I usually don't like swearing like this but...GOD! DAMMIT!

That didn't take long did it?

Hopefully Joe Lieberman can stick to his guns about staying in Iraq -- he knows what it will mean for Israel if he doesn't!

#$%&!~^ traitors

Let the people have the Dems for a couple of years, and see where that'll get us then.

U.S. presence was “not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Levin said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

/spit

The Devil take the Democrats. They would see us all dead as long as they get to call the shots on the road to hell.

Either these idiots are so stupid that they don't know that that is playing directly into their hands, or they are proactively taking steps to hand the US a defeat and the jihadis a victory. I know that they aren't that stupid, so I can only conclude that they are treasonous bastards.

No surprise. Tragic. The enemy will declare this a victory and will be even further emboldened.

When was war ever popular? I hate the media.

But...but, I thought it was "Conservative Democrats," that the "people," elected?

Cowardice with honor!

#7 christheprofessor

Its not that they're stupid, its that they're split between the willfully ignorant and downright traitorous.

In the long run, both should be hanging offenses.

The Dem party slogan should be:

"We don't believe in war until a couple of American cities are turned into slag."

#6 Kragar

U.S. presence was “not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Levin said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

I wonder if asshat Levin thinks our pressence in Germany, Japan, and Korea were supposed to be open-ended...

Sorry to say this, but if you're reading this and -- for WHATEVER reason -- you didn't vote Republican this past week, this is your doing too.

Face it.

Cut and Run -ocrats; Dumocrats; Dhimmicrats...

They will be the cause of the future death of millions. I can't figure out of they are just stupid or are they the enemy?

#13 jehu
Allow me to fix this for you:

"We don't believe in war until a couple of American cities are turned into RADIOACTIVE slag."

There, that's better.

I'm surprised that Levin can still grab his ankles at his age.

Bush and Nanci Pelosi were both giving a press conference. Bush was wearing his: I'm with stupid T-shirt.

#12 Kragar

Funny you should say that, because I started to include "ignorant" as one of the options. But, I concluded that nobody, even the willful, could be that ignorant...

#8 The flying Kiwi

The enemy will declare this a victory and will be even further emboldened.

They will crow it from every mosque. I hope the administration knows this and repeats it publically, every chance they get.

Now I'm seething.

I voted for Bush, and I'd vote for him again. But his trying to teach the people of Iraq to become good little democrats was doomed to fail. These people have been butchering each other for 1400 years. They don't know any better. It took the West 800 years after the Magna Carta to develope some sort of Democratic Republic, and the West could look back at Greece and the Romen Republic, for some ideas.
The Peoples of the Middle East can only look to the Koran and it was written by a butcher, who wanted to be large and in charge.
Move the troops out of Bagdad onto safer Air bases 60 to 80 miles away. Then wait to see these people slaughter each other. If the wrong side starts to win we can blow them up. But why put the troops in harms way for a losing proposition.
As large a trouble spot as that area is, we should have troops there. But not where the Jihadis can take pot-shots at them.

Is anyone surprised? Only the center, who was foolish enough to buy into the election-season spin about a *winning* strategy.

We are not the party of cut-and-run

(waves hand like Obi Wan)

Well, since the MSM interprets current events for most Americans, and Academia controls the interpretation of history, then this will be a winning strategy. How nice and neat.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. Go watch Survivor or read about the latest celebrity break-up. We'll take care of the complicated stuff...

Koskidz aren't happy...
Democrats To Push For Phased Redeployment
From the komments...

Let's hope the phases are flexible
If the civil conflict in Iraq worsens steadily, we've got to get it straight that we have to speed up our withdrawal, not postpone or reverse it.

and...

A gradual withdrawal can be more ...
...dangerous (both to us and Iraqi civilians) than a fast one. The soldiers left behind become more vulnerable as their numbers dwindle.

...and so on.
The surrender to Al Qaeda can't come fast enough for the LLL.

Take a look at the Iraq Study Group: Sandra Day O'Connor, Vernon Jordan...not a single military man or woman. Politicians, mostly Clintonites, will determine the course of this war.

This from a president who vowed to let the military run this war. I just can't believe it! Suicide from Republicans!

Also I REFUSE to see Borat. I am convinced Hollywood is putting subliminal messages into movies like Saw III, or Jackass movies, or anything with Barbara Striesand that makes you hate Bush, love all cultures above any founded on Judeo/Christian values. It makes you depict all white guys that don't wear their pants down off their ass as racists, and makes you believe the government will get it right and stand up to Islam and protect Americans.

"Democrats will press President George W. Bush’s administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was “not open-ended..."

Well, the Iraqi gov't knows this now.

Question, once the US has abandoned Iraq will the US be prepared to abandon Eurabia once al'Q sets loose civil war there?

#5 intestinal fortitude

Well, I was kind of thinking that two years of Dem misbehavior will set us up nicely for a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential election. Assuming the Dems don't get us all killed before then . . .

whilst the democratic policies literally sicken me, and the fact that its touted as a 'victory' for such places like despotic iran, i'm almost so over it now that leaving and letting them murder each other into dis-existance is almost an attractive option.

SIGH

The Democrats have been pining for their old glory days of the Vietnam War. I guess they just got their wish.

Prez Bush has 2 more years left. He should use those 2 years very wisely. I'm also hoping our troops leave Iraq; but not for the reasons most Democrats want to leave. Most people can't even remember the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first place.

Why Sevoguy wants to leave Iraq:

1. I want the Sunnis to pay the price for their insurgency. Hopefully the Pu**y Shiite's will wipe them off the face of the earth. Shiite's die by the hundreds everyday. They rarely counterattack the Sunnies. I suggest to the Shiites to kill their clerics. The clerics are the source of the human sacrifice that are committed by the sunnies.

2. When we pulled back from Fallujah the first time, it became for me another Vietnam. That was a mistake that a nation doesn't commit when it wants to win a war; especially against islamist-terrorists. I don't know how many American soldiers died as a result of that stupid political move.

3. Before we do leave Iraq, this country (USA) should give the Kurds their homeland. I will probably make Turkey go bananas. But, hey, they wouldn't let the USA use their airspace. So Fu*k the Turks. A Turkey that uses it's military against the Kurds will insure it will never be allowed into the European Union.

4. Arm the Shiite's to the hilt. Our best equipment and expertice. Provide these Shiite's with military intelligence. The Shiite's will kill every Sunni in site.

5. The USA shouldn't meddle in the slaughter either. Remember, every Sunni that is killed is one less our children are going to have to kill.

The Sunni's are the problem. They have forfeited their right to a homeland. Good hunting SHITE's.

#24 TimK:

It took the West 800 years after the Magna Carta to develope some sort of Democratic Republic, and the West could look back at Greece and the Romen Republic, for some ideas.

I think you need to redo the math. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215, IIRC. That's less than 600 years before the US came into being.

Hey it is going to be a bipartisan cut and run.
W the uniter:

[Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte reportedly has come to agree with what is expected to be the most controversial of recommendations from the Baker group: that the United States approach Iran, and, in tandem with Israel, approach Syria, for help with Iraq, according to a source familiar with Negroponte’s thinking.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but this sounds like the kind of harebrained scheme that only a team of foreign policy "realists" could come up with. Why on God's green earth would Iran and Syria, individually or in tandem, help us to pacify Iraq? Both have been doing everything in their power to create disorder in Iraq for the last three years, presumably because they think it is in their interest to do so. How, exactly, do the "realists" expect to change those countries' assessments of their interests?

[Link: powerlineblog.com...]

Democrats will press President George W. Bush’s administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was “not open-ended

Two things here:

The Bush administration has said right from the very begining that our committment was not open ended.

Because ouf our actions, the Iraqi's acually have a "government" to tell it to.

#32 mama winger

The Democrats have been pining for their old glory days of the Vietnam War. I guess they just got their wish.

They haven't gotten it yet, but they are certainly a damn sight closer....

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

"These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover

.

courtesy...
[Link: cassandra2004.blogspot.com...]

#8
#22

Any withdraw (phased or otherwise) without full victory is a defeat that will embolden the enemy into further attacks on America's homeland.

I feel the hand of George McGovern.

#15 Right on, Mezzetino.

What's next? Cindy Sheehan as head of the new Department of Peace?

These people induce diarrhea.

It's painfully obvious that the Iraqis (Arabs in general?) either don't want democracy and rule of law, can't handle it, or just don't care.

We accomplished the most important goal, and that was to remove Saddam and his evil sons, because their continued presence in Iraq was a threat to our national security.

Sure, we made some mistakes in the aftermath of the Saddam regime's collapse, but the Iraqi people needed to meet us half way. They didn’t. The exception is the Kurds. As for the Arabs, Sunni or Shia, by and large they haven’t been able to capitalize off of the opportunity they were given with the removal of the tyrant.

At this point we want democracy for the Iraqi Arabs more than they want it for themselves. It's simply the cold hard truth. That being the case, why should we be there indefinitely? Why should our young men and women risk their lives for people who don’t seem to give a hoot anyway?

Let the Sunnis and Shia slaughter each other, because evidently that’s what they want to do. We should protect the Kurds and keep significant forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, and not force those poor people to have to live with the Arabs. We should start aiming our sights on the real threat in the Persian Gulf—Iran.

If in the future the Arabs of Iraq—be they the Shia or Sunni—start amassing an arsenal large enough to destabilize the region (further) or threaten our interests, we’ll deal with it then. Personally I don’t think that will happen. I think we should sit back and watch the Sunni and Shia Arabs slaughter each other. As they trade mortar rounds into each other’s neighborhoods they won’t be in a position to raise the types of armies that could invade their neighbors.

We should do everything in our power to a) help the Iranian people overthrow their rulers while at the same time get b) get ready to bomb their nuclear installations into dust. Once the problem of Iran is cleared there will be no more Syrian-Iranian alliance; no more support for Hezbollah; no more support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and no more threats to the region from the mad Mullahs.

In more ways than one,its 1976 all over again:Ford beats Reagan

RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. -- Former President Gerald Ford Sunday beat a record held by the late Ronald Reagan: to become the oldest living president in U.S. history.

[Link: www.nbc4.tv...]

Where's my polyester suit?

WHY are the Democrats so eager for a total defeat in Iraq?

Do they really not understand what is at stake here - what the huge, unimaginable cost would be for the next hundred years of the US packing its bags and leaving a bloody civil war in progress in Iraq (not to mention leaving US-friendly Iraqis to the beheading blocks)?

Do they not grasp that when you're a superpower you can't just take your marbles and go home?

I can understand Koskids applying their high school level political understanding to Iraq, but I cannot comprehend professional politicians in Congress pining for an ignominious self-imposed defeat.

Surely, Democratic politicians do not want the US to prove itself toothless, unwilling to fight, willing to abandon its allies, and incapable of stomaching a fight?

Right? I mean, c'mon already.

Alright...I've vented. Bring on Baker and the closed-door meetings and the Israel-trashing and the "realist" school of postponing the inevitable for short-term political gain. Bring it on, and get it over with.

