Captain's Quarters -

Senator-- With all due respect, I just watched you describe the Iraq war as a "huge success story" on C-Span while questioning General Petraeus. That seems like a pretty "rash" statement by any measure. I'm afraid that comment makes me question YOUR ability to provide "competant, objective" judgment.

David Kurtz has the exchange of the day to report:

You don't want to put too much emphasis on one response over two days of hearings, but when Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Gen. Petraeus a short time ago if victory in Iraq would make America safer, Petraeus hedged before saying, "I don't know." Perhaps it was just a moment of uncharacteristic befuddlement for the general, but if the answer to that question isn't a resounding yes, then, even on the Bush Administration's own terms, it's time to start loading up the troop carriers in Kuwait and bring our people home.

I would like to make two comments on the evaluation of Mr. Kurtz.

First of all, The General is a military commander, and not a member of the State Department. A question such as that would entail an opinion which would have little more knowledge behind it than anyone else's.

Sen. Warner gave up the privilege of calling himself a Republican when he helped set the infamous "Table for Fourteen" and now has morphed into a cut and run advocate. A pity what age has done to a good man.

Let's ask the question again then:

"Would a victory over Nazi Germany make America any safer, General Patton?"

May I suggest that any answer short of "God damn right it would" is telling?

As a former Liberal who was mugged by reality six years ago to the day, I am sickened by the manner in which my Liberal brethren have shredded every principle of Liberty just so they can prove George W Bush wrong.

How could people who led the civil righs movement of early 1960's, whose leader inspired that 'we shall bare any burden' transform into the most self-serving, narcissistic, self-involved holier- than-everyone-one nasty little creatures ever known to humanity, especially when it comes from artists, actors, musicians, poets.

I am disgusted mith myself for ever having been a part of that greedy, selfish mindset.

Dear Senator Inhofe,

Mostly, I think American senators are just a bunch of shnooks. Led by men who'd prefer coming to work wearing prom dresses.

Still, this country's not in bad shape. We've got a President whom history will recognize as tough. And, steadfast.

Irak? Well, since I'll assume you know American history; then you'd know the europeans laughed at us.

And, in the beginning? UNtil we reached our 5th President, James Monroe's 2nd term, we had no MONROE DOCTRINE.

But came that eventful day, December 2, 1823; and President Monroe went to the HIll, and told those elected oficials that America now had a working military. And, BEWARE!

So, from the baby-hood. Where the europeans were sure we'd fail. And, they spent 35 years gambling on us losing our REVOLUTION: guess what happened?

If I was a religous person, I'd call them MIRACLES.

We survived the delays. At first congress wanted no part of a navy. Do you know why? Go look at the Constitution. The Federal government, according to the turkey senators of George Washington's time, thought a navy would interfere with States' Rights.

States' Rights is one of those causes every single turkey .... Oops. I mean every single senator ever elected "understands." It's like the collection plate to Elmer Gantry. The pork trough. Though, I gotta tell ya, those middle aged women, outfitted by George Soros; really define PINK: As in PIGS. [Pigs always go to slaughter.]

Be nice to see our military showing ya. Demonstrating to the "soundrels" who manage to wear patriotism "just to get elected," ... Not saying you do. Just saying "in general," indeedy-doo-doo. Have taken on America's patriotism. As if the one defeat in Vietnam, remains to get repeated.

Sorry. Warren Harding was an idiot, too.

And, vaudeville is deader than Osama. Build all the theaters you want to; ain't gonna come back.

An honest politician would be outraged by now at the antics of all the rest.

Wide Stance Larry's excuse is that he usually uses toilets provided to senators. And, if you haven't got a wide stance, you step in it.

Of course, he was prowling for something else.

And, the Internet is keeping all these balls in the air. Everything's dancing.

Can't wait to see how 2008 shapes up.

And, what it will finally sound like to see one of these senators stepping forward and "calling a spade a spade." Nope. This is not a reference to Obama.

It's just reality out there. With people paying lots of attention.

You think you won a great job? Look around. People are not impressed with empty suits anymore.

Oh, Warren Harding. Proves they never were.

When will politicians learn? What's it gonna take?

Sen. Inhofe: Just recently, we entered our fifth year of engagement in Iraq. I think it is safe to say it has stretched on longer than many of us anticipated at its onset.

I wonder how much shorter it would have been had not the Benedict Arnolds in this country been constantly providing hope to the terrorists that we'll cut 'n' run?

Sen. Inhofe's statement does lead to a question about America's ability and willingness to fight a protracted war: Is five years too long? Will we go six before we quit?

Sen. Inhofe: I, like the other 534 members of Congress, am not a General and do not presume to be. That is why I will yield to the judgement of a competent, objective, military leader in forming my opinion on our progress in Iraq...

