Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Democrats Disregard Petraeus and Crocker Recommendations
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Army General David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker told Congress the President’s surge has started to make political reconciliation possible, but Democrat leadership is unwilling to give the Iraqi government more time and are intensifying calls for withdrawl.

Majority Sen. Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) held a press conference Wednesday afternoon to announce that Democrats would produce amendments to the defense authorization bill next week to “change the course of the war in Iraq” because “the surge has failed to bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation.”

Reid would not reveal specifics of the amendments. He would only say the plan presented by Petraeus to begin taking troops out of Iraq and return to pre-surge levels by the end of August 2008 was “unacceptable.”

This reporter asked Reid: “One of the things that General Petraeus has argued is that security will lead to political reconciliation. And now, that we’re almost to that point, why should we start pulling out troops when we are almost there?”

Reid replied, “Your statement that we’re almost there is just a little bit short of being ridiculous, OK?”

The question was asked again: “Do you agree that security is the key to political reconciliation?”

Reid deferred to Armed Services Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.). Levin answered, “The purpose of the surge was not accomplished because the politicians nationally have gone nowhere in terms of reconciling the differences and working out differences in legislation that have to be worked out for there to be national reconciliation.”

This response directly conflicts with the testimony given earlier this week by the top military commander and the U.S. diplomat.

Crocker testified to the Senate Foreign Affairs committee on Tuesday: “It is my judgment that Iraq completely unraveled in 2006 and in the beginning of 2007. Under those conditions...[it was] impossible to proceed with effective government or effective reconciliation. It is just in those last few months that those measures of violence have come down.”

“Political progress will only take place if sufficient security exists,” Petraeus stated in the same hearing.

While in Washington D.C., Petraeus and Crocker held media availability at the National Press Club on Wednesday morning. There, they reiterated their position that security was a pre-condition for united government.

Petraeus explained, “The challenge is for Iraqis to move from violence in the streets into parliament and other forms of debate.”

“There are no magic switches to flip in Iraq, not on reconciliation and not on services,” Crocker said. “Not on the hard issues This is going to take time.”

At the National Press Club, Petraeus said he thought his drawdown plan was “prudent” and “reflects my military judgment of what can be done to reduce our forces without jeopardizing the gains that we have sought so hard to achieve.”

“The central front of al Qaeda’s global war of terror is in Iraq,” is a statement Petraeus made both at the Press Club and when he testified before the Senate Armed Services committee on Tuesday.

Petraeus was also very specific in his formal testimony to Congress about the consequences of a withdrawal plan that was more rapid than the one he and Crocker had recommended.

His statement said: “Rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; rapid deterioration of local security initiatives; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of maneuver, a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian displacement and refugee flows; alliances of convenience by Iraqi groups with internal and external forces to gain advantages over their rivals; an exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.”

In contrast, Reid said the following in his press conference: “It's time to reduce our large combat footprint and to fight in other areas to make this country safer….We are determined to put into law, [a measure] to significantly reduce the number of American troops below the pre-surge level.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Interesting Quote
From the Yahoo News article, here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

"The goal is to attract enough Republicans to break the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to end a filibuster. Democrats have proved unable to do that since they took control of Congress eight months ago."

Looks like Democrats are frustrated at getting what they've been giving?

"I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said at a news conference. "It's time to change."

Oh, marching lockstep like Dems do. In fact, it appears to me that typically Republicans are more likely to break with their party line than Dems are.

"It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war."

Love this attitude: it isn't America's war. The Democrats won't make it their own war, to fight it and win it. Many of them voted to allow Pres. Bush to launch it (knowing he would), yet now they won't take responsibility?

Let me say this: if it's not the Democrats war, then they aren't pitching in to help. You're either 'in' a war, or you're 'out'. And if the Dems are 'out', then they can't claim to be supporting the troops. Lotta people won't like to hear that, but it is true.

We are hearing from Democrat congressmen the words and attitudes of irresponsible children.



Petraeus/ Crocker recommendations
Carpenter acts like they're joined at the hip.

>Petraeus and Crocker appeared at the National Press Club on Wednesday morning to discuss the report they made to Congress on Monday and Tuesday. There, they reiterated their position that security was a pre-condition for united government.<

Petraeus is responsible for the military operation. Crocker is responsible for the political. How can they reiterate "their" position? Given that Crocker has followed Garner, Bremer, Negroponte and Khalilzad, the continuity in the political realm continues to be lacking. However, under Khalilzad, the Iraqis were able to form a government and subsequently write a constitution. The situation has deteriorated greatly since Crocker came on board in January.
The possibilities of a united government have always been remote. Crocker needs to be honest about Kurdish autonomy and Southern Shiites wish for same. Until he does, he's not telling the whole story.


Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran
I do not believe it will be possible to establish a functioning democratic Republic in Iraq within any kind of time frame that will be supported by the American people, including most Republicans. Given that, what Bush should do is consolidate the troops in bases outside of the major cities and let them have some on-base R&R while preparing for the next phase of the WOT.

There are only two countries that are really providing the majority of the funding for the terrorists. That is Iran and Syria. Given about 30 to 45 days to consolidate troops and rest, we should then do an all out major offensive against Iran including invasion for the sole purpose of destroying ALL of their military assets. Any of their cabal of leaders that are caught should be summarily executed and thrown in ditches on the side of the road. At the same time we are taking out Iran, Israel can take out Syria. Once Iran and Syria are out of the picture the hard-liners in Saudi Arabia will squeal but they may get the message that we are serious.

As for the traitorous Democraps, let them squeal too. H*ll, Bush can do us a favor and be impeached in his last days in office.

No blank checks for stupid wars
Amanda, The dems 'constituents who elected them to majority status and threw out may pro war repubs expected them to end the war. But they dems have the numbers to override a veto. But they could still defund the military, which is not a bad idea. But unfortunately they lack the courage of their convictions.

I say enough of this shameful waste of lives and trillions of dollars-this is nota war on terror-it's been sold to us on false pretenses as Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran have said over and over again.

Yes, as many here have already stated, the democrats are spineless indeed. But they are under no moral obligation to give the idiot in the White House a blank check to continue this fools mission.

Nation (or democracy building like we attemted in Vietnam is not what our military
should be used for-it's for the defense of our country ONLY.

So, If Israel feels threatend by Iraq or Iran -let them sove that "problem" for themselves.
We have certainly given them more than enough military might with our tax dollars. What more do they want? Our soldiers' lives also?

It's not our duty to sacrifice American lives to make Israel "feel" secure. We are chumps if we continue to do so.

Liberals are just punk losers ...

It is just amazing then desire of liberals to embrace losing. This desire for failure makes them unsuitable for any leadership postion. I don't like being around liberals because I don't want to absorb thier loser attitudes.

They're just losers.

Congressional Democrats are....
disgraceful idiots. I used to be a news and political junkie -- but no more. I can't stand to listen to the likes of Reid, Kennedy, Levin, Pelosi, Murtha, etc. They are UNPATRIOTIC, hateful, small minded, power hungry, self serving and seemingly under-educated people. They don't give a damn about this country, its citizens and certainly not our military.

Those pompous asses who had the gall to question/criticize Petraeus and Crocker don't even deserve to be in the same room with them nor are they worthy of shinning their shoes. They are incompetent and dangerous for our country -- that means dangerous for you and me. They think they know better than our military on how to conduct a war -- many of them haven't even been in Iraq. This is like a plumber telling a heart surgeon how to perform your heart transplant.

All they care about is slapping Bush - so they don't like Bush - GET OVER IT! I don't like a lot of things he's done or not done either but I do recognize our real enemy when I see it. That's radical Islam - or all of Islam for all I care. Anyone who doesn't realize that they want to conquer, kill, dominate, etc. is not paying attention. We may not like the war in Iraq - but if we weren't fighting the radicals there, it would be someplace else - possibly America.

This obvious fact is what the Democrats fail to understand - either through ignorance or negligent. We don't need politics in the fight for our lives and country.

You will never be a "loser" if you
Put your trust and reliance in God, treat ALL people as you wish to be treated, place God first, your family second and your self last, and stir clear of narrow ideologies and bitter controversies, or world views from either extreme.

On the other hand, you will uwittingly "embrace losing" if you place your hopes for peace, security, safety happiness or prosperity in the hands of ANY president, general, future political candidate, political philosophy or ANY party. Because you will inevitably be disappointedin the endand you will have made yourself a loser.

You will know you are a loser because you will slowly come to realize you are chronically angry, always carying some burden or grievance, and thus anxious, disrustful, paranoid, quarrelsome, argumentative, disillusioned, chronically depressed, worried, resentful and unhappy.

You will be deeply suspicious and distrustful of the motives and integrity of any person(or group) who happens to see things differently than you, and tend to blame and hate them for everything that troubles you.

You will find that your find life is no longer filled with joy, spontaneity, good will towards others-but instead, is filled with animosities, resentments, petty disputes, insults, grievous wordsd, and never ending controversies that you are powerless to resolve.

Go the New Testamnet book of Galatians and read St Paul's discussion of the fruits of the Spirit-and measure yourself. You will find it more useful and informative, edifying, and uplifting than any political blogs or political speech.




is anyone surprised?
The dems have been putting out the lowest of the lows as their form of leadership for years now. They see nothing wrong with twisting reality to fit their agenda. The lies and propaganda the dems release on gullible minds is disturbing at best, traiterous at worst. The day the noble General Petraeus gave his report to Congress, we saw how low the dems will sink with the slander of the left calling this great man General Betray-us. That day, in a chat room, a lib came in and said something to the affect that General Petraeus told Congress to withdraw all troops. I told him he wasn't listening because General Petraeus did not say that-he said a troop reduction to PRE-SURGE levels AS the situtation warranted by next summer at the earliest. Funny how the gullible missed that all important piece of info. That also goes to show how ignorant the left wishes to be-and wishes us all to be. Thank goodness I can think on my own and deduce that General Petraeus' recommendations made perfect sense. After all, he is in the thicket over there while whiney ignorant libs turn deaf, dumb and blind to reality. Ambassador Crocker was also admirable in his speech. He was not sugar coating the situation in Iraq but did offer some hope. I think I'd much rather take the words of two men who are far more involved in the situation in Iraq than a pampered, selfish, power-hungry dem who hasn't done squat.

Faith
Bush continues to argue that the surge is necessary to provide the security necessary to develope a government of national reconciliation. Bush's continued assertion that we must stay until such a government is formed reminds me that the controversy of this war is based on whether or not one believes that the Shia's and Sunni's can overcome 1300 years of disagreement and agree to reconcile and live together peacefully. To accomplish this, each of these sects must have equal protection under the law, and that law must be based on a constitution and a judicial system which is neutral and enforces the law according to the constitution. Currently, that is not the case. The Shia's elected three clerical based Shia parties (Sadr's, SIC and DAWA) whose combined votes gave them the control of the government. They, in turn, passed a law that made the Koran the basis of civil law, and gave the power to interpret and enforce the Koran to the clerics, whose power supercedes the constitution. If you believe that these Shia clerical parties will disempower the clerics who are a part of these parties, rescind these laws, and reinstate the constitution, then you can believe that this nation can reconcile it's differences. If you do not believe that the Shia's will rescind these laws, then you are unlikely to believe that the surge will lead to the form of national reconciliation that will enable both groups to live peacefully under the control of one government.

You either have faith that this will happen, or you don't. If you believe, then your support for Bush and this war, is likely to be unequivocable, and one will most likely assert that we should stay as long as it takes. If you don't believe we can change these people, then whereas you may not support immediately pulling out of Iraq, the concept of some unending commitment makes little sense. Thus, we are divided.


Translate the Dem's Plan
When Dingy Harry says, "It is time to change." Translation: "It is time to get out of Iraq." The Democrat plan on Iraq is two words: Get out!!