Well, we had Iran surrounded.

/if we're not going to finish the job in the region, we should have just stayed home in the first place

Who was it that said, "In the last 40 years the democrats have yet to find a war they could not wait to lose".

the Dems will flap, & flipflop...so they can save face, only to find an excues to stay as a result of the next terrorist attack...in the meantime, the RoP will continue to threaten while very aware that they have made serious inroads into this country....they will show no mercy,as their 'students' here come to 'study'.

global chess...one of the Rop's preachers say that we are there to 'behead' their messiah when he appears...another says we will cut & run just like Vietnam.
I think we have a checkmate here.
the Dems think they won because of a cosmic shift to the left in the U.S.A., & smell the completion of the socialist agenda 4 the masses.
the Republicans are asleep at the wheel. the voting population needs to spend an hour a day on this site. LGF=theWORLD w/out the'SPIN'

I am new here, sorta jumped in w/out proper intro. sorry about that.

#30 American Jewess in Jerusalem

Well, I was kind of thinking that two years of Dem misbehavior will set us up nicely for a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential election.

I'm praying.

Just had a thought pop into my head:

If the US military withdraws, then Israel will be forced to Nuke Iran. When Israel does nuke Iran the human sacrificing islamists will all rise up agianst Israel. When this does happen, the USA will join in the war to protect Israel.

I'm wondering if this is the plan or the result of the stupidity of the Democrats. Interesting the way things sometimes play out. You know how the USA sometimes does something and the opposite of the expected result occurs. Well, maybe this will happen.

I really don't care either way, as long as Islamists die.

But don't dare call them "Cut and run" democrats.

#44 ebay

WHY are the Democrats so eager for a total defeat in Iraq?

Because they think we deserve to be defeated. Because we were tricked into going by the evil plot of Bushitler. Because our military are alternately a bunch of poor children duped into going to Iraq / or / murdering bands of rapist-killers. Because we need to understand why they hate us,

Because it is, as always, ALL AMERICA'S FAULT.

Fucking A! These people are not the same americans who fought world war 2. Our grandparents generation would be kicking ass in iraq, syria, afghanistan, iran, lebanon. What do we do? Wage a halfhearted war in one country, and simply let the other countries make war on us by proxy. What a crock.

DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQ! NOTHING LESS!

Blog Reaction Roundup.

What would’ve been the outcome of the Cold War if we had not occupied Germany after Nazi defeat in WW2?

Phased redoployment.

Kinda like this?

[Link: www.historyplace.com...]
DUNKIRK

That phased withdrawl from France caused peace fo break out.
Wants more the Stalinist party plays word games.

Sorry Brave Sir Robin:

"Brave Sir Levin ran away, bravely ran away away.
When danger reared his ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Levin turned about, he turned his tail, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
A brave retreat by Sir Levin. "

I have come to a conclusion this year. America is the most warlike nation on earth, but it is ALSO the country with the most restraint in how it uses this boiling militarism.

A pressure cooker (the army) is nothing without its lid (the dems). The dems are just increasing the pressure until it well....BLOWS! When will that be? Well when is the next amjor domestic terror attack?

all I am saying
is give war a chance

The Stalinists want another Vietnam and they are going to get it come hell or highwater. That was their glory days.

Baghdad next year?

[Link: www.wellesley.edu...]

/okay. No flames. I now its not going to be the same. They will be using Blackhawks instead of Hueys.

Self-hate in action...like cutting your wrists in the bathtub.

However, it's easy to see that nothing of consequence will happen regarding fundamentalist Islam until they act up again REAL BIG. Like 911 or nuclear explosion big.

Luckily Lieberman still has his wits
Lieberman refuses to close door on switching parties
(post & run)

Jay777, If we had not occupied Germany after WW-II, we would have had WW-III in the sixties. As it is, we now have it in 2006....

The Democrats also want to lose so they can prove Pres. Bush was also wrong about the things that really matter to them, gay marriage, high taxes, national health care, etc.

In other words, "stop the terrorist attacks and in four to six months you'll get your jihadi state and have great press to go with it."

Great - just great.

I've always looked at the Democrats like this:

Given the constraints of our Government, if the Democrats were actively working against America, what would they be doing differently?

#40 Noam Sayin'
Hi there -- I hated to write that, but I'm glad somebody noticed it.

#51 mama winger
a) Is Little Winger back yet? Safe and sound? Hope so.

b) "... the evil plot of Bushitler." Maybe you follow the lib press more than I do, but do you know if the Fever Swamp has burped up ANY kind of acknowledgement that the election results suggest that title may be.. uh.. exaggerated? Fascist regimes, historically, don't go quietly into exile, and they certainly don't allow themselves to be voted out of power without a shot being fired. I doubt Kos & Ko. have the intellectual honesty to say anything about it, but I thought I'd ask.

Apparently, the Dems want us to stamp our foot and say "OK, you silly Iraqis - get your shit together by X date, because we are leaving then," and they expect the Iraqis to magically get their shit together. All will then be kumbayah city in Iraq.

Where is there anything whatsoever helpful or new here? I think this is dramatic posturing for the cameras.

If the Dems get their way, without any military options or strategic planning that we don't have now, then I don't see how the result can be anything but a civil war. Am I wrong? Dunno.

I've heard from mil sources that Gates is trusted - in other words, the sources I've heard from seem to think he will apply actual military strategy that the commanders WANT to have happen. The military wants to get the damn job done - they don't want to be sequestered in O-fricking-anawa. Therefore, though I am not privy to details, I am hopeful.

Also, the Dems will try to cut mil spending, and at the same time will yell about the safety of our troops. Mark my words.

#44 find your violent jihadi on ebay!

I can understand Koskids applying their high school level political understanding to Iraq, but I cannot comprehend professional politicians in Congress pining for an ignominious self-imposed defeat.

Education can't cure stupid. See; Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Juan Cole, etc.

As Gomer used to say: "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"

Time to get out the ole Poison Pen and start writing letters to my Congressmen.

#15 Mezzentino said:
Sorry to say this, but if you're reading this and -- for WHATEVER reason -- you didn't vote Republican this past week, this is your doing too.

I agree 100% especially all who voted democrat for a protest vote. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You have no right to gripe about anything.

Check this out:

He is now 45 years old, and has had many years to reflect on why he was willing to die and kill for his religion. "The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," he says. "I was from a middle-class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at university came from a background that was different from mine.

"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

His analysis is fascinating. Muslim fundamentalists believe, he insists, that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus the extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Kingdom to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia.

"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."

rtwt
[Link: www.canada.com...]

#49 sevoguy

When this does happen, the USA will join in the war to protect Israel.

I would not be so sure about that. Considering the growing anti-Semitism and pro-Islamic slant of the Democratic Party. They are just as likely to say good riddance, now the Palestinians can finally get their homeland and there will be peace.

Withdrawing when there is still so much chaos and violence is not a great choice, but it's hard to figure out what the alternatives are.

Corruption is out of control, the police and the army that we've been working to create are becoming Shi'ite death squads, and the middle class is fleeing the country.

Heralded Iraq Police Academy a 'Disaster'

Despite Billions Spent, Rebuilding Incomplete: Bad Security, Poor Planning Plague Effort

Sectarian Rifts Foretell Pitfalls of Iraqi Troops’ Taking Control

Under these circumstances, it's hard to be optimistic.

#65 Mezzatino

Thanks! He's back and will be home just as soon as he's out of de-mobilization. He's doing great!

Not a lot of insight on the Dem side. Before the election it was all about Diebold machines and voter suppression and lawsuits and not being able to get a fair election. Now? . . . . crickets.

This is what people voted for. I kept on hearing about how "those people have been fighting for thousands of years". As if Western Europeans had not been fighting for thousands of years until the US crushed the Nazis. Iraq will take a couple of decades, but it can work. You would think that people would want it to work since we have spent so much money and lost some lives, but I guess that is not the case. So, the Democrats are going to flush a few hundred billion dollars and a couple of hundred thousand lives (Iraqi and American) down the toilet because they want the majority in congress. The American people want that too. I guess we are a fucked up country. Like France... What a drag....

I am hoping some of the newly elected Dems are like me. Even though I'm still a Dem, I am apparently soooo not Dem at heart - I got 8 percent Dem on that test yesterday. (The 8 percent was there because I like gay people.)

What tactical geniuses we have here... "We're leaving in four to six months. BYE!"

Fucking idiots. Yes, let's lay down a date publicly, so the bad guys can start stockpiling munitions and mark it on their calendars.

*spit*

Same old Democrats, same old shit. Nothing's changed since the 90's. Or the 80's, or the 70's, or the 60's...

If these 2 brilliant (IMHO) articles on the subject have been posted, sorry!

The first is vintage Steyn and the second is from 1 one sane voice on al-Boston Globe;Jeff Jacoby.

Re Borat? Sasha Baron Cohen manages to work Hebrew into his comments, which he speaks.He is brilliant!

#67 kilgore

Education can't cure stupid. See; Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Juan Cole, etc.

You got that right my friend. Some time it makes it worse.

#66 Catttt

Also, the Dems will try to cut mil spending, and at the same time will yell about the safety of our troops. Mark my words.

Yep. Etch that one in stone.

Yesterday in Philadelphia:

The Democrats victory on Election Day is reinvigorating the anti-war movement. Protesters on Independence Mall used Veterans Day to call for President Bush's impeachment.

Veterans, activists, including military mom Cindy Sheehan and Democrat bloggers announced a movement they call "Impeach for change."

Bob Fertig of Democrats.com says even though there are only two years left in President Bush's term, he should be held accountable for what he believes are crimes:

"He deliberately misled the American people. We believe that an investigation would reveal that he knew he was misleading us and therefore he was lying to us."

Across the street, a small group of counter protesters like Kristinn Taylor:

"We're out here standing up for America while they're across the street standing up for the enemy."

Here's a transcript of the speech Elizabeth Holtzman (remember her?) gave at the impeachment kick-off conference. Comments are open.

72 JustMyView

I almost NEVER agree with you, but after an afternoon of a certain newby troll's posts, you come off looking like a rocket scientist.

My idea on this issue is kill that ugly, drug-addicted punk bastard al-Sadr and hang him by his heels, then wipe out his army as they try to get his body down. But then, I've been told I'm to the right of Attila the hun.

First they want the judicial branch to legislate, now they want to the legislator to set foreign policy. I must have missed that day in Social Studies class.

#73 mama winger

"Thanks! He's back and will be home just as soon as he's out of de-mobilization. He's doing great!"

:-)) That's good news. It's gonna be a happy Thanksgiving in your house this year. God bless you and your family. And this rueful civilian's thanks to your son for his service.
M.

If this happens the US is through as a superpower. We might as well downsize our military to a small defense force. Power unused is power unrealized. If we demonstrate to the world once again that we have no staying power and are not serious about waging war then there is no tangible perception of power to the rest of the world. We will not be able to ever again project power to the other side of the world. We will be the laughing stock of the world. If we threaten the use of force no one will believe we have the guts to make good on the threat. Our word will not be good to any potential ally. If we do commit forces again many needless deaths will result since any adversary knows all they have to do is kill enough Americans and hold on long enough until we tuck our tail between our legs and slink off.

