JG-TC.com > Opinion > OUR VIEW: Support for troops is war's common ground

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:23 AM CDT
OUR VIEW: Support for troops is war's common ground

By the JG/T-C Editorial board
editorial@jg-tc.com

America marks the fifth anniversary of the onset of the war in Iraq. The onslaught came with hearty support of the people, nearly unquestioned endorsement of both chambers of Congress.

The invasion came on the heels of a series of resolutions by the United Nations in connection with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But there were apparently no WMDs — at least none discovered.

Faulty intelligence helped lay the groundwork for our invasion, which was followed by the failure of the Bush administration in conducting the war efficiency and with cognizance of the Iraqi culture and internal religious strife.

In recent months, under the guidance of Gen. David Patreus, the administration’s “surge” has made some progress. The level of violence is down. Whether the surge will gain time enough for the dysfunctional Iraqi government to find a way to bring Kurds, Sunni and Shiites together is uncertain.

Supporters and opponents of the war agree on one thing: their support for the men and women fighting in our name in Iraq. They are there because they volunteered to serve their country.

Their sacrifice is not in vain, no matter how the war ends or what Americans feel about the war. Our Congress and administration continue to support and equip these brave men and women.

The anniversary of the fifth year of the war triggered a number of protests throughout the U.S. Many protesters were confronted by supporters of the war and military personnel who had served tours of duty.

It’s difficult to imagine anywhere but in a democracy: peaceful demonstrations being allowed against a war. It is our heritage, our right to protest, and we do it with relish.

Whether the war in Iraq has been worth the cost or the decision correct — supported by most of the American people at its inception — history will judge.

At the commencement of bombing and for many months after the invasion, the war riveted the nation’s attention. Coverage was intense and in-depth. The film footage and photographs coming out about it ranged in the thousands.

The coverage has slowed, the pictures declined and the attention of many Americans turned to other events. From the spirited battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president to the furor over racial and anti-American sermons, the economy, the latest murder or massacre and the titillating stories about philandering politicians, America has been diverted.

The decline in public interest in the war has, unfortunately, not been matched by the need for troops in Iraq. They continue to serve, sacrifice, and worry about coming home alive and not maimed.

We all want to see our troops home. What is to be determined is under what conditions.

Do we withdraw unilaterally or do with drawn down in a deliberate manner, based on the ability of the various religious sects to cooperate and the government to run the country?

No matter what decisions we make, they will have an impact on our future.

Until U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq ends, Americans of all views at least can still agree on one thing: This country will support the troops.

— JG/T-C Editorial Board

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

The Question wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:14 AM:

" No, support for the troops is not common ground, at least for Bush's no-bid contractors in Iraq, who have stabbed the troops in the back numerous times. Here's the latest revelation:
"At least a dozen soldiers and Marines have been electrocuted in Iraq over the five years of the war, and investigators now are trying to learn what role improper grounding of electrical wires played in those deaths.
"And Houston-based KBR — which builds bases and maintains housing for U.S. troops in Iraq — is at the center of the probe, with questions being raised about its responsibility to repair known wiring problems."
Since your editorial board prefers not to write about these issues, your happy talk about "supporting the troops" doesn't really amount to much.
And by the way, that intelligence you mention wasn't "faulty." It was fabricated. "

Early Bird wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:48 AM:

" Yes, the level of violence is down, but let's be honest, a big factor in that reality is that our government (using our tax money) is paying the Sunni's to play nice. That now seems to now be in jeopardy due to their anger over the irregularities in getting their bribes. Sounds like another broken promise from the Bush/Cheney duo to me. The real question becomes, is the level of violence down due to the surge or due to us being hijacked by the Sunnis to support us? I find it interesting that those who hoot and holler about how effective the surge has been, now including this paper, never mention these cash payoffs to the Sunni militia, and its impact on this success. If the press was doing its job, we wouldn't be learning this from the blogs. For those who moan about the unfair coverage from the main stream media concerning this war, I say bull. This administration has been given a pass, from the very first days of this war. That goes from the conservative think tanks planning this war, to Dick Cheney's personal enrichment and now to this little secret. The right wing has done a yeoman's job on selling the lie that the big problem is the main stream media. The big problem is the current administration, who works in total secrecy, allowed a small group of narrow minded conservatives to plan and deliver a war built on lies, distortions and for all the wrong reasons. Should the media have informed the American people that Rumsfeld recruited several like minded right wingers and took them to the pentagon to virtually create a takeover of government military policy? These are the people, along with Cheney, that actually sold Bush on this war. And as we conclude a fifth year of this immoral invasion, these people along with Bush and Cheney have the blood of almost 4000 young Americans on their hands. In addition to the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and sadly, innocent children. One thing this bunch learned from the VietNam tragedy was not to allow flag draped coffins to be shown to the American public, and the press went along willingly by not showing graphic pictures, depicting the reality of this farce. This administration knew that if a face was put on this war, the people would have stood up long ago. All the while we sit here in our peaceful little communities, believing the propaganda coming out of the White house. When the story finally gets sorted out, history will not be kind to the Bush/Cheney team. But one of the original cheerleaders of this fiasco, Cheney, said we will be greeted as liberators. That evil man should rot in hell. "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:57 PM:

" A special request for Q-man and EB and all their special friends: please, oh please, tell us the story again (and again, and again, and again) about why we should withdraw from a war, without actually winning? Pretty please. All your poser fans promise not to interrupt. Oh, and can you include all those bitter, sour-grapes-remarks about our Commander in Chief too? Please? Take all the room you need - see if you can set a record on how l-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g-g-g-g your posts can be this time, OK? If you need some help, maybe do some more of that cut-and-pasting. "

The Question wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:17 PM:

" A special request for Q-man and EB and all their special friends: please, oh please, tell us the story again (and again, and again, and again) about why we should withdraw from a war, without actually winning?
-----
Because when you've kicked in the door of somebody's house and killed a bunch of people there by "mistake," it isn't considered polite to move in. "

The Question wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:21 PM:

" Here's what we're "winning" in Iraq, thanks to the McBush plan for permanent war and occupation.
-----
A string of suicide attacks, shootings and rocket strikes have claimed dozens of lives on a day of violence in Iraq, the BBC reported.
In the bloodiest single incident, 13 Iraqi soldiers died when a suicide attacker drove a fuel tanker into an army base in Mosul in northern Iraq.
The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.
At least 15 people died in rocket and mortar fire apparently aimed at Baghdad's Green Zone.
Eight were civilians who were killed when rockets landed short of their targets on Sunday morning.
At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.
"

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:39 PM:

" Interesting that you didn't try to refute any thing EB said, Tom, why is that? By the way, no answer is needed to your query, the war is over, we won, we are currently just occupying Iraq. Remember the objective (one of about a dozen listed at various times by Bush) was to topple Saddam, and we did that years ago. So it's time to stop pouring money down that rat hole. You of all people, should understand that, as much as you moan and groan about our government wasting money. Or is your beef just for those who get help because they need it, like the elderly, poor, disabled and the like? "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Q-man: "Because when you've kicked in the door of somebody's house and killed a bunch of people there by "mistake," it isn't considered polite to move in." // It's a war, stupid! (Oh, and by the way, you've got the story wrong - again.)
"

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:43 PM:

" blah, blah, blah "A string of suicide attacks, shootings and rocket strikes have claimed dozens of lives on a day of violence in Iraq, the BBC reported.
In the bloodiest single incident, 13 Iraqi soldiers died when a suicide attacker drove a fuel tanker into an army base in Mosul in northern Iraq.
The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.
At least 15 people died in rocket and mortar fire apparently aimed at Baghdad's Green Zone.
Eight were civilians who were killed when rockets landed short of their targets on Sunday morning.
At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.." // Like I said, it's a war, stupid!

"

Just a Soldier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 5:57 PM:

" Could someone please define what "support the troops" means? I have always wondered because I hear the "I don't support the war, but I support the troops" line so often. I've always wanted to ask, "I see you speaking out in volumes and waiving signs to not support the war, what have you done to support the troops?" "

The Question wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:17 PM:

" I'll define the term for you, Soldier. Supporting the troops means ending the unjustified invasion and occupation that is getting them maimed and killed. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:29 PM:

" "(using our tax money) is paying the Sunni's to play nice.'