This is a very fair statement, but it raises several questions:

1. Since, by your own admission, you are not competent to judge military affairs, why did you and your fellow senators and representatives call GEN Petraeus away from his duty to testify on matters that you don't really understand?

2. Have you had any other witnesses, such as other active duty or retired flag officers and civilian experts from DoD, CIA and other agencies, who can provide expert judgement on GEN Petraeus' testimony? Or was his appearance before the Congress yet another dog and pony show, a chance for politicians to get their faces on TV and pander to their supporters by either praising or criticizing GEN Petraeus?

3. If he has developed a winning strategy in Iraq, what took so long? What did his predecessors do wrong that he is (apparently) doing right? When the Congress approved GEN Petraeus for the post, on what grounds did they do so?

4. What will you do if GEN Petraeus' strategy doesn't work over the long term?

5. Much is made by the left about how Iraq is "breaking" our armed forces. Did GEN Petraeus discuss this issue? What (if anything) is the Congress doing to increase our military power so that we can fight the war in Iraq without undue risk that we will not be able to meet other obligations and emergencies elsewhere in the world? Is there any guiding principle for our military appropriations policy beyond, "Is it being built in my district?"

5. It's a sad state of affairs when we citizens have to urge our elected representatives to read such a vital report before they pass judgement on it, but we've learned over the past few years that members of Congress often can't be bothered to read documents submitted to them. Are members of Congress simply too lazy to do the job we elect you to do, or do politics drive policy to such an extent that objective evidence is really irrelevant to the legislative process?

These questions strike to the ability of the Congress to exercize oversight of military affairs. Frankly, Sen. Inhofe, you and your fellow elected representatives have shown yourselves to be a collection of incompetents, good for little more than bloviating on the Sunday morning news programs. It would appear that the Congress collectively has no clue about the nature of the war we're fighting or how best to go about winning it. Indeed, about half the Congress apparently believe the victory is impossible and would surrender tomorrow if they thought the costs to their reelection chances wouldn't be too high. Today GEN Petraeus is the Golden Boy; what will he be tomorrow if the terrorists in Iraq succeed in a particularly lethal bombing or other attack? Why should the terrorists not have every confidence that so feckless and incompetent a body as the US Congress will not eventually do their job for them and scuttle America's efforts to defeat them in Iraq?

So if we ever get the Iraqis to have a democracy (if those goalpoasts still exist which I'm not sure about anymore) and the Iraqis decide to vote in a radical Islamic government will we have to re-invade or do we just make nice since they were elected democratically? We all know that any government that is democratically elected must be on our side, right?

"It's a sad state of affairs when we citizens have to urge our elected representatives to read such a vital report before they pass judgement on it."

Kind of like the trial summaries of people George W. executed while gov. of Texas, Gonzo would just sum it up for him. That's what lazy Jesus would do. WWLJD.

starfleet_dude,

Do you not recognize a loaded question when you hear one? To me, I don't know is such an honest response to such a question that your strawman is burning.

Teresa, do you really think the war effort has failed?

I can't imagine anyone with a cerebral cortex drawing that conclusion after listening to General Petraeus. Surely you don't agree with Harry Ried (D) when he said the war has been lost?

I'm just trying to scope out where you're coming from, to find out if you're a moonbat or a serious commenter.

Starfleet_dude: "Would a victory over Nazi Germany make America any safer, General Patton?"

Apples and Oranges. Unlike WWII, our enemy this time around is not the regimes of three identifiable countries. They are more defuse than that.

Fighting the insurgency in Iraq is more like the battle for North Africa during WWII, not a battle we can afford to lose, but not an immediate make or break for the enemy either.

Embarrasso,

Did you just discover how to do comments here? You've managed to be off topic on almost all of your comments here. I'll start deleting them if you continue to act like a troll.

Jeff,

I'll save you time:

Moonbat.

I'd like to thank Senator Imhofe for taking the time to address everyone here at Captain's Quarters. It shows the Senator is passionate about America winning this important War in Iraq.

General Petraeus has done an exceptional job and since every Senator voted to approve him for the job, you'd think every Senator now would be standing up to take praise for hiring the right guy. But unfortunately, some of Senator Imhofe's colleagues can't see their hand in front of their face. However, the American people can and they are seeing more clearly each day what the TRUE agenda is of the Clintons, the Bidens, the Reids.

Thank you again Senator for all of your hard work and support of our American Troops.

Jeff-- Do you seriously believe that by any stretch of the imagination that Iraq has been "a huge success story"? I certainly did not hear either Crocker or Petraeus saying that and I listened to a lot of testimony today and yesterday. The surge may have had some limited military success, but Petraeus agreed with Lindsay Graham today that we are likely to still have 100,000 troops in Iraq next summer and sustaining at least 60 combat casulties a month. Do you count that as a "huge success" after five years?

How about you DocJim?

'Do you count that as a huge success after five years"

Actually it's after four years and around five months but don't let that trip up the argument.

