Captain, I believe that we have reached that level of hateful discourse with the tinfoil hatted leftists loonies that anything to prevent Bush from doing anything is the "goal". They want what they want. They don't care who, what or where is harmed and they surely don't care about the amount of damage their ideas cause. This is pure hate. And not just against Bush, but for every living, breathing human on this planet that wants freedom to live their lives without the coercion inflicted on them, their race, gender, sex, country, religion....what have you. It is an amazing sight to watch people try to destroy everything they know even at the expense of themselves!!! Remarkable.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
Exactly. This apparent effort to ensure that we don't stay in Iraq is motivated by sheer blody-mindedness, like a little child breaking another child's toy because he doesn't get to play with it himself.
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
Great post Ed . I couldn't agree more . The last thing progressives want is progress in Iraq. Their worst fear is peace. They are beneath contempt.
megapotamus
· 1 year ago
The good news here is undebatable. The most important front in the GWOT, the one here at home against the traitors/retards of the modern American Left is won. It was won sometime before the first Dem debate as it was then that the capitulation was admitted by all 3 of the Dem frontrunners when they conceded that they could not promise a troop pullout, full or otherwise WITHIN THEIR FIRST TERM! That is the sound of Hil and Barry and the Silky Pony even signing on for FIVE more years of war. Cowardly excuses for real Americans, treasonous nitwits; Progressives, Democrats, Liberals, Nazis... whatever you are calling yourselves this week, you have lost yet again. You should be ashamed of yourselves for your years long slandering of far, far better men on whom you rely for your security and prosperity. Yes, that most asuredly includes George Bush. But hey, it's never too late for a REAL revolution, right? Try that!
Bonnie Ramthun
· 1 year ago
They can't really revolt. They don't believe in guns and their feet hurt too much from those hemp sandals.
The left have been wrong on just about everything to do with Iraq and the War on Terror. What foundation will they be able to stand on in 08' that will convince the American people that they know the right course all of a sudden. Obama was not even in the position to have to make a decision or vote on the Iraq war that he brags so much about being against.,maybe he should start to brag about being right about Vietnam also since he was not in a position to vote then either. When he was in a position to make a real decision(the surge)he got it completely wrong. Then advocated sending troops into Pakistan,thus starting a war with a nuclear armed country with our "broken" army that he says can't control the violence in Baghdad,but is supposed to be able to take on over 20 million troops/&Al-Qaeda in the Pakistani Mountains. Tell me Obama, if you start a war with Pakistan to go after Osama and he ends up in Somalia or Iran,will your left wing friends call you a liar,war monger,and do everything possible to undercut you while our men and women are fighting on the front lines?
Let the move-on crowd continue to try and micro-mange this war with their activists and friends up on the hill.If Hillary and Obama are an example of their "plan",then I hope they have a lot better line than"The surge worked because we have been yelling surrender for the past four years"
Petraeus sunk the Reid/Pelosi ship of fools in September and he will do it again in March.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
They actually attempted redeployment to Iwo Jima, but the Japanese were even better prepared than they were the last time. Given that they came ashore without any offensive armament, Iwo remains safely in Japanese hands.
Lightwave
· 1 year ago
The Dems plan summed up: "We will punt over here so we don't have to punt over there!"
Idiots. Don't they understand that A) we're winning in Iraq and B) the American people are aware of the fact that Iraq's security situation has improved dramatically thanks in direct part to the surge and our change in strategy?
Please, by all means let the Democrats continue to draw attention to their failure to do anything meaningful in a year, to their failure to sabotage us in Iraq, and to their failure to do anything about the economy they seem to be so worried about.
Now that Bush (at 32%, still twice as popular as the Congressional Dems at 12%) has the Dems on the ropes, they are pleading for him to let up so they can backstab our troops and allies in Iraq.
As I have said on multiple occasions, can we consider the Dems traitors to the United States now?
AH_C
· 1 year ago
To cement the notion, Bush ought to announce at SOTU that he is unilaterally withdrawing everything poste haste, effective 1 Feb. Wait until the inevitable flurry of condemnation from the Dems for the irrational risk of upsetting the gains thus far. After exposing the flipflop, come back and announce that the wisdom of the Dems convinced him to stay the course and strengthen our relationship.
I know, fanciful daydreaming... sigh. This BDS is seriously going to hurt us all in the long run.
davecatbone
· 1 year ago
Yet the constant clarion call from the left decrying "diviseness" and longing for bi-partisanship? Bah.....!
Tom Maguire
· 1 year ago
The NY Times editors certainly got the memo (assuming, perhaps erroneously, they were not at the meeting itself). Their lead editorial today (Don’t Tie the Next President’s Hands) is all about preventing Bush from making any promises Barack will have to keep.
Scott Malensek
· 1 year ago
Hillary already went right at this in the last debate. Rewind and watch the part where she rants about preventing Pres Bush from signing an agreement with the Iraqis, and asks O and Eddie to join her.
rbj
· 1 year ago
Why not end long-term agreements with European governments that could keep significant numbers of troops in Europe for years to come? We Americans are essentially paying for Europe's security -- they can't even handle a backyard brawl in the Balkans by themselves, and the Soviet Union/Warsaw pact days are long gone? Where's the outrage there?
It is much more reasonable to stay and help a young and shaky democracy in Iraq than mature ones in Europe.
essucht
· 1 year ago
The Democrats aren't that concerned about Iraq. They are VERY concerned about trashing the President. Seen in that light there actions of the last few years suddenly make sense.
One wonders what they will rally around come 2009? Besides of course the federal trough.
Casey
· 1 year ago
Wouldn't before-the-fact legislation preventing the administration from making agreements with a sovereign power violate the President's treaty-making powers?
Isn't that, in fact, the point of the requirement of the Senate to approve treaties?