Shit.

You know, the least these Idiots in Congress could do is keep the airport running and allow expedited U.S. Citizenship (or at least asyulum) for the Iraqis that helped us, so they can get their families out. When the south end of the country implodes, it's going to be a REAL bloodbath. Everybody seen as a "collaborator" will be slaughtered.

I'd really we rather not repeat 1975, with poor people piling into boats and clinging to helicopters. Just for once in the long, miserable history of our foreign policy, we should actually help and support those who helped us.

#81 Catttt

I've been told I'm to the right of Attila the hun.

HEY! you're in my spot!

GOOD! THE SOONER THE BETTER.
What a useless war and waste of life.

I wonder what this is going to do to recruitment / enlistment figures?

The scroll-overs are starting to come out.

Charles,

You're giving them a week? I say they'll be calling for cutting funding by tomorrow night. Probably sooner.

The problem with a democracy is that, as a whole, the people get what they deserve. This last election says a lot about us, doesn't it?

From Slidell, LA.
The Left is what it is - in their guts - central to their orthodoxy - is that Western - Judeo-Christian civilization is NOT worth defending and then throw in the white guilt/ imperialism angle and these folks are NOT GOING to DEFEND this nation.
Talk tough enough to get elected but they will NOT FIGHT when the US national interest is at risk .
They will grant the Islamists victory by default - call it "victory" and pat themselves on the back for being smartest people in the nation...........
They learned nothing from the slaughter that followed Vietnam and they don't give a crap about the brown or yellow people of the planet - it is all about power for the Left. The hell with the body count it is their intentions on which they are to judged !

I was at the Jim Webb acceptance speech and managed to get some footage of me asking him his plan for Iraq. To my eternal surprise, he actually tried to give an answer, which is that we can't pull the troops out all at once. He was vague and selfserving, of course. But the footage is here if you want to see.

I have never been this frightened before. Even on 9/11, I believed that we had good [enough] leadership to respond to the threat that had made itself so vividly known. Now, we're just inviting more terrorists and instead of fighting them in the armpits of the world, we'll be fighting them on Lexington Ave. and in places like Ohio, California, and Virginia.

I feel so disillusioned. I knew this would happen when we invaded. I will never forget that asshole Tom Daschel complaining about how we were spending sooo much money on Iraq's infrastructure while we were not spending any money at home (as if). I knew that the fucking Democrats were going to drip drip drip their corrosive bullshit into the war effort, so that the American people would want to vote them in so that we would get out of Iraq.

We are screwed once again.

#42 zakistan:

Let the Sunnis and Shia slaughter each other, because evidently that’s what they want to do. We should protect the Kurds and keep significant forces in Iraqi Kurdistan, and not force those poor people to have to live with the Arabs.

Sorry, no can do.
Bush sold out the Kurds. Part of the quid pro quo for NATO support for the Iraq War was that Turkey (a NATO member) insisted that the U.S. must not support Kurdish independence.

Turkey fears that an autonomous Kurdistan would embolden the Kurds already living in Turkey to rise up. Kurdish terrorists have attacked inside Turkey, didn't you know that?

# 89 mama winger

People don't generally want to compete for the honor of last one killed on the way out, so I suspect nothing good will come of such a move if it happens.

#87 savage_nation

I think once an American city goes up in a nuclear fireball, this country will be taken over by the military and every Democrat will hang.

The same fate awaits every MSM outlet, be it print, TV, radio or weekly.

The Constitution will be nothing more than a 230 year old piece of parchment when all is said and done.

It's a damn shame too.

So Say We All.

re: Charles -

As of this writing, the latest Democrat talking point says they’re not going to try to cut funding for the military in Iraq.

Any guesses on how long before they start talking (publicly) about cutting funding? I’d estimate no more than a week.

I say by Thursday.

We'll hear no more of 'defective equipment' or 'lack of body armor' or 'troops forced to buy equipment with their own money'. That's all gone and forgotten now.

Seems to me, a definition might be useful in this discussion -> realpolitik.

#72 JustMyView
As bad as that seems, premature withdrawal will most likely be much much worse (both long and short term). There are no good or easy options in Iraq but premature retreat is the among the worst ideas.

#66 Catttt 11/12/2006 02:15PM PST
...the Dems will try to cut mil spending, and at the same time will yell about the safety of our troops. Mark my words.

11/12/06 2:19:13 pm:

As of this writing, the latest Democrat talking point says they’re not going to try to cut funding for the military in Iraq.

Any guesses on how long before they start talking (publicly) about cutting funding? I’d estimate no more than a week.

Put me down for this Tuesday, before midnight eastern time.

As the Democrats leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves, we at least have an obligation to let the Christian Iraqis settle here.

We did the same with the Vietnamese who helped us there. Our culture has been enriched by their presence here. I work with many of the former "boat people" and I have seen them excel and watched their kids graduate from college.

And they make a damned good Pho.

TO: Charles Johnson, et al
RE: I Recommend....

....we adopt an approach used by another group this last election cycle.

A number of people, who supported a wall between Mexico and US, were sending bricks to Congress.

Based on the Dhimmicrat's approach to Islam fanatics, I recommend we start sending something else.

Bits of black fabric that they can have sewn into burqas.

Especially to any Dhimmicrats of the female gender, e.g., Pelosi.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III."

The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big tits."

The guy exclaims, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"

Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you; no one gives a shit about the 140 million Muslims."

#100 kt

So the democrats having the worst idea is a surprise? Since when?

Seems like their normal course of action.

The War has kept us safe - how do I know - I'm safe - my kis are safe -no successful terror attacks in the US.

It took what it took, and it is what it is. There is no appeal to a political science experiment where we say, "Now we subtract the factor of War in Iraq, and see if we would have prevented a nuclear holocaust."

The giggly, silly, goofy Democrats said,: "Let's see if we can keep you safe based on an entirely different military formula. C'mon, give us a chance and roll the dice."

I guess 1/2 of us are a nation of reckless gamblers. Anyone know of a good deal on flak jackets?

#96 Mike C

People don't generally want to compete for the honor of last one killed on the way out, so I suspect nothing good will come of such a move if it happens.

I've had my concerns along with practically everyone else about how certain parts of the war have been prosecuted. But I never, EVER, thought I'd live long enough to see 'Vietnam, the Sequel.'

I feel for those poor soldiers over there tonight who have to hear this garbage from their own so-called leaders. Leaders who never led, only fled.

#15 - Sorry to say this, but if you're reading this and -- for WHATEVER reason -- you didn't vote Republican this past week, this is your doing too.

Face it.

You are exactly right, and don't be sorry. I have members in my immediate family who vote dim because their parents and grandparents always have. They stand and declare their opposition to perversion, killing babies, de-Christianization of the US - and are at the polls at 6:00 AM to cast a straight dim ticket. It simply defies logic.

Things are bad this time people. I have a bad feeling about all this.

*Newbie here, no flaming please*

I thought these traitors were going to Canada after Bush won a second time.
Lying bastards.

HEY NANCY AND HARRY !

Why don't you just gather up all the MORALE of the troops, put it all into one big balloon, and then just stick a pin in it !?!

# 107 mama winger

Yup.

We did the same with the Vietnamese who helped us there. Our culture has been enriched by their presence here. I work with many of the former "boat people" and I have seen them excel and watched their kids graduate from college.

I have a Vietnamese friend who has told me of the horrors he and his family went through before they were able to flee. He knows who sold them down the river, and despises them.

#75 Cattt

I got 8 percent Dem on that test yesterday.

What test is that? Is it online?

#75 catttt

(The 8 percent was there because I like gay people.)

This is not directed at you catttt, but this yanks my chain.

Just because you do not approve of that life style means you do not like or even hate gay people? There are some gays I think are a**holes and there are a lot of straights I think are a**holes. There are gays I like and straights I like. Either this is impossible for these mental midgets to understand or it does not matter to them but is just a way for them to push their destructive agenda.

#44 find your violent jihadi:

WHY are the Democrats so eager for a total defeat in Iraq?

First of all, not all Democrats want "total defeat" in Iraq. The Democratic Party is really split on this issue.

As for those Democrats who want an immediate pullout, it's because they're convinced that the war in Iraq cannot be won.

And unfortunately, if Bush continues to define "victory" as turning Iraq into a peaceful Switzerland-like Social Democracy as a role model for the Muslim world, then they are right. That war CANNOT be won.

Folks, it's time for us LGFers to end the "cognitive dissonance." We have discussed endlessly the barbarism and savagery of Muslim "culture". And we know how our own American democracy was heir to centuries of progress in Western philosophical thought that passed the Muslim world by. Yet when the chips are down, folks here keep supporting the Bush policy in Iraq, conveniently forgetting how what we know about Muslim behavior makes Bush's vision impossible in the foreseeable future.

So if we still want to "win" the Iraq War (and I do), then let's set for this nation a goal that it really can achieve! Because a "Muslim Switzerland" is a fantasy!

#116 Right Side

And unfortunately, if Bush continues to define "victory" as turning Iraq into a peaceful Switzerland-like Social Democracy as a role model for the Muslim world, then they are right. That war CANNOT be won.

When was that ever the stated goal? Because I must have missed class that day.

#113 JustMyView
Yeah, the test for "how Rep. are you" is here [Link: www.blogthings.com...] the link for "how Dem are you" is linked in the Rep test.

I came out 96 percent Republican (I don't like soccer moms) and 8 percent Democrat (I like gays).

Win/win for the Demonrats- they force a withdrawl, or at least a serious enough drawdown of the troops that Iraq really goes to hell in a handbasket, and becomes an al Qaeda base, it'll be an issue to blame the Republicans with in 2008.

#108 room-temp

"Things are bad this time people. I have a bad feeling about all this."

Your instincts are right on target, friend. Pass the Pepto-Bismol, willya...?

-- your nearest and dearest are, of course, not your fault. But do please see if you can knock some sense into them before 2008. Good luck to you.

We are One Nation Under God.
When our Military was fighting during the World Wars...there was an army of prayer warriors petioning God in this homeland,for Victory,the safe return of our soldiers & lasting Peace throughout the world.

the results of the 'forces' turning Americans away from God over the last 50 years is evident now.

This Great Nation was founded in prayer, & needs to return to prayer immediately. We need to be a Nation on our knees begging God's Mercy & Peace as if America Itself depended on it.

Dang. I got 92% too!

115 hous bin pharteen

Yeah, I know. I mentioned it with irony in mind, because I think it's funny. I don't like soccer moms, which makes me less "Republican." I like gays, so I am more "Democrat." Tell that to the gay Republicans on Capitol Hill that the nutroots want to "out."

#108 room temp

We must have some relatives in common. God-fearing, pro-life, love the military, love America. But they still think the Dems are the party of the little guy, and FDR is still at the top of the ticket. Muslims? Who?

The Plan.

/run away!