As long Reid and company are repeating the same talking points: it means they are losing the argument. That is all that they have since there are invested in defeat and being Monday Morning Quarterbacks when it comes to this war. They have no plan to win this war. By the way, winning the war is defeating the enemy. Defeating Islamic Terrorism (Al Qaeda, Foreign fighters from Iran and Syria, etc.)

I want to hear from Petreaus and Crocker who are over there everyday, not from politicians who have conversations with moveon.org lunatics on a daily basis. Congress wants their approval to go to the single digits, fine by me. Keep it up, guys. You're heading that way.

VIC
It sorta appears that powerful elements in Israel are positioning it to take on Syria militarily, and that only leaves Iran to us. Who knows this may be a coordinated offensive effort between the USA and Israel to mute the two greatest state terrorists sponsors...planned long ago?
If Israel castrates the syrian regime, I believe it will then go all out to extricate Hezzbollah from Lebanon, most likely with the support of the majority of the Lebanese, Sunnis and Christians, and if the USA has castrated the Iranian regime, Hezzbollah in Lebanon WILL be history. This scenario in the end will make it ever so much more probable to produce peace between Israel and the Palis...a stable, lasting peace, and with that a stable, peaceful middle east.

charlie
That's exactly what I was thinking.

Dems are no surprise
It's no surprise that the Democrats and their most renouned spokesman Osama bin Laden disregard the Petreus report. The discouraging thing is that many Republicans appear to be doing the same thing.

It may be time to throw away your razor and buy a prayer rug. The Dems seem to be on their way of proving Osama's point - America is weak and will run from a fight.

It's sad really
that many people in DC (and around this country -as evidenced by moveon.org's "ad") had already made their minds up about Iraq and what the General would say or not say. They had no intention whatsoever of actually listening and reacting based on what was reported.

And as for "It's not our duty to sacrifice American lives to make Israel "feel" secure. We are chumps if we continue to do so." We're not there to make Israel feel secure - they are quite capable of defending their own country - and have had to do so repeatedly since 1948. And when it comes down to it - Israel is our only ally over there in the mid-east (don't give me the Saudi or Jordan or Egypt crap - because they are not true allies).


I'll buy you a beer...
if you can cite a single supportive word harry "Houdini" Reid or any of his cast of jackoffs (oops, I meant to say jackals but I guess both are applicable) have ever said about anything Bush has said or done. Harry reminds me of a latter day Chatty Cathy doll, pull the string in her back and she spouts the same phrases repeatedly, all of them equally original.

dems not dems
dems today are Soros' Socialists.

Harry Reid is a Threat to Freedom
With every progressive dementia induced statement he makes, Harry Reid demonstrates that HE is every bit a threat to this country as is terrorism. Another clear-cut example of why a Democrat [U]cannot[/U] be allowed to win the White House in 2008.

Question on Al Qaeda In Iraq
President Bush, General Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker have made clear that they think the primary enemy in Iraq is the group:

Al Qaeda In Iraq

They constantly repeat the name of this group in every newsconference or as has been noted at the recent Congressional testimony, practically every sentence uttered by those two contained references to "Al Al Qaeda In Iraq".

So the question is:

What is the estimated membership of Al Qaeda In Iraq and what percentage of the overall insurgency do it's fighters comprise?

Self-destruction.

Personally, I hope that the Democrats and the rest of the leftists just keep carping about Iraq.

If the Iraqi security keeps improving like it has... this carping will be their undoing.

Most Americans are not stupid, and they see right through the blatant hipocricy.

And moveon.org with its anti-American tirades and the "General Betray Us" commercial, will only serve to hasten their demise.

Someone once said... there is no justice like poetic justice.

How true... and how truly sweet it is.

Phylo
As I stated in the second post of this thread, don't expect to get the whole story of the Iraqi political scene either from Crocker or any Townhall columnists.
Unless you are willing to examine Kurdish autonomy and Southern Shiite desire for same, any ntalk of political reconciliation, or a national unity government is moot.
But it's clear from the overwhelming posts in this thread that TH posters only concern is bashing the Democratic resistance, not analyzing the Iraqi situation objectively.

Additionally, Petraeus and Crocker are Bush appointees. Why would anyone expect them to deviate from the administration's talking points?

Of course, none of this excuses MoveOn.org's disgraceful NY Time's ad.

The Surge is what?
Harry reid called the surge a failure before it was fully implemented. Now Chuck Schumer says it is showing signs of a success depite the efforts of our troops. Which is it?
This is how they support the troops? They will say anything just to get votes for 2008.

Support the troops go to http://www.moveamericaforward.org
to find out how you can support the brave men and women who defend us.

Tom C.: So If Sen Reid has Dementia ?
would you agree President Bush suffers from a
"obssesive/possesive compulsion" on Iraq?

and what of those that accept his propaganda on Iraq without question?

So youre saying that the millions people in this country who are by far in the majority in opposition to President Bush's Iraq War suffer from some form of dementia? yes or no?

exactly what is it that you are saying or represent?

Tom C.: So If Sen Reid has Dementia ?
would you agree President Bush suffers from a
"obssesive/possesive compulsion" on Iraq?

and what of those that accept his propaganda on Iraq without question?

So youre saying that the millions people in this country who are by far in the majority in opposition to President Bush's Iraq War suffer from some form of dementia? yes or no?

exactly what is it that you are saying or represent?

The Surge is what?
Harry reid called the surge a failure before it was fully implemented. Now Chuck Schumer says it is showing signs of a success depite the efforts of our troops. Which is it?
This is how they support the troops? They will say anything just to get votes for 2008.

Support the troops go to http://www.moveamericaforward.org
to find out how you can support the brave men and women who defend us.

Reid and Clinton
Every time I hear Harry Reid declare the U.S. a failure I wonder if the people in Nevada have televisions, or if they actually subscribe to that kind of anti-American ideology. Then, I ponder how degraded Congress has become so as to elect such a power-mad political hack as its leader.

I listened as Hillary Clinton called a decorated Army General a liar and wonder how, in God's name, this woman (or anyone else) might think that she is fit to be President and lead the military. Yes, I realize that there are many people dumb enough to think that we don't need a miltary. They can go ahead an live their lives on their knees, but I'll pass on that.

Then, there's the defeaning silence of the Democrat Presidential wanna-bes related to the Moveon ad. We can only conclude that they're either cowards or they agree with the ad. Either way, who would want any of them as President?


Prez Bush & Gen/ Patreaus Off Limits?
According to Repubs/Cons:

QUESTIONING President Bush and General Petreaus on the VERACITY of the PROPAGANDA they present to the AMERICAN PUBLIC on IRAQ is UNACCEPTABLE AND TRAITOROUS.

EVERYTHING they utter on the subject of Iraqi is FACTUAL AND THE TRUTH and to be followed and accepted WITHOUT DISSENT because THEY ARE OUR LEADERS.

people of such blind faith scare the heck out of me and are not to be trusted.

Tallil2long
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6993211.stm

"Let me say this: if it's not the Democrats war, then they aren't pitching in to help. You're either 'in' a war, or you're 'out'. And if the Dems are 'out', then they can't claim to be supporting the troops. Lotta people won't like to hear that, but it is true."

I disagree. Iraq is Bush's war. He sold it. He stays "his" same course and he will listen to no one. Petraeus clearly stated he cannot say that US actions in Iraq make America safer. What more do you need? That said I certainly hope the Democrats will continue to rein in Bush's war in a responsible fashion. Bush's only goal appears to be slinking out of office without some resolution in Iraq. The military will be left tired, underequipped and undertrained with few resources available. I am sorry but Bush's ego is a sorry altar upon which to sacrifice American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. If Congress is unable to end the Iraq war, they should make certain that Bush is forced to expand the military and ensure the forces receive the best equipment available as quickly as possible. Restore cuts in services from military healthcare to family services. That is my recommendation to the Democrats. Support the troops? It certainly appears to me that the Democrats are the only ones doing that. Bush certainly is not.

Left Angle
I am scared by you and others like you including the democrat so-called leadership. Since when did you or they become Generals in Iraq. All those democrats who gave speeches before the cameras about the danger in Iraq and the presence of WMD, warnings with the same information Bush had, are now pure and misled congressmen and he is a liar in all things. How can democrats be trusted if from the first days of Bush's administration they critisized every single deed and utterance, even the way he walked. How can we tell when democrats are being truthful or when they are being completely partisan politicians with a desire for power?

bro
"Support the troops go to http://www.moveamericaforward.org
to find out how you can support the brave men and women who defend us."

Reaaly an "instant organization" funded in a commercial effort because the president has no credibility? I hardly think so LMAO. If you really want to support the truth you might support http://www.votevets.org

Deafening silence?
>the defeaning silence of the Democrat Presidential wanna-bes related to the Moveon ad.<

I agree that not condemning the ad is shameful.

But if yo0u want deafening silence about matters pertaining to Iraq, and the Petraeus/Crocker testimonies, consider:

>The deafening silence concerning Al-Sadr's order for the Mahdi Army to lay down their arms for 6 months.

>The deafening silence on the Kirkuk referendum

>The deafening silence on who controls security in Basra

>The deafening silence on Kurdistan's separate energy legislation and contracts with western corporations in defiance of Baghdad

>The deafening silence of Turkish and Iranian cross-border shelling of Iraq

loco
"How can democrats be trusted if from the first days of Bush's administration they critisized every single deed and utterance, even the way he walked. How can we tell when democrats are being truthful or when they are being completely partisan politicians with a desire for power?"

Really??? Was that the case after 9/11 but before the run up to Bush's War in Iraq? I don't think so.... How can we tell when Republicans are being truthful or when they are being completely partisan politicians with a desire for power?

for tallil2long
tallil2long writes: "The Democrats won't make it their own war, to fight it and win it. Many of them voted to allow Pres. Bush to launch it (knowing he would), yet now they won't take responsibility?"

Why should the Democrats take responsibility for it, when they were never consulted on it?

For similar reasons, the Republicans considered the American intervention in the Balkans to be "Clinton's war," remember?

America's strategy for the War on Terror was drawn up entirely by a small clique of neo-conservatives like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and their "brain trust" at the Weekly Standard and American Enterprise Institute. They openly sneered at the idea that Democrats should be consulted for their ideas. The Democrats' concerns about troop strength and the wisdom of invading Iraq were just totally ignored or even sneered at by you Republicans.

Now Bush (and you too) have some nerve to demand that the Democrats just accept at face value a policy that they had no influence on, time and again.

If you wanted the Democrats on board, you should have reached out to them and worked out a COMPROMISE position on how to fight the War on Terror that took into account their concerns.

In our country, Bush has no authority to command ANY civilians, Democrat or otherwise, to force them to do what they would otherwise not want to do. He's not our Maximum Leader; he's only a President who has to CONVINCE people he's doing the right thing.

And in that, he's been a dismal failure.

for tallil2long
tallil2long writes: "The Democrats won't make it their own war, to fight it and win it. Many of them voted to allow Pres. Bush to launch it (knowing he would), yet now they won't take responsibility?"

Why should the Democrats take responsibility for it, when they were never consulted on it?

For similar reasons, the Republicans considered the American intervention in the Balkans to be "Clinton's war," remember?

America's strategy for the War on Terror was drawn up entirely by a small clique of neo-conservatives like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and their "brain trust" at the Weekly Standard and American Enterprise Institute. They openly sneered at the idea that Democrats should be consulted for their ideas. The Democrats' concerns about troop strength and the wisdom of invading Iraq were just totally ignored or even sneered at by you Republicans.

Now Bush (and you too) have some nerve to demand that the Democrats just accept at face value a policy that they had no influence on, time and again.