-------

And that's different than everyday lobbyist politics in Washington DC- How?

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:30 PM:

" In the past- you anti-war mouth-pieces whined and cried that the sectarian differences in Iraq could never be solved.

And lo and behold- it turns out the answer is- money.

And you Liberals said that Iraq would never have a Jeffersonian Democracy- hah!

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:35 PM:

" Let me (once again) point out this major piece of under-reported news from last week-

IRAQ PASSES PROVINCIAL ELECTION LAW

“Iraq’s presidential council has withdrawn its objection to a provincial elections law. The announcement on the fifth anniversary of the war gives a major boost to U.S.-backed efforts to promote national reconciliation.
The move comes three weeks after the law was rejected because of concerns by Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi.
Wednesday’s statement says the council approved the bill after talks with legislators and political blocs. The decision paves the way for a national vote on Oct. 1 that the United States hopes will give the Sunnis more political power.”
"

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:48 PM:

" Just a Soldier says: "Could someone please define what "support the troops" means?" // That's an easy one. If you've ever heard a beauty queen say things like "Peace and love in the world ...", then you know the intellect behind the 'support the troops' mantra. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:43 PM:

" " Barack Obama Feb 26 2008- “And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

Osama Bin Laden March 20 2008- "Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

----------------

Any of you Liberal geniuses care to explain how Harvard-educated, top-of-his-class professor of constitutional law and bestselling author, Sen. Barry Hussein Obama-

plans on pulling the troops out of Iraq ASAP?
"

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:47 PM:

" It's a war, stupid? My My, Tommy boy, name calling is a little immature isn't it? I thought you didn't do that. I thought it was only us on the left side that resorted to that tactic. Running out of material? "

Just a Soldier wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:54 PM:

" I knew that was one was going to come from you, Question. While I can't speak for all soldiers, I can say for myself and the close friends I served with over there when I say that is not the kind of support I want. I want the kind of support that makes sure this war has a positive outcome for future generations instead of pulling out too soon and watching the accomplishments bought with the blood, sweat, and tears of my comrades go up in smoke. Here is some breaking news for you to cut and paste: War has always been cruel, and ugly, and costly. If anything, this war has been the most humane of any war in human history (note: this is a statement of relativity so posting blurbs about bad things happening in Iraq will not prove me wrong. If you want to prove me wrong, find evidence of a war that has lasted for five years with body counts as low as the current conflict). Both world wars that we participated in were bloodier and just as "senseless" (using the logic of the current anti-war crowd), yet American truly supported the troops by sacrificing personal luxuries to support the war effort and cheering for victory. It was during the Vietnam era that things changed dramatically. That war ushered in the widespread use of embedded reporters and constant news coverage of the realities of war; the realities that the American fighting men and women have always known, but courageously endured. If anything the reaction of the American public to the scenes of war demonstrates exactly the difference between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers are willing to endure for the good of others, while many civilians only want the rainbows and butterflies of a perfect, peaceful society. It really is funny that I am accused of being a hopeless optimist (putting Candide to shame, I believe), while I am fully willing to accept that blood must be shed to make the world a safer place, while you think we can all just strum "Kumbaya" and get along if we want it bad enough. Orwell wrote, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." In Orwell's day, war was just as ugly and violent as it is today, moreso actually, but those people slept peacefully because they did not know. If you want to support the troops, let them finish the job they started. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:58 PM:

" The quickest way to end a war is to lose it. - George Orwell "

Kyle wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:05 AM:

" At some point, the powers that be will accept that we've botched this war beyond all repair and it is a loss.

When they do, thousands of troops will come home, and that is when we can support them.

Many of them will be damaged beyond repair, physically and mentally. All will be a little scarred and bruised.

For the rest of their lives, we have a duty as a country to take care of them. That means that whenever a politician tries to cut some sort of veterans' benefit, you write a letter or make a phone call to his office and make it very clear that you will not vote for him, regardless of party affiliation, ever again. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:07 AM:

" While I appreciate and agree with Just A Soldiers' viewpoint that sometimes wars are neccessary to create a worthwhile peace, I don't think that sentiment can be used to create a blanket statement that any war is automatically just and worthwhile.