That said, Iraq has progressed further than the rebuilidng of the WTC and that's after six years under conditions loaded in wealth, security and 'really smart liberals'.

Syn -- Wow... I'll bet the 100,000 Iraqis and 3,800 soldiers who have died so far over there really give a rat's butt about whether the WTC has been rebuilt.

Seriously, are we any safer now than when we went into Iraq? Petreaus said today that he doesn't know. I guess that counts as a "huge success" to you.

Teresa,

Well, let's see...

It took the British about 12 years to subdue the communist terrorists in Malaya. They had a few significant advantages that we DON'T have in Iraq, notably:

1. Malaya is a peninsula; it was VERY easy for the Royal Navy to seal it's "borders" to stop the terrorists (CT's in British parlance) from getting supplies and reinforcements. Malaya's other border was a very short one shared with Thailand, which was pretty diligent in keeping that border patrolled and secure.

Iraq, on the other hand, has lengthy and porous borders with (among other countries) Syria and Iran, two countries that aren't exactly known for their ardent desire to help out the United States.

2. The CT's in Malaya were almost all ethnic Chinese, and as such were easy to distinguish from the non-CT ethnic Malays. In short, the British were able to use racial profiling. Not so easy for us; how do you easily tell an Iraqi Arab apart from (let's say) a Jordanian Arab or a Saudi Arab, or even an Iranian Persian?

3. Malaya was a crown colony and the British had very wide powers to take whatever steps they felt necessary to end the Emergency, including forced relocation of Chinese, curfews, and rather draconian punishments for CT's and CT sympathizers.

Yet, it still took them 12 years.

Call me back in another seven.

Now, the left likes to whine about casualties (though why they care about men and women who are, by virtue of their uniform, Republican hacks escapes me). An average of sixty Americans killed each month is hardly cause for joy; that's a lot of stricken families who will never see their loved ones again this side of Paradise. It's a stiff price to pay.

But when I compare it to the price we've paid in other wars, it barely registers. Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon would have been on their knees every day in prayers of thanksgiving for such low casualty rates in their wars. And when I think of the costs that will be paid if Benedict Arnolds like you have your way... I'm in no hurry to bring about a Middle Eastern version of the Killing Fields. Why are you?

Let me offer a personal anecdote that will help explain why I have patience. When my brother's National Guard unit was deployed by Slick Willie to Bosnia for peacekeeping duties, I was pretty angry. "Why the hell is my brother - or ANY American - going to that God forsaken s***hole? Those people have been killing each other for centuries, and we're certainly not going to stop them. My brother is married with a little daughter; he signed up to defend our country, not help Slick Willie score cheap political points and demonstrate how much he 'cares' about people that the damned worthless Europeans won't even lift a finger to help."

Then we got letters and e-mails from my brother in Bosnia. He told me how much good the US and NATO troops were doing. He saw with his own eyes places where massacres and other atrocities took place. One was given the macabre nickname "The Hotel Fuck-n-Chuck". It seems that Serb soldiers liked to take Bosnian women to this hotel, which sat overlooking a river gorge. The Serbs would rape and abuse the women, then throw them into the torrent a few hundred feet below. Nice, eh?

Once NATO and the Americans came, that sort of thing ended. My brother told me about little shops opening up as life returned - slowly - to normal for the Bosnians. In once case, some enterprising soul made a coffee house out of a Serb armored train, wrecked by NATO airstrikes. Oh, the Serbs would occasionally make noises about causing trouble, and my brother's company would hop in their M-1 tanks and (ahem) remind the Serbs that such troublemaking would not be tolerated.

After a few such letters, my attitude about Slick Willie's war changed 180 degrees. GI's like my brother were going good: they were bringing peace where war and desolation existed before. I don't like Slick Willie ("despise", while a little weak, is close to the mark), but he did the right thing in ordering the troops to Bosnia.

Iraq is harder. In Bosnia, we took sides. In Iraq, we are not. In Bosnia, the enemy was a nation state that we could threaten with military force. The terrorists in Iraq have no capital we can bomb, no coasts we can blockade. It makes it harder.

Is it a success? How the hell should I know; it ain't over yet. Go back in time to 1943 and ask people, "Is our war with Germany and Japan a success?" Go back in time to 1863 and ask a yankee, "Is our war to restore the Union a success?" Look at photos from Tarawa or Omaha Beach or Iwo Jima, or of shot-up planes back from raids over Germany, or of ships burning from kamikaze hits and ask yourself, "Did Americans then think that THIS was success?" Look at old photos from places like Sharpsburg or Gettysburg and ask yourself, "Did yankees then think that THIS was success?"

Turns out that those things were bloody signposts on the road to victory. Of course, nobody knew it at the time...