#106--i brought 2 home with me, i'll be glad to donate one to you, it'll likely come in pretty handy

mama winger,

My picks were complete disaster today, but I did call the Packers. Almost got the score right as well.

Hopefully I'm right on the NYG.

Some people don't have the option of "cut and run."

This article is especially interesting for what it says about the appointment of IDF/AF commander Eliezer Shkedy as GOC of the "Iranian front."
Israel must prepare for full-scale war

Shkedy is a singularly advanced thinker, an expert on spaceflight and its military applications. He was largely behind the decision earlier this year to place the Israeli space program under Air Force control. This resulted in the decision to change the service's name to "Israel Air and Space Force," a first for a major national air arm. Other links:

As of this writing, the latest Democrat talking point says they’re not going to try to cut funding for the military in Iraq.

Any guesses on how long before they start talking (publicly) about cutting funding? I’d estimate no more than a week.

Is anyone actually surprised by this? It is what the Democrats have been saying for years. Now (at least with the current mix of Dems & Reps) it looks like it will happen.

History is repeating itself. Viet Nam was lost because the American people gave up on it. Walter Conkrite lost Viet Nam for us, the Main Stream Media will loose Iraq for us.

#127 JWF

I saw the Packers game - drat! They won. You did call it, tho. Do the Bears play tonight? I couldn't find the game.

I'm a little depressed last night. The Texas Longhorns showed they weren't capable of defending the National Championship.

The officiating was horrible, and hurt Texas, and of course, the Colt McCoy went out in the first quarter.

But Texas' biggest Achille Heel, which showed in the Ohio State loss, and made the Texas Tech game interesting, was, at best, average cornerback play. Maybe even that could have been overcome, but a championship team doesn't fumble two series in a row like Texas.

I am now hoping that ND, USC and Florida all stumble. I suspect Rutgers gets slapped around by the OSU-Michigan winner, but they've been surprising people all season, and if I don't have a dog in the National Title hunt, I usually root for the underdog.

#124 mw

But they still think the Dems are the party of the little guy, and FDR is still at the top of the ticket. Muslims? Who?

You know about the electorate W. Pa.

#125 Killian Bundy

LOL!

This is just the beginning of the circus for the next 2 years.
Has anyone noticed that the day after the election the terrorists have begun speaking out now. Pretty emboldened "for some reason"..

Democrats say will push for Iraq withdrawal.

May we take the oil first please?
All of it except, of course, for what's under soon-to-be-free Kurdistan.

On to Tehran!

I'm not so sure the American public would agree with the Libs instant "cut and run" policy. Michelle has the following at her site along with other poll results:

While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals."

I think that the fate of our civilization hangs in the balance. If the Dhimmicrats can become democrats and patriots then we have a chance. However, if they remain Dhimmicrats, and leftists and the GOP can’t see past short sighted political gains then the whole western world will fall. The muslims know this: destroy America and the West will fall. This is their goal for Jihad.

#87 savage nation

That is not ever going to happen.
That is the lefts fantasy. Only its the Repubs hanging.

The republic will survive.

#116 Right Side:

What goal do you suggest? From my POV all options in Iraq range from just plain bad to totally insane.

:-(

#131 Ed
I'm pissed the AP has Texas ahead of the Badgers, a 10-1 record in the Big Ten doesn't get you in the top ten?

119..

I DON'T THINK SO! Even the American public isn't ignorant enough to swallow that pill. If the Dems cut the funding, demand immediate withdrawl, etc., when they control both houses of Congress, the "Bush Lied, Soldier Died" meme is going to cut it. John Kerry tried that...remember "I voted for funding the war, before I voted against it..." Didn't exactly win Johnny the White House.

I don't see anybody mentioning it, but I can hardly wait to hear the Brit reaction to this.

Keeping the US occupied in Iraq is one of the Islamists strategic goals. As long as we are expending blood and treasure in Iraq we can't do much about the rest of the Axis of Evil. In fact, if you all remember, Iraq was just going to be a stepping stone to Syria, Iran and ultimately North Korea. Iraq is death of a thousand cuts. That's reality people.

We made a committment to Iraq. I, for one, think we have honored our committment, in spades. What other country invades another and then cares more about the losers then their own countrymen? We have nothing to be ashamed of. The same disease that infects the rest of the ME infects Iraq. It's called Islam.

Unless Iraqis start marching in the streets immediately, demanding an end to bloodshed, reform of Islam and saying Thank-You to the citizens of the US...I am of a mind to pull the plug. We owe them nothing.

Oh, by the way Ed...

Rutgers still has to play WVU in Morgantown. WVU ownes Rutgers, and I doubt this year will be any different.

#119 ed..

Thats a given. And all the little liberals who just fell off the turnip hemp truck will buy it hook line and sinker. As will the MSM.

Right Side,

Bush is guilty of not following an "end-game" strategy which his so called Necon advisors reccomended. The endgame strategy entailed military strike(s) which would have rendered Syria, Iran, as well as the Baathist Iraq militarily weak. Using Afghanistan's invasion as a templete, the Special Ops Command would have had effective operational control of the area - not CENTCOM. By using spec ops troops, CIA agents, as well as special diplomatic pressures, Bush could have neutralized not only the Shia Revolutionary Guards, Iran's Nuclear systems, Syrian's weak military, but we could have also formented insurrections, civil war, and ultimately regime change.

The US could have seized the Staits of Hormuz, landed Marines in at various Iranian port areas, and worked with guerillia groups to establish friendly regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The most important thing to be done is to cut off Baathist and Iranian funding to AQ, Hamas, and Hezbollah. If the oil fields stood the chance of being seized, the US could seize them and turn them over to the UN until peace could be established.

If this strategy was followed right after the fall of Afghanistan, Iran would have had no choice but to relent to our pressure. Either they toe the line or suffer the consequences. We use the same low intensity asynetrical tactics they use.

Instead Bush chose Wilson has his guide. The rest is history.

So it begins. Stand firm - be loud but rational - we will do everything in our power to keep Iraq from falling.

I left this thought on a thread down below, however it is more appropriate here.

Bottom line: As long as there are uniformed American troops in Iraq, there will not be Uniformed Iranian troops in Iraq.

If we leave, or leave before we stand up a reliable Iraqi government, the killing fields of Cambodia will look like a playground dispute comppared to what will happen in the Middle East.

Nixon didn't elect Jimmy Carter, leaving Viet Nam to her fate before standing up a strong government in South Vietnam did. The press showed both it's power and it's treason. What has history taught us?

Any guesses on how long before they start talking (publicly) about cutting funding? I’d estimate no more than a week.

I think it's already in the works...
McGovern Leading the Charge - No More Money for War!

Listen to Rep McGovern live from Camp Democracy: Click here.

Progressive Democrats of America has been working and organizing support for HR 4232 since Rep. McGovern introduced this important bill in November of 2005.*

...
H.R. 4232 would end all funding for the deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq.

mama winger,

#130 mama winger 11/12/2006 02:54PM PST

#127 JWF

I saw the Packers game - drat! They won. You did call it, tho. Do the Bears play tonight? I couldn't find the game.

Chicago at Giants on NBC 8:15 ET.

lowandslow,

I see Rutgers climbed to 7th in AP.

BCS rankings out yet?

Not unexpected. When I saw how Israel was treated when she tried to protect herself and get her soldiers returned, my usual hope springs eternal faded fast. We are in for big trouble as a country. The terrorists couldn't have gotten a better landscape to embolden them still further.

The terrorists are here. They will strike again. September 11 was not an anomaly. While our politicians are strikingly stupid and unwilling to identify whether this is a war on religion, a war on civilization or a war at all, for God's sake, the terrorists are not in the least deterred by doubt. They lick their chops, stroke their b____s, make love to evil, reproducing offspring of bombs, knives, weapons of all kinds to vacate our flesh from our bones, to kill our men, women and children. We're in the catacombs of madness -- they slither through the tunnels and keep on crawling to their destination -- world-wide death to infidels. Their moldy stench is everywhere, they don't hide it. And what do our so-called leaders do? They kneel to the throne of PC, refusing to even identify, much less acknowledge the core of the problem.

#150 JWF

Chicago at Giants on NBC 8:15 ET.

Thanks Jammie, I thought I was just dumb.

#112 JammieWearingFool 11/12/2006 02:42PM PST

We did the same with the Vietnamese who helped us there. Our culture has been enriched by their presence here. I work with many of the former "boat people" and I have seen them excel and watched their kids graduate from college.
I have a Vietnamese friend who has told me of the horrors he and his family went through before they were able to flee. He knows who sold them down the river, and despises them.

It's because Democrat leadership doesn't genuinely care about people who are of no use to them - this is sociopathology - and complete lack of empathy.

It's time to start to think of "states of refuge" where Republicans can amass in the after effect of a massive terror attack - or prior. It would have to be a place that like-minded citizens of every creed and race can legitimately settle where the likelihood of suicidal ideas would be much less likely.

Example of suicidal ideas:

Negotiate with the terrorists.
Conceed land for peace
Establish sharia.

So I'm saying establish enough of a geographical politcal area where retrenchment is possible:

retrenchment? [ri-trench-muhnt] Fortification. an interior work that cuts off a part of a fortification from the rest, and to which a garrison may retreat.

I was just told by a neighbor, who is a card carrying Dem and worked on the Webb campaign, that the Dems consider themselves "the party of peace." Hangs right in there with the ROP.

John Kerry voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.
John Kerry ordered the banana cream pie - before he sent it back.
The Dems backed the war, before they realized they could get the media to spot their lies about intelligence failures and blame Bush and Cheney for sinking the titanic and blowing up Mount St. Helens.

the Dems are now going support the war before they cut the funds.
The Dems are going to not cut and run before they redeploy.

Same shit different day.

As if we all didn't see this coming.....

#151 JWF
The USA Today and Harris just came out so now the BSC rankings can be figured out. Look for Rutgers to be at #6 or #7 in the BCS. Wisconsin will be at #10 in the BSC.

Veto

Bush should say bipartisanship and willingness to adapt new strategies on Iraq are ok but that he can, should and will veto any cut and run.

He owes it to the troops who have give blood and lives on the field.

He also owes the troops a payback on Iran for all the terrorists and IEDs those ruthless bastards have shipped into Iraq over the last 3 years/

There is a legitmate position which asks:

"Why are we spending so much blood and treasure on the people of Iraq, most of whom hate us, like all Muslims hate us?"

An alternative to trying to force democracy on to these moribund cultures is a variation on "MAD" called "YAD" (Your Assured Destruction). Certain "triggers" would be defined--for example a mass casualty attack on a US city--and this would result in the nuclear annihilation of one or more Muslim coutries, including Mecca and Medina.

I don't see any other realistic option. Muslims will never embrace democracy.

JammieWearingFool I should note Rutgers should be ahead of Notre Dame, it's just wrong that they're not.

136 moses99

I just saw that on Mrs. Malkin's site.

Bwahahahaha! It's already starting folks! Give the Dems even a little tiny bit of rope, and they will hang themselves in record time.

