"There can be no lasting peace through withdrawal."

...and there can be no victory through staying the course. So pick yer poison. Continue to inflame hatred towards America that will ripple throughout this century, just as America's intervention on behalf of the Sha of Iran and later for Saddam in the 80's has lead us to where we are now...or withdraw and let them tear themselves apart with intra-faction and ethnic strife.

BTW: Love how that smaller government philosophy is playing out in the Maliki Administration.

CY,

Iraq is a lost cause. We didn't do what we needed to do to be successful and there is little if anything we can do now that will alter the outcome. The current administration did nearly everything wrong, from needlessly antagonizing our traditional allies to sending too few troops to disbanding the Iraqi army to installing the incompetent Paul Bremer. We have reached the tipping point where the best one can hope for is to cut our losses and try and minimize the damage. We have succeeded in making Iran THE key power in the region. I know this may not be what most of you want to hear but it is an accurate assessment of the current situation. We can stay here another decade at a cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives but we will be lucky if we can maintain the current state of disfuntionality. All the BS about how we can't leave and only victory is acceptable ignores the reality of the situation we are in. I'm sure, in the minds of many of you, when all is said and done this will be someone elses fault. It will be liberals and the MSM who are to blame for the failure of this glorious undertaking. That may give you some comfort but history will not be so kind. We have made a mess of this and those chickens will eventually come home to roost. When they do, we will have the great "Decider" to thank for that.

We can stay here another decade at a cost of...

We already had a 12 year long perpetual deployment there sitting on Saddam after the first gulf war.

If you think another 10 years are expensive, and they are, a pullout is going to cost much more. Clinton's Somalia pullout cost us the WTC and 2,700 dead. Bin Laden has stated that was his inspiration to attack the Americans in ernest.

What makes you believe we shouldn't take these people at their word about what their inspirations are?

Purple,

One of the biggest mistakes we've made is to elevate our enemies. We should not be basing our foreign policy on the utterings of UBL or any other terrorist. If we had been smart rather than stupid three years ago, UBL would be dead.
We should not compound our stupidity with more stupidity. You say that 10 more years would be expensive but you don't seem to understand, it's not the cost, it's the outcome. What would be different? Do you honestly think Iran would abandon their support for the Mehdi Army? Do you think the Sunnis can be wiped off the map without a full scale civil war? Exactly how would 10 more years alter the dynamics? This idea that we can win by resolve alone needs to be put to death. Resolve cannot overcome incompetence and hurbris. That's the lesson we will hopefully learn. Also, your assessment of the cause of 9/11 is a bit simplistic. That event was the result of thirty years of failure on the part of several administrations to deal with the issue of terror. It leaves aside the rash of hijackings in the early 80's and late 70's, the hezzbollah bombing of our embassy in Beriut. I could go on.

Fred said “..and there can be no victory through staying the course.” Whaaaat? So, we should have given up in 1943 because we hadn’t achieved victory in Germany? Or after the battle of the Coral Sea in the Pacific? The north should have given up after Bull Run because victory wasn’t around the corner?

“Staying the course” is the ONLY path to victory. We set on a course to remove Saddam (accomplished) and then set up a functioning democratic government in Iraq (working on it) along with developing a functional infrastructure (working on it). The fact that it’s taking longer than the pundits would like is irrelevant. Personally, I would like to see a more ruthless regime in charge that would crack down on the death squads.

Every day we’re in Iraq is a victory. Brick by bloody brick. Train the police. Train the army. Build up the skills of the new officers and NCOs. This isn’t a mini-series or even a seasonal TV show, it ain’t gonna be over in a week or a month or a year. Unless you’re a Kurd. Look how far they’ve come in 12 years under the aegis of the US (under Operation Northern Watch). If it works in the north of Iraq, it can work in the rest of the country.

But they’ve got to cut off the flow of fifth columnists and supplies from Iran, Jordan and Syria.

Another bonus for us, we’ve got a great cadre of soldiers and marines, trained in the tactics of urban warfare, ready to take up arms once again when the jihadi’s bring their violent ideology to our streets. As long as we’re in Iraq, we’ve got wannabee martyrs lining up to attack the “Great Satan” over there. Pull out, and they’ll go elsewhere (Europe and US). UNLESS we “stay the course” and get the Iraqi’s up to the point where they can take care of themselves. BTW, you can view the ongoing reconstruction of Iraq at www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/ (sorry, don't know how to do embedded links) -cp

Fred and NYNick

I suggest you read the entire Orson Scott Card piece. The realities of this war, your questions and concerns are addressed quite nicely.

After reading his essay, I have to ask you, do you honestly and intellectually believe there is anything we can do to halt Islamic terrorist attacks against our allies and ourselves?

How much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to find any kind of parallel between WW2 and Iraq? At least enough to stain your lips, and your lips are stained, "cold pizza."

"One of the biggest mistakes we've made is to elevate our enemies."