I think Iraq CAN be a success. I think it WILL be a success... if we stick it out. History shows that the American GI can damned near work miracles, but the only thing he CAN'T do is win while people like you work your hardest to pull the rug out from under him and stab him in the back.

Jim -- You ask though "why [I] care about men and women who are, by virtue of their uniform, Republican hacks escapes me"... How about the fact that two of them are my first cousins? Army rangers on their third tours. Believe it or not, there are a few Democrats with relatives in Iraq. Although, frankly, their political affiliation doesn't mean beans to me.

My question was is Iraq a "huge success" RIGHT NOW? Sure, maybe, if we pour huge amounts of blood and treasure in there it will turn around in ten years. And we can debate whether or not the cost to our armed forces in terms of our ability to respond to other dangers in the world is worth it. That is a legitimate debate and there are points to be made on both sides.

But people like Inhofe who say that Iraq is a "huge success" right now make it impossible to have realistic discussions about what to do now. It is like all the years the right spent defending Rumsfeld. How many kids died while we pursued a failed strategy because the Bush administration did not want to admit a mistake. Ask John McCain how the right treated people who questioned Rumsfeld's leadership.

I am willing to conceed that any withdrawal from Iraq carried risks and maybe risks we can't afford. But I want an honest person on the other side of the argument. Not one who is suger coating the situation because he is a partisan hack.

I think a lot of the anger in the air could be relieved by an honest admission that going to Iraq was a mistake, that many of the policies we pursued were bad ones, and that there will be a bi-partisan attempt to back the car out of the ditch. But calling Iraq today a "huge success" is simply a sign of mental instability.

Does anyone remember how long the American Revolutionary War was? How long after that before we really came together as a nation? Then we had to do it all again in 1812. Read a poll(as polls go) somewhere that said almost 60% of Americans think it is our moral duty to step in when the peoples of foreign countries are being slaughtered. Why aren't we in Darfur you ask? Ask the great all-knowing, all powerful wizard of UN.

Tom

Teresa,

I didn't witness Senator Imhofe's questions and comments on Cspan so I guess i'll take your word for it (although since you misquoted him in your first comment here, perhaps I should be suspect) but bottom line is I agree TOTALLY with the term, "huge success" ! You'd have to be some moonbat caught up in some leftist team huddle for the past few months to not have noticed the huge success of the surge.

Remember Teresa, this testimony and questioning was regarding the success of the Surge strategy - NOT the success of this War from Day One. I think you are confusing that Teresa. The fact that you were against this war from the onset was made clear by you about 86 comment postings ago Teresa, but when we are discussing the surge and it's success level, try and stay with us.

Militarily, the successes of the Surge are HUGE. We have seen a total turn around in Al Anbar province. We have seen a clockwork type removal of Al Qaeda from Diyala province and now Operation Lightning Hammer 2 is sweeping the Northern provinces of Al Qaeda.

Politically, Maliki has cut off Al Sadr from any reach into the Iraqi Government. Al Sadr has in essence, surrendered any mahdi militia efforts militarily. And slowly, but surely Sunni blocs are returning to the Iraqi Government to get down to business. Did you even bother to see this news today, Teresa? :

http://patdollard.com/2007/09/11/major-sunni-cabinet-member-ends-boycott/

So Teresa, if you want to take up page after page of this blog to whine about George Bush getting us into the War, then why don't you just edit it down a bit and just type in: "What I said yesterday"

But when the topic is the success of the Surge Strategy, then bone up a bit on the facts, hon and agree with me that it's been A HUGE SUCCESS!

Fight -- The surge has NOT been a huge success. Every single damn month of this thing has seen higher US service deaths than the corresponding month in 2006. Sure deaths were down slightly over the summer compared to Spring 2007 because it is 130 degrees over there and death tolls ALWAYS go down in the summer. But more soldiers died in June, July, August of 2007 than June, July and August 2006.

As far as Anbar goes, Petreaus & Bush were touting the success of Anbar in January before the surge so it is hard to see that the surge has had anything but a minimal effect on Anbar. But, sure, I'll go ahead and give you that one.

Amazingly Petreaus' numbers for civilian casulties in Iraq differ from every other gov't report we've seen this month. And the Bush administration is claiming that the source for Petreaus' numbers is classified. Do you honestly believe that if the Pentagon had honest, good numbers for this that they wouldn't show them to us? There is a lot of funny business with the Petraeus numbers. People shot in the front of the head are crime victims while people shot in the back of the head are sectarian kills? If Bill Clinton gave you that kind of answer you would be ballistic.

And, in the end, no political progress which if I remember was the reason that Bush approved the surge.

BTW, Fight, if you watched the testimony today you would have seen Crocker respond to a question from McCain on whether Amb. Crocker is confident that the Maliki government will do what it needs to do.

"My level of confidence is under control," Crocker said.

Wow... sounds like Maliki is just doing a swell job.