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
The Iraq Army and police are just getting to strength enough to keep accepting security hand overs for provinces there. The Air Force only has minimal transport and observation aircraft and the Navy is trying to organize to build a structure to protect the offshore shipping platforms for selling Iraq oil output.
It will take years of training and assistance to enable them to develop skill sets and purchase weapons from the production lines of the world to even enable them a defensive capability against neighboring states who may have hostile intentions.
Clearly this would always have been the case as a simple course of action.
DaleinAtlanta
· 1 year ago
Well Capt'n, what else would you expect from a Colony of Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Traitor Lying-Scum Nutbag Lunar Chiroptera??
I mean, no need to sugarcoat it, or pretend they are anything else!
The Truth Hurts!
Ralph Phelan
· 1 year ago
Their not "anti-war," they're just on the other side.
But don't you dare question their patriotism.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Here's a fun exercise-ask a Leftist to explain to you how they can "support the troops" but not "support the mission".
Cicero
· 1 year ago
Iraq is the white whale to the Ahabs of the Left. A year ago there was at least a tenable argument to be made for bugging out -- i.e., the current strategy was untenable and our presence was not resulting in any measurable improvement there. Hence, the lives being sacrificed were too high a price to pay for no foreseeable return.
That argument has been made moot, or nearly so, by our success in routing AQI, gaining the allegiance of the local clan leaders, and the slow but undeniable political progress being made. But to the hard Left, Iraq as a place and a tangible situation was long ago replaced with Iraq the symbol. They're not interested in whether Iraq is improving or whether there are valid reasons to maintain a presence there on a long-term basis. They want ACTION against Iraq simply because Iraq has been a major focus of their anger, and without that anger to nurse, the Left has nothing to offer in terms of policy.
It is a truly scary thing that the Democrat front-runners are allowing this hard Left tantrum-throwing to guide their positions on a matter that is important to America's national defense. It is equally frightening that this doesn't seem to bother (or even register with) such a large segment of the population.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
I guess they've noticed that Ron Paul peeled off some portion of the Republicans. They're trying to tailor their message to that group. So they might get 6% - 10% -- provided the rest of their social agenda matched that of the Paulistas.
Since their social agenda doesn't, I expect this effort to get 0% support from the electorate on our side of the aisle.
Given the Obama spokesman's statement, my guess is that either Obama (or the spokesman) does not understand the Constitutional basis for a treaty. Bush can't make any treaties with the Iraqi government without the advice and consent of the Senate. Since Obama isn't a Senator, he in essence is frozen out of any role in treaties or agreements.
KW64
· 1 year ago
What do you mean Obama isn't a Senator? If Bush made a treaty, the Dems would probably defeat it if they wanted too since it would require a 2/3rds vote to pass. Whatever understanding is reached would not be presented to the Senate as a treaty unless about 20 Democrats are on board. Presumably Hillary and Obama would both vote no.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Oh dear, did I get that wrong! Based on his legislative record, I thought he was a Representative.
My little Obama is all grown up -- he's a junior Senator, for crying out loud! OK, I take it back -- he could indeed obstruct any treaty.
I can see his epitaph now -- The Great Obstructer.
peterargus
· 1 year ago
Cap'n I totally agree with your argument FOR a long term security agreement, however I take some issue with your characterization of the opponents. First there are those like the Paulbots who feel that our presence in the ME is the reason for terrorism directed toward the US. Clearly from their point of view our long term presence in Iraq would further exacerbate the terrorists. Second the anti-war people either don't think security has improved or think that security will surely deteriorate at some point in the future. If this is the case a long term security agreement would really stick us in a quagmire. Both arguments against such an agreement are wrong, IMO, but they also do not have to have a cynical motivation.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
The opponents of a long-term security agreement do, however, need to offer evidence for their objections and their analyses. They appear to refute facts and prognosticate a future based on their own anti-engagement premise and stance in the first place.. What don't they understand about the words "security agreement"?
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
The anti-war people don't THINK. That's the problem. The protestors in front of the local community college in Stockton, CA, carry such ridiculous signs as "US troops out of Israel". Last I heard, there isn't a noticeable US military presence there. Those who claim our presence in the ME is the cause, have yet to provide reasonable explanations for the violence that occurred there over the decades well in advance of our presence there.
As for your basic hypothesis though, if their arguments are based on historical ignorance, then you're right. There may not be a cynical motivation. However, if it's current willful ignorance due to hatred of the current administration (which I believe is a part of it), then it is indeed cynicism.
Andrew X
· 1 year ago
The other possibility to be aware of is that the Left, as we all know, has been trying to "Vietnamize" this war from moment one, and that they honestly DO see it as Vietnam redux.
We all saw what happened in the aftermath of that war, in Vietnam and Cambodia, when the Left in America essentially won. It is not diffucult to see that there will be an "aftermath" in Iraq, and it will not be difficult to imagine that it will be directly compared to the aftermath of that very war it has so assiduously been compared to virtually this whole decade.
And how do you think the two "aftermaths" will stack up against each other? And what do you think will happen when the Vietnam war, which is to the modern left what the crucifixion of Christ is to a Christian, is seen by all and so obviously in this new and horrific light?
Interesting times indeed.
Rick554
· 1 year ago
LOLOL the "event horizon"???? One thing the left really is good at is SOUNDING like they have a clue. George W Bush's event horizon is simply 5000 miles further East then their's. I like his "event horizon" better then their "event horizon". Gimme a break
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
DBCO, you are demonstrating a decidedly negative, pessimistic attitude and a profound ignorance of history. What do you think would have happened had the United States withdrew all of its troops from Germany and Japan in 1945? What if we had not sent millions upon millions of our hard-earned dollars to Europe in aid (i.e. the Marshall Plan)? Do you think Europe would be half as stable and productive as it is today? Don't you realize that it was our troops that caused and then kept peace and stability in Europe immediately after the war?
How about Korea? Do you think South Korea would be as stable, peaceful and prosperous today if we had withdrawn our troops immediately after the end of hostilities in 1953? Why do you think we still have soldiers there?
