Harry Reid is a corrupt pathetic land hustler and is a poor excuse for an American Senator.

He should paint a big RED L on his forehead for leftist loser

I'd invite any of those of you who are supportive of Bush's not-so-excellent-adventure in Iraq to cite a benchmark - any benchmark - that shows we are any closer to the day when we can claim victory and pull our troops out.

Every six months or so for the past three years, Bush and company changes the chairs, names some new commanders, comes up with a highfaluting sounding strategy (clear and hold, surge, etc.). it's long past time for us to say to him that he's screwed things up long enough, he's wasted too many American lives, so he doesn't get any more cracks, and he ought to pull the troops out of danger and wait for somebody competent to come along in another year and a half (and yes, even a Democrat couldn't screw the pooch worse than Bush has done).

No surprise here, probably was frothing at the mouth at all the deaths in Bagdag this week, and couldn't wait to proclaim his already prepared statement. What a dumbass.

So Steve,
What do you say about all the peoople who will be slaughtered if we leave? "Sorry about your Luck"

Before Harry Reid proclaims the surge is a failure, maybe he should wait until it's in full swing for a while.

Gee Kim, it wasn't so long ago (15 days exactly) that you wrote ABC News: the Surge is Working. Now, you're asking for more time before we make a judgment?

Since then the terrorists have attacked the Iraqi Parliament building, blown up an important bridge in central Baghdad, and staged devastating mass casualty attacks in Sadr City marketplaces and other places around Baghdad. The terrorists have studied the tactics of the surge, adapted to them, and the carnage has resumed its usual pace.

Reid is spot on, the surge isn't working by any stretch of the imagination and it will never work because there isn't a military solution to Iraq's civil war. The only thing that will work is a political reconciliation between the country's warring factions and there's been zero progress on that as Iraq's dysfunctional political parties, militias and tribes continue their incessant bickering and back-biting as their country slides into all-out civil war.

Mr. Reid, I'd like to ask a follow up question if I may. Do you feel the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs are also lost? They have been going on longer and people are also losing their lives prematurely due to the lack of success of the current policies.

Kim: "maybe he should wait until it's in full swing for a while."

Kim Preistap on March 13, 2007:

The Iraq Surge is Working

I'm getting to this a couple of days late. Robert Kagan writing at the Washington Post, has a great piece in which he states the surge is succeeding:

So now we can see that over a month you'd decided (see your headline -- The Iraq Surge is Working -- that the surge had gone on long enough for you to declare it's working -- but a month later - with death tolls mounting and hard evidence that the violence IS NOT decreasing -- you're saying it hasn't been long enough.

That's an amazing bit of asshattery on your part there, Kim.

spypeach: yup. cold as it might be, I don't think American lives ought to be wasted (yes, wasted) trying to keep the Iraqis from killing one another. I just don't care enough for them, innocent though some of them may be, to have Americans die trying to keep them alive. The American military is supposed to keep us safe, not the poor people of the world, and it is a heck of a stretch (not that some of you won't try) to claim that we're actually better off because of our being in Iraq than if we weren't.

BTW, I was all in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Hussein and finding out once and for all what was going on with the WMDs... and then getting out and leaving the place to the Iraqis to figure out. It's the nation-building, the silly hope that we can instill western values in the cesspool of a region, this is where Bush fell down big time.

DaveD: no, the reason we keep fighting the War on Drugs and on Poverty is because in those two cases, it is American lives we're looking to improve... and because we (for some reason) think America is better off fighting those 'wars' than if we weren't. It's all about who benefits from the expenditure of American lives and money. Save an American, I'm all for it. Save an Iraqi... a Bosnian.. a Kosovite (?)... a Sudanese... I'll give money, but no lives. They just ain't worth it.

Kim,

Is there some way you can get video of Bush talking about the war and the surge today? I saw him live a few hours ago and he was excellent.

I'm not sure what the venue was, it looked like some sort of town hall meeting.

Right on Rightwingsparkle!

Do you think Bush will mention this?

Nationwide, the number of people killed or found dead today [Wednesday] was 233, which equaled the highest daily death toll since The Associated Press began keeping records in May 2005.

Yup! The good news just keeps pouring in from Iraq...

I have always supported the president when it comes to the war in Iraq. But he has failed to stop Iran, Syria, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia to name a few from "allowing" Jihadist to enter Iraq with impunity. This has become a political war and it's politics from both sides that has prevented our military from winning this war by tying their hands. If we pull out now there will be a slaughter ( the Kurds know this from Bush 1 ) and if we stay in the current capacity it will continue to be a war of attrition. Bush has failed to rectify his mistakes and Harry Reid is a coward for claiming defeat.

larkin,

Do you really think this war is about "good news?" You guys don't seem to get the fact that these "death tolls" are being created by the monsters we fight. Go check out how many died in WWII and tell me that none of that was worth stopping Hitler.

You guys are so consumed with hating Bush that you forget who hates us and wants us dead.

Do you not honestly think that if we pulled out of Iraq today that the enemy would not follow us back here?

He will. Of that I can assure you.

War is terrible. But not fighting this darkness would be the biggest mistake we could ever make.

The fact that the surge IS working doesn't mean it has been fully implemented, of course. The full complement of extra troops won't be in place until late May or early June. The early successes have been due more to the change in tactics and ROE and the change in attitude from the Iraqi government than to actual increased numbers.

Now, the leftists know this, or should if they cared enough to look. Instead, their attempts to lie about it and smear Kim demonstrate that they aren't interested either in success in Iraq, American interests, or the truth.

Larkin:I note that you admit that our opponents in Iraq are terrorists.You also want to stop fighting them and run away.So once we flee Iraq and an Iranian-backed Islamist dictatorship takes over resulting in a vastly better financed and much better armed Al-Queda with secure bases in both Iran and Iraq-what do you do then? I know the real answer-blame everything on Bush-but perhaps you can come up with something that sounds better? Can't you?

"BTW, I was all in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Hussein and finding out once and for all what was going on with the WMDs... and then getting out and leaving the place to the Iraqis to figure out. It's the nation-building, the silly hope that we can instill western values in the cesspool of a region, this is where Bush fell down big time."

The most pathetic and assenine comment of all time. You don't go incurr the costs in life and resources to solve a problem only to then allow it to become a bigger problem. Just dumb.

Larkin, there's something wrong with a supposed American gloating about the deaths of 150+ people to score political points. Not that it's surprising anymore, but still wrong.

The level of human carnage in Iraq is simply unacceptable where I'd certainly like to see the new security measures work, but clearly they are not. Yesterday's 198 killed and 240 wounded in 6 major suicide bomber attacks and today's new violence all make the Virginia Tech incident look like nothing special by comparison.

The U.N. currently has 83,000 soldiers in 15 hostile world areas right now including Lebanon where a nervous peace seems to be holding. Maybe the U.S. should consider a proposal to have U.N., NATO or even regional Arab forces police Iraq as nothing that the U.S. seems to be doing works for more than a few days until the insurgents figure a way to defeat those new security measures. Someone has to police Iraq and control the killing of civilians so maybe handing the situation over to some other force might be an alternative as maybe the U.S. has become too polarizing of a force to effectively police Iraq as the conflict with Iran and the U.S. only draws fire.

The Democrats who want to justify an American withdrawal from Iraq are just as wrong as the White House going with the current policies that aren't working either. It's time to consider something new such as U.N., NATO or regional Arab forces to take over security in Iraq.

Note to everyone, including Reid:

It's not a war.

jp2 is actually (stopped clock) right.

It's not a war. "Our side" isn't taking it seriously enough.

[psst, go look up "jihad" and "dar al-Harb" and tell me the OTHER guys don't think this is a war]

Reid has proven that he is unfit to be a leader.

Conservatives fight terrorism, liberals fight conservatives.............

steve sturm:The US military keeps us safe by fighting and killing our enemies OUTSIDE of the United States not waiting until they come here to kill us.When our enemies are able to do that it is generally regarded as fauilure-e.g. Pearl Harbor and 9/11.Yeah-I'll say we are better off fighting Iraq than not.You assume the alternative doesn't involve US troops fighting and dying somewhere and US taxpayers not paying for a war.I do not make that assumption.Al-Queda came looking for us, remember? Why do you think they would stop if we fled Iraq or had left Saddam in power? The main difference would be that in both cases our enemies would be vastly stronger.

If anyone was actually paying attention, General Petraeus stated, during his Congressional testimony I believe, that we should know whether the surge will work by the end of the summer.

For those who are 'calendar challenged', it's still not the end of the summer.

Kim,

The "surge" is not much of a surge anyway, so it's good money after bad. Wasn't meant to "work".

If only Bush would accomadate Sistani, who by all accounts controls the Shiites in Iraq (Al-Sadr calls him "boss"), we can get this baby wrapped up.

Give the Shiites their own zone to guard against their fellow Shiite Persians, which gives the Sunnis a window of opportunity to get their act together.

But getting blasted by Sunni insurgents while maneuveuring against Shiites because we want to harass Iran while Iraq is still a basketcase, is INSANE.

(And yes, we're taking hits from Shiites now. They're fighting back at US. It wasn't always that way.)

SO: Is Bush a Democrat Manchurian Candidate? Sent to bury the GOP?

Larkin, It's disturbing that you seem to take such glee from the deaths of Americans in armed conflict. We are fighting a war on terror. We are directly engaging Al Quada. Not on American soil, but in the middle east.

The source of the story is the AFP (Associated French Press). I went to the website and could not find any related story.

Doesn't anyone on this site check out the stories before they run with it?

Here is another quote from the same story:
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

How could Reid say both the war is lost and war could be won?

to those criticizing my comment: I'm all for going after al qaeda and our enemies wherever they might be, including iraq (and especially including Iran). but most of what is going on there is not fighting al qaeda but rather is sitting in the middle of the civil war bush refuses to acknowledge. most of our losses are not from al qaeda but rather from sunnis and shiites who are mad at us for supposedly favoring the other side... and they're not coming to america to kill us, they're happy killing each other right where they are

brainy435; yeah, I like you too. remember we spent next to nothing in terms of money or men going into iraq. 90% of the losses have come from our sticking around. I have no problem with us pulling out and telling the iraqis to sort things out and, if they screw up by giving sanctuary to our enemies, that we'll come back and take them out just like we did to hussein and give another batch of iraqis a chance. with the money and men we have wasted over the past three years, we could do a flushing every two years or so for the next generation and still end up better than we are now... or where we will be when the next president shows up and (rightfully) throws in the towel.

"the surge will work by the end of the summer.

For those who are 'calendar challenged', it's still not the end of the summer.

Posted by: _Mike_"

Bushco's modus operandi is Procrastination.

What goal has ever been met?

(And the Baghdad elections/constitions should be credited to Sistani. Look it up. The guy's tried to be nice, but NOOOO! Attack the Shiites. Hence the close quarters "resistance" in the Green Zone presently.)

How could Reid say both the war is lost and war could be won?

How could Reid vote legislation and them condemn the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitutionality of the legislation ?

Bushco's modus operandi is Procrastination.

What goal has ever been met?

Here's what I actually said:
we should know whether the surge will work by the end of the summer.

What goal hasn't Petraeus met ?

What goal hasn't Petraeus met ?

He hasn't declared the war a loss. That's the only goal these people seem to have.

Why don't we digest Roves' statements (made yesterday) on the war:
"I wish the war were over," Rove said. "I wish the war never existed... History has given us a challenge."

and
On who is at fault for the Iraqi war
"I think it was Osama bin Laden's," Rove replied

www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17102685.htm

steve, your position is idiotic. There really isn't a good way to sugarcoat that. "Civil war" wasn't even mentioned until a year or so ago when the "insurgents" who are mostly coming from other countries started killing civilians instead of our soldiers. Which came after we killed the top al-quaida leader in Iraq.

Every terrorist we kill THERE, every weapons cache we find THERE makes us safer HERE. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

bryanD put down the bong-you're not making any sense

To take steve's idea futher, why don't we fall back and seize the oil fields. Not just Irag's but all of them (if they can't reform their house I don't see why we should continue funding our own destruction). We'd hold the proceeds of the oil sales for them in trust, to be disbursed when they reach certain benchmarks. After paying for our services, of course. Whenever they attempted to attack us, or they appeared to be developing the capacity to do so, we'd blitz in and eliminate the problem. Then we'd leave (if you break it you have to fix it my ass!). Sure, they'll hate us for the next five generations. But ultimately we'd be doing them a favor (and they're going to hate us publicly in any event).

What we need is a War Czar! Barring that, how about just a Commander in Chief?

brainy435: if all we were doing in iraq was going after terrorists, that would be great. in fact, I think we ought to be going after terrorists not just in Iraq but in Iran, Saudi Arabia and anywhere else we can find them. But 90% of our mission in Iraq is not devoted to seeking out and killing terrorists, but rather trying to protect the iraqis from killing one another. and that is the part of the war that is lost and which I object to any more American lives being wasted on.

as an analogy, I would have no problem sending US troops into Darfur if we thought terrorists were there and were planning attacks on us... but I don't support sending in troops to keep the people in Darfur from being killed by the crazies... no more than I supported getting involved in Bosnia or Kosovo. For me it's simple: terrorists, we go after, civil wars, we stay the heck out of.

Tom: remember "you break it, you fix it" was colin powell's attempt to keep Bush from invading. Other than Bush himself, Powell should bear a lot of responsibiliy for what is going on now. Yes, he was against invading, but had he simply done the respectable thing and resigned, we likely would have been out of there a long time ago.

What we need is a War Czar! Barring that, how about just a Commander in Chief?

What's telling is that not a single retired military figure wants that gig. Not one of them. They are smart enough to know that this fantasy 'czar' job was created with the sole purpose of casting the blame of Iraq's failures on one person, so Bush and Dick can skate away without having to feel responsible for their messes they made there.

And they approached some dyed in the wool republicans too.

I cannot listen to any dimmers or lefties ranting about the war in Iraq and on terrorism. They are afraid of Fox News, we can't expect them to stand up and take on terror. ww

"The war is lost."

Uh, no, Harry, the only thing that is lost, is your ability to make your party look like America loving adults. And men.

That is all gone. Lost.

Good luck with that.

...there isn't a military solution to Iraq's civil war.

Now that's funny. So if there is looting going on in New Orleans after the massive flooding from the failed levees (noticed i avoided saying Hurricane Katrina....oops DAM! or lack of dam), don't send in the National Guard to keep peace and restore order?

If there is not a military solution to Iraq's civil war, what is there? Send Nancy Pelosi to secure another fals peace declaration?

So once we flee Iraq and an Iranian-backed Islamist dictatorship takes over resulting in a vastly better financed and much better armed Al-Queda with secure bases in both Iran and Iraq-what do you do then?
Xennady

I highly doubt Iran (Shiite) and Al Qaeda (Sunni) are going to buddy up any time soon. In fact, Iran originally had aided us against Al Qaeda and the Taliban when we invaded Afghanistan, but then came the ol' Axis of Evil rhetoric. Our biggest enemies when it comes to Al Qaeda are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, we treat them with kid gloves because we're the Saudi's bitch when it comes to oil and Musharraf is ready to fall if we push too hard (and they've got nukes, so that makes it an even more delicate situation).

That's one of the biggest problems with the Administration, not clearly defining our enemies. After all, it's how we got into this mess in the first place.

And that is why we are all wild about Harry!

steve sturm-Pardon me but you are full of crap.Our mission Iraq is to strengthen the Iraqi government enough so that terrorists cannot take over that country and use it as a base against us.We are trying to prevent Iraqi from being killed as their deaths undermine support for that government whose survival is our primary goal.If we are not in Iraq we cannot go after terrorists there, period.I suspect that the frequent description of the fighting in Iraq as a "civil war" is a focus group tested term used to convince people who would otherwise support killing terrorists in Iraq-such as yourself-to endorse surrender.Al-Queda is using terrorism to in an attempt to destroy the elected Iraqi government and drive the US out of the Middle East.That is what we're fighting there, not a civil war.

"Here's what I actually said:
we should know whether the surge will work by the end of the summer.

What goal hasn't Petraeus met ?

Posted by: _Mike_"

Look closely at the flim flam this administration passes off as Goals: "Surge".

"Surge" isn't a goal. It's a Process. A euphemism for Escalation.

The escalation will be complete at the end of summer, but dinner STILL won't be ready. The completion of the surge is only the end of the Beginning.

The question is: the beginning of what?

xennady, was that grape or strawberry kool aid you had for breakfast this morning? Does it make you see pretty colors too?

Prediction: Procrastinator Bush will set another "goal" to let the COMPLETED Surge work. As if everybody's doing close order drill on the parade deck till the last "surged" troops arrive.

Visions of McClellan and the Army of the Potomac in 1861 is NOT the picture Bush should encourage.

I called his office and spoke to a female staff member. I was controlled and polite considering how mad I was at the time. She was rushing me to get off the phone and was very condecending. I told her how disappointed I was that the Senator would make such untimely and ill-informed remarks. I encourage all to call his office.

By the way the was quite a hold time.

sean nyc/aa No, I don't think the Iraqi Sunnis & Shiites will buddy up either-more likely the Sunnis would be ethnically cleansed by an Iranian backed Shiite Islamist government-which isn't any better for us.If Iran aided us it was only because they feared we would come for them next.I don't think they fear us now since they are arming and supporting the terrorists in Iraq.I agree with you about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being our enemies but unless you want open war with them I don't know of a better plan.Maybe one day we will be at war with them-and I'm sure it will all be because of George Bush

What we need is a War Czar! Barring that, how about just a Commander in Chief?

See? I would rate that as just sophistry. It's not really saying anything, just hoping for a response.
I can actually respect that though, you are dealing with people who you think are nitwits so poking them with sticks is fun to you.

I'll try to be cool with you, but.... pardon me if I poke you with a stick every now and then. I like to laugh too although I haven't decided if you are a nitwit.

I stopped even trying to find an honest debator as I got sick of dealing with lefties' smug, superior point-avoidance (see: Balloon Juice) so I've stopped really trying. I started just pointing and laughing. And then, somebody I thought was a friend attacked me in a very vicious, unhinged and cowardly fashion because I said, "I gotta disgree on xxx". So I've pretty much soured on finding honest people on the Intertubes.
Maybe it's time to dive back in.

xennedy: are we there fighting terrorists who we're afraid will come and attack america or is, as you put it, 'our primary goal' to prop up the iraqi government?

I think you're wrong. We are fighting in a civil war. I believe the vast majority of attacks and deaths are coming at the hands of iraqis going after one another because they hate each other and won't agree to share power... and not from what we pre-war would have called our real enemy, Al Qaeda. Sure, Al Qaeda is there, Iraq is what is called a 'target rich environment', but I believe they are a relatively minor problem in Iraq.

Please tell me why stopping the shiites from killing sunnis (or vice versa) because they don't like each other and who don't want to share power and whose only gripe with us is that they think we're favoring the other side is connected to our fighting al qaeda? let them kill each other, we don't have to get into the middle of that fight in order to have troops in iraq and going after real terrorists, whether they be in iraq or somewhere else.

oh and by the way, some 47 or so comments (less if you subtract mine) and not one has taken me up on my challenge to cite a benchmark that is indicative of progress.

"...support killing terrorists in Iraq...xennady"

Dude. Quit bogartin' the bong, dude.

If you'd quit callin' all the dudes "dude", dude, you might keep the dudes straight in yer head, dude.

Gimme a light...

average wizbang poster:That was a remarkably lame attempt at a response.You should call yourself the "below average wizbang poster"

Ha ha, I love it. The idiots here get upset at what Reid said, not the actual mess that Bush got us into.

Check. It's Bush's war, knuckledraggers, not Reids.

And Xennady, you're a funny parrot. You repeat verbatim the official govt line as if it were gospel truth. What happened to so called conservatives and their supposed disdain for trusting the federal govt?

But keep repeating the talking points. It makes you look, I dunno, so independant and free thinking....(snicker!)

See? I would rate that as just sophistry. It's not really saying anything, just hoping for a response.

I am a smartass, I don't deny that.

I can actually respect that though, you are dealing with people who you think are nitwits so poking them with sticks is fun to you.

Actually, I don't consider most commenters on this blog to be nitwits.

I'll try to be cool with you, but.... pardon me if I poke you with a stick every now and then.

If I really worried about that type of thing I wouldn't hang around blogs.

So I've pretty much soured on finding honest people on the Intertubes.

They are few and far between.

As far as my comment about the War Czar, that was a dig at Bush for trying to slough off his responsibilities rather than directed toward anyone here. I'm just being a smartass. Ignore me.

It's Bush's war, knuckledraggers, not Reids.

That Reid and almost every memeber in Congress voted for. And I am tired of that worn out and false statement anyway. it's not bush's war, it's our war because our soldier's are in harm's way.

oh and by the way, some 47 or so comments (less if you subtract mine) and not one has taken me up on my challenge to cite a benchmark that is indicative of progress.

Posted by: steve sturm at April 19, 2007 04:48 PM

How about this steve? http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html

A nice clear picture. Click on "Click Here To See Slide Show" and watch the progress over the past year. We are handing over more parts of Iraq to their government. This is progress, leftist denials from you and Harry Reid aside.

For this I blame GWB. He could and should have already arrested Reid. Pee loshi and gang for treason and tried them in a military court. Each has committed treason dozens of times with no penalty. Failure to enforce the laws of the land will be the end of this country.

With the hate for the country and the president coming from the entire democrat party, VT should have surprised no one. Cho's rants are the same ones we've been listening to from the democrats since 2000. Politicians simply use slime and slander, Cho picked up a gun. Cho killed 32, Reid killed hundreds with his words today. It would be no different if he went to Iraq and buddied up with his friends the terrorists and shot the people himself. Same end result, the people die but Reid keep ripping off the public for millions of dollars.

Check. It's Bush's war, knuckledraggers, not Reids.

Knuckledragger? Hmm, my how open-minded and independent thinking of you to generalize. It's...it's Imus-ain in nature.

steve sturm: Well, I think you are wrong and I dispute your statement of facts.Al-Qaeda continually sets off car bombs to incite Shiite-Sunni hatred and bring about a civil war.They also blew the Golden Mosque revired by Shiites.Now if a civil war was inevitable or underway why would al-Qaeda need to incite one? From what I've read Iran is arming and supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups.If Iran stopped,a lot of the terrorism would stop.You ask for benchmarks.If you read Instapundit you'll see stories frequently indicating progress-e.g. Sunni tribes in Al-Anbar turning against Al-Qaeda.Also I recall that the Iraqi parliament passed the oil revenue sharing plan.And don't forget the election- they are sharing power by the way.I fail to see how we could ever go after terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere if we flee Iraq now.Why would any government in the area cooperate with our anti-terrorist efforts? Why would they take any threat we made seriously?

Wow, crapiron, you really are stupid aren't you?

Each has committed treason dozens of times with no penalty.

Haha haha and then some more haha. Just because you don't like what they have said, doesn't make them fucking traitors, you dim bulb. And you say the left has BDS? Take a look in the mirror, you obviously have some serious hostility issues yourself.