THE biggest mistake we've made is not killing our enemies - ruthlessly and with the greatest of prejudice. That's the only way to win a war. Anything less is a half-hearted waste of resources and young lives. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the stomach for defending ourselves. We've become more concerned with not violating the civil rights of unlawful combatants and reducing civilian casualties to zero(an impossible feat when the enemy is an unlawful combatant; indistinguishable from civilians and hiding behind them).

I grieve for my country that we've come to this. Blind rage by a political party against a sitting President so complete that military defeat is seen as a positive outcome...

Blamin,

I have no interest in reading what this Orson guy has to say, that little snip is enough for me to realize he can't be taken seriously.

"The way to save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is to get regime change in Iran and Syria."

Really? Maybe we can enlist superman and his pals at the hall of justice for that mission! It's idiotic to assume we can do what he suggests. We are in deep trouble in Iraq, what do you think the outcome would be in Iran?
Do you own a map? Take a look at where Iran sits. Orson is delusional if he thinks we can occupy the land from the Steppes to the Persian sea. Please, we've tried the fantasy based foreign policy idea once, let's not repeat it. Iran has about 70 million people to Iraq's 25 million. They border not just Afghanistan and Pakistan but the vitally important Caucasus region as well. If you think Iran gave us problems in Iraq, wait until the Russians and Chinese start meddling in your little war. We need to be honest about where we are and move forward from here. But most people, including the "Decider" still don't get it. You cannot go around saying things like we will not accept a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran unless you have some way to stop it from happening.

Diogenes,

Military defeat is not a positive outcome. And let's not cry the crocidile tears about the poor president. This president is responsible for the position he's in and the position we all are in. He could have spent a little less time demonizing his detractors and concentrating on the policy but he didn't. He was the war president remember? Well, in the end, one reaps what one sows. If he wants to be respected by all, he could have shown respect for all. But the Rove strategy was to play to your base and use wedge issues whenever possible. He's created a party where only the true believers are left and there are simply not enough of you.
Hell, even Richard Perle has left the reservation.

Fred and NYNick, I asked some fairly simple questions from you and other liberals in this post:

...explain how a near-term withdrawal from Iraq before the nation is stabilized will accomplish:

• Making Iraq safe for Iraqis;
• Anything other than convincing Islamists that terrorism is the best way to effect their will;
• Anything other than making all nations around the world consider the United States to be a fickle, unreliable ally.

Interestingly enough, you have not addressed any of these three points, leading me to believe that like your Party's leadership, you are unable or unwilling to examine the long-term effects of the "withdrawal" solution that you advocate.

Interestingly enough, liberals seem to think that Iraq is a lost cause, but the overwhelming majority of soldiers who have their lives on the line say just the opposite, that we should continue and perhaps increase our efforts to eradicate terrorists through more aggressive action. Pardon me from disagreeing with you, but I think the soldiers on the ground in Iraq have a much better idea of what it takes to win, and whether or not the war is winnable, than a media holed up in Baghdad hotels, a liberal base blinded by their hatred for all things conservative or military (sorry Fred, I know you're vet, but you chose to lie down with those who generally revile your service), and politicians looking out for their short-term personal gains, not American's long-term best interests.

Again I challenge you: how can an untimely withdrawal from Iraq do anything beneficial for America in the long run? Certainly, it can decrease our short term casualties, but at what cost? Do you really think that allowing a few tens of thousands of Iraqis (or more) to die, along with validating the tactics of terrorism (thereby seriously increasing its tactical and strategic use worldwide), is actually going to create fewer American deaths due to terrorism in the years and decades to come?

Is it worth the loss of trust and credibility the United States will suffer, as the world comes to regard us as a serially unreliable ally? Do you think that if we show we are unreliable, that the Chinese will think twice about attacking Taiwan, or that the terrorist-supporting states will think twice about enabling further attacks against the United States, convinced they can simply wait out any retaliatory strikes?

I'm moved to suspect that your views are entirely motivated by short-term political greed, not long-term thinking about the catastrophic damage that the policies you support pose to the future of this country and the world.

The fact, NYNick, that you refuse to even read a viewpoint that opposes your own, combined with a childishly simplistic misunderstanding that we need to physically occupy Syria and Iran to remove their ability to support terrorism, and your inability to examine the possibility of the damage your choices would cause, simply confirms to me that you do not have the intellectual gravitas to be taken seriously on this subject.

CY,

It's not me that advocates occupying Iran, it's your friend Orson. He wrote:

"The way to save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is to get regime change in Iran and Syria."

How exactly does one go about regime change? Because that phrase used to mean invading the country and removing their leadership. Once one does that, one must also occupy it or nothing is accomplished (See Iraq). You assume I have some animus for the military. Why? Is it because you think only conservatives fight? Is the current army made up of only conservatives and their offspring? I have no problem with fighting our enemies but the military cannot bail out a flawed policy. As for the soldiers, I am sure they feel that way. They are trained to fight and to die for one another. Seeing ones comrades shot or blown up has an effect on them. How could they not want to see this through? That however is not how we win or fight wars. The military reports to the civilians, not the other way around. They cannot do the impossible but if you ask them, they will try. They will fight to the last man for a failed policy if ordered to do so. That is their strength. That's also why we hold the civilians in charge responsible. You say my "inability to examine the possibility of the damage your choices would cause..." blah, blah, blah. Well, sometimes there are no good options. And whos fault is that?

"Explain how a near-term withdrawal from Iraq before the nation is stabilized will accomplish:"

* Making Iraq safe for Iraqis;

It won't, no doubt the civil war will intensify if we leave.

* Anything other than convincing Islamists that terrorism is the best way to effect their will;

Bush has set us up for a painful defeat in an unnecessary war, no doubt about it.

* Anything other than making all nations around the world consider the United States to be a fickle, unreliable ally.

I've got bad news for you, Bush and the neocons have already made us a pariah nation. In 2001 Tehran prayed for the US, but since then Bush trashed the good will expressed from all over the world by mistreating our allies and starting a universally unpopular war over WMD in a country that didn't have them, to avenge 911 in a country that wasn't involved with it, and to defeat Islamic extremism in a secular nation.

Now in your zeal to lash out at the Dems, you are doing the same thing that Bush and Cheney did in 2004: goading the Dems for not having any good ideas about Iraq. Well, there simply aren't any good options, and it's rich to hear this criticism from the people responsible for the quagmire.

You need to outline the objectives, and don't give me "stay the course", tell me what the course is. Perhaps your next bid is, establish a stable government. Bear in mind that it used to be a democracy, but nobody even pretends that's the goal now. We just want to quit watching our soldiers die without sparking off a civil war into which Iran and Turkey might be drawn. What would this stable government look like exactly? The Sunnis and Shias are blowing up eachother's mosques, torturing eachother with power drills, and as a sideline blowing up US humvees. How do you want our soldiers to make these two sides magically trust eachother all of a sudden? What rot. And then there are the Kurds, who will be damned before they accept a Shia or a Sunni leader.

Your boys thought they were done in 2003 and the "there is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq" and that we would be greeted as liberators, and now you lash out at us for being the problem.

No, there aren't any solutions, so I can't in good conscience ask any more soldiers to sacrifice their lives.

Military defeat is not a positive outcome.

On that you are correct - but it appears to be a means to an end for many on the left. It seems that all they care about is embarrassing GWB and retaking power.

And let's not cry the crocidile tears about the poor president.

CY is right - you either won't read or refuse to comprehend the posts of those that disagree with you. GWB will have to defend himself. I'm not happy with his lack of leadership for the past two years myself. Neither do I see any constructive ideas coming from the left - only an endless littany of what's wrong...

Diogenes,

We already took back power. That was what the last election was all about.

I read all the posts but I still do not see a solution. What I think we who disagree with you are saying is that your solutions will not work.
Adding more troops has been shot down even by the generals in charge. Even if we did add thousands of troops, what would change? Would Iran quit their support of their Shia brothers?
Would the insurgents suddenly get up and go home? Highly unlikely. If we add more troops we will be right back here having this same argument next year and the year after that. Eliminating Iran and Syria would be nice but I fail to see how that's going to be accomplished. If you know how we can do that, by all means, let's hear it.

One of the biggest mistakes we've made is to elevate our enemies.

How is taking it at face value when someone says they want to kill you "elevating them"?

If it were a bunch of cross dressing Druid midgits making the threats one could laugh and say they don't have the power or critical mass to carry out their threats.

The Islamists aren't in that category as the WTC wreckage, and other devastation around the world plainly attests to.

So what's YOUR plan? Convince me the democrats can make me safer. I'm willing to listen and be convinced if the argument is good enough.

I haven't heard a single thing of substance from them yet.

Don't know this Orson Scott Card fellow, but for a Democrat, he seems to have guts.

NYNick

Mr. Card di dn't advocate occupying Syria and Iran. Do you always make uninformed assumptions?

If you, or those that agree with you, ever actually read his piece, I suspect you’ll be strangely quite on this issue.

Purple Avenger:

"Convince me the democrats can make me safer."

Poor baby's scared. Too bad you can't trade more of your civil liberties in against the 1/1,000,000 chance you'll be killed by a terrorist. Coward.

"I haven't heard a single thing of substance from them yet."

Right, the GOP is the source of all truth and rightness, and the Dems are all idiots and traitors. Why do you bother to read the news?

Blamin,

I read it. It's even more idiotic than I assumed.

"Syria we could topple quite easily, once Iran's ability to threaten shipping in the Gulf was removed. And without Syria as its surrogate in the Arab world, and without any credible threat to the world oil supply, either Iran's military would change the Iranian government, or the Iranian government would have to face the fact that it could no longer act with impunity."

Really? He doesn't quite say how we would "topple" Syria, just that it would be easy.
Then, voila! Iran would be toppled by their military or would cower in a corner and be nice to us. That is what you want me to take seriously?

Earl said: "Poor baby's scared. Too bad you can't trade more of your civil liberties in against the 1/1,000,000 chance you'll be killed by a terrorist. Coward."

While there's nothing wrong per se in being a "coward", your post is simply outrageous. It's about PRINCIPLE, you stupid little titsucker. I'm assured you'd be scared if you met me - as I can't stand mean people. Welcome to Finland, motherfucker.

A for N: There's nothing wrong with being a coward? What is about principle? Why should I be scared of you? Who's mean? Finland???

I guess you're insulting me, but really I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Maybe you should take a little more time with your writing.

Blamin,

"Mr. Card di dn't advocate occupying Syria and Iran. Do you always make uninformed assumptions?"

What does "topple" mean? Give me your description? How does one "topple" a sitting government without filling the power vacuum? Thank god there are people in the military who are paid to think about these things. Call it whatever you want but it's going to mean boots on the ground.

This Orson guy also assumes that Bush has some secret plan to confront Iran militarily.

Bush had this to say on the subject in April of this year...

"Bush said his goal is to keep the Iranians from having the capability or the knowledge to have a nuclear weapon.

"I know we're here in Washington (where) prevention means force," Mr. Bush said. "It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

I guess this plan is so secret not even the president is aware of it. But apparently this Orson guy is a foreign policy genius simply because he's a Democrat and thinks like you do.
You, me, the entire world knows we are not likely to strike Iran anytime in the near future.
In fact, we are much more likely to use Tony Blair for cover and go to Iran, hat in hand and ask them to assist in stabilizing Iraq for us. This is the outcome of a failed policy. We've made our ultimate enemy in the region more powerful by a factor of 10.

NYNick

OK, I’ll upgrade my charge of you practicing “uninformed assumptions” to “selective thinking”.

Do you think Bush and his generals should openly debate/discuss all scenarios and possible plans, and never, ever use a little misdirection concerning the enemy?

Are you suggesting the hostile leadership of a foreign gov’t can’t be “toppled” without our boots occupying the “vacuum”?

Are you ignoring the fact that Syria is a very weak country whose leaders have a tenuous hold over its people?

Did you ignore the parts in his thesis concerning the will of the people to obey under tyranny?

I’m paraphrasing here, and I can’t remember exactly who said it, but it kind of has a ring of self-evident truth to it. “Those who have always been free will never understand the desire for freedom that burns within the oppressed.”

Blamin,

Are you seriously suggesting that if we removed the Assad Government from power and simply left, that Democracy would spring from the ashes? Is that a plan?

Earl wrote: "A for N: There's nothing wrong with being a coward? What is about principle? Why should I be scared of you? Who's mean? Finland???"

- Being a coward (= being afraid when few others are / when there's no reason to be) is regrettable, but it's not WRONG. One can't help being a coward, right?
- Opposing terrorists is about principle. I agree that right now (and I stress "right now") there is little chance of you or me becoming a victim of terrorists, but that's not to say we shouldn't fight them.
- You should be scared of me because I stand up for what is right. You, sir, are everything the Western countries should fight against.
- "Who's mean? Finland???" Learn your own language, stupid. You are mean. I can't stand people who belittle others for no reason.

You, an obvious Democrat, probably think the world outside America loves you. That's not the case. You'd be surprised how many people despise you backstabbing idiots. Yes, this is an ad hominem attack, but you for one deserve it.

NYNick,

Yes you took power...the election was based on "getting out of Iraq". So riddle me this oh intelligent one. Why is it that the latest AP/Ipsos poll (you remember - the pollster that always over-samples dems - and continued in this poll too) says that 57% of Americans believe that the Democrats have NO PLAN for Iraq?

All of your fancy words and empty-rhetoric doesn't mean crap when you have NO PLAN. Add to that the continuous political wrangling - the continuous tossing of your own under the bus by your own - within the Dem party and what do we have? Impending chaos.

Maybe you should concentrate on getting a plan together for uniting your own party domestically before you start mouthing off about how you are going to handle international problems.

Specter,

Read the comments above. Iraq is lost. There is not a magical potion the Democrats can concoct that will save it. You say:

"Maybe you should concentrate on getting a plan together for uniting your own party domestically before you start mouthing off about how you are going to handle international problems."

I would think the plan Pelosi laid out for the first 100 hours would be considered by some to be a plan. Is it your opinion that Democrats should be responsible for solving impossible situations created by Republicans? There are many Republicans that believe just that. The party of responsibility will have to take responsibility for the mess they created in Iraq and beyond. We can do all that is possible but we cannot be expected to do the impossible.

Also, the electorate has seen the results of Republican foreign policy and found it lacking.
Don't look now but your party's expertise on international affairs is in ruins. What does it say when conservatives like William Buckley and Richard Perle are closer to my position than they are to yours? All your side has left is blaming the MSM and liberals and as someone once said, that dog won't hunt anymore.

Anonymous for now:

"Being a coward (= being afraid when few others are / when there's no reason to be) is regrettable, but it's not WRONG. One can't help being a coward, right?"

Being a coward is bad, you can't easily dig your way out of this one. Similarly, people can't help being stupid, but that's still bad.

"Opposing terrorists is about principle. I agree that right now (and I stress 'right now') there is little chance of you or me becoming a victim of terrorists, but that's not to say we shouldn't fight them."

I agree.

"You should be scared of me because I stand up for what is right. You, sir, are everything the Western countries should fight against."

Such melodrama! You stand up against terrorism because it's BAD. How clever and noble! It's cool how you can know so much about me with your super powers.

"'Who's mean? Finland???' Learn your own language, stupid. You are mean. I can't stand people who belittle others for no reason."

I wasn't asking if Finland is mean, I was saying "Who is mean?" and "What on earth do you mean by Finland?" because your initial post was laughably incoherent. How is it that you can belittle me but it's wrong when I belittle others?

"You, an obvious Democrat, probably think the world outside America loves you. That's not the case. You'd be surprised how many people despise you backstabbing idiots. Yes, this is an ad hominem attack, but you for one deserve it."

I'm not a Democrat. I have no illusions about the world loving the US. What you don't seen to understand is that it's George Bush and his fellow Republicans who have alienated many of our former allies over the last few years, not the Democrats.

One more thing Specter,

"All of your fancy words and empty-rhetoric doesn't mean crap..."

Stop, you flatter me....

I see you dodged the question NYNick. Where's your plan? You ran on "fix Iraq". You won on that platform. You can't duck the responsibility now. We are there and no amount of obfuscation on your point will change the reality. So where's the plan bud? Got one yet?

BTW - don't go into party and international stuff. I got one word for ya - CLINTON. As soon as you get the implication of that, check back in. Here's another one - CARTER. LOL. Don't be such a doofus.

And one more thing NYnicky,

Of course I mean other than "cut and run." Because that will cause more humanitarian strife in that country than when CLINTON turned his back and millions died there due to starvation and lack of medical supplies.....Do you really need a history lesson that bad?

Specter: there is not good plan. We have to choose the lesser evil. I like it how you all create the biggest strategic and political screwup in modern memory, then you stand around cackling about how the Dems doesn't know how to clean it up. You're just another lifetime citizen of Clown World.

The paradox you face is that if the Iraq war is so apt, so important to the WOT, so close to victory, then it's not a problem, right? It's all good. But if it's not a problem then how can you goad us about not having a great answer? You can't have it both ways.

Specter: still bitter about Clinton are we? He did, after all, actually know something about governing a country. W on the other hand was a drunk for decades, drug user, poor reservist, twice failed oil exec, not much damn good at anything, never learned any kind of trade, yet the GOP, the party of personal responsiblity, thought he was just the man for President.

What are the odds on his Rushmore bid? I'm guessing he doesn't makes it. What do you say?

http://www.tdaxp.com/images/medium_george_walker_bush_rushmore_sm.jpg

Enjoy your Jimmy Carter moment, friend. I know I am.

Gee Earl - Let's review the facts shall we? Strongest economy in 40 years. Lowest unemployment ever. No MAJOR terror attacks on US since Clinton was sent packing (well - Gore). Horrid, despicable, dictator deposed (according to Clinton's Regime Change Initiative). Blooming democracy in Iraq. Economy in Iraq growing. Yes - utter and complete failure. NOT!

The problem is that you won't quote, or face, facts. Other than what you read in NYT or over at KOS (he's 0-20 now on picks to be elected....what insight!), that is.

You see - you have an unbridled hatred for anything "Bush". It doesn't matter whether it is backed up by fact or not. I love it when you claim that all this is Bush's fault! Imagine, nothing of a terroristic nature happened before Bush right? Nothing like the first attack on the Twin Towers, nothing like the US Cole, nothing like OBL declaring war on the US in 1994, nothing like our failure in Somalia and the subsequent claim of victory by terrorists. According to your logic, all of that must have been Bush's fault because Saint Clinton never screwed up (and I will stay away from the pun inherent there).

The true fact is that all of it is connected. You can't take things as static snapshots in time. Doing so is dishonest. You must look at it as a continuum - where events of the past affect the now and the future. So don't try to change the goal posts by claiming that I'm "bitter" about Clinton. I'm not - I just happen to know the facts and live in the real world. You apparently have a problem with that.

And I brought up Carter - possible the worst president of modern times - because if he had dealt forcefully with Iran back then, we might not be facing some of the problems we are today. See - history - past events affect the future. It can't be ignored. Let me give you an example. Libya and Gadaffi. Notice that when he started to rear his ugly head, the same way that Hussein did, Reagan nearly chopped it off. In fact, after forceful American action, we never really heard from Libya again, did we. Action - planned action - leads to results.

Now the crux. Have errors been made in Iraq? Obviously the answer is yes. Is it a total failure as you and NYNick claim? No. Hussein is gone, new government in place, democracy even if a rough one, army and police being trained, 85% of the country under control (remember that this is a 22 million person country). Is there an insurgency? Yes - and it is bad. But can you honestly say that it will get better if we leave? That is not what we are hearing from Iraq.

And believe it or not, if we leave we may actually be in violation of the UN resolution. What about that? What about the other 40 countries that are a part of our coalition, have troops there, and have lost soldiers in the war? What do we say to them?

Again - as I said before, Dems won on the "get out of Iraq" platform. Most Americans - 57% - say the Dems have no plan. So what are you going to do? Let's hear it. Stop B&Ming and start governing. Oh that's right - there are so many arguments in the Dem leadership right now that they can't focus on anything else. That's OK - you've got about 8 weeks.

specter:
"Gee Earl - Let's review the facts shall we?"

Indeed.

"Strongest economy in 40 years."

No. The housing market is terrible. The Dow Jones is not too much higher than it was when Clinton left office. Middle and lower class wage growth has fallen after inflation. National debt has doubled under W. National savings rate has fallen below zero.

"Lowest unemployment ever."

No.

"No MAJOR terror attacks on US since Clinton was sent packing (well - Gore)."

Except for 9/11, a few days after W ignored a CIA memo entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US'.

"Horrid, despicable, dictator deposed"

Yes and civil war as a result. Incidentally the invasion was about WMD, not deposing Saddam.

"Blooming democracy in Iraq. Economy in Iraq growing."

Where do you get this stuff? Yesterday Tony Blair agreed that Iraq "is a disaster".

"The problem is that you won't quote, or face, facts."

I've already given more hard facts than you did.

"You see - you have an unbridled hatred for
anything "Bush". It doesn't matter whether it is backed up by fact or not. I love it when you claim that all this is Bush's fault! Imagine, nothing of a terroristic nature happened before Bush right?"

Iraq is Bush's fault, full stop.

"Nothing like the first attack on the Twin Towers, nothing like the US Cole, nothing like OBL declaring war on the US in 1994, nothing like our failure in Somalia and the subsequent claim of victory by terrorists. According to your logic, all of that must have been Bush's fault because Saint Clinton never screwed up (and I will stay away from the pun inherent there)."

Idiot, I never said any of that.

"The true fact is that all of it is connected. You can't take things as static snapshots in time. Doing so is dishonest. You must look at it as a continuum - where events of the past affect the now and the future. So don't try to change the goal posts by claiming that I'm 'bitter' about Clinton. I'm not - I just happen to know the facts and live in the real world. You apparently have a problem with that."

I have a problem with denizens of Clown World, yes.

"And I brought up Carter - possible the worst president of modern times"

No, that would be W.

" - because if he had dealt forcefully with Iran back then, we might not be facing some of the problems we are today. See - history - past events affect the future. It can't be ignored. Let me give you an example. Libya and Gadaffi. Notice that when he started to rear his ugly head, the same way that Hussein did, Reagan nearly chopped it off. In fact, after forceful American action, we never really heard from Libya again, did we. Action - planned action - leads to results."

9/11 is Carter's fault. Got it.

"Now the crux. Have errors been made in Iraq? Obviously the answer is yes. Is it a total failure as you and NYNick claim? No. Hussein is gone, new government in place, democracy even if a rough one, army and police being trained, 85% of the country under control (remember that this is a 22 million person country). Is there an insurgency? Yes - and it is bad. But can you honestly say that it will get better if we leave? That is not what we are hearing from Iraq."

Again this is flat-out wrong. Iraq is a disaster. Clown Boy in Chief thought he was done in 2003. The war was premised on WMD. W had no plans for an insurgency, he expected to be greeted as a liberator. Iraq is not thriving, it is a hell hole where people are torturing eachother with drills.

"And believe it or not, if we leave we may actually be in violation of the UN resolution. What about that? What about the other 40 countries that are a part of our coalition, have troops there, and have lost soldiers in the war? What do we say to them?"

What UN resolution? God you're a nitwit.

"Again - as I said before, Dems won on the "get out of Iraq" platform. Most Americans - 57% - say the Dems have no plan. So what are you going to do? Let's hear it. Stop B&Ming and start governing. Oh that's right - there are so many arguments in the Dem leadership right now that they can't focus on anything else. That's OK - you've got about 8 weeks."

There aren't any good plans, you guys screwed it up, don't gloat that we don't know a good way to clean up your mess, neither does James Baker or Ed Meese or Cheney or anyone else. It's a disaster, as Blair said. Iraq is anarchy. There's no win to be had, the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds loathe and distrust eachother, they are all jockying for their own goals and don't care much about making nice with eachother and forming a government.

You are one of the most deluded people I've ever encountered. You are a lifetime member of Clown World. I wonder if you'll ever see the light of day.

Well...well...well....
Let's start with this:

No. The housing market is terrible. The Dow Jones is not too much higher than it was when Clinton left office. Middle and lower class wage growth has fallen after inflation. National debt has doubled under W. National savings rate has fallen below zero.

First you pick only two real indicators of economic growth (and the stock market is at best a shaky one). The housing market has taken a downturn in the last 3 months. Before that it was booming. Hmmmm....The point on the stock market is that it is higher. It is higher, so logic follows, that it is better. If you really want to use that as a barometer it says the economy is better. Remember that Clinton left Bush with a recession. We had to get out of that first, then 911, the Katrina.

I also notice that you make no mention of GDP, low inflation, low unemployment, consumer confidence, manufacturing, etc. - in fact, other than housing, you left out every other major measure of the economy. Do a little research next time. BZZZZ....times up and you missed the secret word!

Yes and civil war as a result. Incidentally the invasion was about WMD, not deposing Saddam.

I love this Dem talking point. First off - what civil war? 22 Million people in the country, and what, a few thousand insurgents (or maybe you prefer the term freedom fighter like one of your heroes Mother Sheehan). So let's see, why, that's less than one half of one percent. And that makes a civil war? And you call me a dimwit.

The other point is almost not worth talking about because you are so uninformed that you will never get the point. But let's try, ok? The war was about far more than WMD. Have you ever read the AUMF? You know - the measure passed by of Congress that authorized the war? If not, you should, because there are many, many reasons for the authorization of the war. Find it here. You might actually be surprised that there was more to it than you read in the NYT.

Add to that, Oh Earl of Ignorance, that the Harmony project has been translating documents that show that Iraq had contacts with Al Quaeda, that Iraq had terrorist training camps, that Iraq was constantly trying to hide weapons program information from inspectors, that they even had WORKING PLANS for nuclear weapons. Have you read any of that? If not, you might want to spend a few thousand hours getting caught up with reality at the Combating Terrorism Center.

Where do you get this stuff? Yesterday Tony Blair agreed that Iraq "is a disaster".

I get it from studying Earl. Not just reading Doom and Gloom in the NYT. But what the heck - you made your entire post without one link. I'll up ya - from Squiggler, with references and links:

What your media mavens aren't telling you about Iraq while they harp hour by dreary hour on body counts and blood: (H/T: Atlas Shrugs)

Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation,
263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?
Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?

They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?

They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

Verify it all at the Department of Defense website.

Wow. Actual facts. Did you ever visit the Centcom site for a reality check? Probably not. But of course you know that the NYTraitors don't either. Facts here Earl. Facts that don't support your doom and gloom. Pretty amazing isn't it? This is fun.

Idiot, I never said any of that.

No - you said:

Iraq is Bush's fault, full stop.

Now note Earl, that what I said is that the problems we are facing about TERRORISM are the result of years of not doing anything about it. The situation Iraq was in was due to years of American "diplomacy". Get a clue. I was trying to get you to understand that Iraq was not a problem that simply sprung up in the first 8 months of Bush's term. If you can't even admit that, I feel really bad. But hey - the Dems are led by that brain trust Howlin' Howie. It is noteworthy that when you can't quote fact though that you are good at calling names. LOL.

Except for 9/11, a few days after W ignored a CIA memo entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US'.

Got a link to that memo Earl? But like I said, obviously you believe that 911 just happened. That the pilots were all trained overnight, that the money needed was earned in just a few short weeks, etc. Really? Are you so naive as to believe that the planning did not go back well into the Clinton admin? And are you so blinded by hate that you ignore the fact that if Clinton had taken out OBL on any of the 10 separate occasions he had the chance that maybe it would not have happened? Where do you get this stuff, other that KOS...?

What UN resolution? God you're a nitwit.

Nitwit? Earl...earl...earl. What are we going to do with you. Do you really have any idea what you are saying? Have you heard of Resolution 1546? According to Maliki (I know you might not have heard of him, but he is the Prime Minister of a 22 million person country that is directly effected) there is just such a committment. You can review the interview he did with the BBC on November 7, 2006, here. Be sure to click (you do that with the thing next to your computer called a mouse) on the interview itself. Watch it. You might not look like such an idiot.

I really wish you'd quite trying to dodge the issue of why the dems were elected into power. You were elected based on lies about Iraq and the promise to get out. Now where is the plan? tic...tic...tic...clock's running....

It seems that some here are ignorant of the fact that the war with Iraq has been over for a long time and that Iraq is a sovereign country with its own duly and democratically elected government. We are not at war with Iraq anymore. We are continuing with the War on Terror and Iraq is one of many U.S. allies in that venture. Through their choice, al-Qaeda has elected to make Iraq, in particular Baghdad, their central battlefield for now.

For those of you who think that Muslim Extremist are not serious and are not something to be concerned about, take a look HERE but prepare yourself, the photos are gruesome.

This insanity about Bush is just that -- insanity. We are in this entire Middle East mess primarily because of one man and his name is Jimmah Carter. I have no love lost for Clinton and his sleaze, but at least he recognizes the dangers and although he allowed very bad advice from Albright and Berger to influence him so that he treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of a war issue, he at least tried to do something.

As for what you all think you just won. Hehehehehehe -- we'll see. Polls right after the election reflect that upward of 67-70% of the people polled were very concerned that the dems might try to "cut and run" and that is not what they want. I'll try to locate the link.

Earl,

Just for your education, here is the exact quote from Tony Blair that you have been harping - I would guess that you have been just skimming the headlines and not reading the stories. This is from here (emphasis mine).

In an interview Friday on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel, broadcaster Sir David Frost suggested that the 2003 US-led and British-backed invasion had "so far been pretty much of a disaster."

"It has," Blair replied, before adding quickly: "But you see, what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It's not difficult because of some accident in planning.

"It's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy... to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

Note the words "so far" and the qualifying statements made by Blair. If you read the article - actually read it and not just the headlines, you might actually get an education.

Where are your facts Earl? You claimed to have posted more than me...but not one link to a real data source. C'mon...you can do it? NOT!

I just read through Specter and Squiggler and here's my ten minute takeaway, that was more than enough.

Bin Laden deteremined to strike in US:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
You're the last one to hear about this, Clown Boy. It's pretty cool how he did absolutely nothing in response. It was Carter and Clinton's fault.

"If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially establish an occupation, then I'd say, 'Let's not do it,' " and instead find another way to target Hussein, Perle said. "It was a foolish thing to do." -- Richard Perle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/18/AR2006111801076_2.html

Oh, if it's only the FIRST FOUR YEARS of a cakewalk war that are a disaster, then I guess everything's okay, right?

Sara -- right, Iraq is Carter's fault. You live deep in the heart of Clown World. "the war with Iraq has been over for a long time". Maybe in Clown World, I wouldn't know.

Is it good or bad that Bush has taken on nearly as much national debt as every president before him?

I could go on but you two are too delusional for it to be worthwhile.

Ken 'Cakewalk' Adelman: "There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's just awful."

"If you mean by “military victory” an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.” --Henry Kissinger

General Barry McCaffrey (retired):
“The country is not at war. The United States armed forces and the CIA are at war. So we are asking our military to sustain a level of effort that we have not resourced,” he told Army Times.

“That’s how to break the Army is to keep it deployed above the rate at which it can be sustained,” he said. “There’s no free lunch here. The Army and the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command are too small and badly resourced to carry out this national security strategy.”

General William Odom (retired):
"Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq, creating democracy there, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, making Israel more secure, not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain, and others.

"But reality no longer can be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq.

These realities get worse every day that our forces remain in Iraq. They can't be wished away by clever diplomacy or by leaving our forces in Iraq for several more years.

Earl - I asked for a link and I got one. I never said that the memo did not exist. Now, inform us oh Crusty-the-Earl, was all of that intelligence developed just during the first 8 months of the Bush administration? C'mon Earl. Be honest now. Are you really trying to get us to believe that Clinton had no knowledge of OBL's scheming? And you say I am deluded? LOL

I also noticed that you did not respond to ANY of the facts that I posted and ripped a new hole in you (and your theories). Instead you picked one small thing and trumpeted that as if by proving one thing (something I did not dispute BTW), you prove all the other convoluted and misguided things you have said.

Specter:

It doesn't matter when the intelligence was devloped, the important point is that W received a dire warning which specifically mentioned airplanes as bombs and he did not a thing, not even cut his vacation short. Yet you blame Clinton, who at least tried to get Bin Laden. It's so typical of you: Clinton's presidency marked singular moments in prosperity and peace, yet you somehow believe he's responsible for something that happened well after he stepped down. Oh, and he created a retro recession too. But this isn't what really gets my goat.

You are definitely deluded. Bush said "Mission Acomplished" about his "cakewalk" in 2003. Yet you believe that this war is normal and right, that we got exactly what we bargained for. They come up with plan after plan and nothing works any better than the last thing, and you blame Clinton and Kerry and Carter. The jig's up Specter, and I'm going to savor your every defeat in the coming months (not our military defeat, rather your political defeat).

General Barry McCaffrey

General Barry "drug czar" McCaffrey?

Earl,

Again, you dodged all the other issues you claimed to have the facts on and I proved you wrong. Excuse me, but what is delusion except continually moving the goal posts. Dire warning? Let's read the quote together, shall we (this is from your link - emphasis mine)?

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

OK Crusty-the-Earl, tell me specifically which sentence said:

W received a dire warning which specifically mentioned airplanes as bombs

See Earl - the problem here is you read a headline, and then decided what the article said without reading it. What the memo actually said was there were general threat indicators, but NO SPECIFIC THREAT - especially of the kind you asserted. BZZZZZ - And the answer was wrong again Earl. Are you ever going to get anything right?

BTW - the emphasis I added showed how much your precious Clinton did to get OBL. Remember, he had 10 chances and wimped out on each one. Get a grip on reality pal.

Specter:

You're right, I guess Bush should have stayed on vacation after a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Okay it mentions hijacking aircraft, not aircraft as bombs, at least in the non-redacted parts. There wasn't a damn thing Clinton could do to prevent 911, except get OBL. But he's not important, remember? That's what Bush said after he skipped out of Iraq to attack a secular nation in a war on Islamic extremism.

How's the weather there in Clown Land today?

Hey, by the way, someday, years from now, when I see the textbooks portray Clinton as a successful president, and W as a humiliation, I'm going to think of you and your impotent Clown Wang and give a little chuckle.

I guess you're looking at a bright future, no?

See Earl - you can't even admit you are wrong. How many PDB's do you think Clinton got that said basically the same thing? Like - maybe once a week? What did he do about each one? So much for your DIRE WARNING. I owned you moron!

Get it? You post empty theory and rhetoric and I come back with fact. You can't back your crap up with fact so you make another empty statement. I shoot it down again with FACTS and then you call me delusional. What a troll. Get a grip!