Good Maher line.

I hate to agree with Thomas, who is the least talent national writer I've ever seen, but Iraqis will have a civil war if we leave. We've created a power vaccumn that is going to take some time and violence to fill. Bush Sr. knew what he was talking about when he declined to invade Iraq partially because of the human cost that it would impose and the fact that it would obligate us to become a long term occupying power. We never listen to our parents do we?

The American public isn't fixated on runaway brides. The press is. They can only handle 1 big story at a time and they bizzarely get stuck on these meaningless human interest stories (with due respect to the families affected) and fail to cover the stories that really affect us. Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example really. It's not a terribly important story in and of itself but highlights the fact that the press hasn't covered the war and particularly the runup to war in a serious manner and can only cover the large scale discontent of the American public with this war when it has a blonde human face.

Yes the right does love to blame the imaginarily liberal press when things go wrong. They ascribe to it vast powers to influence the public as the right has achieved near total control of American national government. The right is a convienient whipping boy. It's the press's fault that the "good news" from Iraq isn't being reported. It's the presses fault that the American public is becoming disenchanted by this war. It's the presses fault that GWBs job approval is in the bargain basement. I wish the press was as powerful as the rights propaganda machine claims. Then perhaps we could have avoided this disaster.

Iraqis will have a civil war if we leave.
Iraqis are having a civil war as we stay.

It's a terrible no win situation for America.

The press IS bizzare - actually the press is mostly fixed on making money - so anything having to do with sex - skinny runaway brides or a dead pregnant wife or a spoiled Hilton or the constant Hollywoon bed-swapping .. there is a never ending source of tittilate ammo. Sales of Cocmo' and People magazines prove the marketing strategy.

Present an argument against the current War path and you are a treasonist. Blindly support the status quo and be called a simplistic fool.

It's a terrible no win situation for America.

My only "advise": Neither an "R" nor a "D" be.

Appearently we are not all fixated with the runnaway bride and the Hilton saga. Some of us appearently get our news (and talking points) from Bill Maher and the hbo comedy tour.

"The Bush adm.created a wasps' nest of terrorists in iraq"? Our troops are cleaning out the wasps' nest of terrorism created by Saddam AND ubl.

"The right loves to blame the press when things aren't going well". If the press reported in a straightforward and unbiased fashion,the right would not have as much to complain about. I saw a news clip just this morning (yeah on fox for all you doom and gloomers in liberalland out there)that the commanding general in iraq said that the news coverage the american public is being fed is far from accurate. He states that great progress is being made in the war on terror and that we ARE winning. Bad news for the Michael Moore/Dick Durbin crowd! Didn't see or hear any of these comments on the nightly news or the Bill Maher show.

"The iraq and vietnam war have become dubious ventures". This is a new strategy being marketed by the left in an attempt to link the two conflicts,thereby saying "we failed in vietnam and by god we are going to fail here too"!

"Thomas views americans as niave or dumd"? It is the american left who view the american public as niave and dumb. They just have no other explanation of why the liberals are losing elections and rejecting their doom and gloom view of america.

Good day to all! I'm going to celebrate another great day in america with confidence and pride in our country.

Vietnam was a war that the politicians would not let us win.

Iraq is a war that the peaceniks don't want us to win.

"Vietnam was a war that the politicians would not let us win.

Iraq is a war that the peaceniks don't want us to win."

....may i add the Elite Lib MSM to your last sentence?

.....very few on the left "get it".....here's an article from one who does....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp

Tell me something. Why are our men and women fighting to put in place a government that will place women under Sharia (islamic) law? How can we claim to be setting up a democracy in which 50% of the population will be marginalized? If we're ashamed of our founding fathers spinelessness when it came to outlawing slavery, why aren't we ashamed to facilitate the writing of a constitution that codifies this abuse? Last question, can anybody answer these questions without calling names?

Good questions Susie!

Shalom

Iraq Exit Strategy:

Should be modeled after previous War's (ie. WWII, Korea, Bosnia).

WWII Germany - American troops (over 50,000)remain in Germany. American and NATO remained
during the Cold War. Cold War has been over since Reagan.