This one could have been, but as it stands now, it won't ever be. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:09 AM:

" "about why we should withdraw from a war, without actually winning? "

Simple: We can't win. It's over, and we will have lost.

When this war is over, no matter what we leave Iraq with, it will be a poor, broken country that will be essentially politically co-opted by Iran. Nothing we do now can change that. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:55 AM:

" I knew that was one was going to come from you, Question. While I can't speak for all soldiers, I can say for myself and the close friends I served with over there when I say that is not the kind of support I want.
-----
It doesn't matter what kind of support you want, Soldier. Whether you know it or not, that's the kind of support you need. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:59 AM:

" Four U.S. soldiers were killed by a bomb blast in southern Baghdad late Sunday, raising the death toll for American forces since start of the war to 4,000, according to the Pentagon.
The grim milestone was reached less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion to topple former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and coincided with a spate of violence across Iraq on Sunday that left at least 61 people dead.
------
And no end in sight. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:10 AM:

" "Soldiers are willing to endure for the good of others, while many civilians only want the rainbows and butterflies of a perfect, peaceful society."
-----
For the record, the invasion and occupation of a nation that never attacked or threatened the US does not serve "the good of others." And seeking to prevent your own nation from engaging in preemptive wars of aggression is not a romp with rainbows and butterflies, but the duty of every honest, rational American citizen. "

Early Bird wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:42 AM:

" I'm glad you enjoyed my long post, Tom. I hope that one doesn't take too much room up in your extensive file system. Now the question is, will you be equally critical of Just a Soldier for his lack of brevity? Somehow, I think I know the answer to that one. LOL "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:24 AM:

" How Bush and Cheney's pet thugs keep ripping off the American taxpayer.
----
As the nonpareil war profiteer in Iraq, Blackwater Worldwide keeps outdoing its own mercenary record. Ranking Blackwater executives have used inside influence as administration fund-raisers to multiply their no-bid war contracts a thousandfold to more than $1 billion. Armed Blackwater guards redefined Ugly American for the Iraqi people last September in fatally shooting 17 civilians with impunity in a burst of “spray and pray” panic on the streets of Baghdad.
And now Congressional investigators report dodgy bookkeeping by which Blackwater insists its 850 operatives in Iraq are separate contractors, not employees. That little device has allowed the company to avoid paying an estimated $50 million in American payroll taxes.
Tax and labor laws may have been violated by Blackwater’s being awarded $144 million in contracts that were supposed to go to small businesses. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House government oversight committee, is calling for a multiagency investigation, the New York Times says.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:38 AM:

" "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —
George W. Bush, discussing the Iraq invasion and occupation with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:10 AM:

" "For the record, the invasion and occupation of a nation that never attacked or threatened the US does not serve "the good of others."

---------

There you go again Question- lying your head off as usual.

Saddam's own Intel documents clearly show that he was financing, training, PLANNING AND CONDUCTING attacks against Americans (in Somalia for instance) and American interests in general with the use of STATE SPONSORED Al Qaeda subsidiary groups.

He was attempting to assassinate an American President. He was in violation of the first Iraq War treaty, he was firing on coalition aircraft, he was ramping up dual-usage WMD programs in direct violation of the U.N. sanctions and he was bribing members of the U.N. Security Council for that specific purpose. He was in violation of 17 U.N. resolutions. And he was openly funding Palestian suicide bombers to carry out attacks against Israel (our allies).

Not to mention the litany of crimes against his own people over the span of 30 years.

And Congress (INCLUDING DEMOCRATS) stated 23 reasons why Saddam had to go in a post 9/11 world. And then voted to go to war.

-----------

But by all means- don't let any of these FACTS get in the way of your Anti-War lies.
Just ignore them as usual and then come back around and repeat that same old dishonest bilge that you shovel so well.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Barack Obama Feb 26 2008- “And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Osama Bin Laden March 20 2008- "Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

----------

I still haven't heard any of you Anti-War Lib's explain how Obama plans on pulling the troops out when Bin Laden wants to set up a base in Iraq.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama said he would take action against?

