 30 years: PROXY WARS.

We funded the Moo-ha-ha-deen. We helped Osama gain his military credentials. We over-supplied war materials in Afghanistan. Where NOW those very roads that carted in the military hardware, cart out HEROIN. It's big on the TRAFFIC agenda. And, it keeps Afghan's tribal warriors (and their "culture") afloat.

We also funded both sides in the decade's long Iran/Iraq killer of millions. Where it was finally halted in stalemate. The arabs really are not tactically good on the battlefields. But they're great with deploying the Green Helmet Man. And, also the hooey that the CAVE MAN is behind the terror. (It's sort'a like a silent fart. You smell it. But when you go for eye contact to see "who done it," the arabs are great at faking you out.) Americans really are not impressed!

What will Patraeus tell us? And, when will the Iraqis FOOT THE BILL?

What will happen to the "excess" war supplies we've brought in. Because the last time? This was gifted to the Saudi's.

Can Bush avoid impeachment?

Sometimes I wonder about that. How deeply enscounsed he is with our enemies. And, how the GOP members who went to him and were BLUNT, told him his words would be worthless. The American people don't trust him.

That's why, ahead, we'll be hearing it from Patreaus' mouth.

Maliki was trying to have it both ways.

And, ALL the elites who ended up in parliament have made most Iraqis feel bad. As they are a group of NO TALENT.

Can't fix that one with more religious turbans, either.

The other thing I notice? Most Americans aren't at all pleased with any of the dictators on the stage. We're not frightened of them. We just know "you can't kill them all."

But that's what "Option #2" would look like. We take out the bad guys, in hallways. Swinging from ropes. But no paperwork. No trail. And, then we act "surprised."

Keeping the snake from growing more heads is one option.

What to do with the Saud's? That's an entirely other matter! They buy people. That's how they got to have the access they have. They've even bet that they can win. And, they own more than just politicians! They own the advertising, marketing industries with their "buys." And, that means they "own" the profitable side of the losing media businesses.

No. It didn't come cheap.

This is utterly preposterous. It doesn't matter one whit whether the Iraqi government goes on a two month vacation or on a permanent vacation. Our brave troops are whipping the terrorist's asses. Our kill ratios against the them are at least 200 to 1. It would be no big deal for us to crank up the kill ratios by a hundredfold or more. The only thing that can defeat us is treason from within.

azlibertarian has it right: We cannot leave Iraq, because to do so would turn the oil fields of the south over to Iran (and the northwest to Al Qaeda). Are the Democrats in Congress really so stupid as to not care if Iran controls most of the oil and all of the shipping in the Persian Gulf?

So it would appear, but I suspect (or hope) that no Democrat elected President could countenance such a development.

/Mr Lynn

May 2010 (assuming the mssion is abandoned)

With the utter chaos in Iraq for the past couple of years, death tolls rising by the minute, and with al Qaeda, their ranks swelling, streamng back into Afghanistan, Republicans and right wing bloggers are attempting to lay the blame for this mess at the feet of the Democrats.

They point to recently uncovered al Qaeda documents that apear to indicate that at the time the U,S, withdrew from Iraq al Qaeda was indeed in desperate straits and indeed may have been on its last legs.

This argument will of course only carry weight with those unfamiliar with the facts.

Those facts are that the Republicans got us into that war and bungled it so badly that by the time U.S. forces began to be withdrawn from Iraq the only people who publically supported Bush's fateful mission were Bush and his dog.

The situation was infact regarded as so dismal that conservative blogger XXX had this to say only six months before the withdrawal.

"blah, blah blah"

Too late to abandon ship and shortsighted on many counts. If Republicans abandon this mission Democrats and Independents will vote Democrat and Republicans will stay home. Lose the war and Republicans will be defeated big time and the more they claim they were in favor of withdrawal the worse they will be beaten.

Bush totally screwed up the invasion of Iraq. Didn't listen th Shinseki, didn't listen to Powell, had no post-invasion plans, ignored the insurgency until it was well established..... and now Mr. Kool-aid drinker himself negative-donkey is blaming the dems. Beyond stupid n.d. This is all Bush, all the blame goes to Bush for all times. I don't believe we should totally abandon Iraq. Let the special forces hunt down AQ in Al Anbar. Patrol the borders, keep the ports open. We can't be the cop on the beat in downtown Baghdad. Bush thought he'd have a cakewalk in Iraq. When it wasn't he peed his pants and went into his bubble. The midterms woke him up a little, but now his own party is jumping ship. For 3 months the neo-cons on this site have said the dems do everything for political purposes, how bout the 11 gop congressmen who went to Bush, worried about their seats! What do you hyprocrites call that. I better never read another post of how the dems do EVERYTHING FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Better look in the mirror negativeDonkey, you might not like what you see!

Bush totally screwed up the invasion of Iraq. Didn't listen th Shinseki, didn't listen to Powell, had no post-invasion plans, ignored the insurgency until it was well established..... and now Mr. Kool-aid drinker himself negative-donkey is blaming the dems. Beyond stupid n.d. This is all Bush, all the blame goes to Bush for all times. I don't believe we should totally abandon Iraq. Let the special forces hunt down AQ in Al Anbar. Patrol the borders, keep the ports open. We can't be the cop on the beat in downtown Baghdad. Bush thought he'd have a cakewalk in Iraq. When it wasn't he peed his pants and went into his bubble. The midterms woke him up a little, but now his own party is jumping ship. For 3 months the neo-cons on this site have said the dems do everything for political purposes, how bout the 11 gop congressmen who went to Bush, worried about their seats! What do you hyprocrites call that. I better never read another post of how the dems do EVERYTHING FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. Better look in the mirror negativeDonkey, you might not like what you see!

The intelligensia abhor nationalist hopes and ambitions, particularly of the American variety. (Nevermind that in this case, the aspirations are global security.) America is a big ol' bad bully ruled by evil corporate Republicans.
Thus, if America loses prestige, power and stature, excellent! If America can no longer influence world events, due to their abandonment of Iraq, so much the better. In the minds of many, it would be a sweet revenge indeed to see America beaten back, regardless of the catastrophic outcomes for the world, or for the innocent millions left behind in Iraq.

No one push NoDonk, guys, cause he's close to the edge. Should we coin a new blogosphere term? DDS? Nah, that would be lame.

And, Donk, if you're going to get a utility player in return, it better be Ryan Freel or Chone Figgins.

By the way, anyone seen the master debater Johnny Mozart? Or Del for that matter?

If you want a debate, I have my opening volley out there...

Eric Forat c'est toi? Les Roches, Miguel Correa?

"Bush lied" is utter hypocrisy. There are dozens of Dems on videotape saying exactly the same things about Iraq that Bush said before the war - and saying it before Bush was President!! Anyone who can't grasp that simple fact doesn't want to confront reality, and of course they will be assisted in that by MSM, which in it's self-appointed role as Ministry of Truth, has stuffed those tapes down the "memory hole". And when the Repubs show the tapes as evidence, they are accused of "smears". Ha! When the truth smears you, you are truly a smear!