Korea - 35,000 American troops still on the border
of North and South Korea. War has been over for at least 50 years.

Bosnia - Clinton offered no exit strategy, some of our troops are stil there, ten years after
Clinton Lied to us about Bosnia. Needed to take the heat off, Monica and the Impeachment.

Let's bring our troops home, we can send the
"American's For Middle Eastern Peace Committee."

These true American Patriot's would gladly sacrifice themselves for a chance of Peace thru-out the Middle East. These brave and courageous
patriot's would be; Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Richard Durbin, Jimmy Carter, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

We can sit back and let the experts take over,
and make peace with the Islamo-Fascists.

If our overtures of "Peace" are rejected by OBL and his fellow Jihadist's, we know who will be kidnapped and tortured. WIN!!WIN!!

Bush KNOWINGLY LIED and got us into a war that can't be won because two years after we withdraw (which even BUSH is trying to do now); the same hardline religous fanatics will over run the "puppet government" we leave in charge--despite our willingness to continue to pump upwards of $100billion annually into "guaranteeing" Iraqis something that we don't have in America. Do we have "safe streets"; adequate and new schools; adequate and afordable medical facilities; reasonable energy supplies and cost; and a government free from corruption?
Bush LIED about Iraq's WMDs; Iraq's connection to Bin Laden; Iraq's connection to some African plot to supply weapon material; etc. Initially, he didn't even want Americans to honor the coffins of the dead soldiers being returned--hell we were over a year into the war before we could even see the faces of what he now calls "American Heroes".
Yet, there still is another "connection" between Iraq and Vietnam, LBJ lied about the "Bay of Tokin" incident also in order to "justify" and "unjust war". Democrat or Republican; "left wing or right wing", they're all on the same BIRD. Rich folks get poor folks to fight their wars while they pretend to be patriotic. Bush can win me over when he sends his two drunk twins over ahead of everybody elses children. Any one who has been to war--(unlike the "Christian Marine General who stated, "Its fun to kill these guys")does not want to go to war (unnecessarily). Thus both General Powell and George H. Bush advised against an invasion of Iraq (war is easy to get into--but hell to get out of). But Connie, Dick, Donald and George--NONE OF WHOM HAS EVER BEEN TO WAR, were determined, anxious and willing to LIE to get America into Iraq. Yes, we've lost some brave men and women--but so have the Iraqi people and many of them have been civilians (men, women and children); the question is WHY and for what end result?
A Vietnam Veteran

Susie, my first question to you, have you seen the Iraqi constitution? I have not, but I hear it has rights for everyone including women, freedom of religion, freedom for everyone to vote. It sounds as if you expect their constitution to mirror ours. As the country is predominately Muslim, that is not going to happen. Not to say I would want to live in a Muslim country, but that is their culture.

Look at Afghanistan, before our brave troops liberated that population, women were forced to wear burkas and were beaten in public if their ankles were showing. Today they can vote. Can you not call that progress?

See, all that with no name calling :)

Jennifer,

I love your "Peace Group."

I would love to see Hillary read OBL the "Riot Act."

Do you think we would get to see some head's roll?

You are much funnier, and smarter than Bill Maher.

Are you single?

Mangumt, yyyaaaawwwwnnnnn. Bush lied, needs to send his twins to war, Rummie didn't serve, yadayadayada. Thanks for the Micheal Moore website update. Thanks for your military service by the way.

POP QUIZ
(For Jennifer, above, who claims Clinton sent troops to Bosnia to take the heat off Monica/Impeachment)

1) In what year did the US first send troops to Bosnia?

2) In what year did news of Monica become public?

3) In what year did the House vote for impeachment?

BUSH LIED,BUSH LIED,BUSH LIED.
"The question is WHY and for what end result?

The why is to kill the terrorists there so they won't come over here and blow up another 3,000 inocent americans that were doing nothing but minding their own business.

For what end result is to establish a government in that area of the world that will not support terrorism and hopefully will begin a domino effect for the rest of the arab states.

Vietnam vetran. Been there done that too.

