Captain's Quarters -

This burning need on the Right to take Iraq away from the Left as an issue the way the Left did in 2006 is short-sighted. Even if our wildest dreams are met and violence continues to sharply fall, there is at least 30-40% of the American people who simply will not care.

We cannot afford to continue the politics of the 2004 and 2006 elections, and that's apparently what almost everyone on both the Right and the Left wants. The American people have rejected that kind of toxic partisanship. In six months, if Iraq continues to improve, it may feel great to be able to rhetorically bash some moonbat over the head, but what will it accomplish besides that? It's putting all your eggs in one basket. If the war is going good, vote GOP. If it's going bad, vote Democrat. That isn't the kind of political calculus that a great nation should operate on.

A reminder to those that might say "now is a safe time to leave", our nemisis UBL said it very well "Always go with the strong horse". We must never lose track of the Arab mentality that has been centuries in development.

SGM (Ret)

Could it be that the MSM is so far behind this story that US troops actually WILL start leaving Iraq, not because its a hopeless civil war/quagmire/unwinnable fiasco but because we've won and the mission is over, and the media will have missed the entire victory?

"Defeated Allied troops flee Normandy's beaches East toward Germany in defeat, liberating Paris on the way!"

The MSM has, albeit reluctantly, started to report facts about Iraq instead of re-writing MoveOn and Democratic Party press releases and putting them out as hard news stories.

You can hear people like Joel Klein's teeth being gnashed to powder even as I type. You can't be beat down as many times as moonbats have been in the last six years and emerge unscathed. Maybe this time most of them will actually walk the walk and leave the country.

chaos,

Don't you think you're simplifying this a bit? Perhaps trying to use an airbrush over a huge flesh wound?

The fact of the matter is, the Left in this country made The Iraq War the definition of their party's aims and goals for the next quarter century. They have invested in it, dearly. Some of us on the Right have been pushed by their strategy to indeed question their patriotism as Americans. It has been as ugly a war here at home as the casualties in Iraq.

Bottom line is, the Democrats chose surrender as their way to "win" over the American people. It disgusted me and still does. And I, for one, will never let these actions by the left go as what you call "political calculus." My message to the Left is simple. You made your bed. You chose to abandon our Troops. And you will pay, eventually with every seat you hold in Congress.

The "Iraqi" army? There is no "Iraq" army.

Violence rises and falls in Iraq based on whether Sunnis or Shiites want to consolidate their positions of fight.

Three quotes, all of which I agree with.

Notice the instance where Kristol refers to the real Conservatives who built the Republican party, such as Ronald Reagan, as “traditional Conservatives.”

If you want the cites, just pull up a search box and type the person’s name, a space, and the first few words of the quote.

William F. Buckley Jr. (Conservative)

"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, as the absence of effective conservative ideology."

George F. Will (Conservative):
"A stunningly anticonservative idea is animating the Bush administration's policy. The idea, a tenet of neoconservatism, is that all nations are more or less ready for democracy. So nation-building should be a piece of cake—never mind the winding, arduous, uphill hike the West took from Runnymede and Magna Charta in 1215 to Philadelphia in 1787."

And finally,

Bill Kristol (Was a Conservative, is now a neocon mouthpiece)

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me."

"If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives."

Yes it does Bill. Yes it does. And so does the Bush Administration. And so does anybody else who spews out your drivel such as loud-mouthed Hugh Hewitt.

At best, Iraq will be like Russia in the mid to late 1990s -- a hulking, smoldering shadow of its old self, slowly recovering and ending up nothing like the democratic model the United States wanted. Iraq may very well became a stable state once again, but its doubtful it'll be the pro-American democracy that cheerleaders like Michael Ledeen envisioned.

This is not the "victory" the neo-conservatives promised, and this shouldn't be about "moonbats" versus "wingnuts."

Looking beyond the usual GOP-vs.-Democrat mindset so beloved of Morrissey and most of his comment regulars, this is about how the policy of neo-conservatism -- the aggressive use of military force in foreign affairs to force adversarial states into U.S.-friendly democracies overnight -- failed to live up to its promises.

Like someone else already said, this "victory" will not be counted as such about a substantial part of the American people. Blame "the liberal media" for this if you like, but moaning about how CNN or the New York Times didn't breathlessly report "victory" every two months for the past three years won't help you understand why Iraq isn't like post-WWII Germany.

DU

Michael Leeden, WSJ: Almost exactly 13 months ago, the top Marine intelligence officer in Iraq wrote that the grim situation in Anbar province would continue to deteriorate unless an additional division was sent in, along with substantial economic aid. Today, Marine leaders are musing openly about clearing out of Anbar, not because it is a lost cause, but because we have defeated al Qaeda there.

An obviously good idea so long as we are confident that the ISF can keep the terrorists from coming back. Remember Mao:

When the enemy advances, withdraw; when he stops, harass; when he tires, strike; when he retreats, pursue.

Further, it isn't just al Qaeda that we've got to worry about. There are Mookie and his thugs and other militias and would-be Saddams who will cause no end of trouble if we pull out too soon.