Teresa,

I really suggest you start reading some milblogs. They are a rational and report oriented medium here - they do not root one way or the other, they simply report militarily what is happening. I would suggest you start with this blog:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/

In these types of blogs, you will learn something - you try to have all of the answers but you are failing. You will discover just exactly what the surge has entailed instead of guessing, Teresa. You would have gathered the information about the change in tactics, you would have realized that American troops this summer went into the most dangerous pockets of Baghdad, and outer areas and gutted those areas. Our own military was prepared for higher losses because our boys were walking into the lion's den. And in essence, the casualties did not go up. But again, do some reading and learn some more - you really will understand more of what I have stated here.

As for you comment:

" If Bill Clinton gave you that kind of answer you would be ballistic. "

Actually Teresa, I doubt that because Bill Clinton proved time and time again that he had neither the balls or the stomach to confront the jihadists. Bill Clinton would have done what he always did and that was to avoid any decision that might make HIM look bad. So, your "IF" in that statement is too big and too hypothetical.
Besides Teresa, I'm still mulling over Bill's answer of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

:wink:

Besides signing the Victory Caucus petition, join the veterans in opposition to A.N.S.W.E.R and support for General Petraeus at the Gathering of Eagle’s rally on 15 September at the Mall at 0900 hrs on 7th Street between Madison and Jefferson. Then join the awakening of the veterans to counter-demonstrate against A.N.S.W.E.R’s anti-American march and guard against another desecration of the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial as was done this past weekend (http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/vietnam_veterans_memorial_vandalized). The Wall is a symbol that stands as our sacred memory of a generation’s sacrifice.

Fight -- I'll be happy to read the milblogs, but I did watch Petreaus and Crocker and I did not hear them make the case for anything but minimal progress. And when Petreaus -- in response to a question from Republican Senator Warner -- says he doesn't know if the war in Iraq is making America safer, I count that as less than a resounding success.

Senator, keep driving em nuts. Glad I voted for you. I think that AL Anbar having been written off as hopeless and now brought to semi-pacification is a huge success as are the 'awakenings' in other provinces. But it is not over by any means and I believe that too many people in our current culture expect too much too quickly.

History should provide a relative measure of the task ahead of us. We are still in Germany 62 years later. We are still in the Korean quagmire 55 years later with no peace in site. But there is one unquestionable fact; that whether the case is protection for a liberated friend or occupation of a vanquished foe the presence of the American military and political will backing them has produced the opportunity for those peoples to thrive. Germany, Japan, South Korea and liberated Western Europe are examples. Conversely those places where there was no political will to stay the course has produced nothing but human misery: Lebanon, Somalia and Vietnam.

So I think this idea of withdrawing from the mission anytime soon is unrealistic and strategically naive. If we cut and run we'll only have to go back when it is even worse. Much like we did in 1991.

Hopefully there will come a day when the presence of the American military is no longer needed in these places. It certainly isn't required in Europe any longer and it is time those governments assume the responsiblity of their own defense.

Perhaps even one day we can hope to put an end to the needless loss of 2,000+ Americans murdered in California every year and quell the quagmire that is Los Angeles County where we lose 1/2 the number of people that we lose in Iraq annually.

Senator Inhofe, thank you for your support of our military. I have never been prouder of a Pub than when you almost stood up at that Abu Ghraib Hearing and said something like "I am outraged by the outrage I hear at this table". I cheered.

I watched almost the entire hearings (both days) and unfortunately missed part of yours. What I heard from you, I appreciated. I did not appreciate the likes of Lugar, Hagel, Collins, Warner and even the jabs of McCain or the others. The Dems want us to lose and it did not matter what the good General said to them. As Senator Cornyn laid it out, nothing would make them happy. The General and Amb did a good job and are looking forward to returning to Iraq.

It ought to be a crime when the Dems can capture a war General and jab and poke at him for over 8 hours. Where is the International Red Cross?

Teresa,
I think a lot of the anger in the air could be relieved by an honest admission that going to Iraq was a mistake, that many of the policies we pursued were bad ones, and that there will be a bi-partisan attempt to back the car out of the ditch.

Are you for real? Iraq was NOT a mistake so why in the world would someone 'admit' it? Because the Dems say so? Maybe the world? How about the MSM? Okay, how about some of our newly converted elected Pugs?

The real estate is still in the best location. They were about to be turned loose by the UN. They were terrorists paying for sucide bombers and they would have been our deadly enemy to the end. A mistake? Do you really believe that you have sold all of us on the grand LIE? Year after year, all I heard was the poor Palestinians. The ME was going to blow! Iran building bombs. How about you getting your head out of the sand and admit that our only enemies are not all collected under the rocks of Afganistan.