Cho's rants are the same ones we've been listening to from the democrats since 2000.

Oh yea, there's pages of transcripts of democrats talking about sliting throats and getting impaled. Sure, whatever. You are too far gone at this point.

you're alot like Cho, just bitter you never got laid in college too.

steve strum:

You may also want to read up on these reports, too. There are actually three reports on the "surge" that began less than 3 months ago.

Quite lengthy and very detailed as to what's specfically being done on the ground.

Maybe Harry Reid should take the time to read (gasp!) them, too. (I'm probably asking too much there.)

below average wizbang poster:I repeat what you claim are government talking points because they are true.I know the truth doesn't mean anything to leftists but it does to me.And-as others have noted-it's our war-Even YOURS, too.

I repeat what you claim are government talking points because they are true

Dear Leader in His Infinite Glory and Wisdom thanks you for your unyielding, and unquestioning support.

If more red blooded Americans followed suit, we'd be at Wallyworld by now with Marty Moose.

below average wizbang poster:Typically pathetic of you to start right off with insults-because that's all you have.

Xennady:

No, I don't think the Iraqi Sunnis & Shiites will buddy up either-more likely the Sunnis would be ethnically cleansed by an Iranian backed Shiite Islamist government-which isn't any better for us.

So once we flee Iraq and an Iranian-backed Islamist dictatorship takes over resulting in a vastly better financed and much better armed Al-Queda with secure bases in both Iran and Iraq-what do you do then?

A bit of a contradiction from your original statement, don't ya think? It must be nice to simply spout random platitudes that sound tough, but some of us actually try to make sense.

If Iran aided us it was only because they feared we would come for them next.

That's certainly one possibility. Another might be that it was in their national self interest because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are their enemy. Remember, the whole Shiite/Sunni thing.

I don't think they fear us now since they are arming and supporting the terrorists in Iraq.

Now you're doing it again. Who are "the terrorists"? The Sunni insurgents, the foreign Al Qaeda fighters, the Baathists, the Kurdish peshmerga, the Shiite militias. Iran may very well be arming the last of those groups, but I highly doubt they would arm any of the former. [I of course am excepting arms they produce which may go to the black marker otherwise you could say we're arming all of these groups as well.]

I agree with you about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being our enemies but unless you want open war with them I don't know of a better plan.

I have one idea, granted it wouldn't be very popular: call for actual sacrifice from our population and find a way to use less oil. If this truly is WW3, the least we could do is give up our SUVs, don't you think?
And as far as Pakistan goes, that is definitely tougher. But I can tell you that getting stuck in Iraq took away a lot of options we might have had back in 2002 when we were still focused in Afghanistan.

Maybe one day we will be at war with them-and I'm sure it will all be because of George Bush

Not entirely his fault, but he certainly hasn't helped much.

below average wizbang poster:You ARE pathetic,aren't you? You can't even come up with a good insult.Lame.

For all you helmet heads , the Iraqi's themselves say "THERE IS NO CIVIL WAR". You dumb democrats will deep troat every lie your masters put forth with ease yet all begin to gag when you see someone approaching with the truth in their hands.

"Sure, they'll hate us for the next five generations. But ultimately we'd be doing them a favor (and they're going to hate us publicly in any event)."

Democrats "hate us publicly". Exactly what side of us do you think you belong ?

The democrat leadership says there is a civil war in Iraq, the majority of Iraqi's tell the Dem leaders to F-OFF their is no civil war. Why don't the dem leadership just F-off?

They are too arrogant incompetant and stupid , the party with no foreign policy whatsoever. There is no difference between the democrat leadership , insurgence and foreign fighters , their goals are the same. What matters is which side you are on, their's or OURS?

Wow, now Rob in LA with no woman chimes in too.

So the Iraqis say there is no civil war? Really? Where did you hear/read that one?

So 170+ dead in baghdad yesterday was just some fluke I suppose.

Gotcha.

"avg wiz", perhaps if you studied history you might develop the ability to recognize what real civil wars look like.

While many toss about the phrase "civil war" pretty loosely, when you look at what real civil wars result in on a daily basis, Iraq is a "minnow" in the civil war category.

Do note that I'm not saying that Iraq could not become a full-fledged civil war, I'm just saying that it isn't one now.

Right now, it's the equivalent of our Kansas skirmishing during the Civil War era.

avg: "So 170+ dead in baghdad yesterday was just some fluke I suppose."

Compare that activity with what we saw in Vietnam, Korea, Russina Revolution, Spanish Civil War, etc.

Tell me, how does Iraq today compare to the above?

In what ways are situations analogous (in terms of casualties, mass movement of troops, actual combat, the taking and seizing of territory, etc.)

Do note that I'm not saying that Iraq could not become a full-fledged civil war, I'm just saying that it isn't one now.

Oh I see, just some angry punk kids trying to cause trouble.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

"Wow, now Rob in LA with no woman chimes in too."

Here is one of many reasons why voting should be a priveledge. Stupid children who never grow up.

"Where did you hear/read that one?"

Furhter proof he has his/her head up some democrats ass.

755 American Citizens killed every month at the hand of illegal aliens. Who has got who punk ass? You don't give a shit about anything because you don't shit about anything. It's understandable though , your a democrat. You follow right along and parrot with the rest of heard. Can I get MOO MOO!

The average democrat dummy rats himself out.

"Oh I see, just some angry punk kids trying to cause trouble."

It would be funny if it wasn't so true, right AWP?

sean nyc/aa Well, you failed to make any sense.You seem to put an remarkable amount of faith in the Shiite/Sunni divide.I do not.I don't see much difference in Shiite terrorists backed by Iran and Sunni terrorists backed by Saudi Arabia et al.They all want us dead.If your facile assumption that Al-Qaeda won't able to operate in Iraq after we depart is true,fine.But Hezbollah WILL operate there.And-pardon me-but I don't really give a fuck about the ethnic groups of Iraq or Iran's problems with their neighbors.Nor can I travel back in time to apply someone's imagined 20/20 hindsight.And if anything in the world is a platitude,the idea that if gave up our SUVs everything would be all better surely is.

If you look at death counts from other civil wars:

Peru's Shining Path Rebellion - 70,000
Lebanon (1979-1995) - 100,000
Nepal's Maoist Rebellion (1995-2006) - 13,000
Sri Lanka civil war (1983-present) - 68,000
Aceh rebellion (1976-2005) - 12,000
Ivory Coast civil war (2002) - 1,000
Uganda Lord's Resistance Army (1980-present) - 30,000
Nicaragua (1981-90) - 60,000

you can clearly conclude that Iraq with 50,000 deaths (conservative estimate) easily qualifies as a civil war. Wikipedia has this definition:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]

So the Iraqis say there is no civil war? Really? Where did you hear/read that one?

Well, maybe he read that a "civil war" popularly means two factions fighting each other for control of the government. Since there's really been very few attacks against the government itself (save for last week's Parliament attack in which AQI basically killed one of their own) what's happening in Iraq doesn't really qualify. The Sunni and Shia are commiting acts of sectarian genocide, but they have had little success in actually attacking the government (unless you want to count killing local politicians whom they don't care for, but I won't).

In short, you have NO idea what you're talking about. No surprise there...

Larkin,

OK, Lark, so why aren't Sunni attacking the Shia-controlled government; or, for that matter, attacking Kurds?

We always forget about the Kurds, who would happily cut both groups to pieces if they so desired...

What's your point Larkin ? If it's a civil war are we then automatically supposed to stay or go ?

I noticed you omitted the civil war in Bosnia / Kosovo. Any reason for that ?

Bwhahahahah...I enjoy the verbal ass kicking the libs get in here.

Reid has always been premature.

Just ask Mrs. Reid.

Xennady:

You seem to put an remarkable amount of faith in the Shiite/Sunni divide.I do not.

Well, it's been ongoing for about 1300 years, so there historical precedent for putting "faith" in it. Maybe if we had thought about that before the war we would have realized the potential for disaster we were about to create. Oh wait, some people did say that but they were ignored.

I don't see much difference in Shiite terrorists backed by Iran and Sunni terrorists backed by Saudi Arabia et al.They all want us dead.

This is probably the truest thing you've said so far. But they also want each other dead. How's that old saying go, "Divide and conquer"? Might it not be smarter for us to pit them against each other rather than have them both aiming for us. The reasons for not doing this are 1) the tremendous carnage that would result (but apparently you don't care about this based on one of your later statements [bolded below]) and 2) we, and the rest of the world, are not prepared to live without access to the Middle East's petroleum.

If your facile assumption that Al-Qaeda won't able to operate in Iraq after we depart is true,fine.

Did I say that? I'm well aware that Al Qaeda will remain in Iraq if we leave. But they will have the Shiites to deal with, which they did not have to worry abou when they were tacitly supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But Hezbollah WILL operate there.

You're doing it again. The main Shiite faction in Iraq is the Mahdi army. They want control of the country and its oil reserves. Hezbollah is in southern Lebanon. Now, if we do leave, and if Sadr does take over, and if he's able to reasonably subdue the Kurds and the Sunnis, and he's able to tap Iraq's oil, then he might share some of the proceeds with Hezbollah like Iran does. But that's a lot of ifs and he would have his own country to rebuild. In other words, I don't see Hezbollah having much to do with Iraq.

And-pardon me-but I don't really give a fuck about the ethnic groups of Iraq or Iran's problems with their neighbors.

Then clearly you should not be bloviating on what to do with our Middle East policy.

Nor can I travel back in time to apply someone's imagined 20/20 hindsight.

Obviously, but some people had pretty good foresight on the issue, and, as I stated earlier, they were ignored. And here I do not blame just Republicans or Bush. Democrats are just as to blame for not having some balls and more forcefully questioning the motives for war. But we also must remember that about 1/2 of Democrats did vote against the war, so it's not like they were gung ho from the start.

And if anything in the world is a platitude,the idea that if gave up our SUVs everything would be all better surely is.

Did I say that would solve all our problems? No, I was just saying if this is the epic clash of civilizations as some claim it to be, there's a lot more we could do as a nation. Our dependence on oil is certainly not helping the situation and very little has been asked of the populace to address this, or to sacrifice to the cause in general. Please provide some examples if you have evidence otherwise.

"Run away! ... Run away!!!"

And now that this armchair general has thus declared the failure of our armed forces what's next? Defunding them?

"Whata maroon."

That quote and video is going to make a very powerful argument to elect Republicans in '08.

Peter: OK, Lark, so why aren't Sunni attacking the Shia-controlled government; or, for that matter, attacking Kurds? We always forget about the Kurds, who would happily cut both groups to pieces if they so desired...

The Sunnis aren't attacking the government? Over 5,000 Iraqi police and military have been killed in this conflict. They are symbols of the government and, as such, have been a primary target of the Sunni insurgents.

But don't forget, the presence of 150,000 US forces in the country masks the fundamental nature of the conflict. US forces pursue and combat Sunni insurgents (and Al Qaeda which is entirely Sunni) about 95% of the time. Very little of our firepower is ever trained on the Shiite militias. So what we are doing is essentially standing in for one side (the Shiites) of the conflict and doing most of the fighting for them.

As for the Kurds, if you really want to see the civil war spread to Kurdistan just try and drag the Kurds kicking and screaming back into a federal Iraq. We both know that's never going to happen and if we tried the Kurds would fight to the last man to prevent it. Their independence has been hard fought and they are not about to give it up.

Question for you: if it's okay for the Kurds to break away from Iraq why isn't it okay for the Sunnis? Why are you condemning the Sunnis to domination by the Shiite government while letting the Kurds out of the whole mess?

Mike: What's your point Larkin ? If it's a civil war are we then automatically supposed to stay or go ?

No, I'm simply pointing out that denying there is a civil war is just factually incorrect. It's perfectly okay to me if you have that position that US troops should stay in Iraq, but not if you deny the fundamental nature of the conflict there.

This discussion reminds me of how Rumsfeld kept denying there was an "insurgency" in late 2003. By denying the reality of Iraq's civil war all Bush has done is undermined the American people's confidence in him. People see what's going on and they understand it's a civil war; and they are baffled as to why the President can't see it. It makes you wonder what kind of information he's getting.

I noticed you omitted the civil war in Bosnia / Kosovo. Any reason for that ?

ah....no.

Bwhahahahah...I enjoy the verbal ass kicking the libs get in here.

...another insightful and thought-provoking post by Jo...

All this backlash against Harry Reid is extremely unwarranted. Anyone with a shred of common sense knows damn well that the war is lost and that it is not really possible to win in Iraq with our current military strategy. It amazes me that Republicans talk about how this is indicative of the Dems turning their backs on the troops. How about the fact that stubborn leaders here at home, most with no military experience, are the ones behind the notion to keep those soldiers fighting in a futile attempt to do, I don't even know what. Seriously, there are many people who need to wake the heck up. Inferring that the Iraq war is futile is simply speaking the truth. How much longer should we sit there like fish in a barrel?

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows damn well that the war is lost and that it is not really possible to win in Iraq with our current military strategy

b-b-b-b-but the preznit says we have to stay in Iraq forever without a real plan, or else....drum roll...them thar tarrists win.

This place is the last place you'll find a shred of common sense. They like 24 for gods sake.

Who cares about Jo. Is it even a woman?

The Sunnis aren't attacking the government? Over 5,000 Iraqi police and military have been killed in this conflict. They are symbols of the government and, as such, have been a primary target of the Sunni insurgents.

Hold up there, cowboy. Yes, police and IA forces, who represent the government, are squaring off with Sunni insurgents, Baathists, foreign insurgents and other thugs who are NOT recognized as being A PART of the government.

So if Crips and Bloods attack the police (or a policeman or woman) in So. Central, does that qualify as a "civil war"? No. So how is it different in Iraq? Because the casualty list is higher it's a "civil war"? Huh?

Very little of our firepower is ever trained on the Shiite militias. So what we are doing is essentially standing in for one side (the Shiites) of the conflict and doing most of the fighting for them.

Please go read ALL three Iraq Reports and tell me how the Shia militia is not being targeted. It simply is no longer true. Yes, it was once true that Maliki had let the Shia militas have their way, but no longer.

Question for you: if it's okay for the Kurds to break away from Iraq why isn't it okay for the Sunnis? Why are you condemning the Sunnis to domination by the Shiite government while letting the Kurds out of the whole mess?

It's not America's fault that the Sunni only make up 20% of the population. Maybe they need to fuck more, who knows. And why shouldn't the Sunni be condemned for the 30+ years of unmitigated horror they unleashed upon the country? They should thank their lucky stars we don't let the Shia cut them to pieces, too. And darn tootin' the Kurds get a pass, after the horrors they've endured and how we let them down time and again, the Kurds deserve to be let out of the mess. And they're prospering despite the stupidty of the Sunni and Shia help bent on annhilating each other.

And condemning the Sunni to "domination"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? That's like saying the U.S. government condemns blacks, Indians and Asians to "domination" because they're a minority. Sunni have been invited over and over to participate and have an equal say in the government as a part of the Reconcilation-in fact, Maliki just went to the Anabar providence and Ramadi as a part of the Reconciliation last week. Hell, a Sunni politician was killed in Parliament last week, too, remember. So how the heck are they being "dominated"? Because they don't get a slice of Iraq? Huh? That makes squawdoosh for sense, Lark.

The only way to win this war on terror is to give up on nation building. Whoever wins the civil war in Iraq will sell oil to us no matter.

If we continue to pursue the same policies that produced the terrorists they will just keep on coming. The more killing that takes place the more revenge builds. More suicide bombers signing up.

Maybe some of you neocon supporters should watch Jon Stewart on a regular basis. You might just learn what a fool your president is. His own words condemn him and you think Harry Reid is a problem? Heck, George can't even find a general willing to take the job of war "czar" so he can lay the blame on someone else for this fiasco. How do you spin this one? Tell me how......

The U.N. currently has 83,000 soldiers in 15 hostile world areas right now including Lebanon where a nervous peace seems to be holding. Maybe the U.S. should consider a proposal to have U.N., NATO or even regional Arab forces police Iraq as nothing that the U.S. seems to be doing works for more than a few days until the insurgents figure a way to defeat those new security measures.

Because the UN has such a sparkling record of police actions, I can see why you'd support it. Makes sense. Nothing goes wrong with the UN policing.

Also, why hasn't average been banned yet? It has yet to post anything worthwhile.
-=Mike

average wizbang poster:

Do you have anything constructive to say or facts to site, or are you just filled with cheap shots, overly clevery and overly used liberal catchphrases, cute, deragatory names for Republicans and pointless rhetoric.

(Psst, that's a rhetorical question.)

Do you have anything constructive to say or facts to site, or are you just filled with cheap shots, overly clevery and overly used liberal catchphrases, cute, deragatory names for Republicans and pointless rhetoric.

What was the middle part?

Peter F.

Bloods and Crips killing each other would not qualify as a civil war because there is no Governing structure, religious or civil rights, or other nation-wide social issues at stake. What you have in south central is gang warfare, the likes of which have been a part of urban life for centuries. Why don't you stop kissing Bush's ass and realize what 75% of your fellow Americans already have: This is the WORST fiasco our nation has ever been involved in. Spearheaded by the WORST agglomeration of leaders we've ever seen. Instead of ripping on average poster, take a look at your own analogies and face up to the fact that you and people like you have some weird complex wherein you don't grasp the simplicity of all of this. People like you amaze the hell out of me.

The U.N. currently has 83,000 soldiers in 15 hostile world areas right now

End U.N. Imperialism Now!

Bloods and Crips killing each other would not qualify as a civil war because there is no Governing structure, religious or civil rights, or other nation-wide social issues at stake.

I specifically said "attack the police (or a policeman or woman) in So. Central", not each other. Huge difference, bub.

So learn to read and then try to make a relevant point to the conversation, other than just spouting off.

This is the WORST fiasco our nation has ever been involved in.

What about Vietnam? I thought that was the worst.

Or was it our military buildup during the 80s?

Or was it Korea?

Or was it Gulf War 1?

Or was it "letting" 9/11 happen?

Or are we just randomly applying our righteous indignation and uttering the word "worst" because it lends some pseudo-sense of importance and urgency to your hapless point.

It is obvious that Va Tech is a hopeless case. We need to pull all US people out and redeploy to another university. The bloodshed and carnage show that we cannot possibly hope gain control. After years of US involvement in the administration of this university, it has become evident that the foreign students do not want our help.

The motives for starting this university were a lie. It is all about money for corporations. Higher education is just a buzz word for creating workers for corporations and of course corporate kingpins.

We now have written proof from Koreans that they do not want our education system and we should abide their wishes instead of imposing our will on them. We are losing this war. I support the students but we should not send any more students in harms way. The way to solve these problems is with diplomacy. De-fund the university now!

sean nyc/aa - "I have one idea, granted it wouldn't be very popular: call for actual sacrifice from our population and find a way to use less oil. If this truly is WW3, the least we could do is give up our SUVs, don't you think?"

That would NEVER work.

How do you think that Americans would get all the stuff they buy when they shop till they drop, home?

sean:As long as you can go back 1300 years to bloviate about the Shiite/Sunni divide why don't go back about 50 to when the various Iraqi factions got along pretty much without strife-even Jews.And if you admit Al-Qaeda will be in Iraq after we leave just what the hell was your point earlier claiming I contradicted myself? And what happened to the Sunni/Shiite divide? And the Mahdi army is the main Shiite faction? Really? This would be the same bunch whose leader fled to Iran and then called for a massive demonstration against the US-and got 15000 to turn up? What about Sistani? Doesn't he have a few followers? You display the same kind of wonkish attention to irrelevant details that led to inaction prior to the 9/11 attack.And if you aren't happy with the amount of sacrifice the war demands of the American people, take it up with those who lost family members in Iraq.

I wish we lived in a country where Harry Reid would be tried and hanged for his treason.

Declaring the war 'lost' gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

TREASON.

Filthy Harry Reid was probably the spoiled rich elitist kid in grade school who bribed the bully with his lunch money, then cried and crapped his pants when the bully beat his ass. You know, like the other left wing wimps here. Thank God for the real men and women in the country.

Statements like that are simply treasonous...go look up the definition of "treason" if you don't believe that. I guess any war that is difficult must be "lost".

Take a wrong turn on the way to Disney - "this vacation is LOST".

With people like him, Murtha and Pelosi around, who needs enemies??

Since we've lost, where does Gen Patreus go to surrender?

I can't wait to hear from all the real Americans on this site after Puddinhead George runs out the clock on his failed debacle in Iraq and leaves the mess for whichever Democrat is elected in 08 to clean up. Will their support be as unwavering for President Obama? I have no doubt they will stand solidly behind the Commander-in-Chief because to do anything less would be, well... un-American, right?

Actually, to show our patriotism, we'd call for his/her assassination.

You know, like your side has done, consistently, for years.
-=Mike

You guys really sound like a bunch of whining babies. No matter how much you wish it weren't the case, we've lost the war in Iraq. It's time to cut our losses and move on. Big, bad, magic America is capable of losing a war - in fact we already have. It's not the end of the world. We're still the same powerful country we always were. The war has long since been lost. Wipe up your tears and act like adults.

And he is a leader of this country, he sounds like a leader of France.

If he and the Democrats think our men and women are losing this thing, then give them the money and the means to win the damn thing.

A House divided cannot stand!!!!!!!!

Xennady:

As long as you can go back 1300 years to bloviate about the Shiite/Sunni divide why don't go back about 50 to when the various Iraqi factions got along pretty much without strife-even Jews.

Wait, they got along? What about Saddam brutalizing his own population and killing as many as 1-2 million Kurds and Shiites, the mass graves, the use of poison gas, the wars with his neighbors? Didn't these things actually happen, or were we just being duped?
And I don't know about how well Jews were treated. Weren't they called "dhimmis" (now being used as a derogatory term for Dems), that as long as they kept their head down and didn't upset the ruling order, they'd be allowed to live? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And if you admit Al-Qaeda will be in Iraq after we leave just what the hell was your point earlier claiming I contradicted myself? 3

You said Al Qaeda would have a strong hold in Iran, that is your contradiction, I'm sorry if in my earlier post also I bolded "and Iraq" which might have confused you. I will correct my bolding techniques. Quote: "So once we flee Iraq and an Iranian-backed Islamist dictatorship takes over resulting in a vastly better financed and much better armed Al-Queda with secure bases in both Iran and Iraq-what do you do then?"

And the Mahdi army is the main Shiite faction? Really?

They had six cabinet ministers who just resigned, the most of any group, and 30+ parliamentary seats, the largest bloc. Again, if you have evidence otherwise please present it.

This would be the same bunch whose leader fled to Iran and then called for a massive demonstration against the US-and got 15000 to turn up?

Reports are disputed on the numbers, ranging from 5000 to 50,000 or more. I don't and you don't know firsthand how many there were. Maybe it was hot, maybe they didn't want to make the trip from Baghdad to Najaf or vice versa, maybe people were worried about getting blown up, maybe they decided to stay home and build bombs. Again, I don't know. However, having the largest bloc in Parliament and the largest neighborhood in Baghdad called Sadr City is what leads me to believe this. Please enlighten me if you have information otherwise.

What about Sistani? Doesn't he have a few followers?

Yes. But I would say there's probably a lot of overlap between him and Sadr. And when push comes to shove, Sadr has shown he has (some) control of the Mahdi Army and the loyalty of Parliament/Cabinet members. Has Sistani shown any such displays of power? Again, I'm waiting for you to provide evidence supporting your positions.

You display the same kind of wonkish attention to irrelevant details that led to inaction prior to the 9/11 attack.

Inaction? We had a constant military presence and surveillance of Iraq. We conducted aerial bombardments. We had sanctions in place. Now you may argue that these measures were ineffective, but, for the most part, the war has shown they were not. Saddam did not have an active WMD program. There probably were terrorist training camps, but a lot of that is because we had weakened Saddam so significantly he did not have control of his own country. There was definitely corruption in Oil for Food, but there's also corruption now. That comes with the territory.

However, I realize you may be referring to inaction with respect to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Well, let me remind you, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Inaction in Afghanistan is an entirely separate issue and one we should rightly discuss. But that gets us back to the original problem, not clearly defining our enemies.

And if you aren't happy with the amount of sacrifice the war demands of the American people, take it up with those who lost family members in Iraq.

I am a family member of someone who has served in Iraq, but luckily not one who has lost their life. I'm well aware of what they sacrifice and the hardships it causes on their personal, social, academic, and/or professional lives. I'm also aware that it creates tremendous opportunity, but that opportunity is well-earned. My point is: they should not bear all the burden. There is more we can do as a nation. If you feel otherwise, I will simply state I profoundly disagree.

"the surge will work by the end of the summer." For those who are 'calendar challenged', it's still not the end of the summer.

Fine. Let's place bets, shall we? I say that we will get to the end of summer and the surge will not have worked, by anybody's definition. A permanent peace will not have been established in Baghdad, much less Iraq.

Any takers, any bets, any odds.

Well?

Al-Qaeda continually sets off car bombs to incite Shiite-Sunni hatred and bring about a civil war.They also blew the Golden Mosque revired by Shiites.Now if a civil war was inevitable or underway why would al-Qaeda need to incite one?

And who says that Sunnis have not set off car bombs? Name your non-Whitehouse source for this no-doubt accurate information.

(Quick: without Googling this, what sect does Osama bin Laden belong to?)

Oh, I forgot: that whole Sunni-Shia thing is "trivial pursuit."

God, I love neocons.

Let's just put Harry's comment into perspective. Would he ever say something like this in the middle an election?

Nope, didn't think so. God, I love liberals.

Fine. Let's place bets, shall we? I say that we will get to the end of summer and the surge will not have worked, by anybody's definition.

"Anybody's definition"? Like, say, yours?

Whoever said Baghdad Security Plan would halt ALL bombing and that Iraqis would run down Lollipop Lane with sunflowers in the hair? Not a soul.

IF attacks are significantly reduced has they had been prior to the carnage earlier this week, then what, is the BSP still not working by your definition? Exactly what is your definition of the BSP working? I wait with eager anticipation over that.

Oh, and this week's violence had ZERO to do with the Najaf "peace demonstration" (cough, cough..."troop rally"), now did it.

F-idiot.

YAAYYYY!!!! Al Qaeda has won! Yipppeee! The Islamo-nazis won Iraq! Horay! for the terrorists!

Sincerely,
Loyal American Leftists

Harry Reid is dead. No really, he is. That he has yet to die is inconsequential.

None of the current liberals (present company included) have the first clue about geo-political events, or military matters. So let me educate you, please... direct from a military intelligence office (S2) who has already BEEN in the Iraqi theater of operations.

WE NEVER INTENDED TO LEAVE IRAQ! 62 years after V-E Day we still have a whole armor corps based in Germany. Almost 61 years after WWII ended we are in Japan. 109 years after the end of the Spanish American War we still have a base in CUBA, Gittmo! We've been in Kuwait since Aug. 2nd, 1990! I can go on and on...

We now have permanent American bases in Iraq. Why is it the default position of the treasonous liberals that we NEED to leave Iraq?

Iraq is THE central front in the war on terror, and you want to concede it to the enemy, even though the troops WANT to be there. It's an all volunteer military. Now I know why only 9-11% of the current US Military votes democrat. I met exactly 2 democrats my whole military career, and 1 was black and was brainwashed by his parents into thinking republicans are racist, and the other I found out recently admitted he was gay after leaving the service. I thought it was a BRILLIANT military strategy, to invade Iraq after Afghanistan.... Look at a map for God's sake. Creating a democracy in the HEART of the Middle East, the land of Mesopotamia, the Garden of Eden, it creates a land void of Wahabbism and state controlled media that preaches violence and propaganda against the infidel. It's going to take a full generation, 20 years or more to start to fully work, but it no doubt will. In the short term it will deny the enemy a safe haven backed with state funds from oil proceeds.

In less than a month, one special forces A Team backed up by ANLICO (Air-Ground Liason) and air support defeated the Taliban and drove Al Qaeda underground. We probably haven't killed Bin Laden yet, but we've kept him from building a movement, and isolated him. HERE's the brilliant part... We knew the terrorists will follow us wherever we go. We knew they would regroup and flock to us. Afghanistan is the most inhospitable place on the planet to defend territory. It goes from 110 to below freezing in 24 hours, with elevations regularly above 16,000 ft., has millions of places to hide, and gives the advantage to smaller, more mobile forces (ie. small groups of poorly organized jihadists.) It was time to open a 2nd front.

HERE's the problem. Bush CANNOT go on TV and say, "We want to lure our enemies into a land in which we can slow-bleed them. We want to change the face of the Middle East, and create democracies in the 3 main sponsors of terror, that happen to border Iraq: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia." WE WOULD LOSE ALL SUPPORT in the Arab world! It's a delicate balance, but Bush chose to bite his tongue, and take a poll hit to save national security. THAT is a leader.

We are capturing and killing the enemy every single day in Iraq - MANY MORE then they kill of us. Some estimates as great as 14 times more. We have more men, we have better equipment, and we have the will of the Iraqi people behind us. BUT THE TERRORISTS HAVE A FORMIDABLE WEAPON TOO: LIBERALS. They know the liberal media is on their side. They know Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary is on their side. Bush is more compassionate than conservative, so he likes to say he does not question the patriotism of democrats. WELL I DO QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM! Isn't it blatantly obvious that the democrats stand to lose politically if we WIN? Isn't it obvious that they have been trying to do exactly that since 2004? So it shouldn't surprise you that EVERY single "TROOP WITHDRAWAL DEADLINE" is scheduled for BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION! Why? Because they do not want to deal with the issue. Remember, it wasn't until Nixon was elected that the anti-war movement grew. While Kennedy and LBJ were in office, there was very little public outcry over the war, even though casualty rates were higher in those years. Interesting....

Wake up people. You have been given propaganda for years by the liberal media; You have been fed US Casualties on a regular basis, but not enemy casualties. That's like only getting one team's score at a football game you didn't see, and having the audacity to comment on the coach's strategy. Bush is horrible at communicating; therefore he has no bully pulpit. Even if he was a "Reagan," only Fox and talk radio would report the speech, thereby preaching to the choir.

What Senator Reid did was treasonous. Did anyone watch Al Jazeera today? Talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies... End of rant.

Joe Brignoli
joeybrignoli@aol.com

Democrats and the insurgents/terrorists share the same goal , no question about it. The debate "IS" over , democrats are guilty and can lie and deny all they want. Their traitorous treasonous escapades are written in stone and will brought into the light that much faster when we complete the Mission while the Rats lie and cry at the continued success for the last couple of months since President Bush changed coarse.

Democrats are pathetic and their desparation shows as they begin to fall apart demanding defeat. Harry Reid , you disgraceful basturd turn in your resignation NOW!

So I just happened to stumble across this blog today because I was curious to see what people were saying about Reid's comments.

I just want to make a point of what are we doing there, all these gov't agencies have reported that Al Queda did not have ties with Hussein. Why do we need another base in Iraq just so we can't put our thumb on another culture and force our views on. Now we are touting on this blog, I would rather see 1 million Iraqis die than 1 American. No one should be dying, it was an ill concieved war- some one needs to get over that.

I wish we would stop trying to save face, and point fingers.

Mr. Geo-political matters stands behind a president that went AWOL from the national guard, is a failed business man, and had not been outside the country till he became president. Has not passed anything domestically that has made anyone prosper.

Lincoln hired his most staunch critics into his cabinet. This president employs yes men. They turned one of the best US generals Colin Powell and war critics into a puppet. Not only yes men but, men who destroy intel, lie to the courts (Val Plame), spy on citizens, and award no bid contracts to their buddies in large corp. that over charge tax payers. Put an unqualified horsemen in charge of FEMA and slashed his funding. "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie!"

It takes no intelligence to rattle sabres, why don't you pick up a pen?

Bush and his unilateral thinking is so imperialist that all our years of progress has been stumped.

Clinton could have done a little more true. I am sure Mr. Long blog has the mentality of "kill them all and let their god sort them out"

Its not democrats that are unpatriotic its the free thinking people of the US that voted them in to stop a deregulating Napoleon from pissing on an electric fence for a 5 year in a row. When there were just as many people saying don't go in as there were people that were lead on by war propoganda.

And all that Cho shit someone was talking. Why don't you go shoot yourself because that is totally immature.

You can't win guerilla wars, thats why we are a state. We stuck a pole in a bees nest with Iraq and our egos can't admit that. Now that country is a terrorist hub because we made it so instead of searching in the mountains for real culprit.

You are advocating a commander and chief that can't even pronounce a sentence correctly and is the sound bite machine of the new century.

PS My father and brothers were in the military. I support our troops. However I do not support, anyone conservative or liberal who thinks one political system is supreme and should be imposed on people you don't even know. My father is a WWII vet. That was a war that meant something. Remember we pre-emptively invaded that country. We preach high ideals, its not good to be defensive but its never good to be an offender. We have shamed ourselves to the rest of the world, we stood for morals. You guys call this moral displacing millions of people over an unsubstantiated hunch.

Wankers!

Why do we need another base in Iraq just so we can't put our thumb on another culture and force our views on.

Because our views are better than theirs. That's why.

Enough of this "Every culture is equally valid" bilge. It has never, at any point, been the case. If their culture allows for suicide bombings, then OUR culture allows us to slaughter anybody who does that, so we should go along with that.

Mr. Geo-political matters stands behind a president that went AWOL from the national guard

A lie. Can't say I'm shocked.

is a failed business man

Thoroughly irrelevant. One of our greatest Presidents, Truman, was also quite the failed businessman.

, and had not been outside the country till he became president.

Also thoroughly irrelevant.

Has not passed anything domestically that has made anyone prosper.

And we get lie #2. Did you really need to add "liberal" to your name? That you are incapable of being accurate kinda gives away your political inclination.

Lincoln hired his most staunch critics into his cabinet.

He had Douglass as Secretary of what? Do you ACTUALLY think you know what you're talking about?

They turned one of the best US generals Colin Powell and war critics into a puppet. Not only yes men but, men who destroy intel, lie to the courts (Val Plame), spy on citizens, and award no bid contracts to their buddies in large corp.

Wow, a lengthy, poorly written piece of text with no actual accurate info in it.

Bush and his unilateral thinking is so imperialist that all our years of progress has been stumped.

Hmm, so Bush bombed a country WITHOUT any UN discussion, right?

Oh wait, that was Clinton.

Clinton could have done a little more true.

Well, he wouldn't have wasted time going to the UN first, probably.

Its not democrats that are unpatriotic its the free thinking people of the US that voted them in to stop a deregulating Napoleon from pissing on an electric fence for a 5 year in a row.

Which makes the Dems running on a platform of attacking corruption in Congress and running conservatives all the more baffling.

You can't win guerilla wars, thats why we are a state.

You CAN win, provided people like you are ignored, as you should be.

You are advocating a commander and chief that can't even pronounce a sentence correctly and is the sound bite machine of the new century.

Only because you're too anonymous. Trust me, you are a wealth of laughing material.

My father and brothers were in the military.

Your family not being useless does not mean that are not useless.

However I do not support, anyone conservative or liberal who thinks one political system is supreme and should be imposed on people you don't even know.

Because those dark-skinned folks deserve dictators. We know. The bigotry of the left is in full bloom with you.

My father is a WWII vet. That was a war that meant something.

Because people like you were shut up by a President who decided that victory was truly vital. There were plenty of Fifth Column members such as yourself who hated the action.

Remember we pre-emptively invaded that country. We preach high ideals, its not good to be defensive but its never good to be an offender.

Spoken like somebody who is thoroughly obliviousto reality.

Being defensive led to the Holocaust. Being offensive would have stopped the Nazis early on.

We have shamed ourselves to the rest of the world, we stood for morals. You guys call this moral displacing millions of people over an unsubstantiated hunch.

Oooh, the world hates us. Well, until they have a problem, then they bitch and moan that we aren't there to save them from themselves.

The biggest mistake we made was wasting energy defending Europe for the last 60 years. Should've allowed the useless dump to be conquered.

But, when Europe becomes a Muslim haven, morons like you will wonder why the US didn't stop it from happening.
-=Mike

You can think what you will but THE WAR IN IRAQ IS LOST AND THE USA IS LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR WW3!

600000 Iraqi are dead, the US lost 3317 troops, 268 other coalition troops are dead, an unknown number of non civilians Iraqi civilians are dead. The US reputation around the world is ruined for starting a war as an aggressor, around the world Bush is more hated than Hitler while he was in power.

All this war did was spread hate and increase worldwide terrorism, increase hate between nations and make the name United States of America hated around the world.
You can worry about what will happen if the US pulls out now but I don't think it can be much worse than the current situation, the USA destroyed a nation, the USA killed Iraq.
Sure the neocons can keep sending poor young kids to their death for oil, but in the end history will judge them as the greedy fascist war criminals they are.

Like any war criminal Bush jr. should be put on trial for crimes against mankind.

Bush Jr.= pure fascism

All this war did was spread hate and increase worldwide terrorism

Yes, before this war, hate and terrorism were isolated and never really caused much damage. Of course.

increase hate between nations and make the name United States of America hated around the world.

We've been "hated" for years. The ONLY thing keeping that litterbox the EU together is their hatred of the US.

You can worry about what will happen if the US pulls out now but I don't think it can be much worse than the current situation

People said the same thing about SE Asia. They, of course, were proven very much wrong.

Bush Jr.= pure fascism

If true, you'd be dead.
-=Mike

Pitiful. This pathetic, tuck-tailed whimpering is what passes for Senatorial leadership these days? Thank God the likes of Harry Reid were not in positions of power during World War Two. If that was "the greatest generation", Reid represents the sorriest.

Every one of you little bastards who think we've lost should be forced to learn to speak german.

Ever hear of the battle of the bulge? If your ilk had been running things, we'd all be members of the nazi party. Or at least those of us who are white. The rest of you would've all been put to death under a dogma not all that different from the one we're fighting today. Yet you cheer our enemies and declare defeat.

Exactly when did any of you think we were winning?

When Baghdad fell? When Saddam was captured? When the Iraqi's elected their own parlament? How about when we re-took Ramalah? We aren't losing. We are struggling to maintain the peace. Struggle with us, not against us.

At the very least don't attempt to destroy our morale while emboldening our enemy. That is sedition. In past wars, you would've been hung.

Bob Kutz
Oskaloosa, IA