However, I am confident that the military knows what they are doing. And I'm thrilled that we're discussing pulling out BECAUSE WE'RE WINNING, rather than pulling out because the quislings have managed to pull the rug out from under the troops and the Iraqis.

I was just about to offer some pithy rejoinder to 'Frank' simply because such crass cluelessness, and cavalier tendentiousness, as The "Iraqi" army? There is no "Iraq" army, and Violence rises and falls in Iraq based on whether Sunnis or Shiites want to consolidate their positions of fight,, deserve some form of rebuke.

But then I remembered the telling anecdote about wrestling with pigs and was brought hastily to my senses.

So in the immortal and always applicable words of Emily Litella --- Never Mind.

It is a sad day indeed when the isolationist paleocons make common cause with the anti-American far left, both against the best interests of our country, and against our redeeming our self-stained honor by securing the liberation of millions of freedom-desiring Iraqis that our present president's father had previously so fecklessly abandoned and betrayed.

What Bush Sr. did at the end of Gulf War I, first calling for Iraqis to revolt against Saddam, and then, when they did so in 14 of 18 Iraqi provinces, refusing to proceed to Baghdad and topple the bloody despot, but instead ordering our forces to step aside and allow the Republican Guard tank battalions to return unhindered into Iraq to massacre hundreds of thousands of mostly unarmed Iraqi civilian citizens, was beyond unconscionable. It was a shame and a disgrace, beneath the character of our great nation, and a sad and ignoble episode in our history, for which we should quite rightly harbor both guilt and an abiding desire to make amends.

We owe both those who lost their lives because they trusted us with them, and their compatriots who survived Saddam's slaughter, a blood debt, and we should not relent until we have made good our promise of freedom to them.

...this shouldn't be about "moonbats" versus "wingnuts."

Yes it should - in its anti-Bush hysteria your side chose to try to force a defeat for the US and bring about an al Qaeda victory.

Now comes what your side dreads more than anything in the world - the accountability of history.

Frank,

President Reagan knew understood the importance of building and supporting democracies around the world. He did that in several Central and South American countries, remember? He invaded Grenada, did he not? He sent troops into Honduras, did he not? He deployed troop into El Salvador, did he not? He also increased the number of troops stationed in Europe, did he not? Would you call this "anti-conservative policy?" Would you call Reagan a "neoconservative?"

Reagan knew that building and supporting democracies through monetary and military aid was in the best interest of America and our allies, as well as the countries we support. Bush believes in that same philosophy. It seems that Bush has a lot more in common with Reagan than you care to admit.

I didn't know that someone who agree with William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will was an isolationist paleocon.

Let's just put it this way.

You stick with the party of neocon Bush.

And I'll stick with the party of Ronald Reagan.

Then you must want Bush to succeed in Iraq, as Reagan would have.

Oh, wait. You don't.

Casper Weinberger allowing the neocons to get away with anything like this?

Please.

It is not a question of wanting something.

The invasion of Iraq ensured an Iranian victory. The invasion was in Iran’s interests, not ours. You cannot win a war that is not in your interests.

I will say, however, that this hardly means we are going to be defeated by Al Qaeda.

Even if stability in Iraq comes about, it will come about because a leader is able to establish a Shiite theocracy which will be closely allied with Iran.

Anyone who can rule that country will have to be anti-American, and will likely have to use Islamic fundamentalism as his legitimacy card.

Conservatives, who used to run the Republican Party, knew this all along.

"And I'll stick with the party of Ronald Reagan."

It looks like President Bush agrees with you. See my above post.

"The invasion of Iraq ensured an Iranian victory. The invasion was in Iran’s interests, not ours.

Even if stability in Iraq comes about, it will come about because a leader is able to establish a Shiite theocracy which will be closely allied with Iran."
_________________________________________
Black is white. Up is down. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.

Do you know why the commander of Special Forces in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McCrystal, says we should declare victory?

Because special operations forces of the U.S., Iraq, Poland, Britain, Australia, Denmark, and almost certainly western Europe and some Gulf Arab states have utterly smashed the Iranian networks in Iraq, with the support of the Iraqi government.

We ambushed Iranian "diplomatic" convoys, killing all the security officials in order to capture high-ranking Qods Force goons. In some of these captures, we recovered computers with terabytes of information on Iranian operations. Why, for instance, have the Iranian EFP attacks gone down so dramatically? Because we've broken the smuggling rings.

Al Maliki has turned his back on al Sadr, Iran's proxy. Shi'ites all across Iraq are joining "Awakening" movements in order to fight Iranian-backed militias. Shi'ite politicians have flow to Anbar to meet Sunni sheiks, and Sunni tribal leaders have asked for an audience with Ayatollah Sistani, to receive his blessings.

The reality on the ground in Iraq is exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Victory should not be declared. No matter how well things go, there will continue to be isolated violence. The MSM and the left will play these incidents up and compare a declaration of victory to the "mission accomplished" moment on the aircraft carrier.

"Anyone who can rule that country will have to be anti-American, and will likely have to use Islamic fundamentalism as his legitimacy card."