Teresa,

1. My question was is Iraq a "huge success" RIGHT NOW?

I think that Fight4TheRight has you pegged: you are unable to distinguish between the surge (which appears to be doing a lot of good and might therefore be called "a huge success") and the war in general. Apparently, you think that "huge success" means "we won". I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between a description of progress using a particular tactic and a final outcome. Ah, hell, who am I kidding? You don't WANT to distinguish. This is just another "Mission Accomplished" GOTCHA! moment, isn't it? It gives you some sort of intellectual / moral cover to be a Judas: "They LIED, so I don't have to support THEIR war!"

(Let me be clear about one thing: I think that the war has been a success so far. We knocked off Saddam in jig time and took far fewer casualties than people thought (I remember hysterical predictions of 50000 casualties in street fighting for Baghdad alone). We've taken out his sons and his top aides; his regime will NEVER come back. Iraqis have had free elections, not once but on multiple occasions. The elections had quite high turnout despite the threats of terrorists and the pessimism of their pals here in the US (that would apparently include you). We got Zarqawi and have been killing terrorists in large numbers. Cities that were terrorist safe havens or under the control of Sadr are now controlled by us. The Iraqi army appears to be coming along well, though I understand that their police needs LOTS of work. The terrorists are reduced to random bombing attacks and setting up IED's along the roads in the hopes of killing a few Americans every day. If Hitler or Tojo's men had such lousy success in trying to kill GI's, they would have been shot or committed hari kari.)

Is Iraq a paradise? Of course not. Is there a lot of work to do? Certainly. But I'm not ready to throw in the towel, and I can't imagine why anybody else would be... unless, like you, they've been against the war from day 1 because they hate George Bush. I doubt that you'll ever realize just how loathesome you are for rooting against your country because you happen to hate the president. As I indicated in a previous post, I hated (and still despise) Slick Willie, but when the troops when to Bosnia or Haiti or Kosovo, I was for them and for success 100%.

2. Please do not refer to the ADULTS in the armed forces as "kids". I was not a "kid" when I was in uniform and I can't imagine that your Ranger cousins would appreciate being demeaned in such a way. I'm also curious what they think of their duty in Iraq, the war, and Benedict Arnolds like you. I can't imagine a man who's gone through Ranger training being proud to have somebody like you in his family. "Yeah, I've got this cousin who wants us to surrender. We're all so proud of her!"

Wait... You're cousin isn't called J-j-j-jesse McB-b-b-beth, is he?

3. Given the smear that you lefties laid on Petraeus - that he's a partisan hack who, because he's in uniform, will naturally lie for Bush - I naturally wonder why you care whether anybody in uniform lives or dies. You lefties are one step removed from hippie filth that threw dog shit on GI's coming back from Vietnam in my book.

4. Oh, you want "honesty" about Iraq. Sure. You basically want Bush to come out and admit that all your lefty paranoid delusions are actually true:

"Gee whiz, guys, did I sure put one over on you! Yep, I lied through my teeth from Day One. Soon as I got into the White House, I turned to Laura and said, 'Hon, I'm gonna start me a war!' That whole 9-11 thing was something me and the Israelis put together. Boy, was it tough putting all those bombs in the Towers without anybody noticing, but them Mossad guys are really sharp! And convincing all those passengers to pretend to be dead? Good thing they were all Republicans! Hell, if Condi'd had her way, we'd have killed 'em off, but Karl wouldn't have it. He's such an old softy!"

"Saddam? He never had WMD. In fact, he BEGGED me to let the inspectors back in after we took back all them chemical weapons we gave him back in the '80s. He even cut off his hand to atone for trying to kill my Daddy; I got the hand in the freezer at the White House if you want to see it. I gotta admit that it was touch and go when that asshole Joe Wilson piped up. I figured that trickin' Dick Armitage into telling Bob Novak that Val was a sooper-sekrit CIA agent would shut him up, but that didn't work. Shoulda done like Daddy said and used the Patriot Act to arrest the the son of a bitch and send him down to Gitmo so we could waterboard him to death.

"Yep, the whole thing was one big lie that me and Dick cooked up to make money for Halliburton and help me win the '04 election after I stole the 2000 one. Dick and Don also had a really tough time screwin' up the war. Do you know how hard it is to listen to the generals only when they're wrong and ignore them only when they're right? But we sure did it. Too bad not all the troops who died in I-rak weren't black, 'cuz you know how much I hate those people. I mean, I created Hurricane Katrina AND blew up the levies just to kill more of 'em. BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!"

That makes it all OK, eh? Then you dems will loyally support the war and the troops (including that liar Petraeus) and everybody will be happy?

Quite aside from the fact that Bush DIDN'T lie about the reasons for the war (which the Congress, including such mental giants as Hillary and Jon Kary, authorized), are we really expected to believe that "honesty" will bring the libs back into the fold and we'll all link arms on the march to victory? What the HELL kind of drugs are you on????

I am willing to conceed that any withdrawal from Iraq carried risks and maybe risks we can't afford.

Really? Good. Then STFU and let the military try to win so we don't have to run those risks.

Okay, someone tell me I'm not the only one who has noticed this:

I just went to Senator Inhofe's website, www.ReadHisReport.com and, sure enough, you can sign a petition urging other members of Congress to "read General Petraeus' report before forming an opinion about the future of Iraq."

But there is something missing from this website, namely a link to the text of Genereal Petraeus' report. I looked high and low and Sen Inhofe's site doesn't give petitioners a way to read the report for themselves.

Now, go to Google and try and find "the Petraeus Report" and you'll see that (gasp!) there is none. No report has been or will be submitted to Congress. What you WILL find is Gen Petraeus' opening statements along with Ambassador Crocker's, some slides that he presented and then the text of his testimony before Congress. His "report" is the prepared testimony and remarks that have already been given to Congress. So let's not split hairs about Congress reading the report before making decisions, because there is no report to read.

Someone should tell Senator Inhofe.

Max,

I'm not sure about the status of the report but Senator Imhofe was very clear that he wanted people to sign the petition asking the members of the Senate to read the report - he didn't ask us to go to the site for us to read it - he said nothing of the report being at that site.

At the same time, don't you think it is possible that the members of the Senate committees and Senate in general have a copy of the report? Just cuz you can't find a copy of the report on a blogsite doesn't mean it isn't sitting in Barbara Boxer's trash can.

And Teresa, you're getting boring. General Petraeus is a General, you know...like in the Military? He doesn't come before a body of lawmakers and lie like they do. He doesn't come and promise people crap he can't deliver like they do. He doesn't come and appear so he can see his face on television like they do.

He reported the facts as he sees them. If you want him to put "spin" on it or make a fool out of himself, then have Harry Reid take his place.

And finally Teresa, even you should be able to see the lunacy of Warner's question. That's the dumbest question I've heard from a Republican since Chuck Hagel opened his mouth. General Petraeus is in charge of military operations in Iraq. That's it, sister. Asking Petraeus if the Iraq War is making America safer is a bit like you asking me what Bill and Hillary did over the weekend. Petraeus' job is to see that his troops carry out their mission, effectively. Why didn't Warner ask him, "So General, what percentage of provinces in Iraq have seen greatly reduced Al Qaeda attacks in the past 3 months?" That he could answer.

docjim505 - a wonderful comment above, thank you.

Also, my apologies to Senator Inhofe for a rather chronic mispelling of his name in above comments.

Found this link. Don't know if it is the report in entirety. Scroll down to each individuals name.

http://tinyurl.com/3yamz8

Tom

docjim505 said:

""Yep, the whole thing was one big lie that me and Dick cooked up to make money for Halliburton and help me win the '04 election after I stole the 2000 one. "

It is time for our weekly Halliburton re-education camp indoctrinaton session.

Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas) jumped into bed with Halli in 1936, and stayed there for several decades. I would advise all of you Halliburton-haters to do your homework before commenting.

Perhaps, our biggest errors in the Mideast go back to 1928. And, the Saud's. Sure they let others extract petroleum from their sand. But then? They had no educated men of their own who could do it.

Still, we made mistakes.

We treated them like they were "Valentino" in his tent, seducing women. WHen they really play with goats and camels.

We never set down an agenda for them. While the profits for ONE FAMILY accummulated!

It's the money, now, that's out of control.

And, what that money can buy.

"Ideas?" You think they're buying anything with their ideas? I think they feel safe enough that we never fought back. So they took over the entire muslem's world of madrassas. Keeping about a billion people poor and stupid. But all fired up with what they can get if lots of them just go to the slaughter.

Did you know Irak has oil reserves, so far mostly untapped. On par with what's over there in Saudi Arabia?

No wonder why the family that got rich still wants to own real estate that has these treasures buried deep.

Add to this that the sunnis think the shi'a are riff-raff.

So, now, over in Irak, you'd be surprised to learn lots of Iraqis hate those super-rich shieks after all.

All actions have unintended consequences.

Here: We won WW2. And, tossed victory away so that the UN could prosper.

Leaves me with very little faith in aristocrats; who manage their system with clueless-ness.

How is Bush playing his cards? He's "coasting."

Then, there's a post, today, at Drudge. That says: To replace Gonzales, "feelers" are working back and forth. Perhaps Ted Olsen?

Which raises the question. Will Bush want to have a big fight with Congress on the confirmation of a very good man: Ted Olsen.

I never bet against Bush. And, I never bet that he'll decide fast.

I also never bet ont he Bonkeys getting out of the hole they dug.

On Irak, however, I'll bet that because of the wealth; and the potential; that what's setting up, now, are "safe zones." Not all Iraqis living together, as one. But "neighborhoods." And, only the elected officials will drop into parliament to "do business." The arab way. SLowly. Over coffee. Between the rugs.