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:14 AM:

" The quickest way to end a war is to lose it. - George Orwell "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Think back 1,500 American lives ago in Iraq, if you can.
When the number of troops killed in action in Iraq hit the 2,500 milestone, what solemn, compassionate remarks did White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have to offer the American people?
"It's a number," said the former Fox propagandist Tony Baloney.
The Bush White House's concern for the troops it has gotten killed is so touching, don't you think? "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:42 AM:

" Rant away, right wingers. The world knows not only that Saddam never attacked or threatened the US, but also that he had no capacity to do so — except in the "intelligence" fabricated and marketed by the Bush administration.
It is funny to hear you right wing warmongers babble on and on about UN resolutions, when on all other occasions you don't hesitate to spit on them. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:52 AM:

" To Just a Soldier the kind of support you are looking for happens only in movies and fairy tales. There are no positive outcomes in war, all sidea loose, some just loose more than others. Future generations in our country and around the world will be better served when politicians and world leaders pull their heads out of the sand,face reality and address the problems that are the root of wars--poverty, over population, oil and gas, environmental degradation, self-rightousness, fear, ethnic hatreds, religious hatreds, frustration, disenfranchisement................ "

coonbug wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:37 AM:

" I would like to know what ANYBODY considers a VICTORY in Iraq? I want details please.

In my view, we've already succeeded in Iraq.

What were our goals when we went over there? find WMD, remove Saddam, liberate the Iraqi people, setup a form of Democracy and setup a security force.

Name one thing from that list that we haven't done already (other then not finding any WMD - because there were none)?

The Iraqi people, thanks to VP Cheney this past week, will once again hold an election. What is that, their 4th one? With over 70% of the voters voting. Sounds like they are on their way to being better voters then we are here.

Saddam is dead.

Iraqi people are free.

There is now a police force, neighborhood watch, an intelligence dept, foreign policy dept, their form of FBI/CIA, and they have a large military force.

They are currently making deals with Russia and China to sale their oil.

The country will get no better without the PEOPLE of IRAQ standing up and fighting against extremists. Just as we here in America did during the civil war. We continue to fight the extremists (criminals, abusers, rapists, killers, white supremists, (Oklahoma bombing, school shootings,)etc..)

We have been successful - we can and should declare VICTORY. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:20 AM:

" In 2005, USA Today reported on the “signature wound” of the Iraq war:
A growing number of U.S. troops whose body armor helped them survive bomb and rocket attacks are suffering brain damage as a result of the blasts....
Known as traumatic brain injury, or TBI, the wound is of the sort that many soldiers in previous wars never lived long enough to suffer...
Almost 30,000 American troops have been wounded in Iraq, according to official counts. But that’s just the official figure; the Pentagon doesn’t have adequate mechanisms in place to accurately track the number of wounded soldiers, and unofficial estimates range to 100,000. How many of those soldiers and Marines suffered wounds so severe that they would have been KIA in any of America’s previous conflicts? Nobody knows for sure, but it’s clear that 4,000 is a number that doesn’t tell the whole story of this war's impact on U.S. servicemen and women.
Many of them will return home to find a society that idealizes the troops in abstraction, but largely ignores their real physical and psychological needs. They will face terrible struggles to rebuild broken lives with inadequate support from the nation they believed they were defending. Many will suffer from undiagnosed psychological trauma, and far too many will take their own lives — becoming casualties of the Iraq war years after the fact, casualties that will appear in none of the official numbers historians will record.
— JOSHUA HOLLAND "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:30 AM:

" "except in the "intelligence" fabricated and marketed by the Bush administration."

---------

This Intel was taken from Saddams OWN documents and released by the Pentagon two weeks ago. And when the media mistakenly thought it disproved any Saddam/Al Qaeda connections- they treated it like Gospel.

Show me your proof that it's "fabricated" - Question. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:33 AM:

" "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."__-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years"-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"__-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."__-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"You can support the troops but not the president"__-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."__-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."__-Michael Savage.
-----
My, my, my. How times change, eh? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:45 AM:

" "It is funny to hear you right wing warmongers babble on and on about UN resolutions, when on all other occasions you don't hesitate to spit on them."