Recent events would tend to make that argument invalid. Iraq has a new Constitution, elected their "pro-American" government through democratic processes, and is forming a real coalition WITHOUT resorting to the "anti-American" Islamic fundamentalism you claim can only be the result of our involvement in Iraq. As a matter of fact, the largest supporter of this type of theocracy, al-Sadr, has lost power and no longer represents a threat to the new government and the people they represent. Not only has his "army" been defeated, his "troops" have abandoned him and now he offers his support to the very government he tried to destroy. It appears that he and his followers finally realized that the scenario you describe will not be accepted by the people of Iraq. It's too bad you don't realize the same thing.

I fail to see how having American troops deployed on both sides of Iran, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, contributes to a sense of security among Iran's extremist mullahs, nor how they can possibly perceive being surrounded by powerful adversaries to be in their interests - especially when many in their country are more sympathetic to their adversaries than they are to them.

Both politicians and clerics in Iraq have been reaching across ethnic and religious lines to find common ground against extremists there; be they Al Qaeda, Baathist, or Mahdi. There is now not only a Sunni Awakening, but also a Shia one. The Americans, the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq agree that we should leave Iraq (the Kurds apparently would like us to stay forever!), but neither the Sunnis nor the Shia want to see us leave before the safety and security of their country and its citizens from foreign infiltrators and covetous neighbors is assured.

The Shia Arabs of Iraq will never agree to become the political property of the Shia Persians in Iran.

"Victory should not be declared."

Although I think it's far to early, victory can be declared in Iraq even though random attacks occur. Random terrorist attacks occurred in Germany and other European countries as late as the mid-80's when I was stationed in Germany. For example: The Red Army Faction, a left wing terrorist origination tried to use force and terror to undermine the German government in a failed attempt to end the "American occupation of Europe" and this resulted in the deaths of a lot of people including American troops. This was despite that fact that America declare victory in Germany back in 1945. I don't remember anyone claiming that these attacks showed that we never won WWII or that victory was never fully achieved.

As we did in Europe and Japan following WWII, it would be our best interest to some keep troops in Iraq even after stability is achieved and victory is declared. Attacks will most likely continue, just like they do in Israel, but by no means can that mean victory has not been achieved.

I didn't ask you whether Ronald Reagan would have invaded Iraq, Frank.

I said that, the invasion being a fact, Ronald Reagan would want us to win.

People like you, it's like your minds are incapable of seeing the distinction.

Your comments about Iraq's future are hilariously ignorant, as usual. Shiite theocracy? A pipe dream of any who would want to see that come to pass. There is no major political base in Iraq that supports a "Shiite theocracy." al-Sistani doesn't support it. al-Sadr doesn't support it. Hakim doesn't support it. Certainly no Sunnis would allow the creation of a "Shiite theocracy" without fighting to the last. There are large areas of Iraq where it would make no sense for the Shiites to send in their young men to die to create a "Shiite theocracy."

You have extrapolated the success of the Mahdi Army at cleansing Sunni Baghdad neighborhoods, largely a result of the US degrading Sunni military capability while more or less leaving the JAM alone, to the entire country. If there was any attempt to create a "Shiite theocracy," large parts of the country would rise in rebellion, and there is no way that the Shiites could invade and take Ramadi, or Fallujah, or even places like Arab Jabour or Baqubah. They don't have the strength.

Spare us these retarded talking points from 2003. The Iraqis had their chance to elect an anti-American government right in the middle of the most bumbling period of the war. They didn't. They aren't going to, either, unless something truly bad happens. They saw what happened when the US more or less left them to handle their own affairs in 2006: slaughter. They are seeing what is happening after they decided to throw in their lot with the US: we started kicking AQIZ's ass again and started delivering on our promises.

You're not a conservative Frank. You're a neo-isolationist. Get back to reading Pat Buchanan's latest shitstain.

I'll just close by saying the following:

I support what George Will and William F. Buckley Jr. have to say about this issue.

It is real Conservatives like them who built the Republican Party -- not neocons like Ledeen.

If you want to disregard them, that's your business.

you guys that think that we will have a victory over the MSM etc. are in for a real dissappointment.

the american soldier will win this thing in iraq if allowed the opportunity.

BUT.

when its over the democrats, liberals and the media will step in claim victory, rewrite the history books and do their best to make the conservatives look like curmudeogens for not getting on the bandwagon.

they are very good at elbowing the wheel horses out of the camera view and claiming victory for their own. they did it at the end of the viet nam mess and watch they will do it this time again.

if you don't believe me, just what was dingy harry doing friday about three oclock.

C

The left wing anti-americans have won either way the war in Iraq goes. The world has been watching and now knows for a fact that half of the American people are cowards and will run from a fight. Any major power will be able to take over the U.S. within the next 10 years since I see no way the lefties will ever admit to being anything other than the cut and run, surrender monkeys. Too bad they weren't around in 1945, the American people wouldn't exist or would be used to living under a dictator or worse. Just be sure your children/grandchildren know who (phony democrats) is responsible for them living under slavery.

This story is all wrong. We all know the war is lost, because the duly elected Majority Leader of the United States Senate told us is. The Honorable Senator Harry Reid (D Nevada) would not have said that if it was not so. Would he?