If you wanted the Democrats on board, you should have reached out to them and worked out a COMPROMISE position on how to fight the War on Terror that took into account their concerns.

In our country, Bush has no authority to command ANY civilians, Democrat or otherwise, to force them to do what they would otherwise not want to do. He's not our Maximum Leader; he's only a President who has to CONVINCE people he's doing the right thing.

And in that, he's been a dismal failure.

Arm Chair Generals
The Arm Chair Generals are at it again. Our Senators and Representatives seem to think they know more about how to run a war than the military leaders who actually have to do it.

It is the same mind set they apply to everything else: They think they know more about how we should run our lives and spend our money than we do.

Have you ever thought about how rude and impertinent it is for the members of the Congressional committees to be seated on a raised platform, talking down to those testifying at their inquisition -- strike that -- hearing.

General Petraeus should have placed his chair on the table in front of him, and when asked what he was doing replied, "Well, I am sure you would not want it to appear that you were talking down to me, would you? So I am putting myself on the same level as you are."

Hillary Spin on Iraq Vote
The only problem with Hillary’s answer is she was given the intelligence report that warned her about the issues of going into Iraq and she claims she did not read it before voting to send troops into war.

Bill Maher To Senator Clinton: “Why Should Americans Vote For Someone Who Can Be Fooled By George Bush?”

Watch

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/hillary-spin-on-iraq-vote


Yapping dogs
Does Harry Reid believe that, now that we're seeing some success in Iraq, that his party of defeatists are now going to be able to achieve what they couldn't achieve when the picture was much darker? The shrill yapping of the mangy dogs running the Democratic Party ought not to concern us too much. They had a chance, after years in the wilderness, to show the nation some leadership -- to come up with ideas that worked -- and they have proved utterly incapable of the task. The only thing a Democratic politician can do is bash George W. Bush -- they have no other skill set -- and all of that's going to wear a bit thin now that he's no longer running for office. Remember that in order to win even a razor-thin majority, the Democrats had to run Blue Dog "conservative" candidates in 2006. Those Blue Dogs are going to be up for re-election, at least in the House, and they can no longer run on what they promise to do -- they're going to have to stand on what they've done. Remember also that the Democratic icon, their greatest hero, Bill Clinton, never received over 50% of the vote in either of his elections. The country is still more conservative than it is liberal. There is reason to hope we have now weathered the peak of the liberal storm, and can start sweeping the graying, 60's-era protestors trying to recapture their adolescence back into the storm drains.

for loco
loco writes: 'Since when did you or they become Generals in Iraq. All those democrats who gave speeches before the cameras about the danger in Iraq and the presence of WMD, warnings with the same information Bush had"

Stop discussing whether we should have invaded Iraq already to find WMD. That's a moot point by now.

Even if we had found all the WMD in Iraq that Bush said was there, we would still be fighting the same messy counterinsurgency war we are fighting now. Do you realize that? Finding the WMD wouldn't have prevented the insurgency, would it? So we would still be stuck in Iraq anyway.

The Democrats do NOT trust the Iraqis to create the "Model Muslim Democracy" that was the other main argument that Bush and the neo-conservatives gave for toppling Saddam. Wolfowitz and Kristol kept saying that the Iraqis would build a Model Democracy and show the Middle East Muslim world that they could have democracy and the rest of them would all rush to follow suit, and that would reshape the Middle East away from terrorism. Yeah, right.

The Democrats have not bought into that fantasy. Neither have I. Our troops are fighting for a pipe dream, a delusion.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of Iraqi tribalism, the nature of Islamic theology and the law of Sharia, the nature of Islamic culture, could have told you that "Middle East Islamic democracy" is as much of a pipe dream as Gorbachev's "Communist democracy" pipe dream had been for Russia.

Instead Bush listened to a bunch of crackpots like William Kristol and Frederick Kagan and Richard Perle and Laurie Mylroie. They really thought that 2,000 years of Middle East history could be erased by Bush quoting the Declaration of Independence to them.

And the tragedy is that conservatives like you are STILL listening to them. The best thing the GOP could do would be to throw these people out of the party and never listen to them again.

loco: a response
first of all: good morning and thanks for your response..

The democratic leadership is representing the
wishes and the demands of their constituents
who voted them in office and the majority in Congress with the idea of ending or altering
course of President Bush's Iraq War.

The democratic leadership has attempted to do exactly that only to be foiled by minority republican "obstructionism", parliamentary procedures and veto threats from President Bush.
Dems simply dont have the votes to overcome either and thats what the base doesnt understand.

As I said before it is "blind faith" to accept
whatever propaganda is being fed to the american public by Bush and Company. Do YOU accept everything they say without question?

There have been many credible critics that have pointed out inaccuracies and strategic blunders
in Iraq by Bush and his Generals on the ground.
As a matter of fact many of them are formerly
high ranking military members.

as for democrats desiring "power" you telling me that repubs/con DONT?. THAT is a ludicrous proposition. When you have the "power" you control the agenda. If you are so into politics
as you state, I think you would undestand that.

People of BLIND FAITH, such as yourself and other
Bush supporters SCARE ME..

Iraq mess
Did anyone notice that th key Iraqi Sunni ally of the US, who met President George W Bush last week, was killed in a bomb attack Thursday. Does that sound like serious progress?

Phylo
Hey Phylo, how do you know what is in a newspaper article(The NY Times?) BEFORE it is even printed? You must be the Amazing Phylo-nack

iraq oil compact falls apart
todays newspapers tell the story of another attempt at compromise and reconcilitation falling apart.

the kurds and sunnis have pulled out of the oil compact that was heralded by this administration of reconciliation progress.

again and again this administration makes claims of progress and then the american people watch as those statements turn to dust.

the only answer is partition and our troops re-deploying to the borders.

both murtha and biden have been right about this for 3 years but bush stubbornly refuses to change tactics while brave americans fight and die refereeing this civil war.

this is a disgrace.

No such Thing!
As liberals get on here and blog and repeat Reid and Pelosi's talking points be aware there is no such thing as Bush's war. It's America's war along with Bosnia which was started under Clinton. Get off your bumper sticker mentality. If you want to have a real impact one way or another and be taken seriously stop disparaging Petraeus and Crocker as well.

religious lib
Hey where have you been and how are you? Can you give me a link to that story because it isn't on Drudge or anyplace else or in my newspapers? Thanks!

SteveL
"That's impossible", is the war cry of losers since time began. When you lament that Iraq can never possibly be a peaceful democracy,I have to ask what your definition of peace is?

If you want a country where no car bombs ever go off, and nobody is ever shot by islamist crazies, then you are right; there will never be peace. Of course by that definition, we don't live in a peaceful democracy either.

As for relative peace in the middle east, it does exist. Jordan is not a democracy, but there are certainly plenty of muslims there, and it is a fairly stable country. By the way Steve, I can send you a list of Islamic terror attacks from all around the world that took place outside the middle east, in democracies and parlimentary type governmental systems of all shades.

I know the PROBLEM
DEMS are mad because they did not have a LEADER who had any B#LLS to start this war THEMSELVES.
QUOTES:BILL CLINTON FEB 4,1998,MADELINE ALBRIGHT FEB 18 1998,SANDY BERGER FEB18 1998,CARL LEVIN OCT 9 1998,NANCY PELOSI DEC 16 1998, MADE;INE ALBROGHT NOV 10 1999,BOB GRAHAM DEC 5 2001, CARL LEVIN SEPT 19 2002,AL GORE SEPT23 2002, TED KENNEDY SEPT27 2002,ROBERT BYRD OCT 3 2002, JAOH KERRY OCT 9 2002,JAY ROCKEFELLER OCT 10 2002,HENRY WAXMAN OCT 10 2002,HILLERY CLINTON OCT 10 2002 BOB GRAHAM DEC 8 2002,JOHN KERRY JAN 23 2003. Does anyone know what the two things all these people have in common? I do they are all DEMOCRATS and they all stated that SADDAM HUSSEIN had Weapons Of Mass Destruction and he should be taken out NO MATTER WHAT so I have come to conclusion that this is why they are ANGRY WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. HE BEAT THEM TO THE PUNCH.

Left Angel
Yes we must be blindly following the Bush doctrine, since we have not bowed to your wisdom on this issue. Another way of saying, "republicans are stupid". Left I need to dissabuse you of a faulty notion you have: It is this idea that the majority is right, because they are the majority. When you point out that most Americans do not support this war, I have to remind you that only a third of Colonists supported rebellion form England. The majority were either against a revolt, or utterly indifferent. The majority were wrong there.

Most republicans believe this is a noble war, and we are smart enough to recognize that it is also an unpopular one with many of our fellow Americans. Could the GOP lose even more seats, as well as the white house over this issue? You BET we could. Most of us are aware of that as well. But to me, and many others, it is better to do the right thing, even if it costs you politically. THAT is standing up for principal.

Nobody here telling the truth
The headlines should read: "Democrats execute political strategy to counter Iraq report." If the parties were reversed on this, that's what the press would be reporting, because the press reports talking points when writing about Democrats, but process when writing about Republicans.

Of course, if it were Republicans, the headlines wouldn't be true; most of the Republicans vote their conscience. But they're clearly true of the Democrats.

Could they possibly be more transparent? They were posturing to take issue with Gen Petraeus a full week before he even spoke. Ads were taken out in the NY Times the day before he testified. This isn't a carefully considered response to the general; it's a completely partisan assault.

Tell the truth, Democrats; you prepared your response to Gen Petraeus before you knew what he would say. You did it because you feel the need to "win" politically, not because you've considered his words and found them wanting in any way. This is pure, cynical politics, and nothing more.

I would sure
like to know where people get this idea that the ME, Iraq or anybody else aren't capable of democracy since they had it before everyone else.

Now if you are arguing tribalism isn't compatible with democracy that is debatable point.

Reid and Pelosi are ...
...complete idiots. I normally like to advance the cause of intelligent discourse, but I had to get this out of my system. It feels good to vent once in a while.

Look for more intelligent output in future commentaries.

They were consulted Constitutionally
SteveL argues, just too incredibly to be believed, that Democrats have no obligation to support their country in a war if they were not consulted in its planning (10:50 AM post). His support for this insane notion is that the war on terror was planned within the Executive branch by men he calls "neocons", who "openly sneered" at the idea that Democrats should be consulted.

SteveL should reread the US Constitution. Conduct of foreign policy is the province of the Executive branch of government. Declarations of war are to be produced by the Executive "with the advice and consent of the Senate." When SteveL writes about the Executive "openly sneering," he's just projecting: the Democrats in Congress insisted on being included in discussion, and the Executive Branch correctly pointed out that Constitutionally, planning was their job, not Congress'. Democrats would have been sneering; that's why Steve calls it that.

The war in Iraq was presented to Congress as directed by the US Constitution, discussed on the Senate floor, and voted upon. It passed. Overwhelmingly. Including the Democrats in the Senate. That's as much involvement as is required by the Constitution, and as much as was envisioned by its authors.

I'm not generally a "love it or leave it" kinda guy, but in this case, I have say: SteveL, if you really consider that a war conducted according to Constitutional guidelines is not a Democrat war, then you don't think Democrats are part of this country.

Let's start talking about separate nations, shall we? 'cause it's plain to me, Democrats are not interested in the American experiment in self-government.

Bob: a response..
thanks for your response and good morning to you.

I read your post and i think that you truly believe what your write. So do I. In other words
youre entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I never said republicans are stupid. What I said is that I believe many of his "true believers"
are accepting the Bush/Petreaus "propaganda" on Iraq without questioning the veracity of any of it. Then you question the motives of anyone that does, impugning their patriotism in the process. That is "blind faith" without a doubt and I consider it dangerous.