Dawg,

"The why is to kill the terrorists there so they won't come over here and blow up another 3,000 inocent americans that were doing nothing but minding their own business."

Where did this cause & effect come from? Britain & Spain had troops in Iraq & terrorists hit them. This argument has always seemed like magical thinking to me. The cause & effect seems to be that OBL hit us at least partially because we had troops in Saudi Arabia.

Dan,
My questions don't concern the progress Iraq may or may not have made, it concerns the willingness of a democratic (small d) government that acknowledges the full rights of women to assist the establishment of a government that doesn't. And women may be able to vote, but if they're under the thumb of a husband, how can you expect that they will be able to vote the way they want to? And it's hard to get to the polls if your husband beat you last night because you talked to someone in the market. Let's be realistic. None of these women have the power to stand up to a man. What is the justification for our assistance in a constitution that does this to women. No, I don't expect their constitution to mirror ours, but neither do I expect our government to to be compicit in writng a document like this. Yes, I've read versions of it, and one thing it says is A)No law shall contradict Islamic law, and B)no law shall contradict democratic law. (paraphrased) What kind of a joke is that? And who is the arbiter of Islamic law, or can any imam or mullah interpret it the way they want? I'd make them make some choices. You pass that constitution and, sorry guys, but we will have to scale back our assistance to humanitarian (or whatever).
Right now, the Sunnis, who have no oil, are being marginalized because they have no power. A democracy is partly about everyone having rights, not just the majority. If that constitution passes, the Sunni insurgency will probably kick it up a notch, because the only power they have is violence. It's not going to stop until they get their concerns taken seriously.
Yes, it took years to get our constitution to the point where it mostly recognizes the rights of all. But after 200+ years, we know better. At least include something that makes reviews and revisions easier. Something that expires in, say, five years and the congress has to revisit the question. I just don't understand how our leaders can justify this.
And thanks for no name calling, Dan.

Susie, you bring up some good points and I understand your concerns. As I said, the last place I would want to live (and especially because of my beloved wife & daughter) is in a Muslim country.

We are not going to be able to reform their religion and culture, it is what it is. If we say "ok guys this is what needs to be in your constitution, take it or leave it", the entire process will be seen as a farce.

My hope is that once Iraqi women, like Muslim women in the US & Europe, get a taste of freedom then their rights will advance as the society modernizes. This will take time. It took time for the aberration of slavery to disappear in our society, but we evolved. They will have to do the same, we cannot do it for them. It is better to have some freedoms rather than no freedom.

I believe the Sunnis make up 20% of the population, correct me if I'm wrong, and of course they do have rights even though they are a minority. The Sunnis are the ones wreaking all the havoc over there, you never hear about IED explosions in Irbil to the north or Basra to the south. There are Sunnis who are coming to the table, but a small minority would rather resort to killing innocent Iraqis to prevent freedom for all.

Marshall, that's dog. When I misspell something the elitists are all over my case.

My point is that we are there to kill them so they will not have the manpower to come over here and commit another 9/11. The british are dealing very effectively with the bombings there,imo. They are kicking out the people who preach hate and support the raghead terrorists. Is this "magical"thinking?

What do you want to see happen? Turn tail and run and hope ubl will see it in his heart not to hit us again?

Yard dog,

Dawg is urban for friend or pal. No offense was intended. I'll use your given name.

The Brits are dealing with the bombers by measures that they are taking in Britain, as your examples show, not by any measures they're taking in Iraq. That's not magical thinking. We'll see how effective it is but at least it's a realistic response. My point is that I've heard the "fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here" theory seems like magical thinking to me. My guess is that we are inspiring more terrorists than we're neutralizing by being in Iraq.