Victory! Now we just give those 4 million refugees bus fare to get home since there is nothing keeping them on the run. Done and done.

Frank,

Do you really think that Buckley is a "real" conservative? Maybe this will change your mind:

"We have got to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

That is what your "real conservative" wrote in an article to Commonweal Magazine in 1951. Totalitarianism is not part of what I would call conservative values.

I'd rather return to the the example of President Reagan, who you originally called one of the "real Conservatives". He KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the value of building and supporting democracies in the world. Why have you suddenly stopped referring to him? Is it because he no longer seems to be the "real Conservatives" you thought he was?

Now we just give those 4 million refugees bus fare to get home since there is nothing keeping them on the run. Done and done.

Hell, we can't do that with the 10 to 20 million Mexican "refugees" here and their country's not even in a war and hasn't been in a long time!

Ahhh, yes . . . Mao, docjim505 | October 20, 2007 2:07 PM!

And Lenin, too, don't forget. Use your bayonet to probe. Encounter mush, press ahead -- encounter steel, back away.

The point is, I should think, that achieving military victory is not the point. The Democrat's arguments against the Administration were that 1) there was no legitimate basis on which to pursue a military course (no WMD, etc.); and, 2) that there was no point in continuing to fight because we were losing.

So long as we have an adversary like Nancy Pelosi, who actually recently declared (when pressing for a complete withdraw) that we should leave Iraq in order to get back to fighting al-Qaeda, there is only one way to go.

We should now keep reminding people of everything she said, and also keep pointing to the victories over al-Qaeda in Iraq, and remind people about the "plan" that was rather openly endorsed by the top al-Qaeda leadership to engage the United States in Iraq, and to achieve victory over us (and humiliation of us) by forcing us out.

Nancy Pelosi, after all, was actively aiding their -- al-Qaeda's -- strategy, whether she intended to or not.

We should also repeatedly point to Pelosi's willingness to relentlessly pursue her plan by enraging an ally of the United States -- Turkey -- by promising to publicly post the Armenian Holocaust resolution, and thereby negatively threatening our military supply lines and endanger the lives of American Troops. Timing, some say, is everything, and her's could not have been worse.

Making nice with ruthless people like Nancy Pelosi is always a zero sum game. You never gain anything unless you systematically destroy her credibility. Harry Reid, on the other hand, will cooperate by continuing to act so as to destroy his own credibility. One guy -- Rush -- managed to humiliate 41 of those pompous clowns!

The moment we declare military victory in Iraq, the Democrats will again immediately demand a withdraw timetable. And, they will then have an arguable basis (as opposed to a legitimate basis) for making the demand.

Public perceptions are changing -- slowly, to be sure -- but they are shifting because the story is beginning to get through the MSM cracks that we are winning. Patience . . . it will come. Americans love a winner.

Meanwhile, the enormous tactical benefits our troops have been gaining, and will no doubt continue to derive from captured leaders and intelligence, will only serve to encourage an indisputably enhanced respect throughout the region, and a corresponding defeat of al-Qaeda and it's affiliates.

And that will reap strategic security benefits for decades to come.

Real victory will have been gained when the big questions are rather firmly resolved.
As noted recently by Bartle Bull in the English publication, Prospect,

With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war. What violence remains is largely local and criminal.

Well, yes and no. I certainly agree that those are the big questions; and, we certainly seem to be headed firmly in that direction. But getting the public essentially to recognize and embrace those goals is a different thing. It should be vigorously argued, perhaps most convincingly as in our long term strategic national interest.

That is the harvest we all -- we and the Iraqi people -- would reap from a vigorously fought sowing and emergence of self-determination in what was long ago the cradle of civilization.

But, with a few notable exceptions, i.e., John Burns, we don't even have an honest press that is even report the military victories yet! The real public debate now taking place, is taking place here on blogs -- not in the papers, or on the networks.

Ever since this war started we have heard the term "exit stratagy" thrown about as if it were amgic chant. President Bush has been accused of not having an "exit stratagy", but this is a false assumption. The "E.S." we went into this war was the same one that ALL countries had in every war since time began. To attempt otherwise is folly:
"Destroy the enemy's will and/or ability to wage war."

After that you can bring your fellow countrymen home and get on with your lives.

Finally, someone takes a look at the real issues as we head into the next election cycle.

"The trends have certainly reversed themselves. . . ."?

Well, I don't know about that. I should have thought one might more accurately say that we have reversed them.

Very well put and I agree with this post.

Agreed that "declaring" victory would be a bad idea at this stage, it is worth pondering just what a victory will actually look like. We will be forced to discern for ourselves, since the MSM certainly won't tell us.

I have been telling people for a while that what it will look like is when the media starts talking about anything and everything BUT Iraq, be it Britney and Lindsey, the weather, the election, etc. But someone on another blog really nailed it (wish I could remember where for credit). Mark these words, for it will denote victory in Iraq as clearly as Japanese envoys standing on the deck of the USS Missouri:

Victory in Iraq will be an absolute the day Democratic congressmen and Senators start saying that it was THEIR pushing the administration to dump Rumsfeld and change strategy and THEIR behavior that forced "the Iraqi govt to get serious", that has brought us to where we are today, etc etc, blah blah blah.... (they will never actually say the word "victory").

