Playing Politics With Terrorism And War

While Hillary Clinton continues to take some flak for playing politics with terrorism, will there be a sound about the obvious playing of politics concerning war, given these quotes below from a WaPo article on the leaking of a draft GAO report designed to undermine support for the war in Iraq? And isn't leaking potentially classifiable material before it has an opportunity to be classified basically as criminal as leaking it after the fact?

... The 69-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, is still undergoing review at the Defense Department, which may ask that parts of it be classified or request changes in its conclusions. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, normally submits its draft reports to relevant agencies for comment but makes its own final judgments. The office has published more than 100 assessments of various aspects of the U.S. effort in Iraq since May 2003.

The person who provided the draft report to The Post said it was being conveyed from a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

More likely said government official feared recent polling and reporting suggesting a general increase in support for our efforts in Iraq.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

"More likely said government official feared recent polling and reporting suggesting a general increase in support for our efforts in Iraq."

Hahaha. Yeah, that's it. The Bush Bounce, as it were, right? Because people can't just go on hating the war forever, right? Not when we're about to win, for realizes this time!

[Fred Beloit]

The folks at the Government Accounting Office, which since they had begun sticking their noses into everything including accounting, is now called the Government Accountability Office, work for the Congress. It should probably be called the Congressional Employees' Opinions Office. If you google either name you get basically the same entries because the MSM uses the old and new names interchangeably.

Here is a little secret. It is my understanding that they evaluate just about every single program the Congress has created on a regular basis. Their verdict on each program is that each program is failing to reach its objectives. I say again, they judge that every government program fails to meet its objectives.

Would you be surprised to find that they see the Iraq war the same way?

[Strangely Enough]

If there was no examination of the role of politics in 2002 at the beginning of the sales job for the war, and especially prior to the AUMF vote, why should there be any reasonable expectation of it now?

[nowingker]

Is there anyone, any individual, any investigative body that has disagreed with the War on Iraq and has disagreed that we are winning/can win who has NOT been dismissed by the Wingers as a sniveling-coward-traitor-Democratic-who-wants-to-lose-and-should-be-jailed? Anyone? Any of the retired generals you didn't call traitors and say they should keep their mouths shut? Any of the ME experts who saw this coming in 2001? Any other head of state? Any former Bush officials? GAO? CIA? The Iraqis themselves?

That's why you aren't credible and are obviously so insecure in your actual belief that 'winning' in the traditional sense is possible that everyone who holds a different view, no matter how nuanced is attacked, they are attacked personally, they are attacked professionally, their patriotism is attacked, everything about them attacked.

It's the way a 6 year old child conducts a discussion.

What are you going to do when things don't work out the way you want them to? Are you going to ultimately blame Bush and Petreous? Will you finally turn on your fearless leader and say he let you down too?

Yup.

[BobInStamford]

Cheer up, patriots! 5 out of 18 isn't that bad!

SURGE ON!!!

[bloodrage bob]

interesting thoughts on the degradation of the debate, there, nowinkie. deploring the blind knee-jerk anger at those who would dare question the authorized dogma. quite the speech! stern. pompous. haughty.

why aren't you applying those genial insults to the leftwingers who do *precisely what you just deplored* to democrats who aren't anti-war enough to suit them? who's the washington state dem who went to the sandbox, saw how things are going for himself, and reported "surge is working."? i read where the liberal leftwing loons at moveon and their ilk have now targeted him for destruction, because he .... uh .... because he deviated from the authorized leftwing dogma. just like they did with that lieberman fella. just like they're trying to do to hillary. as you noted, "it's the way a 6-year-old debates".

just like you preached against! it IS odd you didn't mention THOSE things in your speech ...

[ed ternan]

Poor nowings and chrisboobs. Congress wont defund the war and the democratic candidates have backed off calling for full withdrawl. Everyone in their right mind knows that we should and will have a presence in Iraq for years to come.

You guys are down to Cindy Sheehan. Good luck with that.

[jvf]

"Everyone in their right mind knows that we should and will have a presence in Iraq for years to come."

probably true, but that doesn't mean the situation isn't a big stinking turd pile of a disaster, with no good options. And that's down to Republicans, all the way.

[Philadelphia Steve]

Of course the Pentagon wants to edit and classify parts of the GAO report on progress toward goals President Bush promised to meet in Iraq. The report has to be made to meet with White House political objectives, regardless of the fact that the Iraqi government is nowhere near, likely years away, from ever having anything approaching a actual functioning government.

How else is George W. Bush going to Run our the Clock to January 2009, while still singing his theme song, "We're on the road to Victory" all the way?

[nowingker]

of course we will have a presence in Iraq for years to come because we invaded their country, destroyed their infrastructure, helped ignite a sectarian war, caused 2 million Iraqis to flee the country, are directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands more, wrote up our idea of the kind of government they should have, spent a trillion dollars and its still broken.

What does the government of Iraq control?
Not the Green Zone, not Baghdad, not the Kurdish sector, not the Sunni sectors and not the Shia sectors. What exactly does the government govern?