Maybe - just maybe - they will LISTEN to the people and work with the President to WIN in Iraq.

lowandslow,

What we're seeing now is why they should just abolish any rankings until when they begin the BCS rankings.

Rutgers' problem is being unranked to start the season. It's a joke Wisconsin is behind two-loss teams.

At least they put Rutgers ahead of the two-loss teams.

USC-ND is Nov. 25, and the winner could well get the OSU-Michigan winner.

#155 spinoneone

the Dems consider themselves "the party of peace."

Yes they do.

U.S. Department of Peace

/legislation already pending (House Resolution 3760 and Senate 1756)

I might as well post this again:

Here is my attempt at perspective:

Invading Iraq was a monumentally important move because:

1) Under Saddam (as the Dulfer report found) Iraq was fully committed to reconsituting its WMD capability once the sanctions regime (which he was gaming anyway, Oil for Food) collapsed.

2) Iraq did harbor some choice terrorists and have contacts with Al Qaeda (9/11 commission report). He still had regional aspirations and it was not fully known how far he'd be willing to go in passing WMD off to terrorists. Admittedly, Iran was and is much more of a threat in the realm of international terrorism, but Saddam was a starting point.

3) We had much more international cover doing Iraq b/c of the too many to count broken UN resolutions.

4) We were maintaining a no-fly zone in Iraq for 11 years in order to keep the Kurds alive. That is one hell of a committment to keep indefinitely, we knew those resources would have to be freed to go elsewhere in the ME after 9/11.

5) Serve notice on all the other autocrats in the region that playtime was over and that our realpolitik policies of the Cold War had run their course. Unfortunately, James Baker and Robert Gates may undo this and set back our ME efforts 30 years in their short-sighted "realism."

6) The War on Terror (diplomatic name) is in reality a war on the harder elements of Islam and most of the accepted interpretations of the religion. Of course, we could never call this was it is, (War on Islam) b/c that would smack of "crusading" and be played by the rulers in the region to their paranoid populaces and generally prove counterproductive. Iraq is a big step forward in remaking the ME and giving a chance (perhaps their last chance) for Muslims to reconcile their faith with the modern world. This is really (in my opinion) what Iraq is all about.

It is about creating an environment where less violent (not saintly) Muslims can reign in their crazy bretheren and create some kind of representative government that can start undermining all the other autocracies in the region. If peaceful co-existance can happen in the ethnic cauldron of Iraq, it should be suitable anywhere else in the ME. The pan-Islamists (Nasserites who conflate religion with geo-politics, which Muhammad himself did) will be completely discredited, as there will be a working example of Muslims thriving in a non-caliphate - this would indeed be poisonous to them! The whole Jihad ideology of creating a caliphate would come undone, as it would no longer be necessary!

Lastly, out of consensual government it is a physical law that all things tend towards equilibrium, i.e. the center. Perhaps, a true Reformation akin to the Catholic Reformation that occurred prior to the Renaissance can occur in the Muslim world and finally for all time the intolerance of Muhammad will be read out (or at least de-emphasized) of Islam, leaving a monothesitic religion not that much different from Christianity and Judaism. Of course this will be a tremendous undertaking and a completely Muslim endeavour, but we must pave the way and make it safe for the reformers.

Finally, if we do NOT succeed in Iraq, we will guarentee untold millions will die in religious war in the future. The only way to defeat terrorism is to defeat prominent interpretations of Islam, realists like Gates and Baker will never accept this. Bush will have to hang tough, he understands what needs to be done.

HOW?

Tactically, we need better propaganda and statesmen in the Arab world - we are losing this battle completely. We need to shutdown Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of Al Sadr with the appropriate GPS-guided solutions. Seal the border with those 2 countries. Disarm the militias and destroy those that don't honor an amnesty. Continue building Iraqi security forces, scrap and re-make the police especially. All of this REQUIRES MORE TROOPS, I SAY COMPLETELY RE-DEPLOY FROM KOREA TO IRAQ. South Korea can take care of themselves.

That is my 2-cents.

Can we ask the Dem's what their ‘exit strategy’ is going to be when they bring the War home?'

Do we need to purchase advanced tickets for a price discount? What portion of our ‘Exit Strategy Relocation Package’ will the government subsidize by way of tax deductions? Or will new Supreme Leader’s Pelolugsi & Frankenreid raise taxes to subsidize, ‘Exit Relocations Packages‘?'

Where're we going, anywho?

#162 catttt

Aren't they the ones who supposedly check the polls before deciding which position they are going to take...?

Also, if you click on Michelle's link to the poll you have to laugh at the HEADLINE as opposed to the poll results! As ever the MSM can't resist misleading.

JammieWearingFool,

USC-ND is Nov. 25, and the winner could well get the OSU-Michigan winner.

I think you're dead on there, I also think Notre Dame can't beat USC.

People are probably sick of our football talk.

TO: room-temp
RE: I 'Understand'

"...It simply defies logic.

Things are bad this time people. I have a bad feeling about all this." -- room-temp

I've got a VERY 'bad feeling' about this whole think too. I think it's going to be a lot worse than most people are expecting.

But, fear not....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God grant us the peace that surpasses all undersanding.....]

#165 Classic Conservative

That was much more than 2 cents worth, my friend. About sums it up for any clear thinking American. Thank you!

#165 Classic Conservative

That is my 2-cents.

That's worth more than anything I've heard out of the State Dept. lately.

Bush should announce a "surrender" the day the last troops leave. And hold up a big picture of Pelosi, Hitlery and Levin plus be flanked with big white flags instead of the US flag.

And he should also mention that the "surrender" is meant in jest but is a forteller of things to come if the people elect more nazicrats in the future.

Perhaps he can have a koran near the white flags too, as a prop.

#108 room-temp

".....Things are bad this time people. I have a bad feeling about all this.

*Newbie here, no flaming please*"

I have the same bad feeling, an aching pit deep in my stomach and heart. And welcome. I'm rather new myself. No need to worry much about getting flamed here -- this is an outstanding board which distinguishes itself in many ways, with the lack of flaming at the drop of a hat being one. It's a terrific place to learn and deepen understanding. I have two binders and growing of printouts and web sites from LGF. Oftentimes when I can't put into words what I want to say, someone else will post which describes exactly what I'm thinking.

Well the US presence cannot be open ended. We are a finite nation with finite capacities. I fault the GOP for twiddling this war, in the wider sense. We should have hit way, way, way harder in 2001. It would have been over by now.

Now we will have to do more damage to our enemies in the future, than we would have had to do then.

At least the leftist press will be silent if it falls to a "D" administratin to really drop the hammer.

Just my 2 cents.

#33 Servoguy

Good hunting SHITE's.

And the Iranians?

#42 zakistan 11/12/2006 02:01PM PST

It's painfully obvious that the Iraqis (Arabs in general?) either don't want democracy and rule of law, can't handle it, or just don't care.

No. it's not.

#72 Justmyview

Withdrawing when there is still so much chaos and violence is not a great choice, but it's hard to figure out what the alternatives are

MSM view of Iraq. Alternaives are abondon he Iraqis to their fate and embolden the jihadists or keep our word. Easy,

#84Aviator

If this happens the US is through as a superpower. We might as well downsize our military to a small defense force.

Next in the dems agenda.

#165 Classic Conservative :

Good summary and especially thought provoking.

I am very concerned about the Iraq Study Group and what their recommendations are going to be. I really don’t want anymore blast from the past type realpolitik, but suspect that is what we are going to get big-time.

I agree 10,000 % on propaganda. Frankly this administration is just no good at it. We need to get serious about winning hearts and minds.

#170 & #171

Thanks! Now I'm going to go take a nap! I just WISH people in high places (Santorum was one of them) could communicate it to the masses!

Assuming the worst happens, and the Dems force us to conduct a "phased redeployment," here is my clever and insidious 4-Step Withdrawal Plan:

1. Help the Kurds.

2. Arm the Shiites.

3. F*** the Sunnis.

Then, once we're out...

4. Turn our backs and conveniently ignore the screams.

As part of the above, we should also sabotage the southern oil fields and destroy the port of Basra so they will be indefinitely unusable to anyone.

Indeed, demolishing the economic infrastructure of non-Kurdish Iraq will hang a big, fat albatross around not only "Mookie" Al-Sadr's neck, but also Iran's neck as well. Sure, the mullahs will try to annex southern Iraq...but their "prize" will be a smoking, stinking wasteland populated by dirt-poor, pissed-off, and heavily armed Iraqi Shiites who will quickly tire of their new Persian masters.

Furthermore, who'll pick up the tab for reconstruction? The U.S.? No way. The EU? Dream on. The UN? Are you kidding? Al Qaeda? Bwahahahahaha, don't make me laugh. The Iranians? Hell, once all those Mahmoud Six-Packs pick up their morning papers and discover how much they'll have to pay in order to "help their fraternal Iraqi Shiite brothers," the mullahs will be as good as strung from lampposts.

Accordingly, in my view, it's not so important that we "win"; rather, we just need to make sure that the Sunnis and Shiites both lose the inevitable post-departure power struggle. A pox on both their f***ing houses, I say.

We need to stay until the Iraqi government has the capability to defend its self from internal and external threats.
Sectarian violence is not part of the equation, it existed before we got there and will continue after we leave.

Most people do not understand the nature of this war. Part of that is because of the way the Bush administration has been fighting it i.e. without really naming the enemy.
People are much more comfortable with a WWII kind of war: smash the cities and military of your enemy, kill their leaders, make them throw in the towel. Then have them act like a conquered nation and accept some humility for pete's sake.

The [bigoted word]s aren't like that. They're not motivated by natioalism, or plunder (they're sure to burn the Louvre when they take over France. Hitler merely looted it. They are motivated solely by their moongod religion, which would ahppily plunge us into the Dark Ages again. Compare them to the barbarians at the fall of Rome.

Of course, most Americans have no idea who the Huns were or what they did, so maybe that's a bad idea too (Thank YOU, liberal teachers union.

Oh well, we're screwed.

#165 classic conservative

I don't know if you have military planning background, but your post follows a classic five paragraph operational planning structure.

You correctly defined the (1) Situation and (2) Mission.

Your (3) Execution;

Tactically, we need better propaganda and statesmen in the Arab world - we are losing this battle completely. We need to shutdown Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of Al Sadr with the appropriate GPS-guided solutions. Seal the border with those 2 countries. Disarm the militias and destroy those that don't honor an amnesty. Continue building Iraqi security forces, scrap and re-make the police especially. All of this REQUIRES MORE TROOPS, I SAY COMPLETELY RE-DEPLOY FROM KOREA TO IRAQ. South Korea can take care of themselves.

is based on a faulty assumption. All military plans contain assumptions. In fact, it is impossible to plan a military operation because of all the unknowns. So planners list their assumptions and start the planning process.

Your main assumption appears to be that Muslims want to reform Islam. That's where your Execution is fatally flawed. The is no evidence that Muslims want to reform Islam. In fact, the opposite is true. Muslims all over the world appear to support the jihadists goals either through active or passive support.