As for the majority being wrong on this issue, I totally disagree. President Bush's Iraq war in my opinion has been a tremendous foreign policy blunder, a waste of time, money and most of all
american soldiers lives, because Iraq/Sadaam Hussien had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9-11-01 and absolutely nothing in your
so called "victory" in Iraq is going to stop another inevitable domestic terrorist attack in the U.S. The FBI and CIA have testified before Congress that "sleeper cells" are already here in the U.S. as we speak.

You "true believers of blind faith" in Prez Bush's "Stay the Course until Victory is Won
In Iraq do so at your own parties peril.

If President doesnt end this dubious Iraq war
before prez/congressional elections 08" the
"majority" will elect a Democratic President
and Congress that WILL do so.

America's Greatest Enemy of Today
Based Upon Today's Actions by Congress in the House & Senate, they have proven themselves as America's True Enemy and our Greatest Enemy of Today. Our Forefathers fought, bled, and died fighting against those who have threaten our Freedoms & Liberties masquerading as Communists, Socialists, Progressives, Fascists, and Liberals. The Demonrats Agenda mirror Karl Marx's Handbook, check their voting records and their actions, and you will see the truth. Don't expect the MSM to detail it for you.

PS - Charlie & Vic has it right. Israel take out Syria and USA take out Iran and their ability to make War. Who knows maybe the Syrians and the Iranians might decide they want Freedom & Liberty as well. This could lead to Peace inside Palestine as well with Hamas & Hezbollah destroyed by Israel with a Ground Offensive.

Dinesh D'Souza points out, accurately...
...that the world's largest Muslim country is a successful Republic.

Indonesia has a popularly-elected President and Vice President and a bicameral Parliament, elected to represent the people proportionately with their regions. Indonesia is 88% Muslim.

Granted, the makeup of the Muslim population in Indonesia is not grossly divided the way the population of Iraq is; most of the Muslims are Sunni, with Shia represented by only a tiny percentage of the population. So there are sectarian issues in Iraq that Indonesia avoids.

However, the claim that followers of Islam cannot maintain a free republic is clearly false. They can, and they do.

No blind faith here...
Left Angle writes: "What I said is that I believe many of his "true believers" are accepting the Bush/Petreaus "propaganda" on Iraq without questioning the veracity of any of it."

That's a straw man, Left Angle. Nobody here fits that description. We've all been following the Iraq war through independent sources on our own, often military blogs or reporters independent of the mainstream press. Because we choose alternative sources of information, we know things about the war that individuals who only read the mainstream press don't know.

Our agreement with General Petraeus is based on the confidence that he's a competent individual, but more on the fact that his assessment matches what we've heard from other reliable sources.

You should feel free to disagree. However, if you base your disagreement on an assessment that your opponents just aren't thinking for themselves, you're not only defaming your opponents, but you're making genuine discourse impossible.

It's our assessment, based on our observation of the conduct of Democrats these past 7 years, that Democrat opposition to the war is largely a gut-level reaction to anything planned by George W Bush, because you all hate him so energetically, and so irrationally. It's obvious on the face of it that the response to Gen Petraeus was planned far in advance of even hearing his words, and that it was a calculated political response, not an evaluation of the quality of his assessment. Thus, your straw man is actually a projection of your own behavior.

Sorry, them's the facts.

Chuck
I know the PROBLEM
DEMS are mad because they did not have a LEADER who had any B#LLS to start this war THEMSELVES.

Why does it take B#LLS for the republican leaders to start a war. What are they going to sacrifice? There was one member of the 535 that had a son in the military and he was a dem. Btw name one war any president has ever started before Bush.

LEFT ANGLE
This might be called BUSH War but all but 6 people voted on going to WAR on the INTEL that they did not even READ.I blame them all but to try and stop a WAR in MID STREEM is like trying to say you smoked Marijuana and DIDNT inhale, what a crock. If you have read my 11:27 am post can you explain to me why all these DEM leaders HAD TO GO ON RECORD of wanting to take SADDAM out because he had the same thing that the PRESIDENT stated WMD's. Now we can argue if the right things are being done in IRAQ but to state that this is BUSH's War is what we in the SOUTH call HOGWASH. If people are stating this is for 9/11 then we can argue that but we (THE PEOPLE) know that this was going to have to be done sooner or later, REFERENCE your DEM LEADERS REMARKS.

inkling revival: a response.
you said:

"It's our assessment, based on our observation of the conduct of Democrats these past 7 years, that Democrat opposition to the war is largely a gut-level reaction to anything planned by George W Bush, because you all hate him so energetically, and so irrationally. It's obvious on the face of it that the response to Gen Petraeus was planned far in advance of even hearing his words, and that it was a calculated political response, not an evaluation of the quality of his assessment. Thus, your straw man is actually a projection of your own behavior.
Sorry thems the facts."

No that's YOUR opinion and it's total bs..

General Petreaus may be a competent invdivual but he Is a Bush accomplice. He represents
Bush's agenda, therefore he is a fair target. Their rhetoric is virtually identical. your sources tell you what you want to hear and thats fine..I think the sources I have are just as credible and accurate.

It's no straw man dude...all you have to do is read what the "true believers of blind faith" post. They are blindly following Prez Bush off
a cliff of political suicide. enjoy the trip on the way DOWN...

Sorry, them's the facts.

Left Angle
>The democratic leadership is representing the
wishes and the demands of their constituents
who voted them in office and the majority in Congress with the idea of ending or altering
course of President Bush's Iraq War.<

Be that as it may, I seriously doubt that many Democrats support a full page ad in the NY Times insulting the military commander in Iraq, especially while he is enjoying a modicum of success on the battlefield.
I'm frustrated with both parties for the smokescreens and distractions that keep the debate on real issues in Iraq from coming into play.

As mentioned, the Kurds passed a separate energy policy recently, and are now defying Baghdad with contracts independent of the national government. In addition, the Kirkuk situation is about to come to a head, which could accelerate Kurdish demands for independence.

How can Iraq even be discussed without bringing these issues into the conversation?

War of 1812
The brits started that one by taking our guys, impressing them.

Hal Donahue
ARe you unemployed or on disability ? I cannot imagine any person with so much time on its hands that it can respond to half the posts in this thread like you have.

Add to that your blindingly ignorant comments that its "Bush's war", when the American people elected Bush to be president, twice. So actually, its your war too, its just a war you and your party have bet your political futures on losing.

you know
I often think of the Napoleonic Wars as World War 0. It was fought on several continents and oceans by several nations over global issues. Even as early as 1812, we were too heavily involved with trade not to become involved. What we call the War of 1812 was inevitable to some extent.

utahnotamoron: a response..
the whole issue of MOVEON.org'S ad is nothing more than a diversion for republicans who dont want to discuss bush's failed policies in Iraq.
as a democrat,
i could care less about what move.on org does because they are not an official affiliate of the democrat party no more than the swiftboaters for justice were official affiliates of the republican party.

I believe a democratic congressman said to a repub congressman who requested that dems disassociate themselves from the ad.

"why should one disassociate themselves from something they are not associated with?"

Bill et. al.
"BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

SMALL PRICE TO PAY?????? Nearly 3800 dead soldiers!!! Nearly 30,000 wounded! DON'T YOU HYPOCRITS DARE ASK WHO SUPPORTS THE TROOPS! Small price??? And what is this "WE" the man has done everything he could to undermine soldiers, wounded and veterans.

RockyJ
The war was fought from 1812 to 1815 and involved both land and naval engagements. Britain was at war with France and, to impede American trade with France, imposed a series of restrictions that the U.S. contested as illegal under international law. Wiki

The point is the 1812 war wasn't a pre-emtive war, it was a provoked war.

SFASU7392
"When did Stalin lose WWII?"

huh???

lolo2
thanks for asking, went on vacation, got sick, and am trying to recover. hope you are doing well

this was in my local newspaper this morning.

Pact's collapse comes as factions dispute contracts

By James Glanz
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

September 13, 2007

BAGHDAD – A carefully constructed compromise on a draft law governing Iraq's rich oil fields, agreed to in February after months of arduous talks among Iraqi political groups, appears to have collapsed.


Advertisement
The apparent breakdown comes just as Congress and the White House are struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward reconciliation and a functioning government in Iraq.

Senior Iraqi negotiators met in Baghdad yesterday in an attempt to salvage the original compromise, two participants said.

But the meeting came against the backdrop of a public series of increasingly strident disagreements over the draft law that has broken out in recent days between Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi minister of oil, and officials of the provincial government in the Kurdish north, where some of the nation's largest fields are located.


HAL, HAL
I work at a VA facility and your full of it. The troops coming back from IRAQ is getting allot better treatments than we ever got coming back from NAM, and if it werent for our medical expertisae there would probably be more dead than what you think. For a retireee you sure have alot of hatred for the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. I guess next you will tell us you voted for JIMMY CARTER also. You know and I know when you are in the Military politics hardly ever came up.
So what do you think of the TROOPS who back GEN P about the situation in IRAQ? Oh I forgot they are just BUSH STOOGES. Of the 22 yrs I gave this country it shames me to see fellow soldiers being bashed like they have in this WAR. I am AMERICAN first. I also have never understood how surrendering would be the grounds of any party. I would bet that when you where in the MILITARY you would have been disappointed in how the troops are now being bashed also. But now that we are retirees it dont matter to some.

SF
SF gets the A in history. : )

Repubs/cons: Unanswered question
Question on Al Qaeda In Iraq

President Bush, General Patreaus and Ambassador Crocker have made clear that they think the primary enemy in Iraq is the group:

Al Qaeda In Iraq

They constantly repeat the name of this group in every newsconference or as has been noted at the recent Congressional testimony, practically every sentence uttered by those two contained references to "Al Al Qaeda In Iraq".

So the question is:

What is the estimated membership of Al Qaeda In Iraq and what percentage of the overall insurgency do it's fighters comprise?

Rocky/Robert
Your Democrat Congress has plummeted to a 15% approval rating in less than a year in control. They can't even barely maintain approval of the people who elected them.

Go figure yourself

AQ

"What is the estimated membership of Al Qaeda In Iraq and what percentage of the overall insurgency do it's fighters comprise? "


AQ is a small "sliver," but important one. They quickly have worn out their welcome in much of Iraq as the rest don't like the AQ methods and extreme views of Islam. As for total foreign fighters that we have in detention camps, I think I read its 7%, some 40%+ from Saudi Arabia.

Shows how much you know
Robert assigned me an "F" in Constitutional Law for lecturing SteveL on the fact that the Iraq war was planned, declared, and executed according to Constitutional prescription.

Since Robert's style of posting only posts his conclusions and an obligatory sneer, never his reasoning (usually because he has none), it's impossible to rebut him directly. But here's the process:

Foreign policy planning is the province of the Executive: Article II, section 2. This was the planning of the war on terror by the executive branch, that Democrats wanted to be part of, and the Bush admin properly said "No."

Declarations of war are the province of the Senate: Article I, section 8. This was accomplished by the Authorization to Use Military Force, which passed the Senate in October of 2002 by a vote of 77-23. Both the majority decision and the minority decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld acknowledged that the AUMF was a Constitutionally proper declaration of war.

Conduct of the war is the province of the Executive as Commander-in-Chief: Article II, section 2.

So tell me, Robert: in what way was the Iraq war not conducted in a Constitutionally sound manner? and in what way is my understanding of the Constitutional process incorrect?

You're a flea, Robert.

Another Left Angle Smokescreen
Liberals invariably raise irrelevant points when they have no facts behind them, hoping that the American public will seize on the SOUND of the argument without noticing that it's irrelevant. This is a common tactic, and I believe it's called a "red herring fallacy."

Left Angle is pursuing this dishonest approach when he asks: "What is the estimated membership of Al Qaeda In Iraq and what percentage of the overall insurgency do it's fighters comprise?"

The assumption of this argument is that the leadership of the enemy forces in Iraq is determined by which group has the largest NUMBER of fighters.

He's asking the question because he knows that al Qaeda represents a relatively small percentage of the fighters there. He also knows, I'll wager, that that small number wields a disproportionate influence over the fighters in Iraq. He doesn't want to admit this, so he tries (dishonestly) to make the argument about numbers.

Not biting, LeftAngle.

You proved to me earlier that you're not interested in civil discourse. Now you're proving that you're not interested in HONEST discourse.

Why should we even bother talking to you? You're a liar and a vicious fool.

Goodbye.

orlandocajun writes:
To be more accurate, the dems in congress have a 32% approval. Congress is an institution. They still beat the prez by 3%.

Enough of the War of 1812
Who Cares now who started it? It's over, what isn't over is the War Against Terrorism, which will come again to our shores and will cost a whole lot more than the dollars we are spending in Iraq fighting now. This isn't Bush's War, as others have well defined that the House & Senate voted to support, this is America's War and we need to win it. Get Politics Out of it and allow our Military whatever they need to win it. Including destroying Iran's & Syrias Weapons Mfging, Terrorist Training Centers, & Military Installations. Just Win Baby, no matter what the Costs, because future costs of defeat will be significantly larger in lives and in Dollars. This is a FACT of HISTORY, anyone who won't accept this is plain STUPID and BRAIN DEAD.

taft: if that is true then...
what is the purpose of President Bush, Gen. Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker constantly
referring to:

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ..

as if they are some gigantic evil physical presence in the Iraq insurgency, the primary planners of attacks and the primary enemy
that the u.s. is fighting there. 7% doesnt
substantiate their rhetoric/propaganda on that, yet the persist in portraying that way.

Is this a blatant attempt to decieved the american public and draw attention from the internal sectarian civil war going on there?

War and resolutions
Section 8 of the Constitution clearly delegates war making authority to Congress not just the senate. It is also the sole authority of congress to "define and punish offences against the law of nations".

The war in Iraq is being waged under a resolution that authorizes the president to use force to force Iraq compliance with UN resolutions.


Stay the Course?
Listening to Petraeus and Crocker this week I heard Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that, Al Qaeda will establish terrorist training camps if we leave , Al Qaeda's influence will spread to all the other nations in the region, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda.

How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say have been killed or captured since the "SURGE" began? They could not recall!
How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say are still in Iraq? They do not have a current estimate!
How long did they say will it take to kill or capture the remaining Al Qaeda in Iraq? They will get to Congress in March 2008 with and Estimate!
How long did they say will it take to "WIN" the WAR? We can only see 4 - 6 months into the future and we will not have won by then. We will give you a update in March 2008.
Did General Petraeus say the War in Iraq was making us safer here in the homeland? He said: " I'm not sure it is making America safer."

Note: The estimates of the size of Al Qaeda in Iraq according the Brookings Institution Iraq Index was less than 10 in January 2003, about 3000 in July 2006, and about 5000 in July 2007. The Reuters factbox talley indicates we have killed less than 200 since Jan. 2007.
The size of the Iraq Security Force is over 350,000 and over 200,000 of them can operate with minimal or no US Troop Support.What will they be doing if we draw down to a typical peacekeeping force of 45,000 troops?

Jim Frego
Grants Pass, OR

chuck
"I work at a VA facility and your full of it. The troops coming back from IRAQ is getting allot better treatments than we ever got coming back from NAM, and if it werent for our medical expertisae there would probably be more dead than what you think."

Actually it would not need much to get better would it. That is the major success story of this war - military healthcare - the same one this regime is now taking apart.

"For a retireee you sure have alot of hatred for the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF."

LOL not at all contempt perhaps hatred no he isn't woth it. He is a failure.

"I guess next you will tell us you voted for JIMMY CARTER also."

Carter was the worse president in memory until Bush. That has got to keep Jimmy happy having Bush fighting him for worst president.

"You know and I know when you are in the Military politics hardly ever came up."

Very true except in DC LOL

"So what do you think of the TROOPS who back GEN P about the situation in IRAQ? Oh I forgot they are just BUSH STOOGES."

Who said that. But the soldiers supporting Bush now are less than 50% it is like when Nixon was Pesident

"Of the 22 yrs I gave this country it shames me to see fellow soldiers being bashed like they have in this WAR. I am AMERICAN first."

If you are an American first you would disagree with me but urge my continued participation as I do yours.

"I also have never understood how surrendering would be the grounds of any party. I would bet that when you where in the MILITARY you would have been disappointed in how the troops are now being bashed also. But now that we are retirees it dont matter to some. "

The troops are not being bashed. The troops are bashing LOL and I cheer them. What do you say about Boehner making light of dead troops? Tha doesn't bother you.

inlking revival: a response..
Are you saying that when Bush, Patreaus and Crocker speak on the so-called progress in Iraq,
that practically in every other sentence they
DONT mention the words:

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ?

Their rhetoric and propangda on this is almost
identical. Go back and listen to Bush speak then
listen to Patreaus/Croker speak on Iraq, they are repeating the same identical dogma without fault.

It goes back to the question I asked before above.

WHY are Bush "true believers of blind faith"
accepting His propaganda WITHOUT questioning
the VERACITY OF IT?

have you seen former Bush aide Ari Fliesher's
blatantly misleading commercial featuring
the legless Iraq veteran?

what you dont understand is that including Prez
Bush speech tonight, that it is a coordinated
PR stunt of deceit and deception on Iraq for
Bush to buy more time and influence the american public to support his failed policies.

It aint gonna work dude..lol

LeftAngle et al. lefties
All of you can help our country a lot by taking a long walk off a short pier with sharks waiting.

SFASU7392
Obviously an error Stalin should not have been listed there but I will find the other ref. It will make a good column I think. I am back home next week some time

well folks
On the road again. Be well and enjoy the day

Please explain

>While in Washington D.C., Petraeus and Crocker held media availability at the National Press Club on Wednesday morning. There, they reiterated their position that security was a pre-condition for united government.<

Kurdistan has been been secure for 15 years. How is it that they are leaders in a divided government, to the point of defying the government in Baghdad with their own independent energy policy?
Basra and most of Southern Iraq is secure enough that Britain has left, leaving security responsibilities to the heavily militia-infiltrated National Army(sans Sunnis or Kurds).

Security is not a pre-condition for united government. It's just a phrase to elicit support for additional money for a pipe dream. A government for the Kurds(already have one), the Sunnis and Shia is the pre-condition we should be focused on.


Left Angle just doesn't ge it!
The democrats and their blind folowers constantly cry "liar" about just about everything connected with Pres Bush and his administration. Ever hear about the boy who cried wolf???

And how can I know when the democrats are being truthful and above all honest when there are so many examples of their duplicity and dishonor (Hillary's donar problem, Jefferson's freezer money, democrat response to speeches not yet given, constant doom and gloom predictions like there will never be an election in Iraq etc etc etc etc)??? I do not trust the democrats.

fed up with feds: a response..
With Bush as president and with his mindless followers on Iraq, the U.S. already took the plunge off the short bridge.

by the way i got a question for you.

Before Bush's "surge" the U.S. had approx.

130,000 troops in iraq, the surge added 30,000.

so if bush and petraeus "drawdown" 30,000 troops by the end of summer 08. how many U.S. troops will be left in Iraq at that time?

'Rats and Al Qaeda are in a quagmire..
...in Iraq!

The 'Rats have bet everything against their own home team (the U.S. military) and their own country. They no longer even try to disguise their efforts to engineer defeat. Fortunately for the rest of us, they are failing miserably.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda is getting their butt kicked in Iraq, losing fighters at a rate many many times higher than our own casualty rate (which, btw, remains historically low for wartime).

The 'Rats are McGovernizing themselves and at this rate, we need not worry about them winning the White House anytime soon.

sfasu7392
Hal posted some tripe about Lincoln protesting the Balckhawk war, I couldn't find a single reference to that. In fact, Licoln was a young militiaman fighting in war himself.

I couldn't find any reference to ANY Roosevelt that protested WWI as Hal claims.

"Cuckoo....Cuckoo...Cuckoo"

SFASU7392
If google did it all there would be no work for researchers LOL

must run enjoy

Huh??
Left Angle writes:
"With Bush as president and with his mindless followers on Iraq, the U.S. already took the plunge off the short bridge"

This is one of the most empty posts I've ever seen. Which page of the liberal talking points handbook did you copy it from?

Was there point in there or were you just twitching with BDS?

So let me get this straight, Robert...
...you basically agree that my description of the process of the conduct of war, as defined by the Constitution, is correct...

...except that you observe that it's not just the Senate, but also the House.

Ok, I'll accept the correction.

So, now explain the "F" and the overbearing, arrogant tone. No, wait, let me:

When I wander over to a liberal blog site, my thought is "Let me float some of my ideas and see what sort of rebuttal I get," with an eye toward finding new ways to think about an issue.

When you, or any of a number of other liberals, wander in here to TH, though, your thoughts are very different. You're not here to expand your thinking, hone your arguments, or gather new points of view. No. You're here to make fun of "those idiot Republicans." It's clear from the tone you take, from the complete absence of documentation or reasoning, and in this case, from the sneering and the "F" for my confusing war powers with treaty powers (which is where "advise and consent of the Senate" applies).

I understand the Constitution at least as well as you do, Robert, and I think that's clear from this discussion. Unlike you, though, I actually value learning, and don't go places to get pleasure from sniping at people I despise. That's the behavior of a churl. Categorize yourself.

Left Angle
Thats a very important question and not easily answered. The emphasis months ago to bring up AQ as the big player in the equation was very noticeable in rw rhetoric and the MSM followed along. They are important, non the less, and it is good that the Sunnis are rejecting them. Thats why, some say, that if we were to lesson our presence AQ would have no business being there and would be run out of the country by all Iraqis. The Afghans fear and generally hate them too. What's not getting enough attention is the possibility of the AQ elements getting a foothold in Pakistan, a NUCLEAR Pakistan that is.

Left Angle
The relevant question is not how many troops we have left after the drawdown, but how many more enemy are dead after the surge is over.

Or are we to assume that Al Qaeda has an endless number of recruits to pour into Iraq? The evidence says otherwise: They had every motivation to engineer a "Tet" offensive, driving up the death toll right before Petraeus appeared in Congress. Would have made great fodder for his critics. But Al Qaeda couldn't: because they are that weak. And they are going to keep getting weaker as the surge strategy is executed.


Your failure to appreciate that the enemy's strength is NOT a static number betrays your ignorance of military affairs...just like the 'Rat presidential candidates.

inkling says:
"It's our assessment…that Democrat opposition to the war is largely a gut-level reaction to anything planned by George W Bush… "

Democratic and American opposition to this war has nothing to do with a personal dislike of Bush - that's Warpublican deflection meant to avoid the hard truth of failure. Opposition to this was has built as we've watched it pursued incompetently, as we realized there were no WMDs, as bin Laden still runs free, as Iraq has fallen into chaos, as the General himself declares that there's no way of knowing if this makes us more safe, as common sense sees terrorists in America, Europe and Canada stopped by law enforcement and intelligence, not military action, as the bill for this war top one trillion dollars, as the injured are now in the tens of thousands, as the president and his people have changed the goals on a now monthly basis - we're now there to prevent genocide - remember when we were there for WMDs? - and then to build a democracy? and then to keep the terrorists from following the troops home? – remember when we were there to prop the Iraqi military up until they could do it alone? I think, at one point, we were concerned that the miniscule amount of al queda in iraq would turn the nation into haven for terrorists if we were to leave. I think, next week, we'll be staying because the food is really good and the sight seeing terrific. As to the success of the surge - that's another Warpublican lie - they moved the goal lines so close, that the sun rising over Baghdad is considered a sign of success - we all know that Iraq is no closer to independence or freedom - and miles away from a state that supports American interests - but, hey - let's blame irrational hatred ofr George Bush - so when the republicans loose the next election and Hillary brings the troops home, we'll have sufficient cover for our miserable failures: just like in 'Nam - everyone will be at fault except the military and the administration...


inkling
You are right about liberal blogs. I've repeatedly tried floating some opposing opinions and I always get hammered.

Robert is too smug and shiny to accept an alternate point of view. Robert knows all, didn't you get the memo?

And liberal come to TH looking for a fight, nothing more.

Dog
What failure?

Democrats fight a TV Drama war
Whenever you listen to Democrats spouting off about who the enemy truly is, or how we should go about conducting the war on terror, remember that their thinking is heavily influenced by 1-hour TV dramas (42.5 minutes, not counting the commercials.)

Such programs have brief plots, a limited number of characters, a single focus of evil (a villain), and generally get resolved cleanly by simply identifying the villain and nabbing him or her. This is a grossly simplistic world, dictated by time constraints and the ability of the audience to follow.

Democrat ideas about the war on terror adhere to the same guidelines. There can't possibly be dozens of loci of terror; the enemy has to be a single individual, hence "we have to focus on OBL." Once we get him, there's a brief scene to wrap up the show, and then the war's over. There can't be any huge tasks like changing the dynamic of violence in the Middle East, or developing a capacity in the Middle East for free, prosperous republics. No, there was one act of terror (9/11) and we just have to get the bad guy. And heaven help the Dutch if the war lasts longer than a year or two.

This is why they keep talking about whether or not Iraq was involved in the WTC attacks, or why we haven't got bin Laden yet. They don't even see the 1.6 billion Muslims in the Middle East who can join any one of dozens of terror groups and attack western targets independently. The don't see the escalating pattern of violence against the West, or the growth of hope for a modern Caliphate. There was one attack, and one villain, and once we get the Bad Guy, we can change the channel.

It's a pleasant, simple, safe world Democrats live in.

New YorK Dog
Since before he was inaugerated, Bush has been critisized by the democrats for every single position he has taken, every utterance, every decision and even how he talked and walked. Although he has a masters degree from a major university and earned higher grades than did John Kerry or Al Gore, his intelligence is questioned. How then can we have any other belief that the reaction to Pres Bush currently is no more of the same and without substance.

Those of you on the left, what do you think when a democrat partisan (Chris Mathewew MSNBC ) refers to the appearance of Four Star General Petraleus in full dress uniform with a chestful of medals earned in defense of his country, a "dog and pony show"? Should we then take democrats seriously or question their motives?

Enemy stats
Joisey writes:

The relevant question is not how many troops we have left after the drawdown, but how many more enemy are dead after the surge is over.

Or are we to assume that Al Qaeda has an endless number of recruits to pour into Iraq? The evidence says otherwise: They had every motivation to engineer a "Tet" offensive, driving up the death toll right before Petraeus appeared in Congress. Would have made great fodder for his critics. But Al Qaeda couldn't: because they are that weak. And they are going to keep getting weaker as the surge strategy is executed.


Your failure to appreciate that the enemy's strength is NOT a static number betrays your ignorance of military affairs...just like the 'Rat presidential candidates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

Did you intentionally leave out the part where Moqtada Al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to lay down their weapons for six months? Maybe not you, but Petraeus did. Doesn't work well with the Iran controls Al-Sadr myth.

So Why Does the US have to Resolve This?
Our original goals, WMDs, etc. have been met. Saddam is gone.

So why does the US have to make Iraq a stable country?

There have been other situations such as this.

Why not go to the UN, and get the world at large to put forces into Iraq to help stabilize the country while the civil war goes on?

The US could be part of the forces, if we chose, but we wouldn't have to lead.

dogjudge
"Why not go to the UN, and get the world at large to put forces into Iraq to help stabilize the country while the civil war goes on?

The US could be part of the forces, if we chose, but we wouldn't have to lead."

This is a smashing idea, but the UN was caught dealing with Saddam under the table, remember "Oil for Food"?

I'd like nothing better than to have the rest of the world participate, but none of them are willing.

loco says:
"Since before he was inaugerated, Bush has been critisized by the democrats for every single position he has taken, every utterance, every decision and even how he talked and walked."

get back to us on the percentage of Democrats who voted for the war and the patriot act - and then restate the above with a straight face.

loco says:
"Although he has a masters degree from a major university and earned higher grades than did John Kerry or Al Gore, his intelligence is questioned."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oMzHq4qIS0I

try not to wince...

Robert
You're a smart guy, no question. You have intersting viewpoints, no doubt.

But your delivery is one of smug superiority. Just a suggestion, but if you wish to be taken seriously you should knock it off.

You are superior to no one.

Joisey: a response..
Rogue Cowboy wrote this above and I agree with it 100% to wit:

Stay the Course?

Listening to Petraeus and Crocker this week I heard Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that, Al Qaeda will establish terrorist training camps if we leave , Al Qaeda's influence will spread to all the other nations in the region, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda.

How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say have been killed or captured since the "SURGE" began? They could not recall!
How many Al Qaeda terrorists did they say are still in Iraq? They do not have a current estimate!
How long did they say will it take to kill or capture the remaining Al Qaeda in Iraq? They will get to Congress in March 2008 with and Estimate!
How long did they say will it take to "WIN" the WAR? We can only see 4 - 6 months into the future and we will not have won by then. We will give you a update in March 2008.
Did General Petraeus say the War in Iraq was making us safer here in the homeland? He said: " I'm not sure it is making America safer."

Note: The estimates of the size of Al Qaeda in Iraq according the Brookings Institution Iraq Index was less than 10 in January 2003, about 3000 in July 2006, and about 5000 in July 2007. The Reuters factbox talley indicates we have killed less than 200 since Jan. 2007.
The size of the Iraq Security Force is over 350,000 and over 200,000 of them can operate with minimal or no US Troop Support.What will they be doing if we draw down to a typical peacekeeping force of 45,000 troops?


Hemi_Cuda
As I think we'd all admit, the UN just like any other "governmental" agency is always rife with issues.

In listening to Petraeus and Crocker, I heard a lot of things about a stable Iraq and a stable Middle East (as if that one has changed in the last 1,000 years), but I didn't hear much about things that were VITAL to US interests.

It got me to thinking about other areas where people are talking about genocide, or other catastrophes.

That simply lead to the thought about the UN.

Seems to me like a situation with a lot of up sides and not a lot of downsides.

With their oil resources it's to the benefit of the entire world that Iraq is stable.

Left Angle writes
Before Bush's "surge" the U.S. had approx.

130,000 troops in iraq, the surge added 30,000.

so if bush and petraeus "drawdown" 30,000 troops by the end of summer 08. how many U.S. troops will be left in Iraq at that time?

I'm assuming (if i'm wrong I apoligize) that you must think all 160,000 troops in Iraq are actually doing the fighting.
Well nothing could be further from the truth. I'd don't know if you've ever been in the military (doesn't matter to me) or not but I will try to explain in terms you might understand. The bulk of the troops in Iraq are Army and Marine Corps but there also personel from the Air Force as well as the Navy in Iraq. Now since the Army and Marines foot soldiers need supplies, they have what's called support personel that are in charge of this. I'm not sure what support personnel are in the Army or Marines but in the Air Force (of which I retired from) support personel include the following : Services, Communications, Civil Engineers, Transportation, Security Forces and Medical. Assuming that the Army and Marines have the same kind of support personnel support structure that would leave fewer people who actually do the fighting. I don't know the exact percentage of who does what (it may be classified I don't know) but just for arguments sake there are probably 90,000 foot soldiers doing the actual fighting. So in reality even before the surge (assuming that the 30,000 soldiers were sent with support personnel) Then only 60,000 soldiers were doing the fighting.
To make a long story short, Not everyone there is a foot soldier and not everyone fires there weapon (But i'm sure they would if given the chance.

I'm done with you, Robert
Robert writes: "Then you go own to make some assumptions, which just flounder."

Explain how, or don't bother posting.

You're just wrong, and you're making an afs of yourself.

Hemi_Cuda
As I think we'd all admit, the UN just like any other "governmental" agency is always rife with issues.

In listening to Petraeus and Crocker, I heard a lot of things about a stable Iraq and a stable Middle East (as if that one has changed in the last 1,000 years), but I didn't hear much about things that were VITAL to US interests.

It got me to thinking about other areas where people are talking about genocide, or other catastrophes.

That simply lead to the thought about the UN.

Seems to me like a situation with a lot of up sides and not a lot of downsides.

With their oil resources it's to the benefit of the entire world that Iraq is stable.

Robert describes his favorite straw man
Robert writes: "I view people like you on both sides of the political argument as one of the greatest dangers to The Republic of our time... faceless people on both sides of the political aisle who seek to be heard but yet have done little or no research into the serious issues of our day. If Rush says it people like you buy it..."

You couldn't possibly have been further off the mark. You have not the slightest idea who or what you're talking about.

If that's not evident on the face of things, then we have nothing further to say to each other.

dogjudge
It would be great if the UN got over their issues and actually did something to help. But their issues were in direct violation of sanctions that they put in place themselves, would you trust them?

I agree whole-heartedly that a stable Iraq would benefit everyone, but I think Robert is right (even though his "tone" is irritating). No one will commit to helping us over there.

It's a shame, but I have a feeling that when things do stabilize over there, then the world will show up with their hands out.

inkling
If Robert says it, it must be so....

Question
"Extremes on both the left nad the right use similar tactics to support their similar logical systems. Studying those is one reason I am here."

You mean on this planet?

I ask because you make noises like you're part of a superior alien race running around gang-probing us.

Say hi to E.T. for me!!

Fallacy of terms
Robert posits: "You asked a question...and then ... answer it yourself. Extremes on both the left nad the right use similar tactics to support their similar logical systems."

Let's test your grasp of Logic 101, week 1.

Here's your proposition:

All Blaps play hopscotch.
Inkling plays hopscotch.
Therefore, Inkling is a Blap.

Anybody who's passed the first week of logic 101 can immediately see the logical fallacy here.

Can you?

Let's hear it, Robert.

iraq
all liberal democrats are traitors because you are after all the party of alger hiss.petraeus is right harry"bag man from las vegus"reid is wrong as all ways.some jerk was trying to compare christians to muslims show me pictures of christians cutting off some muslims head before you mouth off.now why don't you libs get your heads out of the cat litter box and take a look at real muslims.why did muzzies attack us when this nation was born did we provoke them?why have presidents from jefferson to T.R.send war ships to pound the crap out of them?

Rocky Jones-where do you stand?
Rocky Jones is critical of both sides but doesn't advance the argument with any positions of his own. Don't we all get tired of people that can't take a stand? Rocky Jones is like most democrats-they are critical but do not have any solutions on the war in Iraq.

OK, so...
"And that meaans we need to stop listening to people who more or less got everything going into the war, WRONG...ignore people like Reid and Edwards who are acting politically..."

Who's in charge? If you don't want to listen to the people in charge now, and want to ignore the others, who will lead us?

You? Oh please say you!!

And what catastrophe? Katrina was a catastrophe, the tsunami was a catastrophe. Is that what you mean?

Nice touch Rocky Jones
Nice touch on you personal attacks on the leaders of the country that took us to war. At least we know where your biases are and of course everyone else has an agenda. You are the only intellectually honest person responding. I wish I was as smart and wise as you.

hal
Lets see, where do you get that less than 50% of the troops support BUSH, I talk to the troops all the time and the words I hear out of their mouths is why would anybody send us to WAR to LOSE.(DEMS). about BOENER hum let me see, Hillery calling GEN P a liar, KERRY calling our soldiers terrorist storming the houses of innocent people., Harry Reid YOU HAVE LOST, D KUCINICH I dont want to give credit to the troops in IRAQ, talking to the enemy. Murhta and his muderous marines in Hadytha story. I think when it comes to people bad mouthing the troops you DEMS carry the load. SCHUMAR, the soldiers are enept. Wow this all sounds like they are 100% behind the TROOPS. I have 7 family members in this War and they are all stating that the surge is working and I will repeat this from my own sons mouth WE CAN ONLY LOSE IF WE DONT WANT TO WIN. So I rest my case on this subject. GOD BLESS THE TROOPS AND AMERICA. Now all I need is for someone to call me an RELGIOUS RIGHT WINGER LOL.

The UN
>It would be great if the UN got over their issues and actually did something to help. But their issues were in direct violation of sanctions that they put in place themselves, would you trust them?<

The UN is a body of thousands, not a "them" and "theirs."

Do you condemn all Republicans because of the discretions of Duke Cunningham. If the UN has issues(of course it does) then we should engage to make it better, engage to reform it. Aren't you opposed to a cut and run strategy?

chuck
I think everyone already knows Hal is full of it.

Thanks to your family for their service and for helping to protect our freedom and way of life. Without them, we'd be nothing...

It's not the insults
Robert writes: "If I say "Inkling doesnt have a clue about The Consitutiton" ... That is not a personal insult, it sadly is a statement of demonstratble fact. "

Here's the part you don't seem to be able to understand, Robert:

You can't call it a demonstrable fact unless you DEMONSTRATE IT.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The most recognizable feature of your posts here is that you state defamatory conclusions without making the slightest effort to support them.

It's like an 8-year-old walking around the playground bragging "I beat X's butt" and "I beat Y's butt", but he's never even been in a fight.

Last chance: you believe I've made statements that demonstrate I don't know the Constitution. Fine. Produce two such statements, paste the relevant Constitutional passages, and then explain how I got them wrong.

Either do that, or shut the mother f*** up.

I'm calling you a p*ssy. Put up or shut up.

Excellent posts and rebutals inkling...
You put these Leftist idiots in their place with Constitutional facts, truths and logic that in no way they can dispute.

Like I always say in my posts about Libs:

"Their mind is like cement.
Thoroughly mixed and permanently set."

And I will add, they're not very bright either.

utah
"Do you condemn all Republicans because of the discretions of Duke Cunningham. If the UN has issues(of course it does) then we should engage to make it better, engage to reform it. Aren't you opposed to a cut and run strategy?"

You sound as though the US has not only the authority to make it better, but the ability to do so.

Your desire to "engage to make it better" sounds a lot like a liberal social policy. How are those working out for you BTW??

Anyway, if I thought that the US could make a difference in the UN I would agree, but the UN has historically been inept (Bosnia, Somalia etc.).

Their recent illegal dealings with Saddam were absolutely inexcusable. Has anyone been thrown in jail for that? No?

Huh, maybe they were enrolled in a social program to repay what they stole? No?

Are they hiring??

Also
Cut and run from what, the UN?

Absolutley, and get them the hell out of the USA. Let them over-stay their welcome on someone else's lawn.

From Iraq? That's a uniquely liberal position, friend. I am not a liberal.

Careful inkling
Robert might be reaching for his probe...

Bruce
The first nation to recognize the United States was Morocco.

It only took Stephen Decatur, 8 marines, and a motley crew Arabs, Greeks, and Spanish to end the paying of tribute initially.

When the War of 1812 began and the Navy was involved with the British the demand for tributes were once again requested.

After the end of hostilities with the British, Stephen returned with the largest fleet that the Navy had ever assembled. After shooting up the flagship of the enemy fleet and capturing many of the sailors aboard her, Decatur sent a message to the Dey. Free every slave at once, pay an indemnity of $10,000 to the survivors of the brig Edwin, and cease all demands for tribute forever.
The response from the Dey was that perhaps there had been a "misunderstanding" which he would like to correct with "the amiable James Madison, the Emperor of America" (Castor, 1971).

There were actions against Tunis and Tripoli but no further tribute was paid to the Barbary Pirates ever.

Reid's and Levin's Jealousy
I guess Reid and Levin are upset that the Iraqi government have been able to get more accomplished than the Democratically-controlled Congress.

chuck, I know them well.
__Has a 'nam vet, I served with the Murkies, and sKerries, that acted like dung holes. I'm sure there are a few of them in Iraq, who's only mission is to get home as soon as possible. A complete mission to them is a warm fuzzy bed on which to rest their fuzzy heads. I'm sure those brave troops you have contact with can tell you plenty of stories about this type of wanna be soldiers.

Benchmarks and Mirrors
This just in…. The Democratic Party is failing to meet its benchmarks… Pullout imminent?

In 2006, the Democratic Party promised to address six important issues in Congress. When I click on their link “What we’ve done”, they have 2 entries:

1. Victory! Senate Dems Pass Energy Bill
2. Employee Free Choice Act Introduced in House

Of the 85 Bills this Congress has cleared for the President, the Democrats’ website is touting these 2 Bills? What about a healthcare system that works for everyone? Where is retirement security? Why are we still in Iraq if the Democrats promised to end the war?

A search of the Library of Congress shows that 35 of the 85 Bills this Congress has cleared for the White House are to designate a name for a facility or park. Now that is some quality work.

Our President and Congressional Representatives will eventually end our involvement in Iraq, either as a success or a failure. (I am hoping for success) Iraq may never take responsibility for their government and country. However, we must realize that judging a new democracy’s ability to pass important legislation requires us to take a look in the mirror (see Articles of Confederation, Civil War, Segregation, etc…). Keep that in mind when you are reviewing the Iraqi Government’s progress on its 18 benchmarks. We persevered as a nation and are great for it.

Let us be accountable for our decision to invade Iraq and give General Petraeus a chance to follow through on his military plans. We can even implement a form of diplomatic surge that was proposed by Senator Obama and hope the Iraqis can realize the great opportunity for freedom that they have been given.

Let us also note to ourselves the quagmire that results from entering unstable regions and that nation building should not be a staple of our foreign policy.

Crawfisk, 4:39 PM
I liken it to having a discussion with a billboard.

They don't think very much, they don't vary their message, and it doesn't matter if you're Daniel Webster explaining the law, Thomas Acquinas explaining the faith, or Albert Einstein proving that space is curved, you're going to get the same thing after your explanation that you got before it.

Sorry
I misspelled "rebuttals".

Robert proves he's all wind
Yet another Robert post that proclaims victory without even drawing his sword.

"Let not him who buckles on his armor boast like him who's taking it off."

Robert doesn't provide support for any of his posts because he can't.

You're all wind, Robert. See ya.


Civis
Thats a good reminder of just what's at stake. Not one of the important benchmarks for political reconciliation or stability has been made. The surges purpose was bust. The reps can snow job all they want.

Inkling Revival: Change of Subject..lol
dude: you and rocky jones are hillarious...

but i wanted to ask you what you think of the
new Freedoms Watch commercial. former bush press secretary Ari Fleisher heads the group.

the commercial shows a U.S.Iraq War veteran who lost his lower extremities, proclaiming that the
U.S. needs to "stay the course in Iraq" because

"They struck us first" (in the background an film clip of one of the airliners striking one of the wtc twin towers is shown)

then he says something to the effect of:

"It saddens me that some in Congress want to
"surrender" in Iraq and make all that we soldiers who have fought there seem insignificant"

Since you and your right wing brethren found the moveon.org ad so offensive, what do you think of this one by Freedoms Watch?

Ditto inkling_revival
To your 5:04PM post as well.

Support Troops
I have a good deal of contact with soldiers that have been to Iraq and have been in combat there. It seems to be their belief that there are those that want them defeated on the battlefield for political advantage at home. This is what I believe. I have no problem with those that want us to pull out of Iraq. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. To lay this entire situation at the feet of one man, GWB, is not moral. Many dems that touted how dangerous Saddam was and that he should be dealt with later changed their mind out of shear hatred for GWB. I have heard no democrat solutions regarding terrorism that are in the least logical. If they get their way and their way does not work there is no doubt that they will blame it on GWB.

Civis
if they were forced to use truth in labeling their energy bill would be called the Pork Bill that hurts energy.

Brujo Blanco
The dems mean the troops well. You should have heard the outcry after they found out how lousy they were treated at Walter Ried. As for hating Bush and so along with it the war, I don't by. They hate the war because of the way it was presented, distortion of truth and cherry picking info. I disagree with the course of this war because I think we owed it to the Afghanistan's to keep up full strength there and to keep Bin Laden's trail from going cold. thank you for your service in Iraq.

If anyone is hilarious, it's you, LA
Freedoms Watch has a commercial about the TRUTH and moveon.org has an advertisement spewing OUTRIGHT LIES about General Petraeus, the surge, and the war in Iraq....you're such an idiot as YOU AND YOUR COMMIE FRIENDS ALWAYS and WRONGLY ILLUSTRATE and I must say, VERY PROUDLY ILLUSTRATE.

I don't find Freedoms Watch commercial offensive at all because it's the TRUTH!

I do find moveon.org's ad extremely offensive to our troops, to our general, to our nation, to our President, and to our war on terror. Typical Stalinist-Lib LIES and TREASONOUS BEHAVIOR. Just like the lies and treasonous behavior of the American Communist Party who reside, unfortunately, in the Senate and the House but desguise themselves as Democrats. Sad but true.

We, Republicans and Conservatives, must destroy these Stalinist-Libs before they destroy our great nation and our Constitution but we need to keep one or two around to remind us what they are like and what not to become.

What's the difference between Libs and terrorists?

Ans: Terrorists don't turn on their leaders (or generals).

Did “Blowback” Cause 9/11?


Is Ron Paul right about “Blowback”? And if so why do front runners from both Parties refuse to talk about this issue? How does keeping troops in the Middle East help with fighting terrorism?

watch

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/did-blowback-cause-911


Crawfish
Please humor us with what you think constitutes Stalinist policies.

Freedom's Watch commercials
Left Angle, at 5:30 or so, asked what I thought of the Freedom's Watch commercial. Apparently this was his attempt that the usual, and invariably evil, liberal "moral equivalence" argument, vis: "You ran a commercial, we ran a commercial, so we're the same."

We're not the same.

Caveats for starters:

1) I did not read Michael Moore's ad, so all I know about it is what I heard on Glen Beck's program this morning, and what's been said here on TH.

2) Advertising like that from Freedom's Watch is as much about emotions and perceptions as it is about reason and argument. They used wounded vets for a reason; it's polemic. I understand this.

Now, my thoughts:

The Freedom's Watch ads make a positive moral claim: "We paid a price for what we're trying to achieve, we ought to finish it." That claim does not involve personal attacks against anybody. These are clean, sincere, and very emotional appeals.

Michael Moore's ad was different in two ways I know about:

1) His lacks sincerity. He denounced Gen Petraeus' position before he'd even heard it. How could that POSSIBLY be based on a sound assessment?

2) His ad involved vicious, defamatory, and unfounded personal attacks. If I heard this correctly, he claimed that Gen. Petraeus deliberately inflated enemy casualty statistics in order to buttress his case, and he essentially called him a traitor.

I have no problem with Michael Moore taking out political ads in the Times per se. I have a big problem with his calling a good man a traitor, and with making charges for which there exists not a shred of evidence. And, I have a problem with a contrived "rebuttal" of a report the author had not even heard.

Are we still repeating the same, tired..
...crap?

Taft (sadly borrowing a name beloved of Republicans) wrote: "As for hating Bush and so along with it the war, I don't by. They hate the war because of the way it was presented, distortion of truth and cherry picking info."

Pullleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

A) The mantra "Bush lies" began even before President Bush took office. I visited Bushlies.org even before the election; it was hilarious. They listed as lies things like "he believed X in 1980, but he believes Y now. BUSH LIES!" The Left has been frantic to call Bush a liar since it was so horribly embarrassed by that pathological liar they put in the White House through the 90s.

B) The left has been trying very, very, VERY hard to sell the "cherry picked info" and "misled us into war" since it became evident (by way of John Kerry) that they would otherwise pay a price for having voted in favor of the war. They have motive to lie.

C) The left has been so eager to sell the "misled us" trope that they've grasped every book about the Bush administration when it came out and shouted "SEE??? It says RIGHT HERE he made them change the data!" and the authors (who are no great friends of Bush) have to keep coming out in public and saying "No, that is NOT what I wrote."

D) There have been several investigations into whether the administration forced anybody to change anything. No such forcing was found. There were THREE investigations into whether the government made up the Niger/uranium story. All three found that the government was right.

In sum: there is no reason whatsoever to believe the Bush admin misled anybody. There is every reason to believe Democrats just don't want to admit they've done a 180 for purely partisan reasons.

for Bill
Bill writes: "Have you ever thought about how rude and impertinent it is for the members of the Congressional committees to be seated on a raised platform, talking down to those testifying at their inquisition -- strike that -- hearing."

No, I hadn't thought about that because in America, the military is subordinate to the civilian leadership. Congress holds the purse strings that pay the wages of our troops, pay for the weapons and materiel they fight with, etc. The military does NOT make policy in America--they are a tool of civilian policy and Congress has the final say with the power of the purse.

And we've done very well for 230 years that way.

SFASU7392
SFASU7392 writes: "SteveL should reread the US Constitution. Conduct of foreign policy is the province of the Executive branch of government"

In that case, why should the Democrats support the Iraq War? They're not in the Executive Branch, are they? They say "You Republicans in the Executive Branch, it's YOUR war, good luck with it."

Of course, right after 9-11, Bush COULD have invited some moderate Democrats like Zell Miller and Breaux to help form a bipartisan "war cabinet" to help craft a bipartisan approach to the War on Terror. He didn't, instead he chose to listen entirely to a small clique of GOP neo-conservatives. (He didn't even take the advice of other REPUBLICANS like McCain and Hagel as to how to fight the war.)

You CANNOT have it both ways. You CANNOT exclude Democrats from all key decisions in the war, not even politely ASK them for any advice--and then simultaneously demand that they support those decisions just because you say so.

Kurd Media - Petraeus is wrong

utahnotmormon
Read the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and compare it with your party's philosophy and playbook concerning controlling you from the womb to the tomb. That's your homework assignment for tonight. And if you can't read, that's your problem.

By the way, I don't have to explain anything to a child like you and it's time for you to go to bed and let us adults discuss important issues that you do not comprehend and never will. But you still have that homework assignment that is due tomorrow, utahnotmormon. There will be a test tomorrow morning. Lot's of luck, you'll need it.

ambiguity game over!
historical developments, war, even facts, can seem ambiguous. the Democrat party's objection to Bush's war has been given the benefit of the doubt, even while providing cover, inadvertently, to our enemies. in fact, we could have even argued over who are enemies are. however, the treatment given Gen. Petraeus over the last several days dissolves ambiguity. it is my generation (DOB 10-2-47) that spawned the "age of Aquarius" and the antiwar movement in the sixties. i marched, occupied administration buildings and generally made a fool out of my immature self from 1967 through 1970. however, I did manage to grow up. not everyone did. the leaders in the so called Democrat party (of which I registered as a member from 1970 through 1998) have aged, but have failed to mature. anyone wanting to know right from wrong merely needs to review the congressional testimonies of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker of earlier this week, not only the words but the video. if it still ambiguous to you as to whether we have enemies, and that some of them are in power and among us, then we are all at a loss, all parties and persuasions. immaturity has finally caught up with ascension to power and has produced a contemporary spectacle of absurdity, decadence and a falling away from decency that can only be described as apocryphal. i fear for the Republic, even as this ambiguity has vanished.


Crawfish.
Thanks for the humor. Who knew you couldn't differentiate between Stalin and Marx?

As for >compare it with your party's philosophy<

the only party I'm associated with is the birthday club at Winger's for my kids.

Country_Lawyer
"historical developments, war, even facts, can seem ambiguous. the Democrat party's objection to Bush's war has been given the benefit of the doubt, even while providing cover, inadvertently, to our enemies. in fact, we could have even argued over who are enemies are. however, the treatment given Gen. Petraeus over the last several days dissolves ambig"

A lot of silly propaganda there. There were NO al qeade in Iraq before we invaded, and there wasn't an emboldened Iran. This war could easily lead us into bombing Iran too. To top it off bin Laden is as pleased as could be to have us there, and whipping up more extremism. STOP watching Fox news and educates yourself our troops lives are at stake. Don't think for a second that the RW wouldn't turn on Petraues, like they did Batista, is they didn't hear what they didn't hear.

truth to the rumor?
. . that bin Laden is a registered Democrat?

I wrote that, SteveL...
...and I'm astonished at how very badly you've misunderstood.

The point is that the Constitutional process was followed. Democrats WERE involved -- in selecting the President, in selecting Congress, in congressional discussions and votes.

If you believe in the Constitutional system of government handed to us by our nation's founders, then you're beholden to regard the policies produced by that process as equally belonging to all citizens. Bush is not the Republicans' President, he's the American President. Iraq is not a Republican war, it's an American war. You should feel free to disagree, and to work the system (legally) to achieve different policy outcomes; that's your right. But to regard a Constitutionally valid policy you don't like as though it were not an American policy is to separate yourself from the body politic, and to declare yourself a rebel.

It's long been my contention that the Democrat party has done exactly this -- has separated itself from the Constitution, and become anti-constitutional. For that reason, I personally favor separating the nation into two nations. I don't think there's any way to reconcile the Left and the Right; we have different moral systems, and are no longer pursuing similar ends.

John Konop
Please explain how blowback could possibly be the cause for 9/11 when Ron Paul is referring to the no fly zone of Iraq.


The only possible way you can make a blow back argument for 9/11 is because Osama was ticked off because the Saudi's refused him and his terrorist org to boot out Saddam out of Kuwait. That was his main reason for hating us according to his words, now he has added a whole bunch of bs such as Christianity, debauchery, etc.

Michael Yon's article was prescient
Don't Ask Me What I Think about the Petraeus Report
Ask the battalion commanders. By Michael Yon, 10 Sept 2007
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmZiYjIyNjQ1MmUxNzJiN2UyMGI5ZjU2MTk
5YjdjNDY=

recitation of discredited sound bites
Taft gave us yet another unthinking recitation of the DNC's talking points about the war, that have been discredited hundreds of times.

1) No Al Qaeda inside Iraq before we invaded? The 9/11 Commission disagrees. So does the Manhattan District Court, as it happens (an interesting tale.) But if you'd like to review a deluge of hard evidence demonstrating Hussein's ties to global terrorism, view http://husseinandterror.com/.

2) There wasn't an emboldened Iran? This is a joke, right? We've been at war with Iran in one form or another since the 1970s, and Ahmadinejad's rise to power has been progressing steadily since then. The Bush administration chose to unseat Hussein in part to encircle Iran between liberal republics (Iraq and Afghanistan).

3) This war could easily lead us into bombing Iran too? No, our long-term enmity with Iran would lead us to that.

4) bin Laden is as pleased as could be to have us there? Uuuhhhh... right. He's lost somewhere close to 50% of the people who have joined his organization, killed or captured; he has to hide in the mountains; his terror cells are being exposed gradually; and his influence over Iraq, which he himself declared to be essential to his plans for the 12th Caliphate, is practically over.

No, Taft, you're wrong about every aspect of the Iraq war, from how it was planned, to how we got there, to what we're accomplishing, to how the enemy views it.

1. debunked
This was the key finding in yesterday's report entitled "Overview of the Enemy." It was read by 9/11 Commission staff member Douglas Maceachin.

"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There's been reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." ...

And then there is the newer ivedence..

Declassified portions of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II report

Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist acts. Key portions of the new Intel Committee report indicate that Bush attacked an Iraqi regime that not only lacked an operational relationship with al Qaeda, but was hostile toward the terrorist network. By making the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq, Bush’s policy accomplished the goals of the al Qaeda network. Here’s what the report says:

#4 Here are 3 sources
The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism states that "the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists...and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

"Bin Laden hoped the U.S. would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the U.S. into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the U.S. military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri's recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy.

The facts are the terrorists want us there.
"Abu bakr Naji, an al Qeada strategist, advocates provoking American into direct military intervention the Islamic world. And it is certainly the case that the foray into Iraq, which Laden takes credit for provoking, has restricted the possibilities for U.S. actions elsewhere while leading to carnage that the terrorists have been able to highlight to their
advantage."
Jessica Stern Foreign affairs
She has written 5 books on terrorism

#2
It's well known the Taliban and the Saddam regimes were Iran's biggest enemies. Iran in fact helped us get Taliban and AQ nuts.

#3
We have a long time enmity with many countries and I hope it doesn't lead to eventually bomb them.


Robert,
You caught me on that Mexican War bit, thanks.

Taft
You are absolutely delusional not to mention cherry picking. Iran helped us? HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Lolo2
How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm

Was it hard to believe the Taliban murdered 8 Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan in the 1990's?

Why
Lolo2

Why do you think you know more than the CIA and military?

Bush reports few gains
Bush reports few gains in new Iraq report

White House’s Iraq “benchmarks” report to Congress on Friday to show improvement in only one of 18 areas and satisfactory progress in only half how can American’s see this as a success?

Politico-A congressionally-mandated “Iraq Benchmarks Report” that the White House plans to send Capitol Hill on Friday finds the Iraqi government has made satisfactory progress toward meeting nine of the 18 political and security goals, according to officials who have seen it. That is up by just one from the first such report, which was issued in July.

Here is a summary of the September report’s findings:

Benchmark:

1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) and then completing the constitutional review.

Assessment: Satisfactory

2) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.

Assessment: Satisfactory (This is the one that improved from “Not satisfactory” in the July report.)

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-reports-few-gains-in-new-iraq-report

Despicable
Cake walk
Won't last 6 months
Insurgency in last throes
Return on success?

Bush parades these men out as a heat shield.

Peterus betrays us? Well at least they put a question mark behind it like Fox News does when they say "Are the Democrats Terrorist?"

More of the same. Bush wants to run the clock out to dump it on the next president, disgusting.

All the republicans can do is whine, cry, sob about the NY Times and Moveon.ORG. They want the DEMS to denounce them. Please when the Republicans denounce Ann Counter, Rush, 1/2 of the crud on Fox news than may be we can talk.

Sad sad. The one Arab leader that met with Bush last week and said he was going to turn aways fro Al Qaeda, BLOWN UP.

Peterus is a good man, when his conscious would not let him answer in the affirmative, Is IRAQ making us safer? NO NO NO. The fact is Cheney (in 1992) and all the others that said this would be a mess and is a mess are right. Now Bush is saying YEA it is so we must stay. Lets not even get into the cooking the books they did and Kool-aid happy talk. When Republican leaders say the cost (lives and money) is not significant IF we win? WHAT THE Freak!!!!

Basically we THINK we have a light at the end of the tunnel NOW. Do over!

That light in the tunnel is a train coming to run us over if we let these idiots in DC (both parties) keep playing politics. Bush wants so save his legacy, GOP wants power and Dems are scared to get a pair. SICK SAD Disgusting.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.