-----------

Oh we're spitting on them on this occasion too!

What part of 17 "failed" U.N. resolutions is confusing you here- Question?

And what part of the Oil For Food Scandal that Saddam used to bribe members of the U.N. Security Council - is confusing you here Question?

--------

From the Iraqi Survey Group-

- "The introduction of the Oil-For-Food Programme (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development."[vol. I, p.1]

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:49 AM:

" I'll make you a deal Coonbug-

I'll answer your question as soon as YOU answer the one I've been asking for two days now-

----------

Barack Obama Feb 26 2008- “And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

Osama Bin Laden March 20 2008- "Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine."

----------

I still haven't heard any of you Anti-War Lib's explain how Obama plans on pulling the troops out when Bin Laden wants to set up a base in Iraq.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama said he would take action against?
"

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:08 PM:

" This is the United States where the America Dream, at one time, could become a reality. This is the America of Franklin Roosevelt who built a safety net under his people. This is the America of Watergate that forced accountability on its leaders.
No more. We've wakened from the dream into a nightmare.
The Iraq war must go on, says John McCain, Republican presidential candidate, who thinks it will take a hundred years to achieve victory. No one has yet come up with a definition of victory. Democratic candidates talk about ending the war with a variety of timetables that everybody knows will never happen. Big Oil calls the shots...
There is no draft. Your son or daughter will not be affected. They'll probably go on to college. It's only those invisibles down there, America's new underclass that provides the cannon fodder. So why bother? The corporate-owned mainstream media has joined the parade with colors and lies flying, eating out your brain. The hype of the "surge" has become a dirge. Better wear that lapel flag pin to prove you're patriotic.
— STEPHEN FLEISCHMAN "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

" I would like to know what ANYBODY considers a VICTORY in Iraq? I want details please. //// Well Coonbug, I believe *your* Democrat party has repeated over and over, those 18 benchmarks that need to be satisfied before we can declare victory. Do you remember those? Well it looks like one more was satisfied last week. So, *your* party set the rules for victory here Coonbug, so if you have any complaints talk to the DNC. And you might want to tell The Question and Fatherbob about those Iraqi oil deals with Russia and China because they say we're stealing Iraqi oil. And Kyle says we aren't winning and we never can. So talk to your own people Coonbug. Because it looks like they're arguing out of both sides of their mouths and against each other in here. lol! "

coonbug wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:31 PM:

" What does 'GO BACK INTO IRAQ' mean to you? DailyKos

Send another 130,000 troops in
6% 3 votes

Go back and set up bases all inside of Iraq
6% 3 votes

Fly over and shoot down the enemy
4% 2 votes

Send in small forces of troops to elimitate the enemy with Iraq leading
57% 28 votes

Covert actions
26% 13 votes

THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO CONTROL THE AL QAEDA IF THEY SHOULD START UP BASES IN IRAQ -- THE ABOVE IDEAS WERE JUST A FEW LISTED. BUT MAINLY BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE THEMSELVES. IF THEY TRULY WANT PEACE AND NO AL QAEDA -- THEY WILL STAND UP AND FIGHT THEM.

AS FOR THE DEMOCRATS 'AND' REPUBLICAN'S BENCHMARKS --- THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 'ANY' IF LEFT UP TO REPUBLICANS ---- ACCEPT TO STAY IN IRAQ FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 2:55 PM:

" "Send in small forces of troops to elimitate the enemy with Iraq leading
57% 28 votes"

"Covert actions
26% 13 votes"

--------

Psssssst- come here Coonbug.

I'll let in on a little secret-

Those two things were exactly what we wasted the first 4 years of this war doing.

And until the Iraqi army, police units and commanders have reached a level of competence to stand on their own- things will revert back to the way they were.

Do you understand?

p.s. Why are you yelling? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 2:59 PM:

" "AS FOR THE DEMOCRATS 'AND' REPUBLICAN'S BENCHMARKS --- THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 'ANY' IF LEFT UP TO REPUBLICANS ---- ACCEPT TO STAY IN IRAQ FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS."

--------

If left up to the Republicans?

But the Benchmarks are from the Democrats AND Republicans?