When you hear that, you will know that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard, and their supporters, have won a titanic victory, regardless of what MSM idiots have to say, and all three men can retire knowing in their hearts that they have done a truly great thing against a Cat 5 hurricane of opposition.

Mark these words. Remember them. Cut and paste them.

When you hear it (likely in 2008), you'll know.

All that matters is the end result and the aftermath.

Everything else is noise.

"emoboldened"

Hey Ed!!....when was the last time you actually used that word or heard anyone using that word prior to our Commander in cheif and his lackies flooding the ariwaves with it??

your use of that particular word only shows that you are either a "bot" or and aider and abbetter of the talking point police.

which are you?

suggestion: try using another word: like "encourage"

lets see how that looks shall we?

"The new doctrine and tactics have EMBOLDENED tribal leaders to support the Coalition and oppose the terrorists"

revised to not look like a brainwashed talking ppoitn WH spokesmen:

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

"The new doctrine and tactics have ENCOURAGED tribal leaders to support the Coalition and oppose the terrorists"

WOW what a differnece!!.....now we have at least an appeance of independant thought and analysis!!

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

now as to "Democrat" Congress/etc..........blah blah blah........ lost the "IC" huh?

.....no don't tell me. Embolden and Bush talking points is just Innovation and Bill Gates!!

ya thats the ticket!

fight4theright sayeth:

"It has been as ugly a war here at home as the casualties in Iraq."

wow that is a slap in the face of all who have died in iraq.

what a cavilier attitude you have.

armchair warrior are ya?

no way you are serving with such a shallow attitude toward life and death.

Hey gaffo ---

I just did a Google News search on the words - Bush + emboldened...

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bush%2Bemboldened

Um, what do the words - "Your search - bush+emboldened - did not match any documents" mean again?

Let me put the question another way: What the bloody hell are you gibbering about?

Welcome Frank!!

you have alot of wisdom - unlike all the Ostriches here.

you could call this Ostrich Central.

sky is green and trees are blue here.

.....not to worry, go to any other URL to see reality if you feel like you too have drunk the koolaid and starting seeing blue trees.

good to see another here with reasoned posts.

Posted by Burford Holly | October 20, 2007 5:16 PM
Victory! Now we just give those 4 million refugees bus fare to get home since there is nothing keeping them on the run. Done and done.

The 4 million refugees (curiously the same number as existed whe Saddam was in power-except we didn't hear about those refugees) will be back home long before You.Get.A.Clue, Burford, as to what's happening in Iraq.

Tom W and Chaos: Thank you for your informed and well argued comments.

Gaffo

Forget your meds, did ya?

What am I gibbering about andrew?

Use of WORDS to distort/brainwash - PROPAGANDA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

1. "death" tax - you think its a fucking coincidence that righwingers use this language instead of "estate tax...which it was until some smartass GOP operative decided to use another word (one that has that special ring to it). Really WAKE THE FUCK UP. THINK.....don't just soke up the biased words like a fucking robot that some shmuck is paid to promote into common culture.

2. Climate "Change"...used to be Climate Warming. another (or the same?) operative. Some lobbyist asshole in the Petroleum industry no doubt (they control all things now - not the People). "change" - good....means that earth nedd no be warming but might be ..........like maybe cooling!! thus Republican friendly.

3. "Democrat" Congress/President/voter/etc.......ad nauseum.Agian some propogandist asshole employed by the GOP decided that "DemocratIC" sounded too good and implied that only one from that particular party (now know as the Democrat Party by the Koolaiders) valued democratIC ideal. impliction being Republican MIGHT not.............NO!! thus we must REMOVE the "IC" from ALL references to Democrat(gone "IC") Conress/PArty/Pres/voters/etc. Even if it is bad english to use a noun to describe and noun!!

4. Tax "Relief".....NO!!!!!!!!!! NOT TAX CUT! GOP operative said: "hey "relief" sounds better - who is against relief!! even dems arenot agaisnt releif!!" Used to be called Tax CUT.......not by the koolaider brainwashed BOT (those that have no brains and just soke up the word the operatives tell them to regergitate). Thus Tax cut is out Tax RELIEF is IN!

5. Pro "life"....really who is anti"life"....I'm Antilife!!..that one will go over real big.

6. "Embolden" the terrorists/iranians/koreans/etc..... i mean REALLY when did you ever hear "embolden" used?

not until Iraqnam and the Whitehouse talking point brigade started shoving that fuckig word down our throats. (like Bill Gates and his Microsoft "innovation" this and innovation" that ten years ago). Give me a break!! do you know how many synonyms there is to "embolden" (words that are actualy USED BY REAL PEOPLE ON REAL LIFE WITHOUT THE OTHER PERSON LOOKNG AT YOU CROSSEYED(and yes you use "Embolden" in casual conversation and the other person will lool at you like you are an amish/or nut or something). Captain Ed could use "encourage" (a word WE DO USE IN REAL LIFE (you know the life ouside of the whitehouse talking point distortion reality field) or "promote" (another common 20th century word - unlike that 19th century favorate koolaiders love the shove down our throats).

open a dictionary to find all 200 equivalent "Embolden" synonyms. And after you open your mind ask youself why you have no clue as to what I'm talking about and why you use words and think nothing about using them when you never used them before Dear Leader started using them only 4 years ago.

this ain't rocket science. only queston remains is whether the Captain is a willing operative or an innocent one caught in the propaganda word games you appearently are.

i will note (sorry captain) that a lack of use of another word (like a far more common one - say "encourage" does imply a certain academic lazyness on the Captain's part (assuming he is innocent in his use of the Whitehouse word propaganda mind control agenda).

open your ears and your mind Andrew.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

The party of John F. Kennedy seems unable to believe in his own words. When will the Democratic Party be happy and proud to embrace these words ? Until they feel they can, they will not be the home of the big ideas and idealism that Kennedy invoked in so many of his and the later generations.

thanks for including the "IC" Neo.

many in your camp play dumb and refuse to use the proper word (out of brainwashedness or spit or both)

I'm looking forward to welcoming our troops home to the victory parades they so richly deserve.

Once our finest have been accorded their triumph, let's then task them with a really tough assignment like, oh say, liberating San Francisco and surrounding Bay Area.

"Golden Gate in 2008." ;)

gaffo, The correct name is Democrat Party not Democratic Party. The term Democratic Party is a recent development promoted by Democrats. Democrats belong to the Democrat Party. Republicans belong to the Republican Party. Republicans do not belong to the Republicanic or Republicanarian Party.

Get a clue. Calm down. Take a chill pill.

Also, embolden is a awkward word, IMHO, but it is not an illigitemate one just because our President George W. Bush used it.

"The term Democratic Party is a recent development promoted by Democrats."

care to provide a link to prove this claim?

"Republicans do not belong to the Republicanic or Republicanarian Party. "

lets just go with the Republic Party - seems fair.

"Get a clue. Calm down. Take a chill pill."

not addressing the other 5 propogandanic words noted.

"Also, embolden is a awkward word, IMHO, but it is not an illigitemate one just because our President George W. Bush used it."

OH HO!!! - not JUST our President. No SIR!! we have Condi, and had Rummy, and had Snow and a million others ALL use it! ITS FUCKING ORCHISTRATED!! ALL in the administartion used this "awkward word" as you put it.

you think that is COINCIDENCE? Christ on a crutch how naive are you people?

think for yourself - don't let those in power play you for a fool.

there is no Democrat Party any more than there is a Republic Party.

nouns do not describe nouns.

Adjectives do!!

Adjective - noun (not noun-noun).

thus

DemocratIC Party. One who is a Democrat (noun) is a member of the DemocratIC (adjective) Party (noun).

to claim that Democrat Party is literate english (which would be laughable) is to proclaim that it is good english for me to say:

One who is a Republican (noun) is a member of the Republic (also a noun) Party (noun).

get a clue - its all propoganda to discredit the opposition - you are being played.

There, there, Frank, Gaffo -- Nancy will save you! Turkey might still come into the war and humiliate us like they humiliated Churchill at Gallipoli... be strong and believe, lads!

I'm glad the tribal leaders are emboldened!

Ha!

Jeez, gaffo . . .

Fine. Have it your way. We get it.

WRONG: Gaffo is clearly part of the moonbat wing of the Democrat party.

CORRECT: Gaffo is clearly part of the moonbatIC wing of the DemocratIC party.

There. Happy now?

Gaffo - Did someone named M. Boldend drop you on your head as a child?

We are all familiar with each sides arguments, we pretty much go round and round just for sport by now, but this "emboldened" issue is pretty messed up, man.

Weird place to plant your flag, but, hey, have fun with it. Points for originality, I guess.

Gaffo there is value in avoiding confusion. "Encourage can be taken to mean urging on verbally which is not what is meant when Bush is speaking about actions by the Democrats. What is meant is that circumstances are being created that allow for something. By saying "emboldened" rather than "encouraged" the President is making it clear than he is not saying that the Democrats are telling the insurgents to attack us or not to lose heart but rather that the democrats actions cause the insurgents not to lose heart.

For Ed's purpose, one could equally have used either word, but the administration's use, emboldened is clearly preferrable as it cannot be misconstrued.

BTW the real point of this thread is that militarily things are going well in the Iraqi conflict. It means many of our troops will be able to come home sooner and fewer will die. Could you bring yourself to actually say that this is a good thing?

hey gaffo:

When i told you to thunder on a couple of months ago i meant "thunder on somewhere else".

C

To gaffo:

'Embolden"- to snap your thong at the former president of the united states.

'Embolden'- to allow the former national security adviser to alter history by destroying
original archived documents in order to commit a cover-up.

'Embolden'- allow your husband to cheat on you at will, even to the point of international humiliation of both of you.

Andrew X - ROFLMAO !!!

I think victory must be at hand because Gaffo's leftnut is coming loose.

progris ripert oktobr 20

tody mr gaffo ylld at me he said i splld democrat wrng he sed it shud hav ik at the end i sed i hrd it was all ik and he sed he had no us for me nymor cuz i wrnt smrt lik him

i hat mr gaffo

Maybe with "Mission Accomplished II" the moonbats will off themselves in a fury of BDS.

Wow.

"ted by chaos | October 20, 2007 12:58 PM

This burning need on the Right to take Iraq away from the Left as an issue the way the Left did in 2006 is short-sighted. Even if our wildest dreams are met and violence continues to sharply fall, there is at least 30-40% of the American people who simply will not care"

So the 30 to 40% of the public who are Democrats don't care and the other 60 to 70% do care,

Your point is? ;-)

The Yell says:

progris ripert oktobr 20

tody mr gaffo ylld at me he said i splld democrat wrng he sed it shud hav ik at the end i sed i hrd it was all ik and he sed he had no us for me nymor cuz i wrnt smrt lik him

i hat mr gaffo

Hugh says:

Flowers for Algernon?

gaffo,

Democrat is correct. Democratic is not. It is correct to say "The Democrat Party is more democratic than the Republican Party". Grammatically only, of course. Get it? The word "Democrat" in the term "Democrat Party" is not being used as an adjective.

As for a citation, read a book or two on American political history. Or just Google it.

As for your other assertions, one at a time will do.

Neo-conservativism is a movement inspired by Reagan when he stated totalitarian governments are evil and must be confronted. Neo-cons understand full well the oppressive misery that neo-communists have been attempting force upon America however, unlike Hillary they lived under that which she is campaigning to establish.

I am proud to be a Neo-Conservative for as my friends from former USSR like to say 'if America falls there will be no free place left in the world to escape to'.

In other words, a Neo-Con understands that when the shining light is dimmed the world grows dark.

Shorter CQ:

Nice surge, kid. Now don't get cocky.

gaffo I don't mean to pile on, but your Latin was incorrect.

You said ad nauseum.

Which case does the preposition ad take?

Accusative case, gaffo. Say them with me gaffo:

nausea
nauseae
nauseae
nauseam
nausea

The correct usage is ad nasueam, gaffo.

On the usage of the noun "democrat," I read on a blog recently that the founding fathers often used the word "democrat" as a slam, referring to someone who advocated brute, populist mob rule.

Now I'm not saying today's democrat party capitalizes on or emboldens ignorant street thugs, whom they enrage with slogans and cartoon propaganda.

But someone else is free to say it if they wish.

Dan Kauffman,

The point is that at least 20% of that 30-40% are people who even a year ago could have been convinced to continue supporting the war if conditions had begun to improve then. Now they are lost but it doesn't make sense to lump them in with the moonbats and antagonize them by gloating too obnoxiously if things continue to turn around in Iraq. We all know we want to do it =)

Good thread. Gaffo "once again" displays why Dr. Savage sold so many of his book "Liberalism, a Mental Disorder".. Up is really down; black is really white; winning is actually losing; oh my, what it must be like to wake up with all of that confusion every day...

Posted by Salamantis | October 20, 2007 2:19 PM

Much truth to the comments made by Salamantis. History allows us to look backwards; millions lost their lives following our "cut & run" from Vietnam; thousands lost their lives following our "premature pull-out" from Desert Storm. The reason's why I support this mission are simple; like it or not, we are there and we have made promises to millions of Iraqi citizens whom will be slaughtered if we don't see this mission through; actions have consequences, and this action could be the "last straw" for any nation that would side with us in the future. The world is watching, not just Americans.

I also agree with many others on this thread, that the Democrats & their bed partners (MSM) are 100% invested in an American defeat in Iraq and the GWOT. The reasons for this are not important to me, and most certainly not worth my time to debate. I believe in the existence of a battle, a constant battle that is beyond my control; good vs evil. Saddam Hussein was an evil man, G.W. Bush is a good & decent man; OBL is pure evil; Dick Cheney is a good & decent man... Agree or disagree with Bush & Cheney, but to label these men as "evil" removes any desire I would ever have of engaging in any type of discussion with such an individual.

God Bless all of those who support the side of "good" in this battle against "evil".

Posted by gaffo | October 20, 2007 10:29 PM

What am I gibbering about andrew?

Use of WORDS to distort/brainwash - PROPAGANDA

So, are saying that only one side in the debate uses language in the most advantagious way, and if they do, it is possible for only one side to be "telling the truth?"

Let's take your examples one by one.

1. "death" tax - you think its a fucking coincidence that righwingers use this language instead of "estate tax...which it was until some smartass GOP operative decided to use another word (one that has that special ring to it). Really WAKE THE FUCK UP. THINK.....don't just soke up the biased words like a fucking robot that some shmuck is paid to promote into common culture.

Well, given that the tax is assessed at the point when a person dies, "death tax" is just as resonable a description as calling a tax assessed at the point of sale a "sales tax." Let's also note that the term "estate tax" has its own bias built in because people equate the word "estate" with "rich" so calling the tax the "estate tax' implies eroniously that it is only applied to "the rich." So, both terms are accurate, but each carries bias. But it seems that you only see the bias in your opponents use of words.

2. Climate "Change"...used to be Climate Warming. another (or the same?) operative. Some lobbyist asshole in the Petroleum industry no doubt (they control all things now - not the People). "change" - good....means that earth nedd no be warming but might be ..........like maybe cooling!! thus Republican friendly.