To answer your last question I'd like to see the insurgency fold, a Jeffersonian democracy that respects the rights of all Iraqis take hold, the middle east be so inspired by this event that they follow suit, and all Gods children join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Now that's magical thinking! (and I think our official foreign policy)

Sorry, Dan, but I think of how patriotic Bush is and how much he loves liberty and how it's such a noble thing to be able to die to make people free, I think our "hope that Iraqi women get a taste of freedom" is too weak to justify any loss of life.
The problem is, there is no positive answer to that question, nothing that anyone can "spin." There is no hope that these women will ever be able to be little better than chattel. We've stood by while they wrote their constitution and said nothing about it. It makes our government into hypocrites. And it seriously hampers the progress of Iraq. They will have no Marie Curies, no Margaret Meads, no Sandra Day O'Connors, no Jane Goodalls, no Elizabeth Doles. It's depressing, but there are no good answers to these questions.

Marshall, according to the commanding general of the armed forces in iraq ,I can't think of his name at this moment,who was on TV this morning"the media is not portraying the war in iraq accurately". He stated "the situation in iraq is not as bad as the american public is being led to believe and we are winning the war on terror". He was on fox news channel very early this morning. I am not talking about a Bush puppet. I will take the word of a general in iraq over Michael Moore or Wolf Blitzer any day of the week, as I do not believe he is into the "magical thinking" thing.

No offence taken on the dawg remark,just making a point that some elitists try to shoot you down any way possible. Last time I posted my name in the paper,I had kooks calling me up at 5:30am wanting to know "what a real son-of-a-bitch sounded like".

yarddog, how can you question the integrity of the media that brought us such breaking news as the proportionally spaced font Dan Rather National Guard memo and the defiling of the Koran by us soliders(which resulted in riots and deaths)?

Susie, as I say over & over in these blogs but perhaps you have not seen it before: Whether you agree or not that we should be in Iraq, it is an immutable fact that we are there now. Agreed? Since we are there now, we should do our very best to help these people establish a democratic government. That is a good thing no?

Your attitude is depressing that the women will be no better than chattel. Time will tell, but try a little optimism that this might work. Is your solution to pull out tomorrow?

I like your list of great women achievers, thanks for not adding Hillary to the list.

Yard dog, you will get no credibility with libs by saying you saw something on Fox News. If you told a lib that Fox News reported there was a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico right at this moment they wouldn't believe you.

Hugh says "Iraq is a war that the peaceniks don't want us to win." Brother we ain't seen peaceniks yet ...

Draftee: "The commanding general in Iraq said that the news coverage the american public is being fed is far from accurate." I have no idea - but What would you expect the commanding general in Iraq say about his boss, the Commander in Chief? "My Boss is an ass."?

Jennifer: I suggest if the USA stay's in Iraq, as it did in Germany and those other examples you cited - the Islamic Extremist will be SO vindicate d - because Occupation by America is one of their stated "issues", and in fact what they are fighting for - not because they hate America, but because they hate American interferance, such as Israel, Oil, etc.

Dan: you are right: "We are not going to be able to reform their religion and culture ... " and I too hope "... once Iraqi women .. get a taste of freedom then their rights will advance as the society modernizes." This will take time. The question is what do we do in the meanwhile --- see above.

Very little is currently coming from the Administration - and I am such a cynic that me-things they know we're screwed, and theie political supporters have all been enriched, the economy has been pillage in their behalf, and now the Administration is just sitting in wait for 2008 when they can go home, with generations of their immediate families set up.

How's that for positive thinking!

Yard Dog,

I read the Generals remarks & take them into account & I think that there is a lot of 2 steps forward and 1 step back situations, 1 step forward and 2 steps back, situations in Iraq so that it's hard to tell where the situation is going.

I originally thought that Iraq was a closed entity with a massive but finite amount of weapons for the insurgency to draw on. In that senerio the violence would build & then dwindle. It appears that the insurgents are being resupplied both in men and materials & the violence seems to be building rather than subsiding. The 3 sects show little sign of compromise. Most troubling lately the Shia seem to be splintering into competing groups.

I'd like to be optimistic, but that's not how I read it.

I know what you mean on how unintelligently people can react to letters to the editor. I've gotten the nasty calls, anonymous threats in letters etc. & I've always tried to be civil in my letters. That's why I try to be respectful in these forums. By being on these forums that means that all of us are somewhat passionate about our beliefs since we care enough to put them out publicly for peer review. That act in itself demands respect, but beyond that the process of exchanging ideas demands repect. Otherwise it deteriorates to "Bush s*cks"! "No Michael Moore s*cks" kind of garbage that people put out when they're tired and cranky. This junk builds on itself & we've all got to resist that urge.

Take it easy Da... Yard Dog, (;-}

JDR, I would't expect the commander in iraq to say my boss is an a**,but his remarks echo what I have heard from returning military personell who have served over there. I personally have a nephew in the air force who has served in iraq for 2 tours. He reports that sure there are problems.After all it is a war zone,but it is in no way the hell hole the media portrays it to be.Bill Maher,Sean Penn,and a good majority of the hollywood crowd have an agenda. Am I to believe them over the commander's word? I think not.

Gotta go.Been fun reading all the comments.I'll check back in a couple of days and most likley find everyone in here has agreed to lay down their swords and play nice to each other.

After the constitution is passed, wait for the first woman to be killed. See if her family thinks that she should have given her life to put in place this kind of repressive government.

Yard dog, if the Roman Catholic church and its legions and legions of soldiers couldn't kill off the infidels (read Muslims) in the lifetime they were there, what makes you think we can do it? Also, "killing them off" sounds like ethnic cleansing to me. Also, because Iraqi women don't have careers, they stay at home and have babies, little terrorists. Maybe we need to find a way to get these women out of the house and into the workplace.

And Dan, Hillary may be a good politician, but she hasn't made great woman yet. I included E. Dole, partly because of her work with the Red Cross and partly because she (from what I've seen) is fairly respectful to people, even her political foes. There are many women who have been in the senate and house (and many other fields) that deserve the same nod. I was just trying to make my list short.

Tom, don't bother to "thank me" (for Vietnam service). Don't need it and you didn't bother to thank me when I came back--besides I was young and dumb and believed the lies LBJ was spouting back then.
Now, let's see, we've gone pass the WMDs and the many other lies on the list of "justifications". So we're now down to "we need to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us". Bush fits well with this "cock roach" mentality. Get a can of "Raid" and kill off all the cock roaches you see--usually one at a time. Problem is cock roaches come geometrically while you're trying to kill them arithmetically and so the numbers and the problems become to great. FACT: last time I checked, all the 9/11 people and the '93 World Trade Center people (lets not count patriotic terrorist like Timothy McVeigh, KKK, or street gangs) were "LET INTO THIS COUNTRY" by us. They did not deliver a warhead missle. The 9/11 leader was a Saudi trained at Ft. Bragg and served there until 1995! Our piss poor "intelligence" not only let them in this country; but provided much of the "education" and training they used against us! When we quit letting everybody who "waves an American flag" and sings "Ole Beautiful" in the country--not when we try and kill off every little cock roach (don't forget, Iran, Syria,North Korea, and a few South American countries are NEXT)--yet we are "fighting this war with Reserves and National Guard Units; We are paying hundreds of millions of dollars annually, directly to the cost of this one war; while maintaining the rebuilding cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and carrying the economy of Mexico, at the same time! God knows how much "secret" money we are paying to Turkey (to use their base)and numerous other countries to "pose" as our allies. We're even paying Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, remember them--who should be greatful enough from "Desert Storm" to single handily finance this war at least to "support our efforts". If you're going to "challenge" the terrorist to a lifetime duel, Afghanistan--while you're looking for Osama, would have been a nice place. Why are we unnecessarily stretching our man (and woman) power (let's face it we don't have any "allies" but us fighting and dying in Iraq), our financial resources to encompass two war fronts while threatening at least 4 others?
We need to "protect" our borders; spend money on safe streets, safe schools and protecting America internally before "posing" as the world's cowboy. Especially when you only have to "act" like a real soldier. It's nice to know we can "finally" see the faces of those "brave men and women" who sacrificed to maintain our freedom--wasn't too long ago that that wasn't possible, until one of "them anti-war liberals broke the law and started showing coffins"! Now the President has started receiving praise for citing "numbers". In Vietnam we called that "a body count". Cut the crap! Get out of Iraq; into Afghanistan; find Osama and bring the soldiers home to protect our borders. What are they paying for gas in Iraq? (remember, according to Bush, it was unnecessary to put the war cost in the Federal budget beyond the first year; because Iraqi oil was going to finance the war). Believe the lies if you must--whatever you need to get by. Take care and remember the "Sword is much mightier than the plow" (or so says the Bible--I think?).