Our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines still cause some instability in Korea, Okinawa, and other places where they are stationed. Does that mean we should immediately pull them out? What do you think would happen if we did?
I find it difficult to believe that you honestly believe Iraq would be a better place if we withdraw all of our forces. I also find it incredulous that you have such sympathy for the difficulties our forces face in Iraq when others in your camp express no such concern for our troops in other duty stations around the world. Rather, I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the only reason that you want our troops to redeploy home is that you cannot stand the idea of Bush being successful in Iraq.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
If the anti-war left wants to pull troops away from where they are no longer needed, why don't they start with Bosnia and Kosovo, where they were sent ten years ago by a former President who is the husband of a current Democrat candidate? Somehow, we haven't heard many stories of violence by Serb or Bosnian militants in the media lately. Maybe those troops aren't needed there any more. There's no oil in Bosnia, so you can't even blame it on Halliburton!
Beyond maintaining a peaceful and stable Iraq, there is another good reason for working out a long-term mutual defense treaty with Iraq--AhmaNutJob immediately to the east. If the Iranian nuclear program (the real one, not the one described by the dreamers who wrote the NIE) gets too far along, an American military presence on Iran's western (Iraq) and eastern (Afghanistan) borders could be a reasonable long-term deterrent. (Containment, anyone?) If an Iranian nuclear weapon had to be "taken out" by force, it's a lot easier to launch the attacks from Iraq than from Okinawa, besides, our planes would burn less fuel and create less global warming.
On another national security issue, there have been reports that Senator Barack Obama's brother is in Kenya, allied with opposition leader Raila Odinga, who wants to establish Sharia law in Kenya, and claims to be Obama's cousin. Do we really want a President who says he wants to invade Pakistan in order to kill Bin Laden, while his family is fighting for radical Islamists in Kenya? If Obama wins the Dem nomination, this information needs to be made public, so voters know what Obama means by searching for his father... Sounds rather dangerous for America!
Boerwar
· 1 year ago
I would have to agree with Andrew X. For the organized anti-war types this isn't about the Iraq War or George Bush. Their goal is to prevent any war from appearing to have been a successful venture. The worst thing they can imagine is that future generations use the lessons learned from a successful Iraq War as supporting material to justify another pre-emptive action. They are the same types that have tried for years to rewrite the history of WWII because it was just so darn black and white.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
I'm just amused that they spent $12 Million and got nothing for it. Nothing. And because they failed so spectacularly after spending all that money, they've decided to charge in a different direction. A new mission that will also fail.
I don't know a great deal about this subject but I don't think status of forces and related agreements need congressional approval and it's unlikely this crowd could muster enough votes to get some anti-whatever Bush wants to do through Congress anyway (this Congress? please. It's an election year). So they'll spend more millions. And fail.
Okey dokey then.
showbiz
· 1 year ago
To the laupbots, if you claim that the US policy in the ME over the past sixty years is the only or preponderating cause for militant islamists and terrorism, then please explain what US foreign policy caused the 18th Century islamo-terrorists otherwise known as the Barbary Pirates. Was it support of Israel in the 1790s that led the the 'rightful indignation' of muslims? Was it the US 'occupation' of Saudi Arabia, or Persia (Irag/Iran) or Afghanistan, that led many muslims to 'lash out' at that superpower of the 18th Century, the United States? The unhinged leftists in the democrat party, who represent probably fifty percent or more of their base wanted to withdraw at all costs, however, once victory seems to be within reach, their leaders instead of congratulating Bush on the change in strategy and success still live in the past (which most dems seem to do, always longing to go back to the 1960s like one endless LSD flashback) instead of the present. Indeed, the dems are pretty ironic, because they falsely claim that the Bush Administration ignores the facts on the ground in the name of ideology, whereas it is the dem party which has been driven by its tin foil ideology since the infamous Rockefeller Memo of 2003. (Indeed, it has now been disclosed in the newly released documents from the Clinton Library, that this same Rockefeller enlisted the Clinton Administration in 92-93 to aggregate an enemies list of those opposed to what even the Clinton Administation called internally, the most unprecedented takeover of private industry in US History, and to smear these critics and to plant stories against HillaryCare in friendly media). I say a prayer of thanks to the Bush Administration for their staunch support of our troops and our allies and the dems threaten all our alliances with their cut and run strategies. What foreign countries would ever trust the US again, in the next forty years, to come to their aid, if the demoncrats succeed in their obscene cut and run surrender strategy? It would be Vietnam Syndrome to the nth power.
Sam
· 1 year ago
An excellent review of the issue; this makes so much sense. Why would we have gone through all this work to turn Iraq into a better nation if, afterwards, we do not take advantage of an ally in the Middle East? There's no point in leaving now; we don't want to leave things unfinished because that's just not the right thing to do.
sashal
· 1 year ago
what a magic, the strongest army in the world can limit the resistence? Can anybody praising surge define exactly what they mean by "winning." Does "win" mean we have a pro-U.S. government successfully running Baghdad without American military assistance? Or does "winning" mean the U.S. stays in Iraq until 2018 or 2025 or 2085 or longer? Or does "winning" mean the Iraqis accomplish some form of lasting "reconciliation" among the various political, tribal, religious, ethnic, and class factions? Or does "winning" simply mean that more Iraqis die in the fighting than Americans? What exactly has the United State accomplished in Iraq? In other words, I wonder what Captain think the U.S. has gotten for all of those taxpayer billions and American lives thrown at that country.