Actually the two terms are Global Climate Change and Global Warming. The term Global Climate Change is the actual scientific term that was adopted when scientists began realizing that even a gereral warming trend would produce record cold temperatures in parts of the world. The real debate is not about if the global climate is changing, but what is causing it. The fact that the global climate changes is essentially a given because the climate is a dynamic system embedded in a larger dynamic system, so it will be continually changing. The debate is about what is the causative force behind that change. When the left argues that "the scientific debate is over" they are fundimentally misrepresenting which debate they are talking about. The debate about if the climate is changing is over, but the debate about what is causing those changes and how severe they will get is still very active.

I'll skip 3 because others have already addressed it and move on to 4.

4. Tax "Relief".....NO!!!!!!!!!! NOT TAX CUT! GOP operative said: "hey "relief" sounds better - who is against relief!! even dems arenot agaisnt releif!!" Used to be called Tax CUT.......not by the koolaider brainwashed BOT (those that have no brains and just soke up the word the operatives tell them to regergitate). Thus Tax cut is out Tax RELIEF is IN!

Once again you complain about a perfectly legitimate use of language. If you cut taxes you relieve the requirement to pay some tax. Given that most Americans believe they are over taxed, calling a "tax cut" "tax relief" resonates with the population.

5. Pro "life"....really who is anti"life"....I'm Antilife!!..that one will go over real big.

In this case you leave out half of the debate. While one side of the argument calls themselves "pro live" because using the term anti sounds negative (because it is much more important when trying to persuade to present a positive image) the other side of the debate calls themselves "pro choice" for the same reason you laid out about life... who could be "anti-choice." Yet this linquistic trick doesn't seem to bother you at all. Why aren't you bothered by the "pro choice" side not "honestly" calling themselves what they are: pro abortion.

As others have allready addressed 6 as well I'll move on to the conclusion.

Both sides use language to their advantage. But it only seems to bother you when it is used effectivly by one side. Maybe you should consider the "PROPAGANDA" you've been reading from the left side as well because you seem to be under the impression that only one side "twists and distorts." It sounds more to me that you just don't like having to play on a level field and thing only one side should get to define the terms of debate.

By the way, up until the post WWII era the word propaganda itself had no specific negative connotation. That great paragon of the left, FDR, had an office of propaganda in the War Department to produce and disseminate positive friendly information about the US and our allies and negative information about the enemy. But since propaganda has become a negative word, it is now called "information warfare."

>Posted by Terry Gain | October 20, 2007 10:00 PM

>>Posted by Burford Holly | October 20, 2007 5:16 PM
>>Victory! Now we just give those 4 million
>>refugees bus fare to get home since there is
>>nothing keeping them on the run. Done and done.

>The 4 million refugees (curiously the same >number as existed whe Saddam was in power-except
> we didn't hear about those refugees) will be
>back home long before You.Get.A.Clue, Burford,
> as to what's happening in Iraq.

That was a different crowd of refugees, and probably included a lot of the people who became Al Queada in Iraq, which were the people that Saddam chased out. Saddam kept the secular people and chased out the fundementalists. Since we took over, the fundementalists came back and chased out the secularists, doctors, and teachers. We'll see whether the professional classes want to come back, which will depend on having electricity, water, and hospitals. Since Iraq is awarding the power grid projects to China and Iran, maybe that job will finally get done if the general population quits shooting at the contractors.

No wonder the lefties have been restless. Their worst nightmare - an American victory- is in reach.
Their anti-patriotism, as we see on display here by the local trolls, becomes unmistakable and quite remarkable. From trying to sink the relationship between the only moderate democratically elected stable democracy in the mideast region - Turkey- to hurting Americans at the pump,. democrats are flailing around these days.
It is fun, even though dangerous, to watch the trolls squirm.

"Since we took over, the fundementalists came back and chased out the secularists, doctors, and teachers."

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but for the last few months the "fundamentalists" (AKA Terrorists and Insurgents) are being killed, captured, and/or driven out of Iraq. Since the numbers haven't changed since the fall of Saddam's government, it's obvious that the 4 million secularists, doctors, and teachers that you claim are refugees are returning and are being replaced by the fundamentalists who are no longer welcome in Iraq. The demographics change but the numbers remain the same. Since you provide absolutely no demographic data to support your claim that all the refugees are all secularists, doctors, and teachers, we are free to play this game all day long.

The fact of the matter remains; things are rapidly improving for the Iraqi people despite the assertion that "Bush's War" is a failure.

I wonder:

The left and their enablers (msm) had been busily and loudly separating themselves from the "Bush's war" for 6 years now. How can they turn around in the next breath and "share" the American victory?

Oh wait, never mind. There's that Reid precedence...Silly me.

>Since the numbers haven't changed since the fall of
> Saddam's government, it's obvious that the 4 million
>secularists, doctors, and teachers that you claim
> are refugees are returning and are being replaced
> by the fundamentalists who are no longer welcome in Iraq.

MAN IN BLACK - Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
VIZZINI - Wait till I get going! Where was I?

-The Princess Bride