Mangum, I believe your response was directed at me. I always thank anyone who serves or served in the military, couldn't thank you back then as I was just a little kid.

You obviously feel very spirited about Iraq, I can appreciate your comments. We do share in common the desire to protect our borders, as what we have now is a sham.

I disagree on pulling out of Iraq. Terrorists know the impatient American public can win this war for them. They just have to keep killing, the Cindy Sheehans encourage their efforts (she once called them freedom fighters), the American public gives up, we leave, they win. And if you don't think them winning will embolden them to take over other countries and increase terrorism, I have some nice swamp land to sell you.

There is no negotiating with terrorists, the only effective means to deal with them is through force. There will be no peace treaties.

Susie,"we need to get the iraqi women out of the house and into the workplace". I couldn't agree more. This is just one more reason to support what our military is doing over there. Their goal is to create a government there where ALL citizens are equeal. I support this action. Hopefully iraq will serve as an example to the rest of the middle eastern states and they will eventually follow suit.

"Killing them off sounds like ethnic clensing".How does killing someone with a bomb strapped to his/her body and walking into a public place ang sitting it off translate to "ethnic clensing"? If our stated goal in iraq was to kill all muslims,I would agree.But this is far from that.imo of course.

While it is stated, "This is just one more reason to support what our military is doing over there. Their goal is to create a government there where ALL citizens are equeal."

However, one must remember that it is not the US military who is writing the constitution, nor the one's who will be ratifing that same constitution. So, it will be up to the currently elected Iraqi leadership to write and ratify a constitution. So far, they cannot seem to find compromise.

While I realize that this process takes time. However, with some very good examples to follow, this same elected leadership should be a little further along. I hope they realize that they are embarrassing the Bush administration by not having met the already passed deadlines (that is plural).

Shalom

And LBJ said, "If we allow South Vietnam to fall to the Communist North--we will lose all the countries of Southeast Asia and eventually this will serve to spread Communism throughout the world." (yadda, yadda, yadda). Every American President has to "prove" he is tough on some "ism" (Communism, terrorism, some-ism). And they use that "threat" to get those at the bottom of the economic structure in this country--who are usually the ones who are "high" on patriotism--to go "fight the fight for freedom". Where are the "rich kids" in times of "saving the country"? They're usually somewhere (on the beach) blowing the horn for "going to war to protect freedom". How about "going to war to ensure OIL profits (when are the big oil companies (and the people who own them, like Bush) who are realizing record profits--going to "sacrifice" for FREEDOM?
No one said pull the troops out and bring them home--I said, send them to Afghanistan, where the UN and the people of America had "approved" them to be fighting in the first place. We HAD a real multi-national effort initially when we invaded Afghanistan (and the same terrorist would have joined us there). But oh NO! Our President wanted to "Go it ALONE" and invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. He wanted to do it so badly, that he lied worst than Clinton did about Monica (at least no one died). So how long and at what cost, financially and in human lives will "victory" come? And what will constitute "victory"? May be the terrorist will get smart enough to lay down their arms "temporarily" until we pull out all or most of our troops (like in Vietnam); then kick ass in a year or two and end up being in charge anyway. Or do we simply "leave" hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars indefinitely? If Bush get's his way--we'll need those same soldiers to make North Korea, Syria and Iran a democratic and "free" nation. Even without national tragedies like Katrina embarking upon New Orleans, we CANNOT afford the human or dollar cost of indefinite warfare without "definite goals and objective"; not even with "lupe warm support" from the Brits. Iraq was a double dumb move and even his father said "NO".
Get in Afghanistan and destroy one country at a time--especially since we've promised to "rebuild" them afterwards. By the way, did you check the price of gas in Iraq? Take care,