The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:

1. Predict failure


2. Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true


3. Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid
and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry
and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they burn in eternal Hell.

I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

there's a big difference between 'championing' genocide and just not caring enough about the victims, whether it be Iraq, Darfur or somewhere else, to have American soldiers die trying to keep it from happening.

American soldiers volunteer to help keep America safe, not to be offered up as shields stuck between two groups of crazy Iraqis... and, right now, with the lion's share of the violence in Iraq taking the form of Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting, the American people fail to see how having our troops die in Iraq is doing America any good.

If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands.
You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?

let's assume you are right...and that's a hell of an assumption considering you and all the other bush cultists have been wrong all along...that means we have only one option...continue pouring blood and money at this in an open ended commitment until the iraqis actually do something in the way of a political solution...which they have shown no indication of doing. at that point we will have propped up a weak corrupt government...al queda and other groups like them will be able to operate where they couldn't before...and iran will have far more influence than they had before. so our only option leaves us worse off than before. f'ing brilliant.

jvf: apropos of Va Tech, where responsibility for what happened has been properly attributed to the killer, if there is a bloodbath in Iraq, it is the responsibility of those doing the killing.

"If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands.
You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?"

Who warned us? The Democrats?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

John Kerry

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

John Edwards

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Harry Reid

Those dont sound like warning to me. It looks like the Dems wanted the war as much as the "neo-cons". I guess the "bloodbath" is on ALL of our hands.

If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands. You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?

In other words, liberals who wanted a "change in direction and strategy in Iraq" and got Robert Gates and General Petraeus (the man who literally wrote the manual on counterinsurgency operations) as a result, were lying when they made this claim. What you actually wanted the entire time was to abandon the Iraqi people in order to publish Goerge Bush for "his war."

For a political group that pays so much lip service to humanitarian rights, you are awfully cavalier towards the fate of the overwhelming majority of 24 million Iraqi civilians who would have their lives and security placed in far greater jeopardy by the arbitrary withdrawal dates Democrats are attempting to push.

I don't question your patriotism. I question your humanity.

let's assume you are right...and that's a hell of an assumption considering you and all the other bush cultists have been wrong all along...that means we have only one option...continue pouring blood and money at this in an open ended commitment until the iraqis actually do something in the way of a political solution...which they have shown no indication of doing. at that point we will have propped up a weak corrupt government...al queda and other groups like them will be able to operate where they couldn't before...and iran will have far more influence than they had before. so our only option leaves us worse off than before. f'ing brilliant.

Presently, Seven Iraqi provinces are being run by the Iraqis (3 Kurdish, four Arab), and three more will probably be turned over to Iraqi control within the next year to 18 months. When 10 of 18 provinces are in Iraqi hands, will you still cry the the commitment is open-ended? It never was.
The commitment was to establish enough security for the Iraqis to take over. We finally have the new plan and general to execute that new plan that you ask for, and you now seek to quit before giving him a chance to have that plan come to fruition.

You act as if Iraq was a peaceful tranquil place free of corruption and terrorism before we arrived, when Baathist corruption ran deep even during Saddam's regime, and the State itself was a key instrument of terror in the region. The fact that Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder) lived in Baghdad at Saddam's bequest, and that Saddam himself had ordered invasion of two neighboring countries, somehow slips your collective minds.

The Iraqi government has been in place for what, two years? Unless our history books are wrong, this nation didn't even have a Constitution until 1781, five long years after declaring independence from Great Britian.

Liberals such as yourself are quick to play up the efforts of al Qaeda's own surge (evidenced by the increase in car-bombings), but are loath to note the fact that the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once. They've fought pitched battles against al Qaeda and aligned insurgent groups, and have won every one in recent memory, a fact that the media either underplays, or often simply refuses to support at all. Sunni groups formerly opposed to the Iraqi government are now forming political parties to join with it. JD Johannes, on the ground in Fallujah, reports that the insurgency may even indeed be over in parts of al Anbar.

The larger insurgency will indeed claim more American and Iraqi lives before it is finished, but to surrender to terrorists and the states that sponsor them is a far worse threat to the security of the Iraqi and American peoples. Even the reliably left wing reporters of media organizations in Iraq acknowledge that our pulling out will make the region far more unstable, as noted in the main article, and the craven, naked retreat in the face of adversity is an affront to American honor and dignity, along with an abandonment of basic humanitarian principles.

Of course, it seems obvious that liberals gave up on both honor and true humanitarian values long ago.

Shorter Confederate Yankee:

If we can pin the blame on the Democrats, then it IS america's fault that a bunch of people somewhere else kill each other.

If we can't pin the blame on a Democrat, then only america-hating democrats would blame america and not the terrorists doing the killing.

Either way, Republicans win!

if the commitment isn't open ended then what is it? what is the limit of commitment?
and your faux concern for humanity is laughable. this war has killed so many innocents neither us nor the iraqis are willing to count them.
and stop trying to claim this is a new plan. it's the same plan. again. and again. with the possible exception being that we have given up any pretense of training iraqis.
i stand by my statement...our only option leaves us worse off. f'ing brilliant.

hell...if you are so worried about humanity why don't we liberate cuba...it's a lot closer and the beaches are beautiful. oh yeah...they don't have any oil.

What I find amusing about all of this, in a tragic sense, is that if everything was exactly the same, but a Democrat was in office, you'd be screaming for his impeachment.

Despite every miscalculation and mistake made by Bush and his Administration, you still insist on placing the blame on a political party that had nothing to do with any of this. This war was planned and executed by Republicans.

And no one will forget that.

TheTruth speaks the truth...remember how the right screamed about kosovo...and cried about how there was no exit strategy...and in spite of that we lost not one american life? that was at the beginning of the rights hyper-partisanship. they had only started sipping the kool-aid. now they gulp as if there isn't any more. hopefully this debacle will be the end of the right and a party interested in actually governing will rise from the ashes. they have already turned their backs on conservative tenants.

So many misrepresentations, so little time...

you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them.

Actually, I was just listening to Petraeus...he didn't seem sure that things would get worse if we left. I think he said probably or possibly if US troops AND Iraqi troops were to go away, there might be an increase in sectarian violence. Even the Burns quote is equivocal.

One thing is certain....what we are doing now is failing big time.

Republicans have had 4 years with a blank check and almost zero oversight and have accomplished...what exactly?

Hate to break it to you, but the state has already failed, the regional war has already broken out, and the genocide has already begun - all thanks to Georgie's war of choice.

I'll repeat what the Truth said: This war was planned and executed by Republicans. And no one will forget that.

"the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once."

yeah...that's the ticket...more once and future insurgents infiltrating the Iraqi army and police.

And you wonder why no one has any confidence in this hare brained scheme?

Why is it that you care so much for muslims in Iraq yet spend so much time hating them in the US and everywhere else...there is no logic or consistancy to your crap.

Why is it that you care so much for muslims in Iraq yet spend so much time hating them in the US and everywhere else...there is no logic or consistancy to your crap.

Just another typical, empty-headed, liberal platitude. Search the archives, chum. You won't find any of that here. I dislike Islamists, not Muslims. You're simply too clueless to know the difference.

Justin,

You missed this Democratic quote from 2002:

"I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line. We must ask what is right for our country and not party."

That was Ted Kennedy.

I want to go on record here (again) and say I think pulling out would be a disaster. But I don't believe we can do it with our military as it is. Even Petraeus said today that it would take a very long commitment in order to win this war. How long and how many men? He couldn't, or wouldn't, say.

Fair enough.

But if it's true that this is an absolute must-win for us, as Bob and others insist, then where is the call for:

1. More troops (maybe even the draft)
2. Higher taxes to pay for this long-term commitment and
3. The truth about how many troops, for how long, and at what cost?

The American people need to know how much this thing is going to cost and how long we have to stay. As much as Bush thinks this is a monarchy, it's not. We need to know now what we've gotten into. No more soft and mushy proclamations of progress. We need the hard, cold truth if we're going to face this head-on.

I'm with you on this. I think the Democratic leadership is acting in a craven, irresponsible manner, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. But there's no honor on the GOP side, either, only empty words, bone-headed incompetence, and a desire to find some way to shift the blame for this catastrophe onto the Democrats. Shame.

For all of you arguing partisan politics here, lift your head so you can see above the BS and then call ALL of our leaders, left and right, to task for failing us and our military, so utterly.

To do otherwise is to reduce your principles to those of a third-rate ward-heeler telling the rubes anything to get their vote.

What is our best case scenario in Iraq? Let's say somehow the next 12 months are much more effective than the past 48 have been and the insurgents and jihadists are defeated militarily. That leaves Iraq governed by a coalition of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, sponsored by Iran; the DAWA party, sponsored by Iran; and the Sadrists, also sponsored by Iran, and the hardline islamist Virtue Party. Oh and the Kurds.

So Ware is backwards on this. Our vicotry in Iraq would be what hands the country to Iran. Because of Bush's colossal blundering, Iran is in a position to win whether we go or stay. What is the word for a situation in which the enemy wins even in your best case? Oh yeah, Lost.

Shorter Confederate Yankee:

Iraqi casualties only matter to us when politically convenient. We downplay reports of hundreds of thousands of existing casualties, while hyping future potential casualties that may occur as a result of our withdrawal. We do this with as little introspection and serious analysis as posisble so as to maintain a straight face.

jvf,

Not sure what hole in the ground you came up from (KOS, DU, or FDL) but I always love when Dimmies make this argument:

you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them.

First - Do you see what this argument says? Or are you too blinded by BDS? You claim that Bush is stupid, yet he was able to pull the wool over the eyes and fool the Dimmies into believing made up intelligence (or so you say). Now - if Bush could fool the Dimmies, it makes them less intelligent than him, or by your definition - even stupider than you think Bush is. ROFLMAO at you.

Second - Many of the quotes that have been posted were made by the Dimmie Brain Trust prior to the Bush election into office. Laughing at you even harder now.

Third - Quick - what was Operation Desert Fox, who ordered it, and for what reason?

Study a little history about the ME from the last 30-40 years and you might, just might be a little more informed. As for now, you are a BDS Troll. Simple.

specter...you could be 100% correct about everything you typed above...and still the our only option in this little adventure you love to support leaves us worse off than we were before...again...f'ing brilliant.

"Only option" jay k.?

What is the "only option?"

"I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world."

You been duped, son.
This is what happens to the uncurious and naive.

Now that you know it, what you gonna do about it?

jay k.,

Another reject from KOS? OK - here is your platform jay k., mister f'king brilliant - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN/ WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? Got to oh smart one. Tell us.

Bush is stupid.
It's his evil partners who are bringing this country to it's knees.

I gotta admit, it's interesting to see the most powerful military in the history of mankind get it's ass-handed to them by a bunch of teenagers.
Not to mention, SOOOOOOOO well-deserved.

What...no answer yet from jay k. With all his wisdom I thought it would take just a few seconds to respond. C'mon Mr. F'ing Brilliant - what would you have us as a country do? Let's hear it?

Robert,

You must be embedded right to have so much knowledge? Or are you simply reading FDL? Why don't you go over to some of the milblogs and tell them that the troops are getting their asses handed to them? I know - you couldn't handle the heat. Too chicken, huh?

Specter,

I'm your huckleberry.

You want a plan? Look at what I've suggested.

As for Desert Fox, Clinton went after Saddam but did not go to war. He contained him. That's a huge difference in blood and treasure.

You can argue that containment could not have gone on forever, but that begs the question as to how long should we continue our present occupation?

Really, Specter, what's your plan? It's obvious we can't keep sending these troops back for six, seven, eight tours without the military breaking down. We can't keep borrowing from China to pay for this expedition. So what do you suggest we do, smart guy?

You offer nothing of substance to this debate beside knuckle-headed abuse. Frankly, I find it really tiresome.

What difference does it make where we "came from". You have a problem with hearing from those who don't share your opinion?

The Bush admin snow job has nothing to do with intelligence (as in "smart"), and everything to do with manipulation.

Desert Fox was a very limited operation, intended to degrade Saddam's military. Very different from occupying the whole country, which by the way, George H.W. Bush though was a dumb idea and certainly still does.

Before you accuse me of not having a plan, I believe we should keep a skeleton crew of US troops for training & support purposes only, and get the rest off of the streets. Oh yeah, and impeach our civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief.

David,

Same question for you. Do you know any of the soldiers? I know quite a few, and while they are scared in many respects, they see the progress being made there. You don't know. You only parrot stuff from the drive-by media. Get a grip.

Oh I get it, Bush was able to manipulate the Dimmies. Same argument - he is smarter than they are. Get a grip.

OK - I see it took so long to answer cuz you had to Wiki the answers. So - why did Clinton feel it necessary to "contain" Saddam. What was the threat that Clinton was responding to? Dig deeper, you'll get it.

That is not a plan. Laughing even harder at you.

civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief.

Oh you mean like Congress trying to dictate troop movement orders? Like breaking the role assigned to Congress v. the role assigned to the President.

Do you ever have a quote without f'ng in it? You musa bin hiley edicated.

oh and jvf,

Tell me which provinces are being occupied by the US forces. You seem to know so much about deployments.

Specter,

Nice use of the chickenhawk arguement.

What are the milblogs going to do to me, rape me?
I'm not a 14-year old Iraqi, so I'm not too worried about them.

Specter,

Nice use of the chickenhawk arguement.

What are the milblogs going to do to me, rape me?
I'm not a 14-year old Iraqi girl, so I'm not too worried about them.

David,

My plan is to support the President and the military leaders. There is a plan there you know. Same plan that has been for a long time. Help get the Iraqi government up and running, train the Iraqi troops/police, and stay put until they ask us to leave.

Now - there may need to be tactical adjustments to fit the strategy. We need to find ways to force the Iraqi gov. to step forward faster. Abandoning them is not going to do that. We have been making great progress in turning over provinces to Iraqi forces. Granted - those provinces are the most tranquil, but that is the best place to season these troops. We have made strides in replacing infrastructure, schools, businesses, etc.

In the last election, people did not vote to run away and abandon Iraq. They voted for a change of direction (mind you that does not mean "retreat" as opposed to "victory - or going forward").

The bottom line here is that WE ARE THERE. If we leave there will be a bloodbath. So what are the options now? You tell me.

So go say it there then chicken.

oh and Robert,

You may not be a 14-yo Iraqi girl, but you do sound like a 14-yo. Get over it.

Specter,

I have.
They threatened me. Yawn.

BTW, Iran thanks you.

You aren't even coherent. BDS?

No. Common sense and a curious mind.

BDS is a made up affliction coined by Conservatives.
They can't possibly see why someone could dislike W's actions.
They think you can just hate a President no matter what he does.
This is called projection. It's what they did for 8 years during the 90s.

BTW, I didn't think Clinton was a good President either.

How about another W golden gem?
He thinks if we leave, three-thousand plus American soldiers will have died in vain.
Our MBA President has no concept of sunken costs.
Comedy gold.

So just how long do you think we would have to stay in Iraq before we would be able to withdraw without worse violence erupting? Another five years? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Ad infinitum??? And how many lives and trilions of dollars would that cost?

The only hope for stopping the violence is that the parties in Iraq's CIVIL WAR should come to some kind of an accommodation that they can all live with. And as of now there is no indication of that happening. And that will remain true for as long as the U.S. remains there trying to keep a lid on things. Perhaps being faced with the reality that they can either make a REAL effort to solve their problems or they can destroy each other may be the only thing that can finally force the Iraqis to learn to live together. In any case, if we disengage ourselves in a reasonable manner the choice and the responsibility for what happens afterward will belong to the Iraqis themselves.

Equating extracting ourselves from the middle of someone else's civil war (where we should never have found ourselves in the first place) and genocide is an absurdity!

Specter,

Do I knowe any soldiers there now? How about two of my nephews? One is a major with a Stryker Brigade out of Fort Lewis and the other is a surgeon with an FST. Is that close enough?

Now, if you'll look, I've laid out what I think needs to happen: 1. Draft. 2. Raise taxes. 3. Level with the US citizens.

Now none of those things rae going to happen, which, in my opinion, makes this war a half-stepper and half-steppers don't get it done. Look at what Petraeus said today about long-term commitment. Even he can't predict how long or how many or how much, but it will be for quite a while and we as citizens should know just how much is being asked of us.

As for progress, I see encouraging signs, so I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not optimistic.

What I don't understand is how you and others can so blindly follow a president and the architects of this war, most of them having never served a day in uniform, when everything and I mean EVERYTHING they've said so far has been so bloody wrong.

In my long life I have never seen any other single group of people so wrong about so many things. Did they get anything right here? No, they followed Chalabi and Curveball into this mess and we went along, thanks to lousy reporting by the liberal New York Times and Washington Post.

That's what I don't get. You're willing to back a team with more losses than the Cubs. If this was a sports team their coach would have been sacked by now. But no, we still have to hear the experts Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Feith on their ideas of how to win when it was their stupidity that got us here. But you keep backing a losing team. Unfortunately, you're betting other people's lives, so you'd better be sure you're right.

I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring. They do not have Constitutional authority to set battle rules and timetables.

The refusal of liberals to view the facts and listen to what their leaders have stated before is just incredible. I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back.

Most Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, want us to leave. Therefore the argument that we owe it to them to stay does not hold water.

I've never seen a more craven politician than Bush. Nothing is ever his fault. He's trying to hire a War Czar now to take the blame for whatever catastrophes await us in Iraq, but no one will take the job.

Terrenoire's right: there's no excuse for the half-assed execution of this war. Not only were there no taxes to fund it, we got tax breaks. Instead of instituting a draft, we are trying to police a nation of 30 million. Bush does not have the courage to push these things through, yet he's happy to ask our troops to risk their lives. Here in the US we even use magnet stickers instead of the more permanent bumperstickers to show our support. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that paint job!

You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you.

About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush.

The evidence for Iraqi WMD was tissue thin. Basically it consisted of the Niger uranium connection and testimony from an honestly crazy person named Curveball. Saddam's son-in-law the general who defected to the US testified baldly that there were no WMD, but Bush chose to go with Curveball. Facts were fixed around the policy, as the Downing Street Memo stated.

I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring.

OK: It's hard to tell, but I think the consensus opinion in Congress is that we should pull out gradually over the course of a year. That'll give the Iraqis a chance to start taking over responsibility for their country's security. (Assuming they want to have any security; it seems like most of them are so consumed by old grudges that they'd rather have a bloody civil war.)

But just saying that there's going to be no funding next year won't work. The problem is George Bush; he'll just keep fumbling around without starting the withdrawal. In a year's time, Iraq will be in exactly the same position it's in today, only with another year's worth of casualties.

So Congress has to use the carrot-and-stick approach. If Bush wants the funding, he has to accept the timetable.

Only that's not working, and I'm not sure what happens next. In an ideal world, the Republicans in Congress would grow some balls and vote to override the veto.

Barring that, the next-best option is to not pass the emergency funding bill at all. That *should* force Bush to withdraw the troops fairly quickly. Iraq will collapse into civil war, of course, but that was probably going to happen anyway. If the Iraqis had sincerely wanted stability, they could have had it by now.

I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back.

We've been through worse, and made it out OK. And things should start improving now that we've finally got some Congressional oversight.

The whole thing was a fraud from the start.

Greeted as Liberators, Mission Accomplished, Last Throes...what a load of BS

I was listening to Mark Levin (the "conservative" commentator and radio host) - he was wailing that "America is under attack from the Democrats"...it sounded like he was going to pee his pants. That's fascist rhetoric, this "internal ememy" crap.

It's about time someone is standing up to these gangsters.

Deal with this lefties:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833

In Iraq we are fighting a war. What were we doing to deserve such a high number of deaths during Clinton? Explain.

I notice none of you stepped up to explain why Clinton ran the "containment" operation. Got a clue yet? C'mon David and jvf - even you can wiki it.

David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do?

jvf,

Since you seem not to understand the question, and hence the implication, I will refer you to the Wiki article on Operation Desert Fox:

Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

Main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi anti-air batteries, unable to home in on the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success. U.S. Special Forces members who had been on the ground in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish settlements from retaliation withdrew, and the air strikes ended.

Now - tell me how Bush "manipulated" the intelligence during the Clinton Administration to get Clinton to attack Hussein over development of WMD. You can't. That is why I claim you are afflicted with BDS. If not BDS, then explain why the Clinton Administration claimed in 1988 and after that Hussein had WMD. Try to explain this.

It pisses me off when all you libs act like this is the longest, bloodiest war we have ever been in in the history of the United States. Over 4 years 3300 soldiers dead? Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Get a f'in grip on reality people! The war IS winnable. It obviously wont take FOREVER or infinity like you idiots like to say. When the Iraqis unite major combat operations will be over in a year or two. They are allready almost there.

The vast majority of Americans wanted this war. Only the brave Americans want to finish it. You think Bush likes having his name dragged though shit every day? No, he is doing what he thinks is best for the long term security of our country.

If a Democrat gets elected our next president, I GUARANTEE he/she will f up our country so bad, we will be standing in soup lines for 10 years. Woo hoo another great depression.

And Robert, I bet you are one of those scumbags that would spit on a soldier if he saw one. People like you should be tried for treason.

"You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you."

Poller: Soldier, do you want to go home?

Soldier: Hell yeah!

Poller: Do you want every soldier to retreat, and give Iraq to Al-Queda?

Soldier: Hell no!

That poll just asks a home sick person if they want to go home. Give me break. Supporting the troops, who I must remind you aren't cowards like liberals, doesn't mean making them retreat when they think the war can be one.

Don't forget if we pull out prematurely, Al-Queda is going to go crazy screaming about how they beat the "great satan". What do you think they will do next? You must think they will be satisfied, and go home.

Liberals are the KEY PART of the Al-Queda strategy. They know from experience (Mogadishu) that Liberals don't have the sack to fight a war with even a relatively small number of casualties.

The Liberal male has been far too over feminized.

Justin,

I like the attitude, but not necessarily the words.

But we don't have to wait for a Dimmie to be elected President. Look at the stellar things they have done since they won the majority....uh...uh...uh...well they must have done something.

Of course there are the innumerable oversight hearings. That must be something...well...wait though - Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at once for political reasons and Bush fired 8. Well...there must be some reason that we are spending millions on these hearings. And then we have Waxman subpoenaing C. Rice for her to answer why Bush said that Hussein was trying to get yellowcake from Niger...but wait - that's not what Bush said. So what is Waxman's point? And then we have Pelosi visiting foreign governments and passing incorrect information to them - apparently breaking the Logan Act. But maybe it is the new taxes they want to raise - the biggest tax raise in US History. Yea - that's the ticket. That and passing lots of laws guaranteed to break the largest growth in the US economy in decades. And oh yea - they passed the surrender bill. LOL.

Yep - they've done a lot....NOT

I agree Specter, the Dems have done nothing they promised. Remeber the weeks leading up to the election everyone? Not one of the leading democrats would even mention their war stance because they were afraid they might scare away potential inpendents. What they did do was promise bi-partisanship and that they would get things done. So far they have done none of that.

Specter:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833

What a steaming load. Not if you mean US military deaths. Even if it was true it would prove nothing.

In Iraq we are fighting a war.

Aye. And the earth is round.

About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush.

Typical Liberal thinking. Keep beliving something, even though you know it isnt true. Check the dates on those quotes there and the other ones I posted. They started in 1998 and concluded in 2002. I think one was from 2003 I dont remember. Im pretty sure Bush wasnt lying to the Dems about Iraqs WMD in 98.

But for some reason you keep repeating that same lie. Why, Lex, why?

Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves? Or did they only listen to Bush? Im pretty sure they have a security clearance and a brain. So if they voted without looking at the intel, and only listened to Bush, then that would be extremely iresponsable, dont you think?

However, Im pretty sure they must have looked at the intel themselves. And last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself. Logic would then dictate that they made their decision to vote for the war based on the info laid out on the table. Not Bushes speaches.

So one of two things must have happened:

1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves.

2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on.

Justin, there's miles of difference between worrying about Saddam and invading the country. There can be no doubt that it was Republicans who were behind the invasion.

"Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."
--Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003

Interview with Anthony Zinni here.

Interview with General William Odom here

"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,'"
--Richard Clarke

What your kind never wants to admit or understand is that Iraq was largely free from jihad under Saddam. Look at the region: the Saudis were behind 911; Pakistan was caught selling nukes; Afghanistan has jihadist trainig camps. Saddam was a thug, but he didn't tolerate Islamic fanaticism, it was a threat to him. There wasn't any jihad coming from Iraq, and that's what the WOT should be about. What a fiasco.

Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves?

Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves?

The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence.

This is what it's all about. The intelligence released by the administration made a strong case for war (WMD's, Nukes, al Qaida ties). None of these claims have been proven and an argument can be made that they have been proven to be false.

Why do you think people are pissed that we're still in Iraq? Why do you think many are pissed that we went there in the first place?

Innocent humans are being killed in Iraq every day. The innocents are American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They didn't ask for a war based on false pretenses, but they are the ones paying the price.

Fred

Justin:
last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself

No, but close. The Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith (or whatever it was called) appears to have been set up solely to promote the Iraq war.

So one of two things must have happened: 1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves. 2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on.

I think it was mostly number one, in the sense that they allowed Bush and Powell et al to scare them so much. I certainly don't defend the Dem congressional votes.

In hindsight there appears to have been no secret evidence. There was the bogus Niger claim, the lunatic Curveball, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, and so it. That was it, and it was all a crock, every bit of it.

David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do?

Specter,

This will be the third time I posted this on just this thread alone:

1. We cannot keep extending tours and sending troops back for fourth, fifth and more tours. These young volunteers, unlike my time, are mostly family men. Divorce is on the rise and families are breaking under the strain. The only solution, since so many young Republicans think it's honorable to send other people off to fight their wars, is a draft.

2. We cannot keep funding our war by borrowing money from the Chinese. So we have to raise taxes.

3. This is most important. We have to level with the American people and tell them why we must sacrifice and what is a really true estimate of our commitment.

It's my contention that no one, not the Democrats, and not our brave and CINC will do any of the above. That means all this administration is doing is kicking the can down the road so the war becomes someone else's problem.

To continue as we are, in my opinion, makes the war unwinnable. I don't know about you, but I don't want to sacrifice my nephews for a strategy that won't work simply because Bush can't bring himself to level with us and ask Americans to make sacrifices.

That's my answer to your question. Now, I pose the same question to you. Given that we can't continue fighting this war for a very long time, as Petraeus said yesterday, not the way we're fighting it, or funding it now, what do we do?

Yesterday I expressed my great displeasure with the Democratic party. When will you Republicans stand up and demand better from your leaders?

Bush has brought us to this terrible place. It's time the nation, all of us, held him accountable and not look for ways to pawn this off on anyone else. To do otherwise is a most dishonorable, and dishonest course.

(Now, any time you want to discuss why the US Attorney firings are wrong, let me know. I know a few former assistant US Attorneys who prosecuted really bad guys in New York. They worked under Bush 41 and then Clinton, and they have a completely different take on this than you do. Don't believe the talking points, Specter, and start thinking for yourself.)

Specter, you spewed:

"Deal with this lefties:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833"

Here's the official fatality data:

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf

As anyone with a brain can see, the non-combat rates have remained relatively unchanged, but the combat rates have risen since 2003.

Interesting how the threat of genocide seems to pop up in the argument now. But isn't the reason "we're fightin' them over there, so we don't have to fight 'em here". And isn't the problem islam: so how can there be any victory unless every last one of these people is dead, because unless you kill every relation to any one particular "terrorist", I don't see how there can be any victory without the genocide that is now so important to the war-mongers.

So please, explain why we should be the ones to commit this atrocity rather than the "enemy" itself? Isn't that the best strategy: Let these ignorant dead enders annihilate themselves.

At least be honest.

David Terrenoire's comments are among the most cogent I've seen about this war yet. But I've got to ask: given that we're not going to institute a draft, raise taxes, or be leveled with, which is the better solution:

1) stay the course with the current group of incompetents in charge
2) call it a win and get the hell out of Dodge?

Every argument I've heard against leaving says there'll be a huge disaster if we go, but the consequences described sound an awful lot like the status quo. Plus, the people predicting disaster haven't exactly been Kreskins about anything else related to this war.

Well..well....well...I see that none of you took up my challenge to explain the reasoning behind Operation Desert Fox. The fact is leftists that Saddam and his WMDs were a major concern to several administrations in a row. But I know - your answer is that all of this is Bush's fault. It all started when he took office. None of the Dimmie Brain Trust said prior to Bush taking office that Saddam and Iraq were a major threat to the US, and to the stability of the region. And by your logic - Bush must be using the Comey-Fitz Mind Rays to have caused them to say those things before he took office.

Look - I'll start taking you seriously when ONE OF YOU ADMITS that the problem did not start with Bush. The history is there for you to read. All you have to do is put aside your hatred of Bush for one minute (well - maybe several so it might be an impossibility), and be honest. I don't think you can. That is why it is called BDS.

David,

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it.

"US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it."

WRONG - If they are fired to interfere with a prosecution (which all circumstantial evidence points to) that is obstruction of justice, and a serious crime.

Specter:

You'll start taking us seriously? You make up this statistic about military deaths under Clinton and then pretend like it didn't happen. Awhile back you argued ad infinitum that a rising average death toll in Iraq doesn't mean an increasing fatality rate. I'd be cautious about anyone you did take seriously.

You say we have BDS for blaming Bush for the Iraq War. It's actually Clinton's fault. Bush just clocked in at 28% approval in a WSJ poll. Does that mean that 72% of the country has BDS?

No matter how many times you are crushed in debate, you crawl onwards, spouting the same nonsense and mangling statistics. You'd be a clown or a buffoon except that you're never amusing or clever. 'Fool' will have to suffice.

Mr. George Tenet has left the building:

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

As depressing as the Iraq fiasco is, I do take some perverse pleasure in watching your political philosophy melt away. Drip, drip, drip. Nothing quite like the sight of one of the most powerful and least-deserving men in the world getting his comeuppance, at age 60 no less. It's been slow and sweet, like a fine meal. He'll have many quiet years to drink and clear brush.

That being said, I earnestly promise not to tease anyone who professes to a change of heart. We are still a fine nation, and we welcome every citizen's help in restoring our glory.

Live From Iraq:

From snipers, to IEDs, to the dirty conditions, to the long days, week, and months of thankless work in a country which is still being stitched back together, there are a thousand reasons why the troops should be unhappy, and a thousand excuses for why they might be right to side with those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal. However, despite all of the negatives, the overwhelming consensus among those with whom I have spoken to this point is not a belief that we have done everything we can here, and should therefore leave. The belief amongst the troops here, as exemplified by the aforementioned infantry Captain’s statement, is that these people deserve a chance at a better way of life, and that, rather than abandon them to a fate of certain death at the hands of ruthless sectarians, insurgents, and terrorists, we should continue to do everything we can to help rebuild and secure this nation, and to smash those who would destroy what the Iraqi people are building before they can be successful in doing so.

Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully.

My bold above.

You bolded the wrong sentence.

Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully.

This goes back to David's point (and he can make it more eloquently than I can), which is that the current bosses are doing this half-assed. 150,000 troops? Pffft. Send half a million in there. Put the budget and economy on a war footing.

That is, of course, assuming that your quoted premise is true in the first place. Did you poll the troops?

From General William Odom, "Victory is not an Option":

"There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

...

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

jvf,

Care to explain then why Clinton was allowed to fire the US Attorney that was investigating Rostenkowski? Where were the hearings then? Were you up in arms about it? He also fired the US Attorney that was actively investigating Whitewater. Same questions. Bet you don't have an answer for either.

Specter,

I thought this adminsitartion was supposed to be better than Clinton.

I find it amusing that every time Bush does something wrong you apologists jump up and say Clinton did it first.

Restoring integrity to the White House my backside.

Lex,

Data for you: Military Death Rates - Compiled by Defense Manpower Data Center. Official data Lex. Not made up. Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189.

But picture it this way - Bush is at war. Clinton was not. Why was the death rate so high?

Not what I said David. What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything. They fail to acknowledge that the jihadist movement started before Bush took office. They blame everything on Bush. That is BDS. Look at Lex's last post. Did he admit that anything happened on Clinton's watch? No - he attacked me, and then went happily on his way with BDS.

And David - don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions?

Oh and Lex,

You say I mangle stats. Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie?

Specter,

From your linked statistics, here is the breakdown of military deaths:

Clinton years:
1993 - 1213
1994 - 1075
1995 - 1040
1996 - 974
1997 - 817
1998 - 827
1999 - 796
2000 - 758
Total 7500

Bush years:
2001 - 891
2002 - 999
2003 - 1410
2004 - 1887
2005 - MISSING
2006 - MISSING
Total 5187

First question is, where are the data to make up the number you quoted for the total Bush years (7189)? They're not included on the PDF you linked to. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I don't see the data.

Second question is, isn't the relevant data the "hostile action" column? A total of 1 for all of Clinton's years (doesn't seem right, if we include Mogadishu?); 1102 for Bush through 2004 alone.

If you're trying to make the case that the risk to military personnel under both Bush and Clinton is alike, then you really need to focus on the relevant columns of data. Otherwise you're cherry-picking.

Specter: what a dissembler you are. That chart only goes through 2004, so your average cuts out much of the Iraq war. Also: Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189. First, you are comparing 8 years versus 6. Second, where are you getting that data? It's not on the pdf you cited.

What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything.

Bull. No one said that. You're the only person I'm aware of who claims that the Iraq war was Clinton's fault, however.

don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions?

Again you are lying, at least if you include Repub congressmen. Cunningham's in jail, Renzi's about to get indicted, Doolittle's about to get indicted, DeLay left in disgrace, Foley left in disgrace, Libby's convicted, Nye is, what, indicted? I can't recall now.

Liar, liar.

You say I mangle stats.

As a matter of fact I just caught you at it again.

Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie?

Oh Oct 2006 happens to be a high point. I wonder why you chose that month. Actually, April so far is higher though. And it's been eight months since we had a month of fatalities lower than the war as a whole. Only an idiot would call that a declining death toll.

Keep crawling, Specter. Everyone's getting a good look at your intellect.

...and I see I misconstrued your point somewhat. You're not saying the risk was "alike" as I put it, but pointing out that total deaths were high under Clinton too. My apologies.

Interesting to note, though, that every year under Clinton the numbers decreased; every year under Bush, the numbers have increased. And we've still got 2007 and 2008 data to compile.

Let's also remember that both Bosnia and Somalia occurred late in the Clinton presidency too. Despite these events military deaths declined overall.

Here's a comprehensive report of military deaths from 1980 to 2005 by total death and cause of death. It's an Excell spreadsheet compiled by the US Census Bureau, a politcally neutral source. In the last year of the Clinton administration (2000), the total US military death total was 891. In the most recent year for the Bush administration (2005), the total US military death total was 1,951. In 2000 the largest number of deaths (398) were caused by accidents. This is lower than the total number of deaths by accidents in the first year of the Clinton administration (676 in 1992) and higher than the number of deaths by accident in 2005 (629). The military during the Clinton years steadily brought the death total by accident down every year. It started going up again during every year of the Bush administration. This makes sense, especially after 2002 since war is a dangerous business and death can be caused by many ways other than hostile action. The largest cause of death in 2005 (738) was by hostile action and was many, many times higher than the highest year of the Clinton presidency, which was 1 in 1996. How any one can argue with a straight face that it was more dangerous to be in the military in the Clinton presidency than in the Bush presidency is a mystery to me. As the mother of a US Army soldier currently deployed in Ramadi, I pay close attention to these things. Argue for the war if you want, but use facts, doctored stats from biased sources.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0502.xls

carol H: Please send our regards to your son or daughter. Thanks for the link, it's very interesting.

Lex,

Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves?

Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves?

The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence.

Exactly where do you get this stuff from Lex?

"Meanwhile, members of Congress are subject to no such background investigations. Instead, once they are elected to office, they take an oath not to reveal national secrets. That's it, both Ashdown and a former congressional staffer who worked on the Hill for more than 30 years said Friday.

"Members get security clearance by right of the fact that they got elected," said Winslow Wheeler, who worked on Capitol Hill for 31 years for both Democrats and Republicans."

Lex,looks like you got some bad intel. By your rules that means you lied.

You Mean CNN the Liberal Media? I refuse to listen to them.

As a republican loyalist I have to say I cant keep pretending that we republicans didnt lose the war. Everything we said was wrong, we were totally wrong about everything. we must accept responsibility for this fiasco.

Justin: you quoted Fred, not me. Nice try though.

When are you shipping out sport?

Lex and David I,

the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday.

But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin.

And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost. Didya do that trend line yet Lex?

Specter:

the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday.

In that case you are leaving out accidental deaths under Bush. Review carol H's post above, your numbers are completely busted.

But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin.

They weren't. Even if they were, what would it prove? That Iraq was a good idea?

And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost.

Of course it did. Only in your fantasy world does anyone deny this.

Didya do that trend line yet Lex?

Here's you proving that the death toll is falling: "using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36." You haven't earned a place at the grownup table yet.

The death toll has been above the average of 2.4/day for the last eight months. April is 3.78/day so far.

A CBS News/New York Times poll shows "64% of Americans believe the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in 2008."

How come you're not helping out, ace? The surge is so promising... maybe one courageous young man will be enough to secure victory. Or maybe you're a little braver when someone else is fighting in your place. Bock bock!

Lex, I appologize for misquoting you. I meant to say Fred. Your posts were next to each other, and very similar in content. My mistake.

I have not followed this thread. I was against the invasion because I did not believe Iraq was a sponsor of attacks on the USA. I did not believe Iraq had WMD. I believed Iraq was a damaged society that needed the Peace Corps, not Shock and Awe. I believed the UN led inspectors could bridge the gap from threats to cooperation. Oh well.

We have been at this for over four years and we are farther away, because everything we have tried has failed. Stay the course has failed. Stand Up, Stand Down has failed. Elections have failed. Constitutions have failed. Attacking Sadr has failed. Not attacking Sadr has failed. Capturing the Aces, Kings, and Jacks have failed. Today we learn the surge is failing to bring any sense of peace and security to Iraq.

“The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq Progress “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?ex=1335412800&en=c70bf93efca9340b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I believe, not as a matter of faith but based on my knowledge and logic, there is no military solution to the violence and political turmoil in Iraq. Iraq is still a damaged society in need of diplomats and statesman. As I stated above, that was my view in 2002 when President Bush started his campaign to attack Iraq. Just so you know, I believed the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and appropriate.

The war in Iraq has lost the support of the American people. Who would ask our soldiers to die for something that the American people do not support ?

According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

Majority Supports Funding War, Troops

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats’ plan for withdrawal, Congress should still “allow funding for the war” even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).

Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).

U.S. Troops Could be Hurt

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).

Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).

Nuff said.

Justin,

How long did it take to search the polls to find just the right questions over the last 3 months from six different polling organizations to support a failed policy?

Here is the link to one of the polls you mentioned, ABC News Washington Post April 12-15, and some intersting results.

It took me 35 minutes tofind thispollandcut and paste the results. Formatting made it tricky to get the information from the poll to the post.

On the Washington Post web site
Spam filter made me remove link

http://www.washingtonpost /wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html

From the ABC News/Washingtonpost poll of April 12-15,2007

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)?

4/15/07 - Summary Table*

a. The situation Iraq Approve Disapprove No opinion
29 70 *

14. Do you think (the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties); OR, do you think (the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)?

Keep forces Withdraw forces No Op
4/15/07 42 56 2

12. Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

Bush Dems
4/15/07 33 58

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-------- Approve --------
NET Strongly Somewhat
4/15/07 35 17 18

------- Disapprove ------
NET Strongly Somewhat No opinion
62 14 49 2

I suggest folks see the poll to understand how others respond to specific questions and gain a sense of how other citizens feel. But no poll can convince me the war against Iraq started in 2003 by President Bush was in the best interest of USA or Iraq. It was poorly considered and poorly executed. The evidence; no WMD, no happy Iraqis, and increasing US deaths 4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner.

It seems to me Justin was not forthright in use of this poll.

Im just sick of hearing people say that the American people want us to pull out if Iraq. Polls are useless. The only poll that is worth a damn is when we go to our local high school and vote.

People want our president to rule our country based on poll numbers. Thats ridiculous. Thats not leadership.

Also I think its funny that the congress has a 37% approval rating.

Bernard William Scott: thanks for doing the legwork. I suspected as much but didn't care to do the research myself.

Another small note: the "Restricting Military Commanders" meme as per the FOX poll is bogus. This is a Repub talking point that doesn't bear scrutiny. The military commanders follow Bush's orders. For instance the surge was widely unfavored by the military, but Bush did it anyway.

Now Bush is saying we shouldn't judge the surge until September. He's running out the clock.

4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner.

Do you know what a mission is? Do you know the difference between a mission and a war? I guess no liberal does because they are all gonna bring it up today like Bush said the war was over. Give me a break.

Justin,

If you believe polls are stupid you should not use polls dishonestly to prove your point. By the way, the President does not ruke our contry, he faithfully executes the laws. Our elected represntatives write the laws after they are elected. If the president does not approve, he can veto.

A mission can be smaller or larger than a war. War can be a way to achieve, such as "Our Mission is to make the world safe for democracy" A war and other strategies and tactics could be part of the mission. Or a mission can bean assignemnt: "Your mission should you choose to accept it is capture the hill".

I was indicating the failure after over 4 years to achieve anything of substance in Iraq. The day of the speech was May 1, 2003.

How many Iraqis did Bush kill, and his apologists enable? For what? So they could start a civil war and kill each other, with Americans in the crossfire?