FYI the last part of the five paragraph structure is (4) Administration and (5) Command and Control. SMEAC to those of us who do it for a living.

A must read

[Link: news.bostonherald.com...]

#155 spinoneone 11/12/2006 03:09PM PST
I was just told by a neighbor, who is a card carrying Dem and worked on the Webb campaign, that the Dems consider themselves "the party of peace." Hangs right in there with the ROP.

I know several who are gleefull, glassy-eyed, feeling so justified in themselves. They don't really know what they've done - yet.

What to do?

#181, sailordude -

The reformation part is not part of the immediate strategy of victory in Iraq. It could prove to be a long-term benefit and should be something rigorously supported by the United States. The more immediate ideological struggle to win is to discredit the idea of a Caliphate being necessary for Muslims to live in. If we can torpedo that notion with another model in Iraq, that would be tremendous. From that we would reap tactical advantage throughout the world as Arab peoples begin pressuring their own corrupt leadership.

As for other (even more immediate) tactics to turn this thing around, yet still work towards some form of consensual government, there is certainly plenty of room for debate. But I don't think the strategy could be seriously doubted.

Sailordude -

And clearly, Reformation of Islam has nothing to do with the hard tactical moves would could make in Iraq that I separate with HOW? in that last paragraph.

#178, Mark 1957. New to global strategy? Seems that way.

#184 cc

Don't get me wrong; if I was the Commander in Chief, I would execute your plan.

Tactically it's very good. Strategically, it will not work unless reformers in the Muslim world step up and confront the jihadists. I remain pessimestic on that front.

CATF to CLF: "Land the Landing Force"!

Your going to have to look-up CATF and CLF.

Mark Steyn nails it:

The enemy aren't a bunch of simpleton Pushtun yakherds, but relatively sophisticated at least in their understanding of us. We're all infidels, but not all infidels crack the same way. If they'd done a Spain -- blown up a bunch of subway cars in New York or vaporized the Empire State Building -- they'd have re-awoken the primal anger of September 2001. With another mound of corpses piled sky-high, the electorate would have stampeded into the Republican column and demanded the U.S. fly somewhere and bomb someone.

The jihad crowd know that. So instead they employed a craftier strategy. Their view of America is roughly that of the British historian Niall Ferguson -- that the Great Satan is the first superpower with ADHD. They reasoned that if you could subject Americans to the drip-drip-drip of remorseless water torture in the deserts of Mesopotamia -- a couple of deaths here, a market bombing there, cars burning, smoke over the city on the evening news, day after day after day, and ratcheted up a notch or two for the weeks before the election -- you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it. And it worked.

[Link: www.suntimes.com...]

The Iraqi people were responding well: coming out in three elections to vote in better percentages than in America, all the while in the face of getting blown up. The US trained Iraqi military was excellent according to the estimation of Green Berets and SF. The Iraqis had a decent constitution with a number of key principles of a just, free state, e.g. the rule of law, protection of minorities, due process, etc.

But because of the low intensity "drip, drip, drip" of IED attacks the American people pulled a Spain. It's a problem with attention span and also with the presentation of the war in the media. Too many absurd theories about the meaning of supporting democracy in Iraq and whether or not it is ideologically consistent or acceptable to Muslims. People often have the confused idea that supporting democracy was about us benevolently giving them something. This is wrong: the war in Iraq after the toppling phase was primarily about killing the jihadists / insurgents and creating the possibility for conditions in which the jihadist ideology is discouraged, unlike places such as Jordan, Egypt or the KSA. We deemed that realpolitik policy was only creating shantytown, pre-industrial tyrannies and failed states that we have to keep spending billions of dollars on to keep the states out of the hands of jihadists. The spread of democracy aspect of the plan was, thus, pragmatic and flexible: as we brought rights and protections to the people, the people took more of an active role in informing on the insurgents. This is still a sound plan for defeating an insurgency: the same one we are using in Afghanistan. We have to keep in mind that this is the first time in Arab civilization that they have ever seen anything like democratic principles, meaning that most likely any success is going to take a long time.

What we needed to do was to amp up the force used to fight jihadists in Iraq, not turn to the surrender party (D). Democratic institutions would be optimal, but if the people don't want it, fine with us. The important thing is that in order to keep killing all those jihadists in Iraq we needed to build relations with Iraqi people and this was undoubtedly working. Again, the problem is that the whole plan is clearly long term, and we Americans have just shown that we lack the will to persevere in order to win the fight and achieve a relatively stable Iraq.

The plan was good; it's truly a shame we quit after such a short time.

Several other interesting topics with this Dem desire to surrender Iraq to the terrorists.

They are shoving this problem down the road. How are the kids growing up going to like the fact they they screwed up their future. They are the ones going to have to fight this war 5-10 years down the road.

How about that nice cushy retirement these baby boomer libs are counting on? You think with a war on these kids you screwed over are going to give a rats ass about your SSI check? You think those fat retirement accounts are going to be there because the economy is so rosy? The economy is the best its been since 1980 and they all voted for a "change". I guess they never considered change can be good or bad.

#176 - T. Jefferson

Great handle, by the way. Ya, if I were Paul Revere I'd jump on my horse and ride around yelling 'the realists are coming, the realists are coming!' I'm 10,000% convinced that they are going to make one helluva mess. Daniel Pipes, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Bush, Cheney they were all looking 100 years ahead and I'm sure they are all right. So much for the far-sighted.

#188 Yank..

He has valid points. What we should have done is said if the violence does not drop by a certain date we are doubling our troop strength and shutting down the pipeline from Syria and Iran. Then started building a bomber base outside Baghdad.

#178 Mark1957
exactly....

87- Yeah or worse even...with the USA becoming a yugoslavia-rump state. In the Center, mas o meno, is the USA. The eastern and western Seabords are United Islamic States stretching across the Canada border to Oregon and Wash State.
Then the rest will be various radioactive 'forbidden zones'.

Within a few years.
Lie you said the US Constitution as it is will be a memory.

These crackpots and their ideas do NOT set us up for victory in 08 at all.

I've seen this before.

1968 - I'm 19, living in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. I'm canvassing for McCarthy (both of us idealistic dopes, par excellence) on the day Johnson withdraws from running. I (and my fellow travellers) are euphoric!

1972 - I'm 23 (still in the PRM), voting for McGovern and expecting a political sweep. We got one, but for Nixon, for crissakes (49-1)! My little cocoon got busted like a pinata.

1975 - The Dems cut off all aid to our allies. Saigon falls. Shock, sadness, but not enough anger.

1976 - Jimmah Cartah gets elected. Who really cares? I'm living and working in Holland scoring chicks.

1978 - Doing work in Saudi Arabia for 8 months. Besides not scoring chicks, aware that the country is disfunctional in some fundamental way. My Lebanese roomie Muhammed helps me to understand some things, but not enough.

1979 - Pol Pot's killing fields come to light. Economy (and our military) are in the tank - (soldiers were on food stamps to feed their families.) Ayatollah Khomeini. Russia invades Afghanistan. Inflation and interest rates at 15%. Unemployment at 10%. I start to connect the dots. Anger crops up.

1980 - Took time off to work on Ronnie's presidential campaign. Big win. Begin to send money to Massoud of the Northern Alliance through an Afghan friend.

1982 - Worked on Ray Shamie's Senate campaign staff and clubbed the Chappaquiddik Kid to only a 61-39 win. Since that's the best that Teddy-Bare could do in the PRM, we killed his chances for the Presidential Cup. Thank you, Ray (RIP!)!

2006 - Still in the PRM. Last night, had dinner with a bunch of old, knee-jerk liberal friends. They started crowing about the election, and I pointed out they were re-arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic was sinking, and they didn't even know enough to figure out where the lifeboats were. Then pontificated on Koran literalism, abrogation, FGM, sharia, dhimmitude, jihad, etc. All attendees college ed. (BS, BA, MS, MA, PhD) graduates, yet they had never heard what I said. Socially, big downer. But I was in "no prisoners" mode.

Bottom line - a lot of McGovern/Nancy/Teddy liberals up here will gladly sacrifice millions of people to their ideological altar.

Like I said, been there, done that.

Just, not ever again.

Take a look at this picture.

[Link: www.10af.afrc.af.mil...]

Now think of it ouside Baghdad.

Now tell me seeing pics like this on CNN and Al jiz would not make the nuts in Tehran and Damascus take notice.

Perhaps the US should do a coup of our own and have the US and Iraq military install former interim Iraq Pres Alawi back in. He'd be a strong man and would kill the killers very quick.
We could shrug and say "oh well. we tried
the election but we need this interim step first.

#191 hous

An awful lot of people thought Rumsfeld's idea of leaving a small footprint in Iraq was not really necessary. He wanted the Iraqi military to shoulder a lot more of the burden and fast. With all due respect to him, it seems clear that we needed a large-scale attack operation on two fronts: the Sunni jihadists and the Shia militias. I don't understand why we didn't go nuts on them...

Love the pipeline idea, but I know little about feasibility.

Random thoughts:
"History is written by the winners;
History is re-written by the quislings"

Our strengths:
1. The dems didn't win an overwhelming majority in both houses. One vote does not an unsuppressable majority make (Senate). In the house, it's somewhat less rosy, but there are still a few conservative dems left, so the LLL won't have total unassailable power.
2. The American people don't want bigger government (by a large majority)in a recent poll as cited by Rush, so there is still hope
3. The internet and talk radio. Vietnam, we were stuck with the big 3 3-letter outlets and public television, the NYT and other left-wing rags. We now have Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc. Somehow, we have to capitalize on that and get people weaned away from the left-wing biases in the media.

Our Weaknesses
1. The RINOs are an issue. It's easy to envision votes in which the conservative Dems side with the American people and the RINOS side with the LLL, resulting in defeat for the right.
2. President Bush. He has shown himself too often to be an appeaser and way too willing to bend over backwards in the "spirit of bipartisanship" to appease the dems. The prosecution of the war in Iraq has been mixed. The initial execution was great, then he let the media and the dems start running things. Pulling back from Fallujah and other examples show that he is running the war as a political war instead of letting the generals fight and win as it should be won. He has further turned this into a PC war and has to a great extent removed the ability of our troops to profess their faith in the countries they are helping liberate. This is abominable in both the spiritual and political arenas. Note, I am not encouraging "in-your-face", forceable evangelization -- but it sure isn't a bad thing if we can show others the faith that has led to Western civilization compared to the backwater backwardsness that is the fate of those under Sharia.
3. The MSM. This is a real threat. It has already shown itself to be the enemy of this country, siding in every case with those who would attack and destroy us and attacking in every instance those who would protect and defend us. There is nothing redeemable here.
4. The check-pants Republicans -- those who would just as soon compromise as stand for anything. Those who would prefer, like Bush, to just get along. We either start getting serious about this, recognizing that the dems are playing for power and for keeps, or we give up and let the socialists and leftwingers take our earnings, our guns, implement Kyoto, and all other of the left-wing bilge they espouse.

The next two years must be a time of making sure that the left wing agenda is not implemented and that the president does not get blamed for gridlock just because the leftists in congress keep sending statist, defeatist, harmful legislation to the oval office. The republicans need to be loud, vocal, and unapologetic, clearly articulating why various pieces of proposed legislation are bad for the country and not let the MSM just ignore them. This is too important to act like cowering dolts.

BTW,

I'm in despair, and at first I thought I would ask for odds before I would bet on our culture's survival.

But I became a step-grandfather last month, for the first time. I'm the oldest of 12. I've got 25 nieces and nephews, a couple grand nephews. I don't have the right to despair. Or to opt out. Not as long as I love them. Or live.

And my wife, daughter, country, fellow citizens, and anyone out in the war who is my ideological soul mate still live with hope.

It really is total war.

I hope to see the successful end of this war in my lifetime. But if that doesn't happen, after I'm gone, I would wish that others would say that what I did led in some pathetically small part to the ultimate success of the survival of our culture. If this is the ultimate "Hundred Year War", then that is what we have to do to survive.

#197 Yank

There was nothing wrong with Rumsfields and Bushs plan. If you read up about insurgencies it makes sense. What it did not take into account is the lack of patience of the American people. I beleive that this was reflected in Bushs shock at having lost the house and senate.

189-Hous bin...Get this from the News shows toaday. supposedly Charlie Rangel is suggesting an "asset tax".
this is a plan from the commie play-book of re-distribution of wealth.
also Hillary made a speech a few years back with the same idea.

As far as Social Security. There is no trust-fund. The money has been spent. The payouts will have to be borrowed at some point. And there is talk of "means testing".
That is, if you have means, you get tested to see if you need the soc sec.

Sometimes it all comes down to “commitment”. Many Americans don’t value commitment as a character quality. The divorce rate is about 40% here in this country, I’m told. And those couples who choose to procreate without commitment speaks volumes. If you get into debt, declare bankruptcy. If you become pregnant, get an abortion. If you don’t get along with the Boy Scout Leader, drop out. If your religion doesn’t fit with your agenda, change religions. If your ex-wife/husband is a jerk, renege on child support.

I’m not surprised at all that all our congresscritters who voted to go to war in Iraq are now looking to renege on that commitment. After all, it isn’t going well. Absolving ourselves of a commitment seems to be the Democratic Way of Life. It worked in Vietnam, it should work now, and everyone will be alive and happy. However, someone forgot to tell them that the Viet Cong and the NVRA didn’t follow our “redeployed” troops back to the homeland. But if we get out of Iraq by whatever means, no more Americans will die there, and all will be right in the world. Yeah! Fasten your seatbelts.

#56 Dr. Manhattan

I have come to a conclusion this year. America is the most warlike nation on earth, but it is ALSO the country with the most restraint in how it uses this boiling militarism.

In the same way the police are the most warlike people in the US?
If your interests and well-being were threatened and you fought back, would you be warlike?

“First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat

A direction 180 degrees.
"Come home, America"--where have I heard that before....

#201 big-l

Yeah. They tried that with the luxury tax. That for example ended up putting boat builders out of business and a lot of middle class workers on unemployment.
Did not hurt the rich one bit. Did not increase tax revenues either. Tax cuts do increase revenue. That has been proven time and time again.
Rangel and the dems know this. That is why they are doing it. In one hand they get tax dollars to hand out to buy votes and on the other hand it causes increased unemployment so the demand for government services increases. I do not for a minute think they do these things by mistake or ignorance. They are doing it on purpose. Hard times are good for Democrats. Just look at the Great Depression. Look at how great it was for Democrats. How many times was FDR elected? The only thing that stopped his reign was that he died. Look at every city Democratic city in the US and all the problems they have. Yet how many times have they voted Republican and thrown the bums out?

The exception to this is Reagan. The dems were shocked they lost to him considering how good things were for them.

#199, Tinker. Never dispair, you are on the right road, and it is long and hard. The "other road" is much shorter, and leads off a cliff.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said "we need to redeploy," but that the decision should be made by military officers in Iraq.

He said on "Face The Nation" program on CBS that he would not insist on a specific date for drawing down troops, but that a withdrawal should start within the next few months.

How magnanimous of him.

"Redeploy". The new word of the day.
We are going to hear that word used in every other sentence from the d-rats and msm until blood runs out of our ears.
Orwell would be proud.

If I call taking a dump 'painting the house', does the house get actually painted every morning?

We have matured in the process of divorcing words from thier actual meanings. We will continue to drift apart as a society because we don't even have a common language anymmore.

If Bush caves to the d-rats and the fabulous baker boys on Iraq, I hope he is impeached. He will have aquandered 3000 of our finest citizens.

#200 hous

Well, on balance the war plans since September 11, 2001 have been excellent, particularly given the opposition party has no real plan except to repeat the usual leftist / Marxist agenda. After resounding victory in Afghanistan, the US then invaded Iraq against the efforts of the UN and took the war to the Islamists. These actions in declaring and fighting the war against radical Islam showed the steel character of the Bush admin.

So, I mean from my own outsider's perspective, if I have questions they would concern the amount of force to be used in Iraq. If it is one thing tribalist Muslims understand it is the exercise of power and the respect that must be given to those with the will to use it.

Ok... the time has finally come-Bush Jr needs to turn himself into Reagan the IInd and go directly to the people about the war efort and tell the 78 percent who are *concerned* to "mail, email, call or otherwise get the word to your representative that we need to do this the right way and not be total cowards..." Bury them in the message of a multitude if we cannot bury them in dirt...

#184 Classic Conservative:

The more immediate ideological struggle to win is to discredit the idea of a Caliphate being necessary for Muslims to live in. If we can torpedo that notion with another model in Iraq, that would be tremendous.

That's ridiculous--and hopeless.

Those Muslims who believe in the restoration of the caliphate want it to restore all the ancient lands to Islamic law. It's part of their interpretation of Islam. They're not going to be seduced by some "alternative model." Especially not a Western model in which secular government and a secular constitution are dominant. The Quran specifically forbids devout Muslims to pledge allegiance to a secular government (which it disparages as "rule of men by men"). Only a government constructed on Islamic law is acceptable.

The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to restore the ancient caliphate, is

"God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

That doesn't sound to me like they're going to be too interested in any "alternative models."

If you want to discredit the idea of a Caliphate for Muslims, you have to prove to Muslims that you're not going to allow them to turn OUR land into THEIR caliphate. That can only be done with sufficient force to get them to postpone (but not renounce) their caliphate for another few centuries.

But OK, let's suppose you're right. The problem still remains that the Shi'a and Sunni don't agree on the caliphate line of succession and other matters. You still haven't explained how you're going to get the Shi'a and Sunni to cooperate to share power in Iraq peacefully--call off their death squads and assassins and live in peace.

I have some ideas on that. But Bush doesn't.

#207 Yank..

If you study any US war you can see more mistakes and setbacks then this war.

Washington made plenty of goofs. The Brits should have wiped the colonists out in quick order.

Lincoln? Do not even get me started. His errors are legion. Including his choice of Generals.

WW2? Kaserine Pass? (I hope I spelled that one right)
That’s just for starters. How about supporting Monty over Patton? A Bridge too Far? Great movie. Lousy battle plan. That got a lot of GI's killed in the long run and was all politics. Keeping the allies together and all that rot
Korea had its share of screw ups and mistakes.

Vietnam most people know about.

Iraq war I. When we let up on the Iraq Guards units on the Highway of Death.
That was probably the best fought war we have had.

You get the picture.

Actually, the Democrats are making good on their campaign promises to the Leftists. It's what we've been covering here for quite some time now.

It's just that the rest of the country is realizing that the bill of goods that Democrats want to sell isn't quite what they had in mind.

Most Americans want the troops to come home - after we've won. They instinctively realize the damage done by coming home too soon. They also realize that if the terrorists are indeed running around Iraq, then the best place for our forces to be focused is in Iraq - where they can kill those terrorists.

Instead, the Democrats want to relocate the troops to Shangri-La. Hey, it sounds much more promising that way. Never mind that it's a mythical spot. Never mind that the jihadis will simply move on to the next country using Iraq as a base of operations. Because the Democrats will have succeeded in bringing home the troops. And Iraq will be left to its own devices...

194 Tinker

Great post. You described a true arc of awakening.

We do make a difference in the little things. Maybe you cracked thier liberal shells enough to let a little reality in.

The war in Iraq was won in three weeks. While establishing the peace has been a bitch, it is not cause for surrender. When we occupied Germany and Japan, we were not confronted by religious militias. When opposition to our occupation did surface, the gun and the rope quickly put it down, and the new police forces of the newly established governments were eventually able to take over security. We had troops in both places for over half a century. have the Dems forgotten. This is really getting stupid fast.

#210 Absolutely right, hous...

#198 AZfederalist:

Pulling back from Fallujah and other examples show that he is running the war as a political war instead of letting the generals fight and win as it should be won. He has further turned this into a PC war and has to a great extent removed the ability of our troops to profess their faith in the countries they are helping liberate.

From what I heard, Rumsfeld had thought that sending a larger occupation force and using more force against the insurgents would "alienate" the civilian population against us, and drive them into the arms of the insurgents. Instead, he advocated that the U.S. should maintain a low profile in Iraq, fighting no more than necessary, while training the Iraqis to run their own country and defend it themselves. That's why he never recommended more troops to Bush.

What Rumsfeld did not foresee, was that our invasion would cause a total collapse in Iraq, causing them to have to start from zero: Their army dissolved. Their police force dissolved. Their Civil Service collapsed. That was not what we had expected. With no indigenous force in Iraq to maintain order--not even to arrest common criminals--our armed forces there were reduced to doing grungy police work. And there were never enough of them.

Either extreme is bad: If you send insufficient force, Iraq descends into anarchy, and the insurgents keep disrupting the country. If you send too much force, the civilians start to think of you as oppressors.

Rumsfeld thought he had settled on the right number. He hadn't.

The Bush Administration had also hoped that the democratic process in the new Iraq would lure the Iraqi people away from violence--why commit violence if you can now solve your problems through the ballot box? As we have seen, that didn't happen. There was a committee to write a constitution and a vote on the constitution and then free elections--but the violence in Iraq has not declined.

The answer is that Iraqis are MUSLIMS. And Arab Muslims are taught that as a last resort, if you can't get what you want peacefully, you wage jihad. Arab Muslims are not taught to be gracious losers.

We've seen that with Hezbollah in "democratic" Lebanon too.

#209 Right Side -

I'll start with the Sunni Shia conflict first. First of all, it is NOT every Sunni fighting every Shia, there are certainly prominent militias, leaders and foreign governments behind the killing. Each faction needs to be dealt with in turn through a combination of carrots (amnesties) and very big sticks for those who violate the agreements, or only sticks for those foreign governments involved. I'm sure most average Iraqis can agree on one thing at this point, security, no matter how it is achieved is preferable to what is going on right now. Big sticks will be acceptable, maybe even welcome. Of course, due to Arab pride problems they will never come out and say "I'm happy the infidel wiped out those Sunni/Shia yesterday", but most Iraqis not partaking in the violence won't do anything to stop it.