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
Sashal, you cannot be serious. Do you honestly want to know the answer to that question? We will be successful in Iraq if we can create a relatively stable, relatively representative government in the cesspool that is the Middle East. Compared to its neighbors, that is not saying much. Since petrodollars wedded to a radical Islamic agenda have become a worldwide threat, we can no longer ignore the troubles of the Middle East. The old modus vivendi of working with stable-but-repressive governments is outdated. We cannot turn back the clock and wistfully wish that Muslim terrorists will stay in their part of the world. If we can help disaffected Muslims blow off steam in a relatively representative government instead of blowing off body parts in terrorist activity, then we will have succeeded.
sashal
· 1 year ago
Sure, I am serious. Thank you, at least, at the ATTEMPT to answer politely. Not the thing we can claim about the other answer I received below from non-liberal fascist
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
Sashal, calling the other commentator a "non-liberal fascist" is not exactly answering politely, is it? At least by using the term "non-liberal fascist," you appear to recognize the existence of liberal fascists. In fact, the term "fascist" should more correctly be used to describe those on your side of the political fence (i.e. the NAZIs of Germany, aka the National Socialists, were, after all, socialists).
To address your questions...what have we accomplished in Iraq? What have we gained for the billions spent and thousands of lives lost? I am certain that if you put your thinking cap on you could answer those questions yourself. You, however, appear more interested in defaming the current occupant of the White House instead of addressing U.S. foreign policy. You, or at least most others of your ilk would rather see the U.S. fail in Iraq so that the President Bush does not appear successful.
For those of us who truly love this country, such views are repugnant. Though I was hardly a fan of Clinton, I could certainly discuss in a rational manner his foreign policy successes and failures. Why can you not discuss Bush's foreign policy in a rational manner?
Colonel_prop
· 1 year ago
Ahhhh - the lefty trolls are out in force today. Must have had a jolt of electricity from their silly hybrid cars that won't ever pay off the investment.
I believe Dante reserved a special place in hell for those who betray their benefactors. Since the left, and the other allies of AQ in the USA (the media and the democratic party) have decided to commit at least sedition and possibly treason against this country (still safe after 6+ years from someone determined to obliterate us - AQ has publicly said so) there has to have been a giant movement in hell to prepare for the influx of those who deserve the lowest reaches of horror.
Have fun - you'll need a sense of humor when you chat with lucifer.
DBCO
· 1 year ago
This isn't about "demanding an end to a military alliance with a stable Iraq." It's about demanding an end to a military alliance with an unstable Iraq. Iraq at this point is hideously unstable and there has been no actual political progress (the de-Ba'athification legislation conservatives were crowing about was actually opposed by the people it was supposedly intended to help, and "bottom-up reconciliation" is inherently a failure of political progress, since it consists of us funding and training armies against the Iraqi "government"). What Bush wants to do, therefore, is lock us into a permanent presence in an unstable Iraq.
Since America's presence in Iraq is a source of the instability, Bush is trying to lock in failure and make it possible for Americans to die in Iraq indefinitely. If you share Bush's defeatist attitude -- his desire to make Iraq permanently unstable and guarantee America's defeat -- then this is fine; those of us who don't want an American defeat tend to feel differently.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
And abandoning Iraq makes the situation more stable exactly how? You guys are so lightweight as to be transparent. First you got caught lying about our 'defeat' Now your hack candidates actually ahve the chutzpah to claim that the surge is working - only becuase of their efforts. Now you regurgitate an incomprehensibel internally conflicted pile of used cow food and call *that* a reason to abandon Iraq. History will spit on you tools.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
There are loads of unsubstantiated, verifiable with facts, statements underpinning your opinion: To wit: "Iraq at this point is hideously unstable.." For example?
"there has been no actual political progress" None? For example? What would you define as "political progress"?
"the de-Ba'athification legislation conservatives were crowing about was actually opposed by the people it was supposedly intended to help" Evidence? Says who?
""bottom-up reconciliation" is inherently a failure of political progress, since it consists of us funding and training armies against the Iraqi "government" Huh? The tribes are uniting against the goverment? Evidence? A peculiar judgment call (opinion) since the tribal reconciliations have led to joint efforts to rid the villages and provinces of subversives intent on destabilizing the communities.
"Since America's presence in Iraq is a source of the instability " Who is making that claim? Why has the Iraqi government continued to seek our assistance then? Why are our troops actually living among Iraqis in their communities and forming alliances with these populations as part of the successful counterinsurgency tactic then?
"Bush is trying to lock in failure " Evidence? Lock? Is this a strategy to assure that President Bush will be president for life? Where are you getting your information that the efforts are a downward spiral of "failure"? What merit would there be to perpetuate failure?
What intruigues me is what is your definition of "Anerican defeat".
What I find pathetic is that you offer impassioned rhetoric without substance.
DC_Gamer
· 1 year ago
DBCO, you are demonstrating a decidedly negative, pessimistic attitude and a profound ignorance of history. What do you think would have happened had the United States withdrew all of its troops from Germany and Japan in 1945? What if we had not sent millions upon millions of our hard-earned dollars to Europe in aid (i.e. the Marshall Plan)? Do you think Europe would be half as stable and productive as it is today? Don't you realize that it was our troops that caused and then kept peace and stability in Europe immediately after the war?
How about Korea? Do you think South Korea would be as stable, peaceful and prosperous today if we had withdrawn our troops immediately after the end of hostilities in 1953? Why do you think we still have soldiers there?
Our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines still cause some instability in Korea, Okinawa, and other places where they are stationed. Does that mean we should immediately pull them out? What do you think would happen if we did?
I find it difficult to believe that you honestly believe Iraq would be a better place if we withdraw all of our forces. I also find it incredulous that you have such sympathy for the difficulties our forces face in Iraq when others in your camp express no such concern for our troops in other duty stations around the world. Rather, I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the only reason that you want our troops to redeploy home is that you cannot stand the idea of Bush being successful in Iraq.
Tim Pundit
· 1 year ago
What an ass-backwards thing to write: "It's short-sighted and would have led to a massive paroxysm of violence and killed hundreds of thousands in short order, if not millions, but it's the recognizable demand of pacifists in all ages and places. " First of all, ignoring your unlettered definition of "pacifist" (which does not accuratly describe the 70% plus people who feel the war has failed and has not been worth the lives and treasure sunk there)
But what the carnsarn hell do you think is going on there now? There's killings there now, it's juts not as MUCH killing and chaos now.
If we leave there will be chaos. That's a fact. And it's alos a fact our 19 and 20 year olds will not be there to get their arms blown off or their face burnt off.
We failed. The war was lost 3 years ago. The American people know this. With all the talk of how darn successful the surge is, haven't you noticed the publics' mood has not changed one bit? They still want us out.
And what happens this Spring when troop numbers return to 'pre0surge' levels? Do you think without a strong or even organized Iraqi Government the Sunnis the Shiites, the Jurds and the baathists and Al Queda are suddenly going to play nice?
I think the most dangerous threat to our great country is rightwingers believing their own propaganda.
MataHarley
· 1 year ago
It's obvious that you and I shall disagree, Tim Pundit. Truth is, you have no more moral claim to being "correct" in your analyses that I have in mine. We will never know with certainty what could have happened had we done something different.
No one emphatically knows whether Saddam would have provided bioweaponry, or assisted the global Islamic jihad movement in getting nuke technology and weaponry on the black market ,had he not been removed. But he had the power, money and motivation to do so. His penchant for acquiring proscribed weaponry after 1998 is documented on the UNMOVIC site. His willingness to deal on the black market for his contraban was documented by the Oil for Food corruption scandal.
The point that most "anti-free-Iraq" types miss is that the problem is "state-less". Leaving one country will do nothing to appease the global Islamic jihad movement. They came because the evil infidel Satan (that would be Clinton at that time) was occupying Arab lands (Saudi), and because of our sanctions on Iraq ... just two of the many named reasons for jihad in the World Islamic Front statement of 1998.
Odd, don't you think, that they took pains to include Saddam as a reason for their jihad? Read more on historic regime documents found (i.e. Both in One Trench) and you will discover there was a convenient tit for tat between Saddam and militant Islam.. just as there is in every Muslim country in existence. No surprise. Nothing unusual.
Redeployment will not appease militant Islam. Nothing short of wiping out every western presence ... from western embassies to MickeyD's... from lands they claim for Islam will please them. Then how long do you think it will take for them to want to convert the rest? We will have demonstrated our willingness - nay, weakness - by fleeing. This enemy scoffs at weakness... and takes advantage.
Thus if you wish to base your analyses of foreign policy on the opinions of the so-called "majority" (more like a 52-48 split really) of Americans... the same who are led to the trough by the clueless-to-strategy-and-history media... then I for one am glad you have no power over our national security.
Sad reality - until you've done it "your" way, you will never realize how totally wrong, you are, IMHO. There may be a Dem CIC come 2009. All DNC wannabees said they will deny Iraq's request for further assistance because they want to appease those like yourself.
What happens in Iraq after we leave can then be on your shoulders. Our current way, we've been there because the Iraqis wanted a chance to make it work, not abandonment. If not measuring up to your standards of success (which should be more aptly applied to our own Congress and our own violent society), we have at least done our best to help Iraq achieve freedom of choice under their own terms.
With your choice, will they experience not only heinous genocide, but find their new found freedoms replaced with Islamic law? Only time will tell. But your learning curve risks the lives and futures of the Iraqis. And perhaps ourselves as well.
So if I were you, TP, I'd remember your vehemence here when a reality arrives that doesn't fit into your neatly packaged sound byte education.
MataHarley
· 1 year ago
So sorry I forgot to "un" bold, group.
Jamie
· 1 year ago
Tim, it sounds to me as if you're worrying about a war that ended a long time ago, or perhaps a bad song that ended a long time ago. (Sing it with me: "N-n-n-n-nineteen. Nineteen.") US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan tend to be a good bit older (average around 30 I believe), and none were drafted, so it's hard to argue that they're there because they were (a) enslaved by The Man or (b) too youthfully stupid to know better.
But more to the point: tell me in what way we "failed," unless we actually close the book here, at this moment. We unseated a brutal dictator whose policies and actions cost thousands of his own citizens' lives every year for two decades. We did this with minimal loss of life, both on our side and on our enemies'. We effected and continue to effect the most humane warfighting and "occupation" the world has ever seen, with a concern for civilian lives unmatched in history. We supported the founding and ratification of the most (classically) liberal government and constitution in the Middle East - a government that is still divided but is also still slogging away, not giving up and returning to basic tribalism, in spite of its leaders' having become targets for assassination by reactionary thugs. We have trained and are training a cadre of security and military forces who can do what our military can do - fight effectively and strictly according to orders, including orders to cease and desist.
Most importantly, only by staying in Iraq, and only through the determination of Bush and those who agree with him to keep on staying in Iraq until the job is all the way done, have we begun to repair our paper-tiger, weak-horse reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere. (Does nobody but me remember Qaddafy?) Why are you so anxious to throw that away? Or do you think it's unimportant? So that, instead of "our 19 and 20 year olds" in the military's being potential temporary targets for those reactionary thugs, it can be our 19- and 20-year-olds, or 50- and 51- year-olds, or 5- and 6-year-olds who can be their targets for the forseeable future, in schools (remember Beslan?), on cruise ships (remember the Achille Lauro?), and in office buildings (for God's sake, remember 9/11?)?
No (she says disgustedly), I'm not saying Iraq was "behind" 9/11. But that "weak horse" reputation of ours certainly got a lot of Americans killed over the years, didn't it?
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Shouldn't you be down at Ground Zero in NYC helping Buford Holly fill potholes?
" With all the talk of how darn successful the surge is, haven't you noticed the publics' mood has not changed one bit? They still want us out."
First of all, please support your allegation that the majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq. I couldn't find any polls that even asked that question.
And the only recent poll about the surfe I found was one done last week by the NY Times, which showed that the percentage of Americans who say the surge has nade things better in Iraq has steadliy risen since September of 2007. At that time it was 30%, now it's 40%.
At the same time, in September 51% of Americans said the surge was not having any impact. That number has tumbled almost 20 points since then.
.http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
Au contraire - the most dangerous thing in this country is ignorance like your that is still literate.
red
· 1 year ago
Very poorly written. Your inability to think clearly obviously leads you to your political positions.
All Comments
The move-on.org crowd has redeployed to Okinawa.
The left have been wrong on just about everything to do with Iraq and the War on Terror.
What foundation will they be able to stand on in 08' that will convince the American people
that they know the right course all of a sudden.
Obama was not even in the position to have to make a decision or vote on the Iraq war that he brags so much about being against.,maybe he should start to brag about being right about Vietnam also since he was not in a position to vote then either.
When he was in a position to make a real decision(the surge)he got it completely wrong. Then
advocated sending troops into Pakistan,thus starting a war with a nuclear armed country with our
"broken" army that he says can't control the violence in Baghdad,but is supposed to be able to
take on over 20 million troops/&Al-Qaeda in the Pakistani Mountains.
Tell me Obama, if you start a war with Pakistan to go after Osama and he ends up in Somalia or
Iran,will your left wing friends call you a liar,war monger,and do everything possible to undercut you while our men and women are fighting on the front lines?
Let the move-on crowd continue to try and micro-mange this war with their activists and friends up on the hill.If Hillary and Obama are an example of their "plan",then I hope they have a lot better
line than"The surge worked because we have been yelling surrender for the past four years"
Petraeus sunk the Reid/Pelosi ship of fools in September and he will do it again in March.
Idiots. Don't they understand that A) we're winning in Iraq and B) the American people are aware of the fact that Iraq's security situation has improved dramatically thanks in direct part to the surge and our change in strategy?
Please, by all means let the Democrats continue to draw attention to their failure to do anything meaningful in a year, to their failure to sabotage us in Iraq, and to their failure to do anything about the economy they seem to be so worried about.
Now that Bush (at 32%, still twice as popular as the Congressional Dems at 12%) has the Dems on the ropes, they are pleading for him to let up so they can backstab our troops and allies in Iraq.
As I have said on multiple occasions, can we consider the Dems traitors to the United States now?
I know, fanciful daydreaming... sigh. This BDS is seriously going to hurt us all in the long run.
It is much more reasonable to stay and help a young and shaky democracy in Iraq than mature ones in Europe.
One wonders what they will rally around come 2009? Besides of course the federal trough.
Isn't that, in fact, the point of the requirement of the Senate to approve treaties?
It will take years of training and assistance to enable them to develop skill sets and purchase weapons from the production lines of the world to even enable them a defensive capability against neighboring states who may have hostile intentions.
Clearly this would always have been the case as a simple course of action.
I mean, no need to sugarcoat it, or pretend they are anything else!
The Truth Hurts!
But don't you dare question their patriotism.
That argument has been made moot, or nearly so, by our success in routing AQI, gaining the allegiance of the local clan leaders, and the slow but undeniable political progress being made. But to the hard Left, Iraq as a place and a tangible situation was long ago replaced with Iraq the symbol. They're not interested in whether Iraq is improving or whether there are valid reasons to maintain a presence there on a long-term basis. They want ACTION against Iraq simply because Iraq has been a major focus of their anger, and without that anger to nurse, the Left has nothing to offer in terms of policy.
It is a truly scary thing that the Democrat front-runners are allowing this hard Left tantrum-throwing to guide their positions on a matter that is important to America's national defense. It is equally frightening that this doesn't seem to bother (or even register with) such a large segment of the population.
Since their social agenda doesn't, I expect this effort to get 0% support from the electorate on our side of the aisle.
Given the Obama spokesman's statement, my guess is that either Obama (or the spokesman) does not understand the Constitutional basis for a treaty. Bush can't make any treaties with the Iraqi government without the advice and consent of the Senate. Since Obama isn't a Senator, he in essence is frozen out of any role in treaties or agreements.
My little Obama is all grown up -- he's a junior Senator, for crying out loud! OK, I take it back -- he could indeed obstruct any treaty.
I can see his epitaph now -- The Great Obstructer.
As for your basic hypothesis though, if their arguments are based on historical ignorance, then you're right. There may not be a cynical motivation. However, if it's current willful ignorance due to hatred of the current administration (which I believe is a part of it), then it is indeed cynicism.
We all saw what happened in the aftermath of that war, in Vietnam and Cambodia, when the Left in America essentially won. It is not diffucult to see that there will be an "aftermath" in Iraq, and it will not be difficult to imagine that it will be directly compared to the aftermath of that very war it has so assiduously been compared to virtually this whole decade.
And how do you think the two "aftermaths" will stack up against each other? And what do you think will happen when the Vietnam war, which is to the modern left what the crucifixion of Christ is to a Christian, is seen by all and so obviously in this new and horrific light?
Interesting times indeed.
How about Korea? Do you think South Korea would be as stable, peaceful and prosperous today if we had withdrawn our troops immediately after the end of hostilities in 1953? Why do you think we still have soldiers there?
Our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines still cause some instability in Korea, Okinawa, and other places where they are stationed. Does that mean we should immediately pull them out? What do you think would happen if we did?
I find it difficult to believe that you honestly believe Iraq would be a better place if we withdraw all of our forces. I also find it incredulous that you have such sympathy for the difficulties our forces face in Iraq when others in your camp express no such concern for our troops in other duty stations around the world. Rather, I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the only reason that you want our troops to redeploy home is that you cannot stand the idea of Bush being successful in Iraq.
Beyond maintaining a peaceful and stable Iraq, there is another good reason for working out a long-term mutual defense treaty with Iraq--AhmaNutJob immediately to the east. If the Iranian nuclear program (the real one, not the one described by the dreamers who wrote the NIE) gets too far along, an American military presence on Iran's western (Iraq) and eastern (Afghanistan) borders could be a reasonable long-term deterrent. (Containment, anyone?) If an Iranian nuclear weapon had to be "taken out" by force, it's a lot easier to launch the attacks from Iraq than from Okinawa, besides, our planes would burn less fuel and create less global warming.
http://www.nysun.com/article/69189
On another national security issue, there have been reports that Senator Barack Obama's brother is in Kenya, allied with opposition leader Raila Odinga, who wants to establish Sharia law in Kenya, and claims to be Obama's cousin. Do we really want a President who says he wants to invade Pakistan in order to kill Bin Laden, while his family is fighting for radical Islamists in Kenya? If Obama wins the Dem nomination, this information needs to be made public, so voters know what Obama means by searching for his father... Sounds rather dangerous for America!
I don't know a great deal about this subject but I don't think status of forces and related agreements need congressional approval and it's unlikely this crowd could muster enough votes to get some anti-whatever Bush wants to do through Congress anyway (this Congress? please. It's an election year). So they'll spend more millions. And fail.
Okey dokey then.
The unhinged leftists in the democrat party, who represent probably fifty percent or more of their base wanted to withdraw at all costs, however, once victory seems to be within reach, their leaders instead of congratulating Bush on the change in strategy and success still live in the past (which most dems seem to do, always longing to go back to the 1960s like one endless LSD flashback) instead of the present. Indeed, the dems are pretty ironic, because they falsely claim that the Bush Administration ignores the facts on the ground in the name of ideology, whereas it is the dem party which has been driven by its tin foil ideology since the infamous Rockefeller Memo of 2003. (Indeed, it has now been disclosed in the newly released documents from the Clinton Library, that this same Rockefeller enlisted the Clinton Administration in 92-93 to aggregate an enemies list of those opposed to what even the Clinton Administation called internally, the most unprecedented takeover of private industry in US History, and to smear these critics and to plant stories against HillaryCare in friendly media).
I say a prayer of thanks to the Bush Administration for their staunch support of our troops and our allies and the dems threaten all our alliances with their cut and run strategies.
What foreign countries would ever trust the US again, in the next forty years, to come to their aid, if the demoncrats succeed in their obscene cut and run surrender strategy? It would be Vietnam Syndrome to the nth power.
Can anybody praising surge define exactly what they mean by "winning." Does "win" mean we have a pro-U.S. government successfully running Baghdad without American military assistance? Or does "winning" mean the U.S. stays in Iraq until 2018 or 2025 or 2085 or longer? Or does "winning" mean the Iraqis accomplish some form of lasting "reconciliation" among the various political, tribal, religious, ethnic, and class factions? Or does "winning" simply mean that more Iraqis die in the fighting than Americans? What exactly has the United State accomplished in Iraq? In other words, I wonder what Captain think the U.S. has gotten for all of those taxpayer billions and American lives thrown at that country.
Thank you, at least, at the ATTEMPT to answer politely.
Not the thing we can claim about the other answer I received below from non-liberal fascist
To address your questions...what have we accomplished in Iraq? What have we gained for the billions spent and thousands of lives lost? I am certain that if you put your thinking cap on you could answer those questions yourself. You, however, appear more interested in defaming the current occupant of the White House instead of addressing U.S. foreign policy. You, or at least most others of your ilk would rather see the U.S. fail in Iraq so that the President Bush does not appear successful.
For those of us who truly love this country, such views are repugnant. Though I was hardly a fan of Clinton, I could certainly discuss in a rational manner his foreign policy successes and failures. Why can you not discuss Bush's foreign policy in a rational manner?
I believe Dante reserved a special place in hell for those who betray their benefactors. Since the left, and the other allies of AQ in the USA (the media and the democratic party) have decided to commit at least sedition and possibly treason against this country (still safe after 6+ years from someone determined to obliterate us - AQ has publicly said so) there has to have been a giant movement in hell to prepare for the influx of those who deserve the lowest reaches of horror.
Have fun - you'll need a sense of humor when you chat with lucifer.
Since America's presence in Iraq is a source of the instability, Bush is trying to lock in failure and make it possible for Americans to die in Iraq indefinitely. If you share Bush's defeatist attitude -- his desire to make Iraq permanently unstable and guarantee America's defeat -- then this is fine; those of us who don't want an American defeat tend to feel differently.
You guys are so lightweight as to be transparent.
First you got caught lying about our 'defeat'
Now your hack candidates actually ahve the chutzpah to claim that the surge is working - only becuase of their efforts.
Now you regurgitate an incomprehensibel internally conflicted pile of used cow food and call *that* a reason to abandon Iraq.
History will spit on you tools.
To wit: "Iraq at this point is hideously unstable.." For example?
"there has been no actual political progress" None? For example? What would you define as "political progress"?
"the de-Ba'athification legislation conservatives were crowing about was actually opposed by the people it was supposedly intended to help" Evidence? Says who?
""bottom-up reconciliation" is inherently a failure of political progress, since it consists of us funding and training armies against the Iraqi "government" Huh? The tribes are uniting against the goverment? Evidence? A peculiar judgment call (opinion) since the tribal reconciliations have led to joint efforts to rid the villages and provinces of subversives intent on destabilizing the communities.
"Since America's presence in Iraq is a source of the instability " Who is making that claim? Why has the Iraqi government continued to seek our assistance then? Why are our troops actually living among Iraqis in their communities and forming alliances with these populations as part of the successful counterinsurgency tactic then?
"Bush is trying to lock in failure " Evidence? Lock? Is this a strategy to assure that President Bush will be president for life? Where are you getting your information that the efforts are a downward spiral of "failure"? What merit would there be to perpetuate failure?
What intruigues me is what is your definition of "Anerican defeat".
What I find pathetic is that you offer impassioned rhetoric without substance.
How about Korea? Do you think South Korea would be as stable, peaceful and prosperous today if we had withdrawn our troops immediately after the end of hostilities in 1953? Why do you think we still have soldiers there?
Our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines still cause some instability in Korea, Okinawa, and other places where they are stationed. Does that mean we should immediately pull them out? What do you think would happen if we did?
I find it difficult to believe that you honestly believe Iraq would be a better place if we withdraw all of our forces. I also find it incredulous that you have such sympathy for the difficulties our forces face in Iraq when others in your camp express no such concern for our troops in other duty stations around the world. Rather, I think that if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the only reason that you want our troops to redeploy home is that you cannot stand the idea of Bush being successful in Iraq.
But what the carnsarn hell do you think is going on there now? There's killings there now, it's juts not as MUCH killing and chaos now.
If we leave there will be chaos. That's a fact. And it's alos a fact our 19 and 20 year olds will not be there to get their arms blown off or their face burnt off.
We failed. The war was lost 3 years ago. The American people know this. With all the talk of how darn successful the surge is, haven't you noticed the publics' mood has not changed one bit? They still want us out.
And what happens this Spring when troop numbers return to 'pre0surge' levels? Do you think without a strong or even organized Iraqi Government the Sunnis the Shiites, the Jurds and the baathists and Al Queda are suddenly going to play nice?
I think the most dangerous threat to our great country is rightwingers believing their own propaganda.
No one emphatically knows whether Saddam would have provided bioweaponry, or assisted the global Islamic jihad movement in getting nuke technology and weaponry on the black market ,had he not been removed. But he had the power, money and motivation to do so. His penchant for acquiring proscribed weaponry after 1998 is documented on the UNMOVIC site. His willingness to deal on the black market for his contraban was documented by the Oil for Food corruption scandal.
The point that most "anti-free-Iraq" types miss is that the problem is "state-less". Leaving one country will do nothing to appease the global Islamic jihad movement. They came because the evil infidel Satan (that would be Clinton at that time) was occupying Arab lands (Saudi), and because of our sanctions on Iraq ... just two of the many named reasons for jihad in the World Islamic Front statement of 1998.
Odd, don't you think, that they took pains to include Saddam as a reason for their jihad? Read more on historic regime documents found (i.e. Both in One Trench) and you will discover there was a convenient tit for tat between Saddam and militant Islam.. just as there is in every Muslim country in existence. No surprise. Nothing unusual.
Redeployment will not appease militant Islam. Nothing short of wiping out every western presence ... from western embassies to MickeyD's... from lands they claim for Islam will please them. Then how long do you think it will take for them to want to convert the rest? We will have demonstrated our willingness - nay, weakness - by fleeing. This enemy scoffs at weakness... and takes advantage.
Thus if you wish to base your analyses of foreign policy on the opinions of the so-called "majority" (more like a 52-48 split really) of Americans... the same who are led to the trough by the clueless-to-strategy-and-history media... then I for one am glad you have no power over our national security.
Sad reality - until you've done it "your" way, you will never realize how totally wrong, you are, IMHO. There may be a Dem CIC come 2009. All DNC wannabees said they will deny Iraq's request for further assistance because they want to appease those like yourself.
What happens in Iraq after we leave can then be on your shoulders. Our current way, we've been there because the Iraqis wanted a chance to make it work, not abandonment. If not measuring up to your standards of success (which should be more aptly applied to our own Congress and our own violent society), we have at least done our best to help Iraq achieve freedom of choice under their own terms.
With your choice, will they experience not only heinous genocide, but find their new found freedoms replaced with Islamic law? Only time will tell. But your learning curve risks the lives and futures of the Iraqis. And perhaps ourselves as well.
So if I were you, TP, I'd remember your vehemence here when a reality arrives that doesn't fit into your neatly packaged sound byte education.
But more to the point: tell me in what way we "failed," unless we actually close the book here, at this moment. We unseated a brutal dictator whose policies and actions cost thousands of his own citizens' lives every year for two decades. We did this with minimal loss of life, both on our side and on our enemies'. We effected and continue to effect the most humane warfighting and "occupation" the world has ever seen, with a concern for civilian lives unmatched in history. We supported the founding and ratification of the most (classically) liberal government and constitution in the Middle East - a government that is still divided but is also still slogging away, not giving up and returning to basic tribalism, in spite of its leaders' having become targets for assassination by reactionary thugs. We have trained and are training a cadre of security and military forces who can do what our military can do - fight effectively and strictly according to orders, including orders to cease and desist.
Most importantly, only by staying in Iraq, and only through the determination of Bush and those who agree with him to keep on staying in Iraq until the job is all the way done, have we begun to repair our paper-tiger, weak-horse reputation in the Middle East and elsewhere. (Does nobody but me remember Qaddafy?) Why are you so anxious to throw that away? Or do you think it's unimportant? So that, instead of "our 19 and 20 year olds" in the military's being potential temporary targets for those reactionary thugs, it can be our 19- and 20-year-olds, or 50- and 51- year-olds, or 5- and 6-year-olds who can be their targets for the forseeable future, in schools (remember Beslan?), on cruise ships (remember the Achille Lauro?), and in office buildings (for God's sake, remember 9/11?)?
No (she says disgustedly), I'm not saying Iraq was "behind" 9/11. But that "weak horse" reputation of ours certainly got a lot of Americans killed over the years, didn't it?
" With all the talk of how darn successful the surge is, haven't you noticed the publics' mood has not changed one bit? They still want us out."
First of all, please support your allegation that the majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq. I couldn't find any polls that even asked that question.
And the only recent poll about the surfe I found was one done last week by the NY Times, which showed that the percentage of Americans who say the surge has nade things better in Iraq has steadliy risen since September of 2007. At that time it was 30%, now it's 40%.
At the same time, in September 51% of Americans said the surge was not having any impact. That number has tumbled almost 20 points since then.
.http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm