Captain's Quarters -

That is an outrage...

Chuck Schumer should have been rebuked by the Senate for his slander of a number of fine Judicial Nominations.

His public embrace of Joe Wilson in midst of the Capital Dome, long after Wilson was exposed as a liar, was simply disgusting.

The problem is not only that this person pushes Liberal Folly, but his unethical partisan deceit corrupts the very essence of our Democracy.

And being from NY, he is a source of sincere embarrassment.

Chuck Schumer is a vivid reminder of what needs to be changed in Washington.

A self serving unethical liar, who is sinking us all.

Why in the name of (choose anyone) should anyone even listen to this yerk (sCHUMER). He is at the least booring and otherwise simply a lie writ very large..............

Wow, first one in. How weird is that? Unless someone hits Enter before I do.

What else can the Democrats do?
I mean, they complained about deaths. All down.
They complained about the number of terror attacks. All down.
They complained about the slow progress of the Iraqi army. That's improving.
They complained about the lack of political progress made by the Iraqi govt. Some improvement, especially since we are winning the peace.

So cut the Dems some slack. The only thing left is to demean the military.

Frankly, I'm glad. It clearly paints the political landscape. The Democrats are still pacifists, still hate the military, and cannot be trusted with national defense. Any of the Republican candidates have a ready-made campaign commercial just waiting.

I think this is all part of a carefully formulated Democrat policy. If they keep this kind of hog wash up eventually people will get tired of responding to the same only bullcr*p. Then they win.

/sarc

AQ initially established a presence in the Sunni Triangle because they were welcomed there by the local population. It seemed a natural alliance, AQ being Sunni and both local Iraqis and AQ seeing the occupying crusaders as the enemy.

And then a strange and wonderful thing happened. The Iraqis in Anbar and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle started to figure out that their allies were crazy. Crazy and barbaric. And the Sunnis decided to get rid of them, but they needed help to do it. So they turned to the only people that could help. Us. And we've let bygones be bygones enough to take advantage of this change in fortune.

So the Senator IS right in that initially there was no one there to protect the Sunnis. But that's because the Sunnis didn't want protection from AQ. AQ was an ally. Until they started to rape, torture and kill the locals.

Chuck Schumer, along with Hillary the Carpet Bagger are two reasons why I am glad I no longer live in NY.

I don't see where he criticized the troops. The troops have systematically dismantled any armed resistance since day one.

This war isn't about the force of arms. It never was. The insurgents have gone back to their everyday lives. They will resume blowing things up later.

Absolutely worthless Democrat Chuck Schumer is an absolute piece of anti-American garbage.

Daily he warms his chair and every day he fogs a mirror, he makes the job of American troops harder.

Al Qaeda is just a convenient offshoot of the Democrat Party's war on this country.

Democrats - not the solution to the problem, but the main problem.

Moving the goalposts indeed! The Surrender Now wing of the Democrat party is running scared. Democrat House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn stated that good news from Iraq in September would be a big problem for the Defeatocrats. Looks like Schumer agrees and is sweating over the loss of his number one campaign issue...so much so that he is resorting to Orwellian doubletalk and making Kerryesque demeaning comments about our troops.

Schumer is shameless and despicable. New York needs to get rid of this putz.

Schumer was correct. If the Anbar Sunnis hadn't decided on their own to turn against Al Qaeda, the Surge would be a COMPLETE failure. Instead, it continues the "slow bleed" policy of Pres. Fredo.

I mean, they complained about deaths. All down.

Iraqi civilian deaths are back up where they were before the Surge.

Senator Schumer is getting campaign contributions from foreign powers while claiming our troops lack prowess at peacemaking? Someone, please help me contain my very justifiable desire for rough justice!

At the very least - NY voters have inflicted Schumer, Spitzer and Clinton on us... isn't there some kind of three-strike law we can invoke here? How much calumny can a decent country take? (Look it up.)

What is happening in Anbar is completely independant of the surge. Bush was pointing to the tribal leaders turning on AQI in Anbar during his speech in JANUARY -- before the surge started. Sure the Sunnis have turned on the evil AQI. Which they would have done with or without us. AQI has no natural allies in Iraq. It never has. In the meantime we are arming the Sunnis big time. When the US withdraws -- and it will have to draw down in the Spring regardless of what anyone thinks unless we institute a draft-- we can only hope that we've armed the Sunnis enough to keep the Shiites from wiping them out.

Chuck sound like he believes that Iraq is inhabited by nothing more than savages. This is the cradle of human civilization, and he thinks they're just a bunch of primitives! Talk about a bigot!

"Sure the Sunnis have turned on the evil AQI. Which they would have done with or without us."

Really? And once they turned, what would they have done about it? Without us? You state that the surge is independent of Anbar. Isn't it more likely that the surge was timed to exploit the facts on the ground in Anbar, the split between the locals and AQ?

As to the draft, is this just speculation or is there legislation pending I don't know about? It seems the only people who want a draft are those in favor of ending our involvement in Iraq now. This seems counterintuitive. The military certainly doesn't favor it nor does the majority of America. But I'm not a military specialist so I bow to other's greater expertise in this area.

They complained about the number of terror attacks. All down.

Nope, wrong again. They are all up.

Steve is right, if not for the locals turning against al Qaeda, the situation would not have improved. I think that Dems have made it very clear that US failures in Iraq have are entirely the fault of Bush and his misguided team, not of our soldiers.

It's not hard to take a quote and try to turn it into anti-American rhetoric. Right wing bloggers used this tactic to silence all dissent in the first 2 years of the war, when many observers were correctly pointing to severe problems in strategy that could have been addressed at the time. Returning to this kind of tactic harmed our country then, and it will have the same effect now.

Yes, the goal posts have been moved- instead of measuring progress in Iraq by evaluating political progress in Baghdad, the White House is pushing a new metric- progress occurring outside the capital. In fact, this measurment has always been more realstic than focusing on the formerly untouchable safe haven of the green zone.

Baghdad will eventually become much safer as ethnic cleansing oontinues. With the Badhdad police firmly controlled by Shitte militias, the Sunnis will be forced out and Sunni fighters will have to move elsewhere.

Isn't it more likely that the surge was timed to exploit the facts on the ground in Anbar, the split between the locals and AQ?

No, otherwise the Surge would've started in the Fall of 2006.

When Chuckie hears from those fine warriors that protect us, he had better pray that when they "reach out and touch someone", they use AT&T (even though he doesn't deserve that courtesy).

their clear ability to protect civilians and drive al-Qaeda terrorists from places like Baqubah and Fallujah.

From the current State Dept. Iraq travel advisory:

Travel in or through Ramadi and Fallujah; in and between al-Hillah, al-Basrah, Kirkuk, Baqubah (Diyala Province), and Baghdad; between the International Zone and Baghdad International Airport; and from Baghdad to Mosul is particularly dangerous.

Schumer is such a pig. There's really nothing else to be said about the man.

Sorry Steve J, the attacks against our forces are down. The attacks against Iraqi civilians have increased. If you're going to attack somebody, who better than someone who doesn't fire back.
BTW, when was the last time we here in the good old USA, had someone walk into a police station and shoot the place up? It's so much easier at V-T.

Bennett -- AQI constitutes about 10% of the insurgency by any standard. They have been succesful against the US because they can blend in with the population and anti-US sentiment initially led to the Sunnis in Anbar shielding them. The Sunnis themselves don't have any real desire for a Shite theocracy in Iraq and can easily sort out the natives from foriegn jihadis who have come into Iraq since the US led invasion.

As far as a draft is concerned, ALL military experts point to the fact that the armed services are severely overstretched at this point and that normal troop rotations will force a drawndown in the spring. If there is not a draft, there will be a drawndown by March. My question is -- even if you believe that the surge has some limited success -- what can it do between now and march that will last in Iraq?

"No, otherwise the Surge would've started in the Fall of 2006."

Why?

> If we were as incompetent as Chuck says, why
> would they bother working with us at all?

Maybe because we are giving them guns for free?

BTW Teresa, if we instituted the draft tomorrow morning, the first combat troops would not be available for approx. 18 months (March '09).
The brass has been singing this over-stressed song for several years now. They have adapted; they will continue to inovate; they will overcome.

Sorry Steve J, the attacks against our forces are down.

Irrelevant from a strategic perspective.

"No, otherwise the Surge would've started in the Fall of 2006."

Why?

Because the Anbar Sunnis started turning in late summer.

"As far as a draft is concerned, ALL military experts point to the fact that the armed services are severely overstretched at this point and that normal troop rotations will force a drawndown in the spring."

I don't know who these military experts are but I'll assume you have confidence in their assessment. How does that get us to a draft? Which would do nothing in the short-term to alleviate this "overstretching"? Again, I'm not a military expert and I have no special insight into what solutions are on the drawing board. But I am fairly confident that a draft is way way down on the list.

You stated that we either draw down or institute a draft. I simply wondered how you came to the conclusion that a draft was in the works or would even solve any problems since I think it takes at least 12-18 months to train someone for the MOS that are needed in Iraq.

BTW, when was the last time we here in the good old USA...

I've got one for you: When was the last time a plane was attacked taking off from Dulles?

Plane with U.S. lawmakers fired on while leaving Iraq
updated 12:49 p.m. EDT, Fri August 31, 2007

(CNN) -- A U.S. military plane carrying three U.S. senators and one member of the House of Representatives came under fire Thursday night as it left Baghdad, Iraq, but it was not hit and flew safely to Amman, Jordan.

Drew-

Most comments are long on demagoguery but fail to address the real point of contention- has progress in Iraq been driven more by US military strategy or by the actions of players in the Iraqi theatre?

When you combine the effects of tribal leaders turning against insurgents with the cleansing of Baghdad (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/), it's plausible that the US surge strategy isn't as consequential as advertised. I don't know the answer to this issue but it's interesting to see the right try and distort it.

"No, otherwise the Surge would've started in the Fall of 2006."

Why?

Because the Anbar Sunnis started turning in late summer."

That doesn't answer the question though. Why would the Fall of 2006 have been the optimal time to capitalize on that turning, which by your own statement had "started" then? Why is it not just as plausible that we allowed that turning to mature, to let the situation ripen to the point where we could capitalize on it successfully?

But I bow to your greater expertise in matters of military strategy, tactics and logistics. General Petraeus could probably benefit from your insights!

I'll be preferring charges against Schumer tomorrow. He's in violation of at least two articles of the law that defines treason, and I think he should hang for it. I'll be faxing a memo to the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, the FBI, whatever law enforcement agencies still survive in New York, and anyone else I can think of.

They will be compelled to pay attention if I recommend that Schumer be charged, found guilty, and hung by the neck until dead. It's not a threat if I don't offer to do it myself, but I hope to get their attention. I'd be pleased to be a witness at his execution.

Steve got his talking points mixed up.

Sen. Shelby's and Rep. Cramer's plane was in Baghdad, Iraq, taking off in Iraq. Even the CNN article oddly referenced makes that clear. The plane may have originated from Dulles several days before but that is a propaganda stretch even for a BDS infected Democrat finger pointer to try nowadays.

Check with Chuckie I'm sure he can set you straight. (sarcasm off)

Steve, reddog, and the rest of the "Usual Suspects,"

Question of the Evening: Which do you think is more dangerous?

a) Pulling convoy duty in Anbar Province?

or

b) Getting between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera?

Think long and hard before you answer.....

But I bow to your greater expertise in matters of military strategy, tactics and logistics. General Petraeus could probably benefit from your insights!

kthx!

The improvement of security in Anbar doesn't have anything to do with the U.S. military or U.S. policy in Iraq. The tribal leaders in Anbar had to turn on al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia in order to secure their own survival. It certainly wasn't because they liked or appreciated the U.S. and the U.S. military. The Anbar tribal leaders began turning on al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia long before the U.S. troop surge was even a gleam in President Bush's eye (i.e. summer 2006).

The U.S. military is now just training and alligning themselves with the same Iraqi fighters that are going to turn on them in the future and turn on the Iraqi Shiites in the civil war in that country.

Liberals like schumer,steve j,and teresa have blamed President Bush for everything from Hurricanes and terrorism,to Global warming and the fact that they can't get real jobs.
They have declared the war in Iraq lost and the surge as a failure before it was even implemented.
Now that it is apparent from Democrats and Republicans that the surge is showing progress does Bush get the credit,hell no,it was going to happen anyway!!
God I would love to see a link or anything that showed were you liberals knew that Al-Qeada would be driven out of the worst areas in Iraq and this amount of progress would be shown in such a short
amount of time without our military having anything to do with it.Of course that probably won't be possible because all you liberals have done since you voted for this war is arm chair General and criticize.
oops!sorry,my fault,your UN/Eu problem solving for Rwanda and Darfur worked out great huh!
How are those "free Tibet" bumper stickers working out.
Your UN/Eu problem solving doing wonders stopping those Iranian nukes also huh!
Maybe you could get Clooney to give another speech at the UN.
Maybe you liberals could all get together at
Starbucks and plan another "I Hate Bush"march.
That would certainly put the fear of Allah in the Jihadist!
We know it's not strong leadership from our President and incredible bravery and sacrifice from out military that's defeating the jihadist,
it's liberals like schumer,steve j,and teresa yelling at the top of their lungs,

"Get the troops out now" "We surrender"

This administration and our military have
freed over 50 million people from some of the most
brutal and sadistic dictatorships in modern history.

They have N. Korea shutting down their nuclear
program the "right way",not the Clinton way.

We have not been attacked since 9/11.

We still maintain one of the strongest economies
despite shouldering the burden of the War on Terror.

And if you liberals truly cared about Freedom and all the ideals you are constantly patting yourselves on the back about,you would contribute and support the hard and dangerous road to a free
society that the Iraqis want.

But you liberals show time and again that all you
care about is political gain and bashing Bush,no
matter what the cost in lives or stopping the
jihadist dream of achieving their new Caliphate.
No matter what progress is made in Iraq,liberals will move the goal posts and still declare failure.
I wish you held the education system,crime,and
fiscal equality in the overwhelming democratic run
cities like New Orleans and DC to the same standards you hold for Iraq.

By the way genius liberals,how is that
Impeachment going?

I find it absolutely hallucinogenic that the leftists here, who regularly throw the quaint temr "chickenhawk" around to describe the Republicans who never served in the military, are suddenly hitching their stars to Schumer, who has NEVER served a day in the military.

In fact, Schumer has never held a real job in his adult life. He went to college, and then straight into politics. He's never ever worked a day of his "adult" life in the private sector.

By the way, anyone with a modicum of intelligence will tell you that "chickenhawks" is a bird-watcher's term used to describe a particularly ferocious family of raptors, or members of the hawk family. Yet another example of the leftists trying to "insult" their political opponents with a word they're too stupid to understand.

"has progress in Iraq been driven more by US military strategy or by the actions of players in the Iraqi theatre?"

Why is this an either/or proposition? I don't understand this need to reduce every development to some simple mathematical formula. If we've learned nothing else in the last 4+ years, I think we should have learned that nothing about Iraq is simple. And that goes for left and right.

We can play chicken or the egg all night long. It doesn't alter the fact that circumstances in Anbar have changed. And unless General Petraeus or someone from his staff is idling away time here posting under a pseudonym, no one here has the first clue about what works in Iraq or why. It's all just chatter (but interesting nonetheless!)

Del Dolemonte wrote:

"I find it absolutely hallucinogenic that the leftists here, who regularly throw the quaint temr 'chickenhawk' around to describe the Republicans who never served in the military, are suddenly hitching their stars to Schumer, who has NEVER served a day in the military."

People deserve the label "chickenhawk" when they are willing to send people into war when they never had the courage to go to war themselves. (Bush and Cheney.) It's astounding hubris on their part. I don't see how this applies to the current discussion about Chuck Schemer being right about what's going on in Anbar Province.

Now, let's not be too critical of Schumer's military expertise. Dukakis may have let him wear his famous tank helmet. Once or twice.

I repeat. It's encyclopedic truth that Schumer is telling, and anyone who rejects it just isn't in touch with reality. I don't know if you can call that "military expertise" on his part, but it certainly is common sense and intellectual honesty.

The improved security in Anbar Province has nothing to do with the U.S. military and U.S. policy in Iraq.

"People deserve the label "chickenhawk" when they are willing to send people into war when they never had the courage to go to war themselves."

This would include then John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams.

I think they would bristle at being called chickenhawks.

Liberals like schumer,steve j,and teresa have blamed President Bush for everything from Hurricanes and terrorism,to Global warming and the fact that they can't get real jobs.

That's not true. However, I do have my suspicions about his role in the Yankees' ALCS collapse a few years ago.

:-)

"I do have my suspicions about his role in the Yankees' ALCS collapse a few years ago."

That's what some would call justice. Divine justice.

LiberalJoshua: "It's encyclopedic truth that Schumer is telling...The improved security in Anbar Province has nothing to do with the U.S. military"

Well, why dispute all the other morons on here tonight...when LiberalJoshua sums 'em all up?

Who the hell do the Leftist morons, like LiberalJoshua, think kicked alQueda's ass sufficiently that the Sunni's would DARE to satnd up to them?

Who the hell do the Leftist morons, like LiberalJoshua, think has been denying alQueda every haven (except CBS & NBC) across Iraq...and thus providing the average Iraqi a chance for hope?

I could ask DOZENS of such questions...and the answer to each and every one would be: The U.S. Military!! Period.

READ, Leftists, Michael Yon, et al, and find out what is REALLY going on...versus the words on the bumber sticker you saw this afternoon.

Until the Sunnis saw our RESULTS they couldn't be sure we wouldn't Cut & Run [tm-Democrats] before we finished the job. Now they see the job getting done...and are rising to the task.

Bennett wrote:

"This would include then John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams.

I think they would bristle at being called chickenhawks."

Yay for questionable rhetorical comparisons? Bush, Cheney, and potentionally more are chickenhawks in every negative connotation of the term.

Send U.S. troops to their deaths? No prob. It's all for the cause.

How is this questionable, LJ? You made the statement that anyone who is willing to send someone to war when he doesn't have the courage to go himself is a chickenhawk. Each of these men actively encouraged the American Revolution. One of them even wrote a Declaration of Independence to inflame the colonists' passions and incite them to rebel. That same man, when he was President, sent the Navy after the Barbary pirates. James Madison, co-author of The Federalist Papers, was President during the War of 1812 (which history shows was started by the US).

None of the men I named ever wore a uniform. Are they chickenhawks? It was your premise, not mine.

liberaljoshua,

I take it you will not be voting for the "chickenhawks" Hillary,Obama,or Edwards in 08.

Hillary and Edwards voted for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Neither have served.

Obama wants to send troops to Pakistan.

He has not served either.

I Believe we have about 1.5 million give or take
in the military.

Does this mean the other 298.5 million Americans
are "chickenhawks".

How can liberals say they support the war in
Afghanistan without enlisting.
liberal,if you support the war in Afghanistan and have not enlisted,by your definition,you are
a "chickenhawk".

Doesn't the 1st Amendment allow me to speak and
support anything I want,or does it only apply to
liberals when they are calling our troops"Nazis"and our President "Hitler".

Was Clinton a "chickenhawk" when he bombed Kosovo,Iraq,and Afghanistan.

liberaljoshua,your "chickenhawk" rant is just
another liberal circle jerk.
Stick to appeasement of jihadist and your "hug a terrorist" agenda.

Speaking of "hug a terrorist"agenda,where has
your liberal hero Cindy Sheehan disappeared to.

ohh!my fault! I forgot.
She started calling out democrats for being full
of Sh#t and she got shut down.

Gotta love liberals and how they practice free
speech.

Bennett -- I am not saying there is going to be a draft. I'm saying that we are going to draw down in the spring. And either Bush is going to claim we are drawing down because we've "won" (no matter what the facts are on the ground) or he will claim that we are drawing down because the evil democratic/liberal media cabal has forced us to withdrawal. Either way we are coming out in the spring. I'm wondering what we can accomplish before then that will make staying now worth it. Even if you believe the surge is having a great effect, is it a sustainable effect? If not, should we be risking the lives of more American soldiers in the meantime? In other words, if everything is going to fall apart when we leave anyway, should we leave sooner or later?

Baxter -- I don't blame Bush for all the ills of the world, but I sure as hell blame him for getting us into this unholy mess in Iraq.

And finally, Schumer is exactly right about Iraq. The "whack a mole" strategy that we have been following the last few years in Iraq probably did convince the Sunnis that they needed to take over their own security. We cleared cities, left, and let the bad guys take them right back over. This is not the fault of our enlisted guys -- esp. not my two first cousins who are Army Rangers over there -- but it certainly is the fault of Bush & Rumsfeld who thought they could do this war on the cheap with way fewer troops than they needed to begin with. We don't have enough troops now to control the country and we are going to see real problems now that the Brits have left Basra and temperatures start to fall in Iraq. If you check violence rates there, they are always lower in the summer than the fall.

Justrand wrote:

"Well, why dispute all the other morons on here tonight...when LiberalJoshua sums 'em all up?

Who the hell do the Leftist morons, like LiberalJoshua, think kicked alQueda's ass sufficiently that the Sunni's would DARE to satnd up to them?

Who the hell do the Leftist morons, like LiberalJoshua, think has been denying alQueda every haven (except CBS & NBC) across Iraq...and thus providing the average Iraqi a chance for hope?

I could ask DOZENS of such questions...and the answer to each and every one would be: The U.S. Military!! Period.

READ, Leftists, Michael Yon, et al, and find out what is REALLY going on...versus the words on the bumber sticker you saw this afternoon.

Until the Sunnis saw our RESULTS they couldn't be sure we wouldn't Cut & Run [tm-Democrats] before we finished the job. Now they see the job getting done...and are rising to the task."

The Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar stood up to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia out of their own survivial. They didn't need anyone to stand up for them for moral support. Not being killed by al-Qades in Mesopotamia was all the moral support they needed.

It's disengenious for the President or the U.S. military to take credit for the security improvements in Anbar. That's just fact. And no anecdotal account from a U.S. military person on the ground in Iraq is going to change that fact.

Moral support supposedly given to Sunni Anbar tribal leaders isn't exactly scientific evidence, and therefore not verifiable. And that means it's disengenious to take credit for whatever the Sunni Anbar trobal leaders are doing.

If you follow the logic of LiberalJoshua, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the only option Roosevelt had was to immediately surrender to the Japanese.

Wilson should have surrendered to Germany.

Jefferson should have surrendered to the Musslemen.

Left up to people like LiberalJoshua, this country would not have survived long.

Tell me LiberalJoshua, did you vote for the disabled war veteran Dole or did you vote for the draft dodging chickenhawk Clinton?

If the race comes down to the war veteran McCain or the chickenhawk Hillary, who you going to vote for.

Do you think Hill and Bill should send Chelsea to Iraq?

..........sound of goal posts moving..........

Bennett wrote:

"How is this questionable, LJ? You made the statement that anyone who is willing to send someone to war when he doesn't have the courage to go himself is a chickenhawk. Each of these men actively encouraged the American Revolution. One of them even wrote a Declaration of Independence to inflame the colonists' passions and incite them to rebel. That same man, when he was President, sent the Navy after the Barbary pirates. James Madison, co-author of The Federalist Papers, was President during the War of 1812 (which history shows was started by the US).

None of the men I named ever wore a uniform. Are they chickenhawks? It was your premise, not mine."

It's questionable because I use the example of Bush, Cheney and Company from the last 6 and a half years. You're attempting a comparison to Washington, Adams, Madison, etc., from 1770-1820ish.

There is no comparison. Bush, Cheney and Company are arrogant chickenhawks and they deserve to be told that.

"The Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar stood up to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia out of their own survivial. They didn't need anyone to stand up for them for moral support. Not being killed by al-Qades in Mesopotamia was all the moral support they needed."

This is a true statement. Sunnis allied with AQ initially, realized after (quite) awhile that this was not a good alliance (understatement), decided to end the alliance.

Where I think many of us would disagree with you LJ is in your complete dismissal of the role played by the US military in enabling the Sunnis to terminate that alliance successfully. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the Sunnis could have or would have thrown out AQ on their own or been able to keep them out. They may have wanted to do it but they did not have the capability to do it.

And you're obviously not a moron. Perhaps a little misinformed but not a moron.

"The improved security in Anbar Province has nothing to do with the U.S. military and U.S. policy in Iraq."
__________________________________________
Right on, man! Except for the fact that when Sheik Sattar began the Awakening Movement in 2006, the U.S. military protected him personally with American soldiers and tanks;

the U.S. military provided the former Sunni insurgents with advanced communications equipment so that they could coordinate with the Iraqi security forces and call in American airstrikes;

the U.S. military brokered peace deals between the Sunnis and the Shi'ite government in Baghdad;

the U.S. military mediated between feuding Sunni tribes and got them to sign treaties;

the U.S. military oversaw the integration of Sunni militias into the Iraqi armed forces, where they serve under Shi'ite and Kurdish commanders;

and the U.S. military went into Anbar Province and fought house to house alongside the former Sunni insurgents, using American firepower to kill terrorists and suffering heavy casualties in the process.

Besides those piddly little things, the U.S. military did nothing to augment the Sunni Awakening. Like the incompetent boobs they are, our troops just sat around with their thumbs up their butts and contributed nothing at all.

One more thing: You say we armed the Sunnis to fight al Qaeda, and at the same time you say the Sunnis beat al Qaeda without our help.

This is a self-negating argument, a real "D'oh!" moment.

Being a "progressive" means never having to make sense, as long as you express yourselves with as much sneering and sanctimony as possible.

punslinger wrote:

"If you follow the logic of LiberalJoshua, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, the only option Roosevelt had was to immediately surrender to the Japanese.

Wilson should have surrendered to Germany.

Jefferson should have surrendered to the Musslemen.

Left up to people like LiberalJoshua, this country would not have survived long.

Tell me LiberalJoshua, did you vote for the disabled war veteran Dole or did you vote for the draft dodging chickenhawk Clinton?

If the race comes down to the war veteran McCain or the chickenhawk Hillary, who you going to vote for.

Do you think Hill and Bill should send Chelsea to Iraq?"

You're crazy if you think I'm answering that rhetoric directly and letting you frame the discussion with what appears to be an entire army (no pun intended) of logical fallacies.

"It's questionable because I use the example of Bush, Cheney and Company from the last 6 and a half years. You're attempting a comparison to Washington, Adams, Madison, etc., from 1770-1820ish."

Uh...okay.

I think I get it. Sort of, although not really because of course Bush did wear a uniform. But I guess the idea is if it's happening now, it's cowardly and hubris. If it happened before I was born, it's just history (and therefore irrelevant).

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), the Constitution doesn't restrict the President's C-in-C powers if he never wore a uniform. For which we can blame those illustrious men I first mentioned.

But I bow to your greater expertise in matters of military strategy, tactics and logistics. General Petraeus could probably benefit from your insights

It's interesting to watch Bush trying to hide behind the military and the right acting as if that's been the practice of Bush's team all along.

If Bush had listened to the military, the US wouldn't find itself in this position. Bush and Rummy ignored the joint chiefs when 400k troops were originally envisioned for the Iraq invasion and then turned deaf when commanders on the ground consistently asked for more troops in the first 2 years of the war.

The most brilliant anti-military maneuver occurred when Bush replaced the highly competent and effective General Jay Garner with a State Dept hack who lacked leadership skills- Paul Bremer, who proceeded to run Iraq like his personal kingdom. Bush's decision to replace General Garner may go down as one of the greatest military blunders in this country's history.

Fast forward to 2007, and according to the White House and right-wing bloggers, Bush has never done anything but support the military and the military's decisions. Talk about a fantasy- it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Bennett wrote:
"Where I think many of us would disagree with you LJ is in your complete dismissal of the role played by the US military in enabling the Sunnis to terminate that alliance successfully. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the Sunnis could have or would have thrown out AQ on their own or been able to keep them out. They may have wanted to do it but they did not have the capability to do it.

And you're obviously not a moron. Perhaps a little misinformed but not a moron."

Well thank you so much for agreeing that I am not a moron, but that's really not necessary. I couldn't care less what names I get called or what others have to say about me personally.

I still stand by the fact that the U.S. military and U.S. policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the improved security in Anbar and that the U.S. and its military shouldn't be taking any kind of credit for it.

Logistics coming from the U.S. military, if there even was any at any time, is umimpressive and periphial.

"You're crazy it you think I'm answering that rhetoric directly and letting you frame the discussion with what appears to be an entire army(no pun intended) of logical fallacies"

Translated:

My ignorant "chickenhawk" argument cannot be backed up with logic or facts and has solidly forced
my head clear up my AS#!!!

"Fast forward to 2007, and according to the White House and right-wing bloggers, Bush has never done anything but support the military and the military's decisions. Talk about a fantasy- it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic."

Where on earth do you get that out of my comment to SteveJ in response to his unequivocal statement that the surge has nothing to do with the Anbar Awakening?

SteveJ and others have evinced an unshakeable view that the Surge had nothing to do with the situation on the ground in Anbar. I am not so confident in this assessment, I simply don't have the military expertise to state that that they are correct.

Certainly we are on the ground in Anbar and the situation there has changed. But this could be serendipity. It seems unlikely, that there isn't some connection but since SteveJ (and I guess you) have no such doubts --that the two are not related-- I can only assume that you all have greater experience in assessing military developments in Iraq. Unless you're just blowing smoke to make a political point. But I'm sure that's not it.

You simply can't get there from here...pick a different quote.

Bennett wrote:

"Uh...okay. I think I get it. Sort of, although not really because of course Bush did wear a uniform. But I guess the idea is if it's happening now, it's cowardly and hubris. If it happened before I was born, it's just history (and therefore irrelevant). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), the Constitution doesn't restrict the President's C-in-C powers if he never wore a uniform. For which we can blame those illustrious men I first mentioned."

What Bush, Cheney, and Company are doing now is indeed hubris, not because it is happening now, but because it's obvious to be hubris and a bit cowardly as opposed to what occurred centuries ago. Therefore, your comparison to Washington, Adams, and Company is fallacious.

The Constitution may not be able to blame the President's actions based upon whether he wore a uniform or not, but I can. And I have blamed Bush, Cheney and Company, and rightfully so. (Although, I'm not blaming Bush because he didn't wear a uniform, since you so rightly pointed out that he did. I am blaming him for sending U.S. troops to their deaths when he apparently can't relate personally since he never went to war himself.)

No, LiberalJoshua, you ARE a moron...or doing a splendid imitation of one!

"I still stand by the fact that the U.S. military and U.S. policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the improved security in Anbar and that the U.S. and its military shouldn't be taking any kind of credit for it.
Logistics coming from the U.S. military, if there even was any at any time, is umimpressive and periphial.."

Your, and Chuckie Shumer's, complete dismissal of the our military's efforts is beyond moronic...it is intentionally offensive to our military.

Having friends who have served in 120+ degree heat there, and chased down (and killed) numerous of our enemy there I find your comments particularly offensive.

The Sunnis, especially, needed to see that we were NOT going to be forced to retreat by you, LiberalJoshua, and your ill-gotten ilk.

alQueda at one point seemed to offer them a simple dismal choice: Submission or Death!

OUR military offered them a third choice: Work WITH us and take back your lives!!

They chose us! The surge allowed us to put alQueda, et al, on the run...and they are STILL running. Yes they can blow up 500 people in a remote village. That was FOUR morons in FOUR trucks. Hardly a major military operation...but one which the MSM clung to!

LiberalJoshua...why don't you find a local VFW or American Legion, and give them your take on worthless our military is. Better yet, come to mine!

Baxter Greene wrote:

"Translated:

My ignorant 'chickenhawk' argument cannot be backed up with logic or facts and has solidly forced
my head clear up my AS#!!!"

You know, translating or interpreting what others say is another logical fallacy. That appears really ignorant when you use it.

Bush, Cheney and Company are chickenhawks is every negative sense of the term. Arrogant, casual with human life, violent, amoral, santimonious, everything. You know, a chickenhawk.

LiberalJoshua: "I am blaming him for sending U.S. troops to their deaths when he apparently can't relate personally since he never went to war himself.)"

By that logic Hillary, Obama and Edwards CANNOT be your choice for President...as they would be unable to carry out the office of President! right???

"The Constitution may not be able to blame the President's actions based upon whether he wore a uniform or not, but I can."

Isn't that great about America? You get to say (or write) pretty much whatever you want...and for that we can also thank those long dead men (chickenhawks though they were).

"Well thank you so much for agreeing that I am not a moron, but that's really not necessary. I couldn't care less what names I get called or what others have to say about me personally."

A tad churlish, don't you think? You could have stopped at thank you.

LiberalJoshua..."Arrogant, casual with human life, violent, amoral, santimonious"

you declared Buch to be all those things. Did you happen to see the President in Anbar the other day? Oddly, he appeared to be NONE of those things. And the response from the troops underscores MY opinion, not yours.

Your BDS is showing, as is your utter contempt for our military.

The REALITY is that we ARE winning in Iraq...and it pisses you off.

Justrand. Thanks for your belief in me being a moron. But as I said before, I couldn't less what you think about such things.

But I'm not going to stop telling the truth just because it's "intentionally offensive" to you or supposedly to the military in general.

There was no third choice by the Sunnis. It was either fight against al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or die. That's what the decision was about, and the U.S. military and U.S. policy had nothing to do with improved security in Anbar. Certainly not if it's the surge and certainly not if it's unimpressive logisitics. It's still disengenious for the military to claim credit for improvements in Anbar.

Good night folks. Sleep well knowing our military is there to defend us all. And yes, LJ, even your worthless hide!

LJ: "There was no third choice by the Sunnis. It was either fight against al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or die."

Last add...bullshit!

alQueda HAD taken over much of Anbar. the people WERE choosing to submit and live.

Yes, the submission was awful...but submit they did because alQueda was so powerful they had NO other choice.

WE weakened them, and trained the Iraqi military sufficient that they could do much of the fighting...giving the Sunnis in Anbar further hope.

WE set the stage for the success there now.

Had we simply cut & run, as you would prefer, then alQueda would STILL control Anbar.

Those are facts.

Justrand wrote:

"By that logic Hillary, Obama and Edwards CANNOT be your choice for President...as they would be unable to carry out the office of President! right???"

Logical fallacy there. First interpeting what I say, making questionable points to back up your interpretation, and then carrying your interpretation of my logic to a conclusion.

Bad form.

Justrand wrote:
"Good night folks. Sleep well knowing our military is there to defend us all. And yes, LJ, even your worthless hide!"

Unjustifiable self-righteousness AND bitter name-calling. I refuse to accept that every military man and woman is like that. It's hard to believe that they are.

Had we simply cut & run, as you would prefer, then alQueda would STILL control Anbar.

Those are facts.

That ISN'T a fact. We could have provided the Anbar Sunnis with arms & money even if we had begun to withdraw.

Until the Sunnis saw our RESULTS they couldn't be sure we wouldn't Cut & Run [tm-Democrats] before we finished the job.

It's just the opposite. The Sunnis began to realize two things: (1) we wouldn't be in Iraq forever; (2) Al AQaeda is a monstrous organization.

“It’s not that they love us Americans,” said one senior administration official. “It’s that Al Qaeda was so heavy-handed, taking out Sunnis just because they were smoking a cigarette. In the end, that may be the best break we’ve gotten in a while.”

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/world/middleeast/05assess.html?th&emc=th

Bennett wrote:
"Isn't that great about America? You get to say (or write) pretty much whatever you want...and for that we can also thank those long dead men (chickenhawks though they were)."

That is great about America, thanks to I suppose Washington, Adams, etc. I suppose that's whom you're referring to. Although I don't know whether they are chickenhawks or not. I haven't had the chance to witness them as up close as I have with Bush, Cheney, and the Gang, whom definately are chickenhawks. Amoral, violent, casual about life, etc., etc., all that.

"A tad churlish, don't you think? You could have stopped at thank you."

I must admit, my full intention wasn't to thank you for saying I'm not a moron. It was also to make the point that I really don't care what others have to say about me. My experience is that when people call you names when you disagree over a very serious topic, you should tell the truth about it no mattering objectively and that you don't care if they do it. Or else they are going to keep doing it as if means something.

"We could have provided the Anbar Sunnis with arms & money even if we had begun to withdraw."

Huh? And then what? The poorly trained, ill equipped tribesmen would have magically turned into the functional equivalent of the Marines? You can't really believe that shipping in some AK47s and a few RPGs would have set things right in Anbar. Have you followed what happened there at all before this summer?

Maybe if we'd given them Stingers...

oh, wait...sorry...different country, different decade...different enemy.

SteveJ and others have evinced an unshakeable view that the Surge had nothing to do with the situation on the ground in Anbar. I am not so confident in this assessment, I simply don't have the military expertise to state that that they are correct.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to say that the Anbar Awakening preceded the announcement of the Surge by months. The Awakening is PRIMARILY the cause of the limited success we've had.

"It was also to make the point that I really don't care what others have to say about me."

But I do. I don't believe that those with whom I disagree should be called morons. Mistaken definitely but not morons. Misinformed for sure but not morons.

Name calling lowers the debate to a 3rd grade level. That was my point.

Huh? And then what? The poorly trained, ill equipped tribesmen would have magically turned into the functional equivalent of the Marines?

Poorly trained, ill equipped insurgents in Iraq have certainly given the Marines a decent fight.

Have you followed what happened there at all before this summer?

I've tried to.

"I meant to say that the Anbar Awakening preceded the announcement of the Surge by months>"

Well, yeah. Iraqis got tired of being killed for smoking a cigarette or buying the wrong vegetables, probably right from the jump. But so what? Without the Petraeus strategy, it doesn't seem likely that they could have successfully done anything about it. But perhaps you have some evidence to support the idea that Fallujah was garden city Iraq before the surge.

Because otherwise there is no way to support the premise that US military action in Anbar has nothing to do with the results on the ground there.

I don't know anyone who has said that the Surge caused the Sunnis to see the light. But I think the Sunnis themselves have said that without sustained military presence in Anbar they would not have been willing to return to the streets and confront AQ.

"Poorly trained, ill equipped insurgents in Iraq have certainly given the Marines a decent fight."

Really? How so?

Sorry, I didn't mean to hit post.

Name any engagement by them with the enemy in Iraq since March 18, 2003 which was not won by the U.S. Marines.

This is part and parcel of the Dhimmi plan for retreat and defeat, they have been trying to force the retreat for years now and the military speaking up has stopped them now they have come to realize that the only way they will force a retreat is by smeering the troops since they know the American electorate trusts the military far more than the politicians and will listen to the generals and ignore the Dhimmi's politicians so now they will use the Vietnam formula that John Kerry, John Murtha et al love so much. Echoes of Jenjis Khan and all that.

Just finished reading all the comments. By far the most interesting is by a newbie called "LiberalJoshua". Walks into making several of our founding fathers "chickenhawks", and then tries to weasel out by using the "hubris" word over and over against Bush, as if namecalling somehow makes the contorted logic seem ok.

The point is, we don't require our Presidents to have had military service. It isn't written into our constitution, and any number of Presidents have managed without it. I'll mention a couple more not yet mentioned. Franklin Roosevelt. William Jefferson Clinton. [Both the aforementioned beat opponents with far more war experience than they had].

What amuses me is that LJ would try to cut the debate completely off by only allowing those who have served to debate. Well, if we are going to go there, lets limit the debate to those who have served in Iraq. Given the voting record of those both active duty and veteran, I think LJ's position would not be well served. The Democrats have a history of attempting to prevent the counting of absentee ballots for that reason, since the largest number of those come from military personnel, who tend overwhelmingly to vote Republican.

In fact, the one thing I really liked about Heinlein's fictional universe was that the franchise only went to those who had served. Maybe we need to amend the Constitution to limit the franchise that way. Seems right, doesn't it, LiberalJoshua?

Without the Petraeus strategy,

It's not clear whose strategy it is. I've read that Maliki came up with the 1st draft and that Fred Kagan also made the plan.

But I think the Sunnis themselves have said that without sustained military presence in Anbar they would not have been willing to return to the streets and confront AQ.

That is simply not true.

"Poorly trained, ill equipped insurgents in Iraq have certainly given the Marines a decent fight."

Really? How so?

We're still in Iraq.

the American electorate trusts the military far more than the politicians

The military have lied to us too many times and have lost credibility.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/316.pdf

When I first read Trashcan Chuckie's remarks and the comments of our resident liberals, I was pretty angry. Then I thought about it and realized...

They're admitting that we're winning!

Oh, they'll never say it in so many words (that would be perilously close to admitting that Bush ISN'T an idiot), but when they've got to spin using phrases like "in spite of the surge, not because of the surge" and "it won't last", they are tacitly admitting that the situation in Iraq is getting better.

Trashcan Chuckie: And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.

I seem to recall the dems bitching and moaning for the past several years that the Iraqis weren't doing enough, that we were taking all the risks and responsibilities, and that the lack of effort on the part of Iraqis to provide for their own security was evidence that our efforts in Iraq were a failure. Now that Iraqis are stepping up, the dems don't like that, either. Talk about "heads I win, tails you lose"!

It speaks volumes of the "patriotism" of dems that ANY good news from Iraq has to be spun as bad news, and any bad news from Iraq is welcomed with shouts of acclamation.

Benedict Arnold would be so proud.

LiberalJoshua accuses me of illogic.

Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks because (1)they are supporting a war that LiberalJoshua disaproves of and (2) they did not serve in combat.

Neither of the Clintons served in combat and they have supported a war that LiberalJoshua disaproves of.

The only difference that I see is that two are Republican and two are Democrat.

LiberalJoshua seems to confuse fact with opinion. Whether group A had an influence on group B is an opinion that is supported or not supported by facts.

You dodged all of my questions LiberalJoshua. How is it that only Republicans are chickenhawks and none of the Democratic candidates who voted for the war are not. Aside from your obvious case of BDS.

Its hands-down the funniest thing to watch libtards like stevey j, Libtard Joshua, and our usual doofus bayam lay down non-arguments like:

"thats not true"

That's powerful stuff boys. Keep up the good work. You're putting your public education to good use. LMAO.

Meanwhile this morning we see that the success of the surge has already gotten the Senate Dems rattled.

Money quote, from Levin:

“If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

They're worrying about making the next Complain About Our Success In Iraq bill non-binding, just to get it past the filibuster.

That tells you everything you need to know about why 2008 will be a GOP landslide.

stevej, the deaths were up in August only, and that was due to the deaths of 520 Yazidis, an action that makes no sense to anyone. The Yazidis are considered heretics, are not involved in the war, and other than giving fodder to the surrender lobby, is incomprehensible. It certainly has no bearing on any "civil war" or "sectarian strife."

One big problem with the violence is that the Democrats basically told AQ that they could force a surrender by increasing the violence. The Dems could be counted on to bring the troops home.

Once again, the Dems have failed their most important constituency. I'll bet AQ is unhappy about that.

Other than that, you are wrong almost everything.

Prediction: Congress will once again pass a bill requiring the withdrawal of the troops. Bush will once again veto the bill. The Dems will once again cave, and funding will be provided. The Dems do not want to go into the campaign season as surrender monkeys. They will allow the Blue Dogs to support the war. Nothing will change. Not even the defeatist rhetoric.

“Al-Qaeda is gone. Everybody is happy,” said Mohammed Ramadan, 38, a stallholder in the souk who witnessed four executions. “It was fear, pure fear. Nobody wanted to help them but you had to do what they told you.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2358061.ece

Surge and the Awakening? No connection, none at all. Just ask the Iraqis.

The powerful tribal leaders of Anbar province, who are really the heads of large extended families, rejected the harsh, brutal tactics of al Qaeda. Sheik Saddoun Al Bou'issa lost 30 members of his tribe.

"We think they care about Islam, but they lie, they cut heads, they destroy Iraq. They don't like Iraq to be safe," Saddoun said.

Now his greatest worry is that al Qaeda will return if the Americans leave.

"We ask the Americans to help us until we finish al Qaeda. If they back one step, they will destroy everything we build," he said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/04/america_in_iraq/main3232352.shtml

No connection, none at all.

Scott wrote (September 6, 2007 7:18 AM):

One big problem with the violence is that the Democrats basically told AQ that they could force a surrender by increasing the violence. The Dems could be counted on to bring the troops home.

Bingo!

But don't question their patriotism!

I will say one thing that I've learned from perusing all the comments here - The Left still hates the military with every fiber of their beings. And I guess the strain of trying to hide that for the past four years was just too much for them, because they're letting their true colors show again.

I always do prefer it when my enemy shows their true intentions.

LiberalJoshua said:

"People deserve the label "chickenhawk" when they are willing to send people into war when they never had the courage to go to war themselves. (Bush and Cheney.) It's astounding hubris on their part. I don't see how this applies to the current discussion about Chuck Schemer being right about what's going on in Anbar Province."

First of all, thanks for skating away from my questioning your use of the arcane word "chickenhawk". As I said, on our planet it defines a ferocious hunting bird.

Second, as I said, Schumer has absolutely no military experience. Yet you're holding him out as some sort of military "genius"-solely because he's parroting what you desperately want to believe is true.

And finally, a legitimate war hero President (John F. Kennedy) and his successor, who also fought in WW2 (the man named Lyndon, who suckled at Halliburton's teat for decades) both sent young men into combat in Vietnam. Over 50,000 of them never came back. Since neither of these gentlemen were "chickenhawks", your entire concept is irrelevant. Or shall I say, it's FOWL.

SteveJ said:

"The military have lied to us too many times and have lost credibility.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/316.pdf"

If you're going to rely on one Pew study as "fact", then you also have to accept the findings of another Pew study as fact. That one found that Rush Limbaugh's audience was more intelligent than PBS's.

ChickenHawk = Derogatory term used by liberals to describe conservative civilian leaders (usual) who order military force, and who have not served in the military. Term is based on Looney Toon Cartoon character "Henery Hawk".

Use of the term "chickenhawk" reveals recent, and possibly chronic, exposure to cartoon indoctrination, and suggests limited exposure to real-world events and conditions. Also shows tendency to favor childish exageration and manipulation of fact.

...Schumer should answer for this slur...

Oh he will ... right after monkeys fly out of my butt.

the moron is from NY. The next terror attack on NY, let them deal with it by themselves.

They voted for Schumer, let them live with the consequences.

James Taranto of the WSJ has perhaps the best comment on this whole Schumer brouhaha:

"Schumer was one of 77 senators who voted to send the troops to Iraq. Now, (in) his quest for partisan advantage, he is falsely portraying them as unable to do anything right."

By the way, here's some more info about the red-tailed hawk, which is one of 3 species lumped under the "chickenhawk" moniker:

Wing span is almost 6 feet. Females are 25% larger than the males. And these birds can hunt, catch and eat rabbits that weigh twice as much as they do.

And "chickenhawk" feathers are considered sacred by many Native American tribes. They're ranked right up there with eagle feathers.

Schmucky Schumer is exactly like those BDS insane liberoids who claim that Rudy Guiliani wasn't responsible at all for the drastic drop in crime in NYC, for the drastic drop in the welfare rolls, for the economic improvement in NYC, it was all going to happen anyway, Rudy just was warming the seat while the inexorable march forward was happening. Though libtards hem and haw to explain away why such progress had never before happened in the past forty years, despite the presence of much more 'talented' liberoid Mayors.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the US is completely irrelevant to the turn against AQI in Anbar. I'd call them marginally relevant. The turn against would have happened anyway: the resulting civil war looks a little different with US troops on one side.

Where reality wanders away from the pro-war people is when they jump from noting that we've been able to bribe Sunni warlords into killing AQI instead of us, somehow justifies our larger policy in Iraq. We don't need 160,000 troops to bribe Sunni warlords into killing AQI, and at some point when we are unable to help them, oh, overthrow the Maliki regime in Baghdad, for example, they'll turn their weapons back on us.

And when I say "they", we're talking about the 30% of the Sunni, at most, we've been able to bribe in the first place. An equally large chunk is not friends with AQI, but still blowing us up in Anbar. These folk never, ever get mentioned in US media or on conservative web sites.