Almost five years and Baghdad still isn't safe, still sporadic electricty and water, Sunnis are out of the government every week.

I have a long, long list of things that trillion dollars could have been spent on in America that would have acrued far, far more benefit than destablilizing an Arab country and making it a certainly that billions if not trillions more will be spent before we can get out.

[Tom]

What are you going to do when things don't work out the way you want them to? Are you going to ultimately blame Bush and Petreous? Will you finally turn on your fearless leader and say he let you down too?

Yup.

Posted by: nowingker

I disagree. The frightened worshipers of bush will always defend him and his behavior. That's what scared people do. They are not brave or smart enough to 'think' about things in a logical and thoughtful way. They react to fear and fear alone. They would be happy to completely destroy what this once great country stands for. The apparent illusion of safety trumps all other issues and concerns. The blood of countless soldiers and innocents stain their hands - but they don't care. As long as they worship and devote their sanity to Bush - all is well. The future is bleak for all of us because the frightened last 28% will stand behind the worst administration in our 200+ year history. They are so invested in their worship of an imbecile, they cannot turn away from him. Why are you folks so frightened? I thought bravery was a virtue you embraced? I guess not. how sad, really.

[Hank]

Politicizing the war on Terror? That has been the modus operandi of Bush Administration since
9/12/01!

Are you guys really so blinded by your worship of Bush?

[nowingker]

It's in for a penny in for a pound. If they admit Bush is a moron, the war was a very bad idea, executed even more poorly and incompetantly, then what do they have? Higher gas prices. Giant deficit. Higher consumer goods. Mortgage crash. Global warming denial. Jack Abramaff. Ken Lay. What ELSE do they have to point to? If the great Iraqi Democracy Experiment fails, they will have NOTHING to show for their 8 years and 6 years Congressional majority.

[nowingker]

Another fine example of the Bush doctrine of fear mongering and LGF muslim hate.

Plane delayed due to suspicious Arabs, well, get this, SPEAKING ARAB. I bet they were talking loud too! The nerve of those terrorists, speaking Arabic on an American Airlines flight.

Except, OOPS, they work for DOD training US Marines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512063/

They probably should just be waterboarded a few times for good measure, then deported though. Can't be too careful.

Since when did we let the stinkin Muslim terrorirsts take over the US Marine Corps. Boy oh boy you were right, this global terrorist network is in real deep.

Imagine terorrists training our own Marines!
Dry run Dry run, Burn Witch Burn.
They did it for PR

How stupid are these arabs? Getting on planes speaking ARABIC! The fun never stops.

[jj]

I guess I need to address this to the "liberal" commenters here.

First, Tom, I am not responsible for the loss of innocent life in Iraq any more than you are. The US would only be responsible for innocent loss of life caused by the direct actions of US soldiers, not people killed by suicide bombers, etc. Were I to use your particular logic, then you would be responsible for the innocent loss of life that occurred in Iraq prior to the US involvement because you failed to intervene, just as you would be responsible for the innocent loss of life in Darfur because you failed to do anything to stop the genocide there. Your logic stands on its head.

And whether any of you agree with the war in Iraq, or not, the Congress of the United States and the UN duly authorized the use of force in Iraq. That is a fact. If you can get the Congress of the United States to defund the war, and bring the troops home, fine, that is how a democracy works. If you can't, we have elections coming up next year, and you will have another chance. But slandering people and namecalling is useless, and hardly helps your cause, and is probably the reason you can't even get Democrats in Congress to go along with your plan. You people just come off as hateful and mean-spirited, a sure way NOT to win friends and influence people.

As for myself, I have a son in the Army, he is in airborn school right now, so if you even have half a brain, you know he will soon be in harms way. So I have a very personal interest in this war, probably more than any of you. I would like to see it succeed, am convinced we can win, would have already won had we devoted the troops we should have from the beginning. And I finally see some progress, more than we have achieved before, so I would be willing to give Gen. Patreaus more time, but not forever. At some time in the near future, the Iraqis must stand up and decide they want a country, and pay the price that must be paid to have one.

[jj]

Oh, Tom, one more thing. You accuse conservatives of being fearful, yet every time a Muslim is the least bit offended by any little thing, you liberals are the first to censor: cartoons, books, drawings, newspaper articles, magazine articles, television shows, blogs, or any other 1st Amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus, you liberals have supported hate crime legislation in favor of Muslims, yet would deny the same protection to others. For example, you liberals LAUDED and defended the idoit who made the Piss Christ exhibit, yet you support a hate crime charge against a guy who burned a Koran. Would you support a hate crime charge against a guy who burned a Bible? If not, you are either a full-blown hypocrite, or you are scared of Muslims. Which is it, or could it be both? Myself, I think you are flat out terrified of Muslims, that is the only thing that could describe your behavior.

[BobInStamford]

We can all sleep better tonight knowing that George Bush brought Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Iraqi 9/11 terrorists to justice. Iraq will NEVER attack us again! President Bush is a LEADER and a HERO.

[nowingker]

Did we? Did all liberals in the country laud Piss Christ? Do all liberal support hate crime legislation? Is everyone agasint the war a liberal? I guess that's a rhetorical question of course wingers think anyone agaisnt the war is a liberal/traitor/Democrat/Socialist/Marxist/Earth Worshipper/Fornicator, more or less.

I KNOW that all Wingers support the war in Iraq and that they will throw anyone under the bus who doesn't no matter who they are or how many decades of conservative credentials they have amassed. I know it for a FACT because I defy you to find any critic of the Iraq war who has not been trashed by the winger blogs and winger pundits. Anybody? Anyone who has ever criticized the war in a meaningful way, ever said it was a mistake, we don't have a strategy to win, anything?

The idea that liberals are 'scared of muslims' is just one more in a long line of strange ideas that Wingers have come up with, yep, I'm deathly afraid of billions of dirt poor uneducated people living in countries with no resources other than oil, no significant military capabilites, no ecnomic capabilities....I am cowering under my bed I am so terrified of all these goshdarn poor goat and camel herders because, well, they don't like us.

It must be some form of mass delusion, like the people who think they were abducted by aliens. Deluions, false memories, group hysteria. Has to be, or maybe about 25% of people on the plant are dumb as dirt, and our dumb as dirt contingent happens to be the Bush Wingers.

[Tom]

If not, you are either a full-blown hypocrite, or you are scared of Muslims. Which is it, or could it be both? Myself, I think you are flat out terrified of Muslims, that is the only thing that could describe your behavior.

Posted by: jj

I read your words with interest. You explain your position with passion and clarity. But you explain YOUR positions - not mine and certainly not the +/- 70% of your fellow citizens. I respect your son's decision to serve our country. My age being set aside, he is a braver man than I am concerning the armed forces. I am not in fear of anybody. My whole post was devoted to the idea that fear is the currency used by Bush to validate and move forward his intrusive ideas about government. You start off very well in your post, but then slip into the shamless Limbaugh type rantings about what you believe about me - not dems in general - me. Both sides are to be ashamed with our direction - both sides. Still, it is clear to me that fear keeps the message of bush front and center: I can protect you, the dems cannot. The right used to be brave and honorable, but your side has chosen to let an imbecile tear up our constitution with our any balance of security. Your children will look at you to wonder why you let this happen. How could you allow ONE MAN to completely turn our country into a banana republic? Fear is poison. Fear allows bad choices to be made. Fear makes for bad government policy. Fear is not what the president of the united states should use to keep his flock under control - but that is what he does. We call them sheeple. I still believe fear drives most of the right to embrace a failed president. I just wish there were stronger, more loyal patriots on the right who are tired of being lied to and abused. I do wish your son well. I will keep him in my prayers.

[jj]

Tom, when I referred to you, I didn't mean it personally, I meant the you to refer to liberals. After rereading my post, I see how you could taken it that way.

Nowinkger, then why do you defer to all things Muslim? I asked a serious question, and it was not answered. Why do liberals(not ALL liberals, as no particular group is monolithic) support hate crime legislation for a religion(Islam), yet defer to no other religion? Why is that? I am flat out curious about this. If not fear, then what? It is absolutely counter to the separation of church and state, yet liberals fight tooth and nail for special priviledges for Muslims. Unconstitutional special rights in my opinion.

And Tom, chill, Bush has not turned the US into a banana republic, far from it, or how do you explain the last election? The election will occur in 2008, right on schedule, a new president, probably a Democrat, will be elected, and you will probably be defending Hillary from my allegations that she is violating the constitution. But don't expect Hillary to pull out of Iraq quickly, she is not stupid, and she realizes that it will take some time to get out. The lack of patience on both sides in the US is our greatest weakness. And thanks for the prayers, I covet them, as "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much".

[jj]

And Tom, my son's name is Aaron. I always like to know the person's name that I am praying for, perhaps you do as well.

[Jay B.]

Why do liberals(not ALL liberals, as no particular group is monolithic) support hate crime legislation for a religion(Islam), yet defer to no other religion? Why is that?

What on Earth are you talking about? First, if what you say has any truth -- why are you so jealous of Muslims? Do you think they have it easy? Do you wish with all your heart that somehow, a white Christian just might make it in this country of ours like all those Muslims have? After all, they have an entire person in all of Congress (whom I'm sure isn't representing his constituents in any way, instead controlling the giant push for Sharia here), I'm sure your beleaguered Christian compatriots would love to have that kind of juice if there was only SOME WAY that Christians could get that kind of sweet power that American Muslims enjoy -- wow, that whole Jesus thing might just pay off.

Do you even understand what hate crimes legislation is? Or why people may choose to think Muslims (and Jews, and blacks, and gays, by the way) should be covered by it, as opposed to those in the majority?

The reason American Muslims should be protected by hate crime legislation (Even as a liberal, I'm still unsure if hate crime legislation is worth it or not, but here's the idea of it) is because Americans shouldn't be attacking Muslims because of their religion, especially during a time of war where even Bush thinks Muslims as a whole shouldn't be persecuted when it was the actions of a only vanishing fraction of the billion or so members of that religion who actually represent any kind of threat to the US.

Seriously. Are you so insecure of Christianity's tenuous hold on a mere 80% of Americans (to say nothing of its position of the religion of choice for just about anyone with real power in this country) that you feel a victim of liberalism? Is your faith that weak?

If it matters, I am irreligious because of people like you, contemptuous of minority rights, fearful of existential threats, completely enraged at any gesture that contains a small amount of grace (even if misguided) at its core. Piss Christ? Sure, that decades-old wound may never heal for you, but then, you don't even understand what the First Amendment is or what it means, so I guess you'll simply have to be begrudging of your woefully inadequate position in this society.

[Jim]

Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric from both sides comes from the sad fact that there is no good option with respect to Iraq, none at all. It is entirely possible that if we withdraw over the next year Iraq will become even more of a bloody mess than it is now. Likewise, the most likely result of the "surge" is to maintain a lid on some of the violence for as long as the "surge" can continue (which by virtually all accounts will only be until April of next year), and then we will be faced with many many years of occupation that accomplishes little but draining our treasury and national spirit. There is nothing coming from Iraq on the political front that suggests that any type of stable government that is a useful ally against terrorism will develop. We, as a country, are essentially screwed by actions of Bush, Cheney, et al., and it is that feeling, even if unspoken, that engenders so much of the anger on the left, which engenders knee jerk winger reactions opposing the left.

[gil]

Rhiel.

I am starting to get concerned with your fellow Right Wing Bloggers. From Sister Toldjah, Wake up America, Poliblog, Influence Peddler, Strata-Sphere, Parapundit, Flopping Aces, and Daily Pundit ALL OF THEM will accept open debate on issues.

I just witnessed Daily Pundit going nuts and closing his blog on the Iraq War because he was getting contradicted and challenged too much. I quote him on his final post ;

"I am closing comments on this post, as I usually do when Salon links. I can only tolerate so mucj lame bullshit and stupidity from the Left on any given day, and this is way over my limit"

All the other mentioned Right WIng posts do the same, or block your comments if they don't agree with them.

So my question to you is; What on hearth is going on with the Right? Do you consider appropiate behavior for Right Wing blogs to only accept like minded people posts, and become "Clubs" for extremist? Is that the way Right Wingers want to create debate about issues? Why if the Right constantly blames Democrats for "cutting and running" in Iraq, they do exactly the same at the first sight of Liberal ideas no less!!!!

All these so called "Blogs" can's stand their grownd when confronted by intelligent arguments, and simply close you out. Now when all is said and done, that is the true reflection of their Character. I for one stand and fight for what I believe Liberals and Centrist do the same, I expected Right Wing bloggers that spend most of their time thumping their chest because they are so "tough" to be the best at it.....

Turns out they are the worst.

[jj]

Jay B., your rant speaks for itself. As for hate, your hate for Christians is obvious to us all. You ought to seek professional help for your problem.

As for my understanding of the 1st Amendment, I feel very confident of my knowledge. I had a course in Constitutional Law in college, I was the editor of the college newspaper, and I prepped for law school.

And again, my point is, and always has been, that our Constitution is colorblind, that it does not allow one religion or people to have an advantage over another, nor does one class of people deserve more protection than another.

I used Piss Christ(which you seem to get really excited about) as an example. I personally could care less, I just used it as a foille. But, please, you tell me, why is it a hate crime for me to dispose of my property(a Koran) in any way I see fit? It's my property. And if it's a crime to destroy a Koran, why isn't it a crime to destroy a Bible? I wish someone would just answer that question.

[jj]

gil, the Huffington Post, Kos, Firedoglake and numerous other liberal blogs do the same thing. I've been banned from the three I just mentioned. Why would you want to make a statement like that when you know liberal blogs do the same thing?

[gil]

When it comes to Iraq as Jim post puts it, "There are no good options" indeed.

For the life of me I can't understand why is it that the Right can't see that any "victory" in Iraq in the best of sircunstances will only give all the political power to the Shiite, and therefore to the likes of Al Sadr, and Al Sistani .... And by extension to the Iranians.

And I don't have to tell you Right Wingers, that with "victories" like that, we might as well be defeated.

The reality of Iraq as I see it is the following. Bush will simply live the mess to the next President. As a consecuence of the Iraq debacle Bush will have the doubious honor to have needlesly initiated, and presided over the worst Foreign Relations debacle in the history of our Country. The consecuences of which we Americans are only starting to grasp. As for the war itself. To be honest, there's so many variables, and possible outcomes that it is impossible for any one to even guess how this war will turn out.

My opinion if it counts for anything is simply that in the end, we will be in Iraq in one form or another for many, many years to come. Not in the present numbers, not in the present mission, and not with the same goals. There with our Army only to prevent a regional conflict. As for Iraq, it will go from one failed Government to another, until the Country itself is no more. In it's place a Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite separation will surface, and be accepted by a tired wold.

As for the war on terrorism.... We Americans will some day will learn that the way to stop terrorism is not by invading the wrong country, but by killing the right people.

You know Right Wingers, back in 2002 the French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac in answering to the now infamous remark by Rumsfeld about "Old Europe" was quoted as saying; " One of the good things about being old, is to have the wisdom to know what's the limit of your power"..... We Americans are about to learn the limits of ours.

[gil]

JJ

I don't want to get into a if they do it, so can we kind of argument.

Let's be clear on something here. I do not approve of any one with conviction cutting and running as you Right Wingers put it...At the first sign of a contrarian view.

In my humble opinion any Blog Left or Right has no business calling for open debate, only to stop it once they don't like what comes to their blogs. If what they want is a club, then they can join the Boys Scouts of America, or the Rotarians.

Let's stop this kind of behavior. I don't mind blogs stopping bad language, racist remarks or any kind of bigotry. But ideas they don't agree with? Then what on hearth are they doing posting theres for, if is not for people to come to their blogs and agree, or disagree with them?????????

If what they want is a bunch of zombies in their blogs, then they are in the wrong country, and should not call themselves Americans to star with.

[TheSpartan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6886871,00.html

Surge On Christian soldiers.

[narciso]

The Shias are likely to win; they are the majority faction in Iraq; it's kind of like saying the Protestants are likely to win. This hasn't been true because the
minority sect in Iraq (Salafi/Hambali Sunnis) have been in total charge in Iraq anywhere from 80 to 400 years. They have controlled the presidential palace with
few exceptions (Sadr, Askari)the majority of government ministries, including defense and interior; the lion's share of the oil found in Kurdish and Shia lands; water, electricity, The militant nature of the Sadr clan's subsequent
generations and the Badr/SCIRI stem from this fact. Iraqi Shiism doesn't lean toward Qum; its source in Oudh, India (If you had actually read Juan Cole & Yitzak Nakkash scholarship on the subject you'd know this.

[Terry Gain]

The news on the security front has been so good lately that we haven't heard from BoobINStamford for weeks but let some quisling leak a negative report and here comes Boob and the other losers out of the woodwork ready yet again to proclaim and cheer for defeat.

Sorry boys, it's too late. The Surge is working. Political progress will follow in Iraq and then here as the Dems go down in flames in 08. This is what happens when you bet against America.

[Terry Gain]

Karl at Protein Wisom has brilliantly annotated the MSMs arrogant and incompetent coverage of the Liberation of Iraq. Those who can't think for themselves have been sucked into believing America is losing a war it is clearly winning. Iraq is a quagmire alright. For al Qaeda.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9678

[gil]

narciso.

The Shiite are the majority in Iraq by far. In any Democracy the majority wins period. Today in Al Malaki's Government they control the majority (no surprise).

I sincerely urge you to read about Iraq and inform yourself before you comment. It helps all of us to avoid trying to argue issues that simply do not exist.

The Sunni have controled Iraq indeed for hundreds of years. BUT NOT TROUGH A DEMOCRACY. It is the Right Wing contention to argue that a Democracy in Iraq (The hard of Bush's policies in Iraq) will give us Americans a "victory".

That contention I argue is absolutely false. A Democracy in Iraq will give the Shiite the power they never had, and will empower Iran to take over, or at least heavily influence Iraqi political affairs.... That's a "victory" only an Iranian would like. But apparently the Right believes that counts as a "victory" why?

That's what I can' t figure out.

[LOL]

Really it's sad what insulated losers the wingers on this blog are.

It's as if you guys hide behind your computers all day only reading wingnut blogs. Has it really become that desperate for you? You must pine for the "Mission Accomplished" glory days to be reduced to this pathetic paranoid sniping.

As one commenter noted above, every criticism of the war that has come along is dismissed by wingers as being radical leftist/defeatist bullshit. But if you wingers actually left your house, actually talked to your neighbors, you would discover an amazing insight. Support for the war is at an all time low. Most Americans, average Americans, are against the war, despise the massive failure George Bush, and can't wait for the nightmare to end.

[gil]

Terry Gain.

It would be nice if you try to balance your views on the subject of "good news" comming out of Iraq.

Can you please be fair and answer me this simple question.

What was, or is the surge supposed to accomplish besides the obvious Military objective?????
And where are the good news there?????

And the other usual question. What happens when AGAIN WE HAVE TO END OUR LATEST SURGE???????

You see dear Lady, every surge we had, does accomplish the mission. Or to put it in other words, our Military allways accomplish the mission. But then again when it comes to competence our Military is not the problem, is it???

Maibe you either don't understand the complexity of the problem in Iraq, or you think that the problems of Iraq can be solved by endless"surges" by our Army. Or Maibe you are just too simple minded to grasp the difference between success in the field, and sucess in the strategy. For you see dear Lady you can surge, and win every surge till the cows come home, and still have chaos in Iraq if the Iraqi people can't compromise and continue to kill each other. And the way to stop that is not trugh "surges", but to understanding what we can and can't ask our Army to do.

When it comes to Iraq and Bush's "surges".... You need to understand that they all most end, and when they do, and when our Army lives the field..... The Shiite and the Sunni simply come back and continue to kill each other. For there is no power in this world that can't stop hate.... And that dear lady is the limit of our power.

Your side is just to arrogant to admit it. And because of that our soldiers continue to die.

[BobInStamford]

Terry Gain is waiting for that day in 2015 when ALL of Baghdad is under 'coalition' control. That will be a fine day indeed and only 7 years hence at the current rate. THEN the 'coalition' can go after places like Basra. My guess is that by 2020 it will all be sorted out nicely.

Surge On!!

[Terry Gain]

gillian

There's another excellent post today at Protein Wisdom which you should read. Colonel K's dissertation might enlighten even you. Also read the comments, particularly Darleen's. You don't have to be a captive of your MSM induced ignorance forever.

[ET]

What an interesting thread...thanks, jj, for elevating the debate. The name-calling (which, I suppose, is part of the appeal of an anonymous blog) really stands out here. Lefties berating Righties for berating Lefties. Talk about a circle jerk.

But some common ground lies just below the surface.

1. The US will not pull out of Iraq for several years, and may have a long term presence there (ala Germany and Korea).
2. The Democratic Congress will not defund the war, which they understand to be a strategic step towards stabilizing the region for future generations. Of course, they don't say that out loud (watch their hands, not their mouths).
3. The next President, probably a Democrat, will continue to pursue the war, though she will not call it that (watch her hands, not her mouth).

No matter how you rant at the opposition, the three points above are forgone conclusions. Only Cindy Sheehan (crazy with grief) continues the call for immediate withdrawal, oh, plus nowingy and boobsalot.

So, we are left with a world in which the most influential and benevolent people on the planet (that's America, no-boobs) have a stronghold in the center of a violent movement bent on world domination and oppression. This is good. Look at a map. Iraq is between Iran and Syria...Afghanistan is between Iran and Pakistan. We have rearranged the chess pieces in our favor. I submit that this is a positive outcome for the US, and for the world community. We can now negotiate with the governments of Iran, Syria, and Pakistan from a position of strength. The extreme Islamic movement will die of strangulation by its own people, once the citizens are allowed to weigh the costs against other alternatives.

I credit the Bush Administration for making the tough decisions that will eventually produce this outcome. Bush has been consistent in his calls for patience and resolve. He stands firmly against the polls and pundits that devote their very existence to the failure of his strategy. Soon, the majority will come to accept that he was right all along, that his intentions were always noble and that his decision to go on the offensive against a dangerous enemy was sound and (mostly) well executed.

No-boobs...When your grandchildren are celebrating George Bush Day, and they ask you, "Grandboobs, what did you do in the Great War on Terror?"...

What will you answer?

[seekeronos]

The Boob might well be one of those kinds of folks who advocates the extinction of 90% of humanity, like HRH the Duke of Edinburgh who wished he was reincarnated as a killer virus.

After all, there are only so many Hostess Snack Cakes one can eat when sharing the planet with 7.5Bn other humans.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Concerning the back-and-forth between Terry Gain and the other ill-informed MSM propaganda sponge (gillian) ... if most Americas are REALLY that moved against the war, it is because they are soaking up all the crisply worded lies and obfuscations on the Liberally-biased MSM.

The surge (as the Boob is so fond of stating) truly is working.

Now as for criticism of the "war", ... yes, I think it could have been handled better (along the lines of co-opting a number of the less hardcore Baathists to get, and keep, the lights on and the plumbing running. In fact, reinstating much of the Baath government _infrastructure_ under the extremely short leash of US monitoring might have done much better to keep the Badr's and the Sadr's from getting salty, and perhaps have made life more difficult for the Iranian blabbbity-blah special forces folks to infiltrate as they have been doing.

But, that's not where we are at. We are where we are, and we will continue to proceed, we will continue to make a few mistakes here and there, and we will continue to pick up the pieces and STILL make Iraq a place fit for responsible self government (i.e. not an Islamist Republic).

Personally, I don't think the Iraqis are any more ready for democracy than the Russians were following the collapse of the USSR. It has taken them nearly 15 years to get their stuff settled, and even now, it doesn't look perfect.

Germany and Japan were both occupied for quite some time, as the basic lessons of how to run a western-style republic (or constitutional, parliamentary symbolic monarchy) as opposed to the same sorts of militaristic dictatorships as they both shared in common with Saddam's Iraq.

Expect that we will be in Iraq for the next 40-50 years at least. It's a long war, get used to it. The only thing though, is that it should start to get much better as time goes on.

[legaleagle]

Best turd of the day from the cesspool of Republicanism:

"When your grandchildren are celebrating George Bush Day, and they ask you, "Grandboobs, what did you do in the Great War on Terror?"...
What will you answer?

Here's an idea: "I just followed the strategy of the Chickenhawk Brigade --Dickhead Cheney, 'Dolph Guiliani, Covergirl Romney, not to mention the Imbecile-in-Chief -- who had better things to do, like sucking the public teat while real men actually fought the wars."

"isn't leaking potentially classifiable material before it has an opportunity to be classified basically as criminal as leaking it after the fact?"

Hmmmm; here's a succinct answer: No. On the other hand, the degree of cognitive function needed even to entertain that question is, basically, that of the level of a grunting baboon.

[Terry Gain]

ET, the Surge and the tribal awakenings are having a multiplier effect on the pacification of Iraq. A year from now enough of the public will understand that the Dems wanted to run from a war that was not only winnable but was being won and was devastating al Qaeda. This will be so obvious even the gillians of this world might understand it. There isn't a chance in hell that the next President will be a Democrat.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh legal what a rabid little doggie we are today. Heat must have gotten you down. But this shouls cheer you up. Mr christamfordmum wrote this:

"Terry Gain is waiting for that day in 2015 when ALL of Baghdad is under 'coalition' control. That will be a fine day indeed and only 7 years hence at the current rate. THEN the 'coalition' can go after places like Basra. My guess is that by 2020 it will all be sorted out nicely."

But he is a silly boy with a one-track brain. He seems to forget that we have had military forces keeping the North Koreans in the reality zone for over 50 years. I never hear a peep of complaint from him about this. We have had military forces ready in Europe to fight the Russians for over 60 years. Mr. christamfordmum is mum on the issue. If we are in Iraq until 2020 and can leave thereafter, we'll have done better than our daddies.

[nowingker]

Ah the last vestage of the reality deniers: History Will Redeem Us Just Like Truman! LOL

I hope the Wingers turn out to be a long lived bunch so they can live to explain to their grand children not only why they denied global warming for so many decades but explain how they came to support a man who ruined the United States from top to bottom. George Bush Day, what a joke.

Who do you think is going to write your revisionist history, every Bush allie that had even half a brain has already jumped ship. You thik Bill Kristol is going to write the hitory books?

We are wasting money in Iraq that we need here at home. If invading a country that wasn't a threat, destroying it, occupying it, and then having to bleed money for decades is your idea of a good and victorious strategy, have at it. Good luck selling that outside of Wingerland.

[nowingker]

Nowinkger, then why do you defer to all things Muslim? I asked a serious question, and it was not answered. Why do liberals(not ALL liberals, as no particular group is monolithic) support hate crime legislation for a religion(Islam), yet defer to no other religion? Why is that? I am flat out curious about this. If not fear, then what? It is absolutely counter to the separation of church and state, yet liberals fight tooth and nail for special priviledges for Muslims. Unconstitutional special rights in my opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I don't. I have the same level of contempt for Islam that I have for Christianity and Judaism. They are all blood religions that came out of the Middle East, they are all full of superstitious nonsense, sexist crap, magic, patriarchal bs and doomsday scenarios. The Bible Thumping Snake Charmers, Hassidic Jews and Radical Muslims are all cut from the exact same cloth, intolerant lunatics who spend all their time demonizing and trying to exterminate or convert those who don't believe the way they do.

I don't support hate crime legislations, 'hate speech' or any other nonsense that seeks to make unpopular, rude or prejudicial speech illegal becuase it is offensive. Free Speech and the duty of the majority to tolerate even the craziest rantings of the minority is a bedrock principle of our system. I don't care if you burn the Koran, the Bible or the Torah. Intimidating people and threatening them is already illegal, so is trespassing and defacing religious property. You are just as dead if you were killed because you're gay, rich, jewish, or arab.

[Fred Beloit]

"Free Speech and the duty of the majority to tolerate even the craziest rantings of the minority is a bedrock principle of our system."

I tolerate you. I disagree vehemently with most of what you say but do tolerate you. Then again what choice do I have. But I do agree about hate speech laws. They are unjust and unjustified.

[nowingker]

You should pity me Fred, I am the most maligned and powerless of Americans, someone who rejects the looney fringes on both right and left, someone who is a true centrist and who really believes The Constitution is a pretty f***g good piece of work. I reject the fascist bully state of George Bush and the wingers and I reject the stiffling nanny state of the Liberal Democrats. I don't want prayer in schools or Christian teachings made the law of the land. I don't care what anyone who is 18 does in the privacy of their own home including boy hookers, friends wives, orgies, or drugs. I don't feel sorry for criminals, minorities or the 'poor and downtrodden' and while I am willing to give them a leg up, I don't want to support them for life. I don't want the country overrun by immigrants, but I am not scared of muslims. I sure as s***t don't want the country spying on me, or putting me in prison because I disagree with a moron like George Bush. I am against torture and affirmative action. I am for low taxes and corporate responsibility. I want to save the polar bear, the whales and the natural environment. I do not care about the unborn. I am for assisted suicide and against the seatbelt law.

I expect to spend the rest of my life watching this country continue on its parallel path to the Roman Empire, with neither the conservatives or the liberals able to summon enough smarts or courage to pull the country out of its decline. There is no one running for president who is capable of the level of leadership needed. The Republicans and the Democrats will simply ruin different things if in office, nobody will make the needed changes.

[seekeronos]

Chasidic Jews do not go about proselytizing and seeking converts. If anything, they are about the most aloof and "elitist" of the Abrahamic faiths.

For the most part, they would rather have as little to do with the "goyiim" (non-Chasidic Jewry) as possible. Their best prospect for spreading their faith is in the average of about 5 children each family is encouraged to have.

The "Snake Charmers" and "Holy Rollers" (people who claim to be thrown to the floor by the Holy Spirit) are considered by most fundamental Christians to be heretics, who have placed mysticism and "feelings" over the practical application of God's word.

That aside, all the nonsense about hate crimes is exactly that. If that fella from Pace did anything wrong, it was vandalizing school property - and the suitable penalty would be to clean out the latrines in the building he flushed the Korans in for a month as community service.

At most.

Otherwise, if I want to flush a Bible, or a Torah, or a Koran, or a copy of "Das Kapital" ... or burn them, or just leave them on the shelf... so long as I don't damage anyone else's physical property in doing so.... I should be able to flush or burn or ignore with abandon.

But the question remains:

Why do (most) liberals seem to enjoy giving a special place to Islam - by offering Islamic charter schools on public tax dollars... or special foot-washing facilities in school funded by public dollars?

Or why must we be forced to hear a muzzein calling for prayer in a public building?

Because if it were a Christian school or a posting on a bulletin board for a prayer meeting or even a "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" meeting on public school property... we'd have activist judges and the ACLU jumping on them with both feet so fast ... the dust wouldn't have time to settle.

In short, why does the liberal establishment demand special privileges and such for Islam, and howl like wolves when other religions (especially Christians) seek equivalent protection?

If the liberals really hold the Establishment Clause so dear, then why the hypocrisy and the double standard?

Because I really don't want my hard earned tax dollars supporting a religion that is opposed to my existence.

[Rich Casebolt]

"We are wasting money in Iraq that we need here at home."

Year by year, we spend more money complying with the tax laws than we do on our operations in Iraq. Ready to support the Fair Tax?

"If invading a country that wasn't a threat"

The Iraq of Saddam & Sons was far more of a threat, with respect to fomenting and supporting terror, than Afghanistan was ... it is your insistence about seeing dead American bodies before acting that blinds you to this.

"destroying it"

Actually, the bulk of the destruction came at either Saddam's hand before we arrived, or the totalitarian-aspiring insurgents after we arrived.

"occupying it, and then having to bleed money for decades is your idea of a good and victorious strategy, have at it."

Beats hell out of seeing it hijacked for escalating terrorism ... or its resources consolidated into the Islamic Republic of Iran, where access to them would be a powerful lever for the mullahs to persuade others to stay out of their way ... or even exploited to start a good old-fashioned nation-on-nation World War.

"Good luck selling that outside of Wingerland."

Presented logically, it will sell to reasonable people anywhere ... as long as their reason is not mired in 20th-century conventional wisdom.

We have repeatedly discussed, and debunked, the assertions you and other anti-warriors have made.

If after your arguments were disproven, you and those like you would rethink and adjust them in the light of facts and reason, you might find a more receptive audience ... and we would all wind up knowing more as we correct our errors together.

But you keep repeating the same Big Lies ... after all, you haven't "disappeared" yet, nowingker.

It is that king of parrotting, that is leading some to ban commenters like yourself from their blogs ... and it is not censorship.

It is quality control.

A suggestion: you could start to improve the quality, by realizing that it is not All About Bush.

[nowingker]

In short, why does the liberal establishment demand special privileges and such for Islam, and howl like wolves when other religions (especially Christians) seek equivalent protection?
---------------------------------------------------

It isn't special privileges for Islam, it is the same way that you can get a Kosher meal at school or on an airplane these days, same reason public schools at least for many decades always had a fish offering on Friday, for Catholics who didn't eat meat on Fridays, same reason that Jewish children can get off Yom Kippur. It isn't giving them SPECIAL rights it is giving them the same protections as the other religions in this country.

Who cares about some foot washing stands, good grief they are all over Spain, what is the big deal? If they need that to practice their religion then so be it, if Christians needed a foot washing stand to practice their religion they should get one too. I don't know of anyone who is against individual voluntary prayer in schools.

[nowingker]

Rich,

You are a master at circular reasoning and all of your reasoning starts with the false premise that Saddam Hussein was a threat and was 'sponsoring terrorism' aimed at the US and/or the idea that your belief of what he "would have done" is absolutely correct and written in stone, all of this has been debunked and proven false time and again in many government reports.

Therefore there isn't any debating you because your belief rests on a series of either false asssertions about what Saddam did do, or unprovable assertions about what his future actionsd would have been.

I urge you never to try "I had to kill him in self defense because I knew he was a bad man, and had killed others before me, and anyway, if I hadn't killed him he would have eventually tried to kill me, so its self defense even though he didn't actually ever attack me or try to kill me" in an American court. It doesn't fly.