Now on to the Caliphate stuff. I am not really convinced that it will be impossible to discredit this supremacist ideology. I don't think the average Muslim longs to dominate the world. As you say yourself, the Sunni and Shia sects are divided as to what exactly the Caliphate would constitute anyway. You also cite in support of this being a majority position the Muslim Brotherhood, which is considered an extremist organization here and in the Muslim world. I'm not trying to downplay the number of Muslims that may actually believe (to the point of action) that Islam should rule the world, just trying to say it is not as homogenous as you make it sound.

I also think that should push come to shove, the Turkish military-enforced parliamentary democracy approach may also be an option. Critics always try to claim we are trying to create Athens in the ME, when most proponents of my position are quite content with some form of representative government. I do however think that the role of Sharia Law will have to be minimized in the Iraqi Constitution, however I have read the Constitution and they have implemented some safeguards against its excesses. That sort of reform will come with time, what we have here and now is a starting point for debate (imagine this as the Articles of Confederation). I mean, really, how long did it take good Anglo Christians of the 13 colonies to get their shit together? Yes, I know make the Western traditions arguement, of course. But that actually aides my arguement, as even with those traditions in place it took more than 3 years!

The bottom line is, if we can create a society that is successful than Jihadists, Arab strongmen and other rabble rousers will have a much tougher time insighting people to takeover the world when they could much more easily depose the idiots running their country and make their own reforms.

Right Side, this is a long fight. Get used to it.

I think the war in Iraq has proved that you can't make a muslim country a stable democracy unless you pull a Kemal Ataturk and enforce secularism at gunpoint (and even Turkey isn't exactly what I'd call an ideal role model). Or, heck, try to convert them to another religion, but de-Islamize the population by any means necessary. Islam, "moderate" or not, and democracy go together about as well as bourbon and raw sewage. The political leaders we have now just don't have the will to torch every madrass and replace it with a western-style elementary school, because they're still lying to themselves (and us) that this isn't a war against Islam.

#209, Right Side

"God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."

What’s wrong with this picture? First, the name is not “God”, but Allah, a lesser of over 300+ gods who was elevated to Grand Poopah by Mohammed over 1400 years ago. This Allah in no way resembles the god of Jews and Christians. Secondly, the Quran is mostly incomprehensible without the Hadith, Sunnah and all the other “holy” Islamic texts, and most of them make little sense. Third, the “profit” Mohammed didn’t prophesy anything true. Fourth, if struggle is the way, why not just get calm, do the right thing, and live a good life in spite of all life’s adversities? There is no need to borrow trouble. And death for the sake of Allah (either one’s own death or other’s), a pretend god, diminishes the Creator of all life; what human has the arrogance to determine which (or who) of God’s creations deserve to live or die in His name?

The true Scriptures are sufficient, and from Genesis to Revelation run in a continuum. For those who would discount the New Covenant, the Old is still sufficient. The Quran, on the other hand, is loaded up with politics, inconsistencies and contradictions. The Kaaba was built by either Adam or Abraham before Allah even became “top god”, depending on how the contradictory writings of Islam are interpreted. The pillars of Islam were practiced as part of the Kaaba idol worship long before Mohammed promoted Allah to his current status. The true Scriptures have no “Satanic Verses”. Just because 1.5 billion people today choose to follow this cult doesn’t make it right or true.

#216 Classic Conservative:

Right Side, this is a long fight. Get used to it.

That's the problem. I look at a map of the world and I don't think we have the time, the troops, the resources, to focus on Iraq when we've got a full plate everywhere else.

Just in the Middle East alone, we've now got Hezbollah in Lebanon threatening both Lebanon and Israel, Syria continuing to keep its thumb on Lebanon, Iran arming Hezbollah and scaring Saudi Arabia with nuclear threats, on and on. Then you toss in the resurgent uprisings in Afghanistan and a new nuclear North Korea and the possibility that Somalia will become another al-Qaeda base, and we can't just keep being obsessed with Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. It's as if in World War II, we stopped the entire global war effort to go build a democracy in North Africa.

As long as we're bleeding in Iraq, it undercuts our ability to respond to other threats. We can't wage war all around the world (or even make credible threats to wage war) if the American public is so disgusted with American deaths in Iraq.

I'm sorry, civilizing Iraq is not a goal the American people are going to buy into. I am as hawkish a right-winger as you'll ever meet, and I'm not buying it either. I think with Hamas winning the Palestinian election, Hezbollah a virtual state-within-a-state in "democratic" Lebanon, a bunch of terrorist plots being undertaken by native Muslim Europeans despite living in democratic countries, the theory that democracy is an antidote to Islamic radicalism has been shaken. Certainly there has never been evidence that building a democracy is the way to win a war that you didn't have the stomach to win on the battlefield. And I doubt that the public will support this theory anymore without some hard evidence that it is correct.

Uh-huh... no way...

I had a small glimmer of hope that maybe the Democrats would act responsibly... they already told our Iraqi allies that they would support them... Guess that was a... "lie"?

The Democrats obvously want to force a loss so they can crow about how "war is bad, mmm-kay" claim that Republicans obviously do nothing but cause losses for US (like Vietnam... hey... who STARTED that war anyway) and therefore we need to just need to sit and talk with the Muslims and understand them...

Okay, strap 'em on tim...

Right Side -

I'm NOT advocating ignoring the other emerging and pressing threats around the globe. Different strokes for different folks.

Iran -

The people overwhelming HATE the Mullahs and protest them in the streets in the hundreds of thousands. They actually LIKE AMERICA! This is a no-brainer. Support the democratic revolution with SOF operations from Iraq and tactical air strikes. We could roll that up very fast with minimal troop committment, and we would be doing ourselves a huge favor in the process in Iraq. This is a time to lean forward, not back.

Syria -

Bashar Assad and his Alawite regime is ready to fall, but there is a serious concern that Islamists (Nasrallah & Hezbollah) would take over. I think if we dealt decisively with Iran that would be a smashing victory, Syria could be successfully contained for now. Leave them to Israel.

Lebanon -

Let Israel have at it. Same boat as Syria, but dealing decisively with Nasrallah in Lebanon would greatly weaken his chances of succession by default in Syria.

This is most certainly a regional conflict, and we have to treat it as such. I'm sure there are many other strategies that could be employed, but they don't all necessarily require overwhelming military force and could produce very desireable results.

Right Side -

The evidence you seek is not achievable without a more than minimalist committment to the enterprise. The other option is perpetual war throughout the world with ever-increasing animosity. We have to do better because we cannot fight in the way that you want indefinitely. People run around saying nuke this, nuke that invade this, bomb that. None of this is practical policy and would only buy a respite anyway. We need to take our time and unravel this thing decisively. This is a war of ideologies and we must prevail. This also includes, much, much better propaganda (a dirty word in the West) than present.

#220, Skywise,

I believe it was Trotsky that said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. So now, Dems, what about that? I should just sit in my new townhouse and let you talky-talk me into some illusion (delusion) of safety with the enemy?

Also, I have contention to your claim that Muslims in Europe live in Democratic societies, they live in socially socialistic ones, although they me politically democratic.

This is a huge difference because socialism breeds economic stagnation and only exasperates integration problems. There is no requirement for personal responsibility in Socialist societies, this destroys work ethic and creates a nanny state mentality in urban ghettos (we saw it here for a while and still do to some degree). All of these things push otherwise reasonable people towards radical ideologies. I'm not making excuses for Islamic behavior, but I am saying that it hasn't been conclusively proven that democracy cannot placate the Islamic beast.

Real effort and real committment is what is needed here across the board, it is time to drag these people kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. It shouldn't be our job, but neither are a lot of things. The burdens of being a Hyperpower and all.

Drudge says that Murtha is being fronted by Stretch as the new majority leader.

Yep, I'm pretty damn sure that I'm not getting mobilized to Iraq next year. I'll be need to fight the WOT right here in what ever is left of some major American city.

Hey y'all,
I know I'm fairly new here, and my opinion doesn't mean a whole lot just yet, but I have to put in my two cents before my head explodes...

First, I don't think the election results of the past week are necessarily cause for all of us to wail and gnash our teeth. There are a few possible scenarios that could play out, but we are nowhere near the "eve of destruction" that we could be. The Democrats didn't "win" the election - it was ours to lose, and lose it we did.
We stepped all over the Dems in 2000 and 2004 - even given the crybaby antics of Al Gore and John CowardKerry. But - we (as a party) got complacent. I hesitate to use the word, but I think many Representatives and Senators felt a little invincable...and they stopped listening to the conservative base that got them where they were. It's always easier to agree with the "squeaky wheels" who want the US to be viewed as losers, than it is to disagree and risk being thought of as a ___ - phobic. (You fill in the blank with whatever group feels the most "put upon" at any given time.)
This has the potential to be a teriffic object lesson for us, going into 2008 and beyond. The Dems will show their true colors - not immediately, but as soon as they regroup. The Dems who are real troublemakers weren't going anywhere this past Tuesday, anyway...Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Biden. And they're still WAAAY left of center, and the junior reps and senators will either conform or find themselves out in the cold. Either way, the American public will be apalled at the complete shift away from what they thought they were voting for. And then, it will be up to us to regain our focus and composure, and straighten things out.
I'm not afraid - we're going to be viewed by the rest of the world as a great bunch of morons, but this too shall pass. All lessons are hard. Otherwise, why would anyone bother learning from them?

Test

Wait did we say funding for Iraq wouldn't be cut.. we meant Iran wouldn't be cut.. you misunderstood us, so stop bitching ..we have a mandate to change direction.. get over it.. Humm does Israel get money we meant palistine would.

does this suprise any of us?

the dems stole defeat from victory in Vietnam, leading to the deaths of millions at the hands of commies.

and they will do it again here.

the people of the US voted for these traitors.

johncv
gymnast

thanks for the responses. Bottom line - yuh just gotta believe in this country. Sometimes it just takes a little time, and experience, to find that inner strength.

God Bless!

Timelines, shmimelines. If they want one so bad, maybe we should just go along:

"The mahdi army have until December 15th to completely disarm and deliver to the Iraqi police the people on the attached list. Failure to comply will result in the distruction of sadr city and all its inhabitants."

Now that's a timeline we can all get behind.

Whou could have guessed this would come form the Democrats. Hopefully it will not work. If they do cut funding they can kill any chance or re-election for the next decade or so goodby.

No need to hyperventilate, the Dems actually have little or no ability to do anything. The current situation will require consensus action from all sides. Getting consensus will take time, concessions, or a "significant" event.

The biggest winner in all of this are the individual Democratic Senators, as each one has an effective veto over any policy pushed by the leadership. (If the Republicans stay united.)

The worst that they can try an do is cut off or reduce funding through the House Defense Authorization and Appropriation committees. Any drastic action by those would not be supported by the Senate.

Pay attention to who gets the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair.