Captain's Quarters -

"Could it be success they really fear?" Ummm, I'm just guessing here that the answer is YES.

"Could it be success they really fear?"

I was surprised by the suddeness of the recent "quit now" effort. I thought it would wait until September and be better organized. The Democrats are acting like a short-stacked player at a poker tournament: Your hand isn't all that good, but it's better than you'll likely see before the blinds eat you, so you go all in and hope for luck. Sometimes it works, but mostly it doesn't.

So many large ego's are now firmly wrapped around the out-come of this war. The country's best interests are the least of their concerns. Since when did failure signal success?

The closer the primaries come, the more desperate the politicians. With the primaries being rescheduled earlier, there are those who have decided to embrace the anti-war factions, because success is too far off in the future to be of use in campaign ads.

To them it's better to retreat now and gain face time on tv and contributions from the MoveOn/Code Pink crowd.

"Could it be success they really fear?"

Nah...that'd be tantamount to treason. They must fear something else. Martians maybe....or Klingons.

The rats are now controlled by the far-left groups and this is the only way an elected rat can control his flock. This is cookie crumbs being thrown to the left in order to receive more contributions and continue their war on Bush. These left wing loonies will not stop until our troops march out of Iraq in defeat holding white flags.

"Pulling the plug on Iraq" is an interesting phrase, Ed.

For the moonbats, it's quite literal.

"Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left."

This is the mindset we're up against here, people. The "open-minded classic liberal" has decided that we've lost and that we need to literally throw millions of Iraqis to the wolves, pulling the plug on our life support of their country, and sacrifice their lives so that we can sleep better at night.

Doing the right thing? Screw 'em. Let Baghdad burn. Let Tikrit and Fallujah and crumble. Pull the plug on Iraq. Pull the plug on freedom and democracy. It'll be bad, but Americans won't die so it'll be fine, and eventually they'll just sort themselves out and forgive us, right?

When I say the Left's position on Iraq is unconscionable, this is prima facie evidence. Millions of Americans have gone from "Let freedom ring" to "Pull the plug".

Even worse, they seem to think the majority of Americans actually support doing this. Think about that.

Ed, President Bush originally stated back in January that 20,000 additional troops would be sent to Iraq as a "surge" to deal with the insurgency there. By April there were an additional 20,000 in Iraq already (source: GlobalSecurity.org) and by now that number has grown by at least another 12-15,000. The funding debate in Congress last spring did not affect that build-up in the least, and it's *very* misleading on your part to imply that it did. As I said in an earlier thread, it's fair enough to judge President Bush's "surge" now based on his original request for 20,000 troops, using the benchmarks agreed upon by both Congress and the President. Unfortunately, you and others want to pretend that the "surge" is only just really, truly starting now, when in fact it's been going on for months.

What's going on now is a further escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq, beyond the original number proposed for the "surge" six months ago. As such, it's really just another effort on President Bush's part to buy another six-months of time, in hopes that maybe something will turn up. If last week's firing of Katyusha rockets and multiple-mortar rounds into the Green Zone in Baghdad is any indication, it won't.

CE: Could it be success they really fear?

In a word, "yes." Let's put that into the rhetorical question category from now on, Ed.

A simple question to ask your Rep.:

If the surge works will you support sending additional troops to continue a winning strategy?

The presumed manipulativel answer: Well, if the surge worked then we can just bring the troops home.

Either way, bring the troops home.

No concern about our troops actualy winning OUR war. Genocide? - whatever

Could someone please ask the Dem. "leadership" the question? Will you support a winning strategy with more troops?

Shameful, at best...

For what they've done to the US Military in return for crass political gain, every single Congressional Democrat should be dragged out of the Capitol by their heels, their heads bouncing down each Capitol Step, after which each should be brutally horsewhipped on the Capitol Lawn.

Then, they should be again dragged by their heels down Independence Avenue and thrown screaming/bleeding into the Potomac, where they and their rotten entrails can quietly sink to the bottom, with all of the other toxic wastes.

Or close to the bottom. It seems that the Judas Party never quite hits rock bottom. Just when you think they've hit an all-time low, they sink further.

Seems to me that no matter when the surge started, the ultimate report back date is September. Until then no judgement about success or failure should be made relative to the question of withdrawal. Especially as we are making progress.

Everyone wants to be right, nobody in Congree appears to want to do the right thing.

VICTORY.

It's America's, if we want it. Sadly, the Dims believe it will only belong to GWB.

This Dims could maneuver such that they could share the victory. Unfortunately, their nutroots do NOT want victory. They WANT defeat. They want it because they, too, believe it will belong to GWB. It won't; America would own it.

"Given that the military benchmarks have largely been met at this point,"

Oh, this I have to hear. How so?

"Could it be success they really fear?"

Or maybe it's alligator attacks. Alligator attacks, you see, have actually happened at some point in the past and there is reason to believe they will probably occur again. Success in Iraq on the other hand, is one of those things that is continually promised but never delivered.

Also, what is with this fetishizing of Petreus? He's a military commander, not a god. he serves this country. This country does not serve him. "Betraying" him is really not the important issue here, now is it?

Ah, I remember the good ol' days on this blog when there were multiple posts about a degraded old mustard gas shell.

WMD! WMD! WMD! The war was justified!

How far we've come.

How many new gold-star mothers since then...

Of course they fear success; success will cost them seats in the next election, not to mention the White House. Complete moral bankruptcy makes decisions like that simple.

I added a link to my 2007.07.13 Long War // Dhimm Perfidy Roundup.

First, Bush has a veto pen.

Second, the reason the Bonkeys are leaving the gate this early is that they are in full panic mode. While they are not taking America down the toilet with them.

They're just buying lottery tickets; which the old media says gives them all the winning numbers. Me? They should have their heads examined!

But there are times all we can do is decide if we want to be in the audience. OR NOT. Take this "most expensive comedy," just made. Starring Morgan Freeman as Bruce. As in Bruce is god.

Are you surprised to learn that the movie's bombed?

Why?

Okay. It's the most expensive comedy ever written. Doesn't make it funny. And, it doesn't make it any more than just another expensive EDSEL.

Yesterday, the UNION THUGS with Firemen's uniforms went after Rudy Guiliani. They thought they'd "mimic" the Swift Boat vets. Of course, the union thug is a pal of Hillary Clinton's. Are you starting to get the picture?

What's going on i Irak is going to lead to democracy; given that there are millions of Iraqis who prefer freedoms to all the other stuff arabs have for leadership. They don't want to be like Iran. They're not interested in the Saud's. And, yes. Bush made mistakes. Because? Well, the Saud's think he's their "lotion boy."

And, then? One day Ken Lay woke up and discovered Bush wasn't supplying the parachute.

I guess some people think Dubya's dumb.

I think he'll do better than his dad did. And, that Irak, in time, will do well enough. Does that mean the Sunni's get hosed?

They're getting hosed in Lebanon, now. And, Eygpt has her worries. Sometimes, you're told conclusions to stories that have yet to play out.

Flip a coin, repeatedly, to guess results.

Of course they fear success.

Success would mean they lose their reason to surrender, and that would aggravate the anti-American base of the Democratic Party.

Harry Reid has failed and should be defunded.

"For what they've done to the US Military in return for crass political gain, every single Congressional Democrat should be dragged out of the Capitol by their heels, their heads bouncing down each Capitol Step, after which each should be brutally horsewhipped on the Capitol Lawn."

Or in the words of that Great American and Not At ALL a Whoring Drunkard, Pat Moynihan, when the US troops in Kosovo complained about Clinton's "one year" guarantee disappearing, "they can just just shut up and do as they're told."

cc: Kos Moulitsas, Billy Arkin

Oh, this I have to hear. How so?

Educate yourself at The Fourth Rail and MNF-Iraq.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee:

BAGHDAD (AP) -- U.S. troops battled Iraqi police suspected of links to Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen, killing six in a rare firefight between American soldiers and their Iraqi partners. Friday's clash underscored the deep infiltration of militants in the country's security forces.

The battle came a day after the Bush administration acknowledged that the Iraqi government was making ''unsatisfactory'' progress in its efforts to purge the police force of Shiite militia -- among the elusive benchmarks Washington believes are needed to stabilize the country.

It's time for the U.S. to leave Iraq, in part because there is nothing the military can do to help purge sectarian elements from either the police or armed forces, and staying will only lead to more such clashes.

They've read the Petraeus thesis on adaptive COIN - and they know that given time & resources, it can work. Right now it's really just a race - can Coalition Forces stabilize the situation before the Anti-War Dems legislate a withdraw?

The constant drumbeat of American defeat we see in the media today - where every Coalition success is spun to be a failure - will only intensify through this summer. Is it any wonder they are pushing this "Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine" ? - A handfull of Conservative/Libertarian thinkers on AM radio were able to rally a landslide of public discontent on the Immigration Debate, right over the heads of the MSMedia... that SCARED THE HELL out of them. Conservatives are going to have to remain focused, and stay on the rhetorical offensive... if we don't counter their agenda - no one will.

starfleet_dude said:

"Time to wake up and smell the coffee"

Ah, the good old Associated Press. No "bias" there...

So starfleet_dude... there is nothing the Military can do to help purge sectarian elements from either the police or armed forces, and staying will only lead to more such clashes??

The coffee that I'm smelling - is that Coalition Forces identified insurgent moles in the Iraqi Police - hunted them down and killed or captured them... that my friend, was a successful Counterinsurgency operation. These are exactly the type of operations that General Petraeus outlined.

To the Democrats, alas, it's still about a 6.5 year old grudge about the Florida recount.

Hugh,
You are right.
They ahve fed on self-told lies until they ahve festered.
Why is the dhimmie party riddled with consipiracy kooks, people who literally quote Al Qaeda favorably, and who declare America defeated at every opportunity?

It's odd to read the self-righteous tone on this thread about Democrats using the war for 'crass political gain,' and are the 'Judas party.'

Ah, I love such deep thinking. A person who could say this against the DEMOCRATS at this point, after the repulsive "Why do you hate America" refrain that was offered as 'argument' by the Right for years until almost no one supported Bush and the war, after '...Then the terrorists have won" as a rebuttal to every debate, please give me a break.

It's too late in the game for anybody at all to listen to the black/white moral rhetoric of the Republicans at this point. Your team had complete control for years, and you botched it. You supported a bloated, power-hungry Republican Congress that cowed to a grossly inept War President, and raged against anyone who disagreed. I don't hear much about Bush Derangement Syndrome, except from the 28% dead-enders anymore.

And still you want the Dems to accept some 'Judas' nametag? NOT A CHANCE. Look in the mirror, O Blowhards of the Right. You've lost your moral compass, supporting an endless war led by an inept president, while soldiers die. You Republicans, so in love with your self-righteousness, casually support torture, etc. That, to me, is the real treason, the war supporters who can't admit Bush has been a moral and national security catastrophe for us all, not just one party or another.

On a less polemical note, though, I will say that at this point to the rest of those who haven't drank the Kool Aid on the Right, that no one really knows what to do about Iraq.

I have read repeatedly from military sources in articles on the net that the troops will hit bottom next summer or so. Now, for those of us who actually support them, this is an absolute that has to be addressed.

No Democrat of note is supporting immediate withdrawl. But it is a sad reality that withdrawl MUST happen, and it might as well be on our terms, not some panicked rush at the very end.

What I don't understand is any endgame at all, really. If we withdrawl immediately, that surely is disaster as civil war breaks open wide. If we pull out to the borders, then are our troops going to watch innocent Iraqi civilians get slaughtered? Maybe we'd save military lives, but the moral cost to us would be incalculable, and of course dervedly so to the rest of the world who would be watching us let it happen.

So we stay, fighting the good fight in Baghdad and elsewhere. But is there no end? We have spent 500 billion thus far, and the CIA itself says Al Qaeda is as potent now as on 9/11. WTF? How did THAT happen with the Dream Team in charge? How many years will we stay? Five? Ten? We don't have the troops, period.

We're building a country, it'll take decades to get them together. But Bush never put enough troops in to take control. I'll never understand him: hype WMD but don't protect known WMD sites once we invaded. It's the fight of the century, so we'll give them ... 20k troops. What?

There are no good options. Today the Iraqi parliament said they're taking vacation. Snow spun his best and rebutted that Iraqi troops are in the 130F heat too - along with our boys.

So what? Then our troops and the Iraqi troops get killed while the political solution everyone says is the critical component, per Petraeus' own philosophy, is delayed? give me a break.

What is Victory at this point? We support a govt that is rife with corruption and death squads, whose troops set our own boys up to get ambushed. If we're lucky, then they'll be a Muslim democracy with minimal Sharia undergirding.

THIS is the outcome that we're dying for? Americans don't know how to face the truth - we blew it. We have to face reality now; we have to choose between bad and terrible; but the Repub dead enders still think in their good guy/bad guy Star Wars mentality.

Starfleet was right - the Surge has been going for months. What we need is a party with a moral compass - not one for torture. We need a party of accountablity - not Bush, who fights any sort of consequences relentlessly, when applied to the Iraqi govt. We need a party who can do better than platitudes about American greatness and stay the course.

You and I both know DAMN WELL what Petraeus will say in Sept. He'll say, "We're making progress, I'm cautious but hopeful that if we hang in there..." Then it'll be right back to idiotic partisanship, with Dems saying "See! No progress, he admitted it!" and Repubs saying "See! We can still win this thing! Be tough, Be a MAN under pressure! This War is Half FULL!"

There are no good options left, and it's incredible to me how desperately we Americans refuse to admit it. Especially those on the right who just can't let go of their need to feel tough and strong. We need to contain this disaster. There is no 'victory,' just bad and worse and worst.

I don't pretend that the Dems can solve it. But the Repubs hate the Left so badly they'll pretend that PETRAEUS can be betrayed - sorry, Capn, he works for us. He got his troops, he's getting his money. The Dems backed down. The Right crowed about it. So don't give me the Betrayal/Judas routine. I ain't buying it.

Wake up, Republican rhetoric is as worthless as Bush's own truisims are. We have to start planning the hows and wheres of the withdrawl, one way or the other. If you support the troops and prefer not to see them exhausted and broken, then you would agree too. There's no one else left to fight this war.
For you 28%ers, why aren't you over there if Victory is so within reach?

Dear starfleet_dude,

In all cordiality, were you born ignorant or did you have to get special training to be that way?

Judging from your previous incoherent excuses for posts, let me see if I can sum up your considered and well-founded views of some previous American "imperial adventures":

1. In 1864, with Grant and Sherman bogged down outside of Petersburg and Atlanta respectively, you would have been demanding a Federal "retreat with honor." Hey, who'd have cared about the freedom of 3 million illiterate black savages anyway?

2. You'd have been ready to throw in the towel after, oh say, the slaughter on Omaha Beach or 100,000 U.S. casualties at the Bulge six months later. Heckfire, who'd have really cared about 6 million Jews--they're all a bunch of money-grubbing, hook-nosed parasites, right?

3. Save South Korea from the Commies? No way. They're not worth one American boy and, hey, they're all a bunch of slanty-eyed kimchee eaters who will never build a decent car or produce a workable TV set.

4. So what if the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 2 million Cambodians with plastic bags and hoe handles? It's all our fault because we stoopid Americans dared to think inefficient democracies were still better than efficient dictatorships. And besides, who gives two s***s about a bunch of semi-civilized jungle dudes who eat fish heads and rice morning, noon and night?

Have I missed anything?

For the democrats it is none of the above (comments). It's simply BDS progressed to total insanity. Some leadership 'you' people elected to congress...Eventually someone will have to shoot most of them, lets hope the terrorists do it for us in the near future. I encourage the terrorists to take out congress and old UBL (from the grave) will give you great rewards, money that is. Forget the 72 virgins, that's a con like the rest of Islam.

"Could it be success they really fear?"

Christ what world do you live in?

FAILURE is what they fear - but WHEN even more so.

We all know that FAILURE is inevitable (well all of us except you I guess), however the Republicans want failure AFTER 2008, and the dems want failure BEFORE 2009 - on Bush's watch in otherwords.

HOWEVER the democratic Majority DOES NOT want failure to be the perceived as the result of any actions they may take, yet at the same time they must go through the motions of "getting tough" and threatening to cut funding and demand a withdraw (while silently hoping their proposals are coninually blocked by Republicans) to satisfy their "base".

-------so all is going according to plan!!

Dems can claim that they are demanding an end to this dumb war, but the Republicans are too stubborn to go along, while the Republicans can play the game of "support the troops and the mission" and blaime the dems for calling for defeat. - both playing to their bases and each side only half-heartedly meaning anything they actually propose (don't for a minute think the Republicans wish for 5 more yrs of this bullshit with their constitutate's Sons and Daughters dying for Bush's personal war - they hate Bush and his war of choice, but just have to mutter it under their breath and look all patriotic praying they can hold on for the next election cycle).

either way - the dems cannot lose and the Republicans cannot win at this point - the President has tied all Republicans around their necks with Iraqnam.

Dems are playing it smart. All they need to do is wait.......let Bush play his War games in Iraqnam...........by 2009 Iraqnam will still be in the shitter and our boys will be dying for no reason going on 6 years. Most of the Republicans will have turned on Bush by then - but it will be 5 yrs too little and 5 yrs too late to save their arses come election day.

Hegel, Snow and Collins may be the last Republicans left in the Senate come 2009 ;-).

So neo-nuts, I see the two top GOP senators, Warner and Lugar are offering an amendment to TOTALLY change our mission in Iraq. Are you going to call them Judas too? Your the fringe now neo-cons, anybody with a brain has seen Bushies Folly. Iraqs a mess, and staying there till hell freezes over isn't going to help it. The Maliki government is corrupt,inept, and half the time not enough MP's show up to even get a vote on anything! But American blood and treasure should continue to support this puppet government. Keep calling the Dems traitors, we''ll ass-kick you in the 08 elections. Bush is a fool and so was the invasion of Iraq. Get over it, Iraq is a FAILURE. You neo-cons followed Bush off a cliff. Blame your own boy, not the Democrats.

"Okay, first off, I've said this before and will say it again. Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq, my dear neo-con editorial page editor Mr. Hiatt, is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left."

This is the mindset we're up against here, "

CORRECT!!!!!!!! you've figured it out!
congrats.

"people. The "open-minded classic liberal" "

or realist if you like. as in all those Paleo Conservatives who said DONT GO INTO IRAQ IT WILL END IN FAILURE - folks like Powel, Swarztcoff, Scocroft etc................

"has decided that we've lost and that we need to literally throw millions of Iraqis to the wolves,"

We have lost - and you are the rabid "Devine Wind" willing to go on and on and on only adding to the body count with no tangible results. You fit the definition of "insanity" and expect a different outcome the millionth time your policy ends in another defeat and more dead soldiers.
And no Bubba - no amount of wishfull thinking will snatch victory from defeat.

"pulling the plug on our life support of their country,"

there is no country - just anarchy.

"and sacrifice their lives so that we can sleep better at night."

Oh I see - so you are for our troops being there for 80 yrs and 100,000 bodies later, while we are still "standing the Iraqis up while we stand down".

or does a 200 yrs war and 500,000 dead with no tangible improvement from what we have now make you sleep even better?

lovely.

"Doing the right thing?"

like never illegally invading Iraqnam inthe first place.

"Screw 'em. Let Baghdad burn."

let? Jesus some of you are still so delusional that you really believe we are in control of these events.

it'll burn whether you "let" (God what arrogance/folly) whether you wish it or not.

A man or Nation has got to know its limits. We forgot ours and now we are being taught the hard way by the Master - the real world.
We shall be alot Wiser and Humbler by the time this folly is over.

Unlike Arrogance, Wisdom and Humility is not a Vice, but Virtues.

"Let Tikrit and Fallujah and crumble. "

"let" - there is that haughty arrogance and delusional insanity agian.

"Pull the plug on Iraq. Pull the plug on freedom and democracy. "

there is no democracy nor freedom - just anarchy. that is all there has ever been.

"It'll be bad, but Americans won't die so it'll be fine, "

So you obviously prefer that we die along with them!! calling for more death and then more after that! pathetic.

"and eventually they'll just sort themselves out and forgive us, right?"

Yep. like anywhere else in the World where we fuck up and invade and occupy with no way to win.

"When I say the Left's position on Iraq is unconscionable, this is prima facie evidence."

Your war is against realism - take it up with God, Bubba - he made Reality, not the "left".

" Millions of Americans have gone from "Let freedom ring" to "Pull the plug"."

yep - after they figured out Iraqnam was based upon lies and stacked "evidence" of WMD and all that other crap. In otherwords the People wised up and knew that were being fed another load of shit with all the happy talk of "democracy" and "Freedom" - like soup in the mouth when the Liar the Chief pulls this shit. how dumb does that SOB think the American People are anyway?

"Even worse, they seem to think the majority of Americans actually support doing this. Think about that."

THEY DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THINK ABOUT THAT! GENIUS!

"A handfull of Conservative/Libertarian thinkers on AM radio"

there is not ONE Libertarian thinker on AM radio.

not ONE.

..................

news flash - all Libertarians were against Iraqnam before it even started, we still are.

Posted by: r at July 13, 2007 6:04 PM

Pure Wisdom.

We have a very very Wise person here folks. You koolaiders should read "r's" post a million times over.

then re-read it! maybe it will sink into your brick brains/jar heads.

but I doubt it.

Your guys are holding the volunteer military to half what it could be and whining about how exhausted our manpower is; you're preaching the inevitability of genocide; Al-Qaeda is just a "bumpersticker" to you while the Brits are jailing doctors for bomb plots; you can't vote to discuss planning to pay for building a border fence, let along building the fence; your solution to higher gas prices is to tax the fuel companies; your version of Churchill is in Syria kissing Wedgehead's butt and calling it ice cream; you think bad rock concerts is statesmanship.

On every front, in every way, you are losing the respect of the average American who thinks he is paying politicians six-figures a year to solve problems and make things better, not teach him how to be a good loser.

The only thing you have going for you, is your opposition is the modern Republican party, which is mired in the same Clintonian morass, confusing electioneering with governing.

You may well win 2008. Your top racehorse, who has better "brand-name recognition" than Pepsi, can't break 40% in the polls. That doesn't mean much, because all she needs is half the people who show up; but it won't be the 60 million votes Kerry got as a loser. Some "mandate" to unify America. The public recognizes the Second Coming of the Ford Administration.

All you'll get is more of the same: 4 in 5 Americans telling you to go to Hell. That's what a 19% approval rating means. You're going to spend the next 5 years running as the lesser evil, and the sad thing is, because you may beat the opposition at it --aka “win”-- you might stay there for a generation.

The GOP still has a fringe of nutjobs who think America is the best hope for humanity, who feel some obligation to achieve the objective best instead of the subjective better; but you've run that extremist "black/white morality" right out of your outfit.

You think it's the right-wing elite shrieking "Traitor!" “Crook!” “Cheat!” ? That's the American street. The leadership wants no part of such zeal, such certaintude; it gets in the way of the horsetrading and the obfuscation and the procedural deep-six of the agenda that makes a career of "public service" tolerable to a 21st century millionaire.

So lighten up Donks. Learn to enjoy the abuse, the insults, the War at Home. 2007 is your 2009, your 2010, 2011, 2012. This is victory.

Folks, I've had an ephiphany. I didn't think it was possible, but we've been guilty of underestimating Dingy Harry, SanFran Nan, and the rest of the dems. We've accused them of moral cowardice because they've refused to even try to cut of funding for the troops despite their continuous statements that they think the war is lost. We've called them traitors and Judases because they voted to send over Petraeus and voted for the surge but now are trying to pull the plug before giving it time to work (if you can't win a war in a few months, you can't win it at all, apparently). We've assumed that they want to lose the war but are too gutless to go ahead and surrender by cutting off the money.

We've been wrong.

Read the comments over the past several weeks by continuum, gaffo, r,monkei, starfleet_dude and our other resident libs. They don't want the war to end. THEY WANT IT TO CONTINUE. They see the war in Iraq as the perfect weapon against The GOP in general and Bush in particular. Every GI who dies in Iraq means more votes for them. Every Gold Star Mother that continuum laughs about increases their majorities. Why SHOULD they try to cut of funding for a war that they believe will not only win them the White House in '08, not only will allow them to keep Congress, but will outright destroy the GOP for years to come?

I think we're seeing the unfolding of a diabolical plot. Think about it: the libs claim that they knew all along that there were no WMD in Iraq. They knew all along that the war would go badly. They knew all along that it was impossible to make a democracy in Iraq. They knew all along that Iraq would degenerate into civil war, that our presence their would breed more terrorists, that it would strengthen al Qaeda. Yet, they voted for all these things, confident that, when everything went sour, they could blame it on Bush and the GOP.

And it's working.

Folks, we've been had. Dingy Harry isn't the corrupt, dithering fool and SanFran Nan isn't the shrill, moronic harpy that we thought they were. They are geniuses! And it's not just on Iraq that they're running rings around us; look at how Dingy Harry played the GOP in the Senate over immigration: a lot of Republican voters are totally pissed off at their own party right now; not so the morons who vote democrat. Oh, I know: the Congress has a terrible approval rating right now, but does anybody seriously believe that the dems currently in office won't be reelected?

We might as well give up in '08, '10, '12 and indeed every election for the next twenty years. We can't compete with a party that has leaders this clever, this farsighted, and this totally devoted to enhancing their own power and prestige at the expense of everything else, including American lives and American national security.

r:

Maybe you should check yourself for the self-rightous tone pal. You don't seem to have any better ideas - do you... just speculation and ridicule. Being tough and being manly isn't what this is about at all... it's about maintaining our nations will. Al Queda and the theocratic wackjobs in Iran know that too... and they are betting we fold. The Democratic party with their rush to establish withdrawl dates irregardless of security on the ground, and the MSM constantly beating the "American defeat" drum - must seem like a godsend to our enemies.

The Coalition made the same mistake that many great field armies have made in the past when occupying foreign land... garrisoning their troops on bases - behind static defenses. It's no way to establish/maintain order... and once authority and order have given way to chaos - it is that much harder to set things right. But setting things right is exactly what the Coalition is trying to do with an adaptive counterinsurgency strategy. Furthermore - a "political solution" in Iraq is not going to materialize out the thin air of a environment rife with multi-faceted sectarian causes. The sectarians have to be convinced (by security-building Coalition actions) to come down off the fence and choose definitive sides. Only then will there be a chance for the guns to fall silent... a "political solution" will be dictated by the conditions (and who's left standing) at that time, not before.

Our troops are not exausted or broken - you're speculating. The only thing breaking right now is the will of the American electorate... something you seem to be taking some weird satisfaction in. Successfull counterinsurgencies have been waged in the past with less than a quarter of the troops the US has in-theatre. The difference is in the strategy and the propensity for politicians to micro-manage the troops... we finally have a fluid strategy - now we just need to keep the politicians out of their hair... patience.

Our troops are the best fighting force the world has ever known. They are not demoralized or broken or tired of the fight. If we let them do their job they will win.

I'm hoping at least some of us here recognize that part of the motive of "right-wing kooks" (of which I am a proud member on this particular front) is to recreate another precedent of American stamina, courage, dedication, commitment, and resolve that will carry us forward for decades. Some would wish that Iraq become "Vietnam, the Return" for myriad reasons... most grotesquely, of course, being the political ones. Many of us would rather not reconstruct the same political failure trumping military success that tarnished us for decades and still sullies our debates and policy even today.

The big picture remains that we must win this war even if it spans administrations. Imagine what would happen if American resolve to conflict was not self-flagellating defeat but aggressive, stoic belligerence to those who would assault either us or those weakened innocents needing defense. You haven't seen "peace dividend" until you've see bipartisan support of national defense. Let's hope these shortsighted, self-absorbed representatives remember their duty to their country and to those who they send in harm's way.

This is history-making time and another political Vietnamization will set numerous regions of Iraq up as another Cambodian killing field, will signal to the world that our attention spans are embarrassingly short, and will advertise that our political milieu remains too poisonous to conduct serious works in a shrinking world. Let these honorable men and women who conduct war conduct war and then stay out of their way while supporting their trial and error. If you can't do that, then bring them home now, remind everyone that you personally are taking responsibility for the blowback of retreat when it occurs, and ready yourself for a multi-front war conducted by more than just Al-Qaeda.

"Your guys are holding the volunteer military to half what it could be and whining about how exhausted our manpower is"

OK - show us were you pulled that "half" from. We'll go from there.

" you're preaching the inevitability of genocide"

yep. something Bush would have thought of before he illegally invaded Iraqnam had he any wisdom.

and you know what? it is inevitable - deal with it.

"Al-Qaeda is just a "bumpersticker" to you"

where did you pull that one from? the same place as the 1/2?

Al-Qaeda is real enough.

"while the Brits are jailing doctors for bomb plots"

Yep - once again the Neocon's military solution to the problem is dicredited by the Law Enforcement model's success (number 15 now?)

what are we now on the GWoT:

LE = 15

Neocon Gunboat Democracy = 0

"you can't vote to discuss planning to pay for building a border fence, let along building the fence"

no-one here is saying immigration is not a problem.

"your solution to higher gas prices is to tax the fuel companies"

no - my solution is to tax the consumer - double the cost of gasoline - thus force the single middleaged soccer mom SUV bimbos and single urban cowboy truckers to buy small cars.

its called Conservation and it equals National Security now.

but its requires guts - called sacrifice, a thing Americans no longer have.

"your version of Churchill is in Syria kissing Wedgehead's butt and calling it ice cream; you think bad rock concerts is statesmanship."

WTF are you blabbing about?

"On every front, in every way, you are losing the respect of the average American who thinks he is paying politicians six-figures a year to solve problems and make things better, not teach him how to be a good loser."

Congress lost the respect of the American voter in March 2003 - when they let the Boy King crap on the Separation of Powers and invade Iraqnam willynilly without Congress bitch spapping that power mad fool back in his highchair!! (same with Cheney - our real President).

"The only thing you have going for you, is your opposition is the modern Republican party, which is mired in the same Clintonian morass, confusing electioneering with governing. "

Actually the only thing "we" (as in 3/4s of the People now) have going for us is the Remnant of your Party - its core (including you) remain Bush's best butt-buddy and you and your whole core-base will be obliterated the day Bush leaves office. You credibility will be permanetly tied to that fool and you will never have the Majority in Congress - not for at least a generation.

serves you right - we have Presidents in this Nation, not Kings.

"You may well win 2008. Your top racehorse, who has better "brand-name recognition" than Pepsi, can't break 40% in the polls. That doesn't mean much, because all she needs is half the people who show up; but it won't be the 60 million votes Kerry got as a loser. Some "mandate" to unify America. The public recognizes the Second Coming of the Ford Administration."

I have stated myself that I loathe Billary - and wll not vote at all if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate her. I ONLY like Bidon and Obama -and Bidon don't have a chance.

I'm not even a Democrat - and there was a time (before you Party started worshiping Monarchies) before the moron as nominated in 2000, where I might have voted for a Republican. I had and have alot of respect for Dole and if we were only a few years younger I would have voted for him.

I hate Clinton and have never offered my vote toward that fake SOB.

Republicans have to wander the wilderness for 40 yr for penance and ask to be forgiven for their worship if the Boy King before I will ever consider voting for them again.

"All you'll get is more of the same: 4 in 5 Americans telling you to go to Hell. That's what a 19% approval rating means. You're going to spend the next 5 years running as the lesser evil, and the sad thing is, because you may beat the opposition at it --aka “win”-- you might stay there for a generation. "

sad but true. sadly all we have to choose from is the lesser of the evil. we have a profound lack of true leadership inthis nation - we are in deep doodoo. but at least we will not have to worry about the Boy King starting WW3 with is folly anymore (like invading Iran).
of course he still has a 1-1/2yrs to trigger ww3. I don't put anything past that idiot. Maybe if the insane incompetent man-child does order the US Military to bomb Iran which could trigger a world conflagration, the military officers will remember their fealty is toward our United States Constitution and the Rule of Law - not a Mad President, and will refuse to carry out such insane and criminal orders.

"The GOP still has a fringe of nutjobs who think America is the best hope for humanity, who feel some obligation to achieve the objective best instead of the subjective better; but you've run that extremist "black/white morality" right out of your outfit."

You are blind - your world meddling mentality has been a hallmark of the Liberal Democratic Party for 50 yrs. You party was equally on the opposite side - isolationism/no nation building. Just back in the 90's the Republicans were tar and feathering the "liberals" for wanting to nation build/feed the poor - in Serbia/Somolia/Etheopia/etc.........

NOW all of the suddem YOU ARE CLAIMING THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC MENTALITY OF NATION BUILDING FOR YOUR OWN!!!

just because "911 changed everything" - what utter CRAP!

I'll tell you what changed on 911!! the NeoConjobs took over YOUR PARTY - and turned it from REALISM and non-meddling into a freakin LIBERAL world wide nation building and reforming advicate!!!! the OPPOSITE of anything Conservative!!!!!!!

you blindness is blinding!!

Antony writes:

"Maybe you should check yourself for the self-rightous tone pal."

I'm not your pal. You're not my friend. Check your tone.

"You don't seem to have any better ideas - do you... just speculation and ridicule. "

that's the point, Antony, there are NO good ideas. We have to leave, period. It's a question of how and when. But I suppose you think VICTORY is possible, right?

Your belief we can win is PURE SPECULATION as well, so nice try.

"Being tough and being manly isn't what this is about at all... "

Actually, Antony, I think this is precisely what the war is for most Repubs.

"It's about maintaining our nations will. Al Queda and the theocratic wackjobs in Iran know that too... and they are betting we fold. "

Will? The Will to what? Torture? Convert by secret detention? The Will of Bush to ignore the US populace, whose "will" is to leave before too late, or the Iraqi people themselves, who want us to leave? Will - lookout, that's a fascist term worshipping ... strength, looking tough. See above.

"The Democratic party with their rush to establish withdrawl dates irregardless of security on the ground, "

Nice try. No mainstream Dem politico wants to 'rush' out leaving a gaping hole. This is the Right's worst straw man.

"and the MSM constantly beating the "American defeat" drum - must seem like a godsend to our enemies."

Maybe, and you know what else is a godsend to our enemies? Bush's grotesque incompetence, and his inflated rhetoric that units all jihadis into one lump and brings them a unity they don't originally have.

"The Coalition made the same mistake that many great field armies have made in the past when occupying foreign land... garrisoning their troops on bases - behind static defenses. It's no way to establish/maintain order... and once authority and order have given way to chaos - it is that much harder to set things right. "

Let's get real, ok? Let's talk facts, not your hated speculation, ok? This happened not because of your stated reason, but because of a blithe, ideological belief that we could leave, pronto. It happened due to maximizing the threat and minimzing the cost. It happend because the press were cowards. It happened because Americans are narcissistic and believe that they can impose their will on ancient cultures. Nice try.

"But setting things right is exactly what the Coalition is trying to do with an adaptive counterinsurgency strategy."

I agree we're trying to set it all right, but with a mini surge of 20k troops with a September timeframe? Not a chance in hell.

"Furthermore - a "political solution" in Iraq is not going to materialize out the thin air of a environment rife with multi-faceted sectarian causes. The sectarians have to be convinced (by security-building Coalition actions) to come down off the fence and choose definitive sides. "

Very true, but those sectarians are RUNNING THE IRAQI Goverment! Shiite cops are ambushing US Troops! Death squads, mosque bombings, etc.

"Only then will there be a chance for the guns to fall silent... a "political solution" will be dictated by the conditions (and who's left standing) at that time, not before."

So true, but how long should we citizens wait? 10 years, 20 years? 2 trillion dollars? How many bodies? Your desire to wait til then is, guess what? That's right, pure speculation. A conservative approach, realizing the fallibility of occupations, errs on the side of leaving sooner not later. And surely you admit that our presence is stoking hatred, too.

"Our troops are not exausted or broken - you're speculating. "

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you haven't seen the numerous articles on this on the net, on both sides, you're hopeless. next summer, anthony, the fit hits the shan. Wake up, we don't have the troops to stay forever. You wish we did, but we don't.

"The only thing breaking right now is the will of the American electorate... something you seem to be taking some weird satisfaction in. "

The weird satisfaction comes from the forever in war crowd, who are tough from a distance and seem to think that Dems 'hate america' and the 'MSM" want to lose. Ascribing homicidal impulses to fellow Americans, now THAT seems weird, eh? And the electorates is breaking (plus the Repubs, too!) because Bush constantly, relentlessly has no other message than "If we fail, the terrorists have won." He hyped the WMD case, has dissumulated, and deceived, and spun every conceivable issue (Republican attorneys and judges dealt with Libby, but Bush still thought it 'politicized.' Hah! Walton himself on the Politico stated yesterday (yesterday!) that Bush's commutation was odd.

"Successfull counterinsurgencies have been waged in the past with less than a quarter of the troops the US has in-theatre. The difference is in the strategy and the propensity for politicians to micro-manage the troops... we finally have a fluid strategy - now we just need to keep the politicians out of their hair... patience."

Yes, victory is just around the corner! Fellow readers, here we have a glimpse into the true Bush Derangement Syndrom - a supporter of Bush who just can't think straight or make sane attributions. Poor lad.

r:

When did the vaunted attribute of "will" become politically incorrect?

You *really* don't have any better ideas... do you? It is in both nations long term interests to attempt to stabilize the situation in Iraq - and that is what Coalition forces are attempting to do. You can hate Bush for making it policy. You can hate Petraeus for suggesting it. You can hate the Coalition Forces for carrying it out. You can hate millions of Americans (and freedom loving Iraqis) for supporting it - and I know you're going to hate (and ridicule) me for saying it. But this generation, in both Hemispheres, has a duty to make this right... and part of that is maintaining the will to succeed in this endeavor. Our brave men and women in uniform are only asking two things at this point... time and faith.

By the way... I'm not a Republican. And I dont particularly like Bush either - pal.

But hate away my good man... Hate away...

Antony:

The BDS has eaten deep into the cortex, is clear - as always, rhetoric trying to confuse and redirect -

The Straw Man - the favorite of the forever-supporters. Nice try, but I see right through you.

I don't hate Bush, if by that you mean some deep personal hate that has warped me.

But contempt, for what he has done to our country and our ideals, yes I do hold him in contempt, as well as all the fools who defend torture and a Monarch above the law (Cheny as not part of the executive branch, Gonzales who couldn't remember his own name if he didn't have a nametag, Bush who sets the world record for signing statements.

You keep repeating I have no ideas - and I have admitted now, for the third time, that I have no solutions that are Good for Iraq, but see, that's the difference - you don't either, but you won't come clean.