What probably is stopping is the violence imported by the terrorists. I think the last of them are now up on the ropes.

And, the Iraqis themselves will have residuals of pride, to make a go of things.

Iran? Well, it's just a matter of time. Before Bush decides to send the "dinner jacket" to the cleaners.

While, TODAY! At the Jerusalem Post! Those Israeli pilots hit the arsenal of crap sent in by Iran. That was to go to Hezbollah. Nope. Condi will not drape white panties over her head; to wave back and forth at Olmert.

Seems there's some good military secrets out there we're not privvy to. I thought? Overflights proved JAM could be delivered. While the russian tech support won't explain to the syrians how "jam proof" spread the jam.

Well, I can't, either. More than fuel tanks fell. And, more stuff exploded. And, Bush ain't angry at all.

All we can do, now, is pay attention. Save your money and don't gamble outcomes.

Senator,

Are you ready to station American forces in Iraq long term if that's what it takes for a successful outcome? Are you ready to permanently station America forces in Iraq if that's what it takes to insure stability?

Will you support putting the United States on a full war-time footing in order to properly deal with the problems we face now and in the future?

teresa....you seem pretty hung up on the term "huge success", so perhaps you could define for us what you think that term would mean in the current context....I personally don't think you can, so I'll make a pre-emptive (oh I know how you hate that word) attempt to paint you into the corner that you seem desperate to be in.

For you, "huge success" has no meaning whatsoever....for you, there is nothing that could ever happen in Iraq that could ever be seen as a "huge success", because then Bush would get credit for it....and that is the LAST thing you will ever admit to.

But to keep things in perspective, let's consider some aspects of the change in Iraq that I see as "huge successes":

The Iraqi people have conducted 3 (by any measure fair) elections, which you said would never happen, and when they did you said they didn't matter anyway.

The Iraqi people are now free to educate their entire population, not just boys who happen to be sunnis....education is the only way we will create a truly free Iraq. The fact that you cannot see this as a "huge success" says alot more about you than it does about the senator's choice of words.

The Iraqi govt is fighting terrorists every day (not to mention the Afghan govt). That means 2 ARAB govts that were previously (only 6 years ago, I might add) sponsoring and training terrorists are now actively killing same. You can argue about the "nuances" of what it means to sponsor or train a terrorist all you want, but it will only serve to make you look sillier than you already do.

This is just a short list of things I consider "huge successes" in Iraq. You refuse to even admit these things have even happened, regardless of the evidence that is right in front of your face. You hate the senator and the general because they make your party look bad and lose power. You are a poor excuse for an American.

Del,

Just noticed your September 11, 2007 11:01 PM.

My post was a satire of all the loony things that lefties (like Teresa) believe, including that Bush and Cheney cooked up the war for Halliburton.

Read more carefully next time, eh?

docjim,
your post made my morning! that was the funniest and yet most incisive critique that I've read in a long time and it EXACTLY captured my frustration with the Left.
we have to remind ourselves again and again: nothing--NOTHING will ever satisfy those on the Left except the absolute destruction of Bush's reputation and policies (complete with him grovelling), concurrent with their rise to COMPLETE dominance in the government--judiciary, congress, and White House. it is truly a civil war sans the shooting.
and for teresa, I can't believe that she seriously made the comment that if Bush would just admit that going into Iraq was a mistake, that would go far towards reducing the anger and tension in the air.
she can't be serious?
if the judenrat would have just admitted that they were sub-human and a cancer on the German body politic, that would have gone far to reduce the "anger" too, I'm sure.
if mlk had just admitted that black folks (like me) need to stay in their place, that would have gone a long way to reduce tensions in the South and across the country.
HELLO!
the whole CRUX OF THE POLITICAL CONFLICT IN THE US RIGHT NOW IS PRECISELY that the president DOES NOT view going into Iraq as a mistake, so of COURSE he can't comply with the request for him to do so. I suppose when he quite naturally DOESN'T immolate himself for your therapeutic benefit, he'll be blamed for "continuing the division."
NEWSFLASH!
there's a reason that we have more than one political party! it is not the "natural" state of things to have total political agreement. political disagreement is the nature of our political system.
and finally to echo someone else's statement: I'm an AF Reserve major and the operations officer for a squadron of nearly 500 maintainers. last time i stood in commander's call (last weekend) i failed to see any "kids." they were all adults who willingly signed up to do their part. at any given time over the last 4 years we have at least approx 400 people from our Air Wing in the AOR, many of them from my squadron alone, and i couldn't be more humbled and proud to have folks like that working for and with me.

MajorO,

Thank you for those kind words, and thank you also for your remarks about the men and women in your Wing (my Old Man was a KC-97 / KC-135 mechanic in SAC, by the way).

The left is truly easy to lampoon; one simply has to repeat what they say to get a good laugh. Or a good cry when you realize that they not only vote, but also breed...