Read your own last post - nothing but platitudes, Antony, nothing but cliche and applie pie - in other words, the same nonsense that got us into this mess, and which surely won't get us out.

I could post endlessly rebutting your every point, as I did in my previous post - but of course, to the Mythologizers out there who hum the Star Spangled Banner beneath their very typed words, it wouldn't make a dent in your mindset; THIS is Bush's base, the unthinkers.

Every last word you type supports indefinite, unthinking, unconditional obedience. If it doesn't, I haven't seen it yet.

"You can hate Bush for making it policy. You can hate Petraeus for suggesting it. You can hate the Coalition Forces for carrying it out. You can hate millions of Americans (and freedom loving Iraqis) for supporting it - and I know you're going to hate (and ridicule) me for saying it."

So once again, you miss the point entirely. I don't hate Petraeus, I don't hate the Forces, I don't hate kittens and baseball and apple pie, and believe it or not, I don't hate YOU. I don't even know you.

But, what I do hate is a mindset, an attitude - that of the brain dead 'patriot' who mistakes his own rah rah nationalism for a true understanding of American and its ideals. Torture, the suspension of habeus corpus, an executive branch beyond any oversight and defining itself as innately good - well, that's contemptible.

So don't try to make me a 'hater.' Tired,tired rhetoric.

" But this generation, in both Hemispheres, has a duty to make this right... and part of that is maintaining the will to succeed in this endeavor. Our brave men and women in uniform are only asking two things at this point... time and faith."

Our brave men need more than time and faith, they need competent, realistic leadership. They haven't had it. They need an American public that understands the sacrifices they need to make to see the war to victory, and leadership that will give it. They didn't receive that. The troops need more time - time is not on our side - they need armor, reinforcements, medical care back home, leave time - and THEY ARE NOT GETTING IT.

So don't you dare wave the flag at me and claim the moral high ground. Your platitudes are part of the problem. I haven't seen anything else from you in our exchanges.

Antony, I appreciate you want to win this war. But you have nothing to offer - you are worse than harmless, you are regurgitating the same unthinking pieties that crippled the debate on the war when there was a chance to prevent it. I appreciate you want us to win, the terrorists to lose. So do I, if you can believe it. But for god's sake, enough already with the empty rhetoric.

You know, I agree, I don't have any ideas either, I'll just stick with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as already written. Who needs originality when you've got those on your side. And they are on MY side, Antony, if you support Bush's horrendous actions in this war.

Learn what patriotism is. Support the ideals, not the leaders.

"OK - show us were you pulled that "half" from. We'll go from there."

Congressional Research Service in 2004.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VIgsaJFpev4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754

The population growth since 1989 means that if we authorized the return of the Cold War military, with the looser enlistment protocol, we'd have twice the volunteer force we have now.

"Al-Qaeda is real enough." Tell John Edwards.

The empty rhetoric comes from the defeatists, who want me to believe that they mean the best while they orchestrate the worst.

r:

Whether we wish it or not - and whether the US stays in Iraq or withdrawls, the Western secular tradition is going to be in direct conflict with an increasingly radical and militaristic Islamic civilization... it's just a sad fact of the world we live in today. No one in the West really wanted this conflict - but here it is in our laps, and it's not going to just simply go away. The Iranian Theocracy, the Syrian dictatorship, Hezbola, Hamas and finally Al-Quaeda - are not interested in negotiation or anything resembling a long term peace with their more moderate neighbors - or the West. Whether we choose to fight... or remain idle, we will be attacked - that is a certainty.

We in the West have grown accustomed to war fought on a grand scale and in a clearly defined fashion - even when escalated to the horror of total war. We've come to expect a single, or series of, clashes of arms... with defined enemies and clear outcomes - decisive battle is the Western way of war. But only on rare (and unavoidable) occasions, will this enemy fight us on our terms - more than any other conflict in modern history, the battle-lines in this conflict are idealogical at every conceivable level... civilizational, strategic and tactical. This enemy will not fight by our rules, and they are playing for keeps - even if we aren't. To complicate things further - this enemy, despite cloaking himself in the robes of 7th century traditionalism - is quite media savvy - and more than aware of: the Wests internal political divisions, our society's contemporary fixations on multi-culturalism and moral equivocation, our own medias internal political allegiences... and finally, the often fickle nature of our democracies. Ironically, the very things that make our societies internally resilient, vibrant, creative and adaptable - can and are being deftly manipulated by our enemies - from without - to break our will.

Al-Quaeda stated at it's founding, that it's first major goal was the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in Bagdad... to be followed by the recovery of the areas of Islamic conquests of Spain and the Balkans during the 8th through 15th centuries. The motives of the Iranian Theocracy (in tandem with the Syrian dictatorship) are less clearcut - they currently seek to dominate the Middle-East by way of Iraq and Lebanon. And as always, both Iran and Al-Quaeda promise to spread the teachings of the Prophet Muhamed, by all means neccesary, until all the world recognizes only one god, Allah, and that his Prophet is Muhamed. They have no use, or sympathy, for even semi-moderate states of the Middle-East, and are guided by, argueably - one of the most violent religious interpretations in history... and both have competing designs to establish an Islamic Theocracy in Iraq. In my lifetime - the world has seen the price paid for the US abandoning nations to Islamic Theocrats: Iran, Afganistan, Somalia... Sudan. The results were: horrendous breeches of human rights, an end to religious freedom and womens suffrage, narcotics production on a gigantic scale, terrorist bases/camps, mass murder... and even slavery.

I do not (and did not) question your patriotism - just your logic.

It is not in the best interest of the United States, Iraq, the Middle-East - or the world, for the US to abandon Iraq before there is a stable, moderate and at least marginally pluralistic government.