I believe you just contradicted yourself- Coonbug. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Coonbug- what does "go back into Iraq"-

mean to Barry Hussein Obama?

And why leave prematurely in the first place? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:08 PM:

" "My, my, my. How times change, eh?"

---------

Yep Question- times did indeed change-

I believe it was called 9/11.

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:48 PM:

" From Rasmussen Polls:
Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 50% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 42% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain narrowly behind both Democrats in Nevada while McCain has a solid lead over both in North Carolina. March has been a good month for John McCain. "

LynnD wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:07 PM:

" I don't understand why the Democrats keep pushing to get the troops out of Iraq. I know two families who have service people over there and they all say the same thing. They say that things are getting better and that they want to make sure that the country is settled so they don't have to return in the years to come. If the soldiers are saying it's worth finishing, then why are people trying to keep them from completing their job? What do all you people know that the soldiers don't? "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Stay tuned for some more historical information. This time it's Mama Bush in the spotlight. Stick around, it's gonna be a good one. I do hope pj61938 is around for this one. It will definitely appeal to her. No drugs this time, just good old fashioned tomfoolery from the first family of sleaze. "

sapient wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

" It is obvious that the liberals want us to lose the war so they can blast Bush again. If we won that would prove Bush right and with all of their hate they couldn't stand that. Hatred seems to be a great motivator. "

father bob wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Tom Andres wrote on Mar 23, 2008 4:57 PM:
" A special request for Q-man and EB and all their special friends: please, oh please, tell us the story again (and again, and again, and again) about why we should withdraw from a war, without actually winning?

Tom...how do yo win a war when only 20% of the muslim faith live in the mideast? do you think of that 80% out there in the rest of the world lies more that just a cell or two faithful to al qaeda? and don't you think we embolden them by appearing afraid to find osama bin laden, the REAL mastermind of 9/11? and don't you think that out presence or arab soil means someting?

there is no "winning" this war.....remember "Mission Accomplished"

Tom, i think you're more of a moron than even i gave you credit for. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:36 PM:

" What do all you people know that the soldiers don't?
-----
We know that, thanks to Bush and Cheney's lies, our military invaded a country that never attacked or threatened the US , getting thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and pouring $2-4 trillion of national treasure into the desert sands. And so should you, if you've been paying any attention, so get real. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:49 PM:

" "We know that, thanks to Bush and Cheney's lies, our military invaded a country that never attacked or threatened the US"

-----------

No, Question- we know that your statements are the real lies- and that you can't back them up. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:51 PM:

" To Lynn D and others "the war" in Iraq is unwinnable by anyones definition or goals.Violence goes up it goes down, insurrgents go underground in one area and pop up in another. We freed Iraq from one tyrant and have put it into the hands of another (religious tyrants). The US is solely responsible for what has happened in Iraq and there isn't anything the US can do to "cleanup the mess". Urban wars are unwinnable, everyone looses. Some just loose more than others. Bush and his crew should be court martialed, impeached, and imprisoned. I used to think that it didn't really matter who was president because our system of checks and ballances would keep a president from causing too much harm to this nation.I never imagined a congress that would abdicate its responsibilities. I was wrong.Politicians and Generals haven't defined a "winning strategy" because there isn't one. We can cut OUR losses and get out leaving/abandoning the Iraqis to cleanup the mess we created, or we can stay their indefinitely, and the mess will continue. Those are our only two choices. This president has made this world an "UN safer" place because of his hubris and mccain will continue in his footsteps. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:56 PM:

" This moment in history is dedicated to all the Bush apologists out there, especially Doh, pj61938 and of course old Tom Andres. On this date in 2006 former first lady Barbara Bush, mother of the current president donated a large sum of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina fund. Here's the kicker, the money had a stipulation with it. It could only be spent to buy educational software from from Ignite Learning. Guess who owns that outfit? None other that Neil Bush. Yes, the same Neil Bush that was deeply involved with a saving and loan scam that cost the tax payer over a billion dollars. Anyone care to guess how much time this reprobate spent in jail? You guessed it, not a day! Looks like the Bush family knows how to capitalize and make a profit off of the Iraq war, but they also know how to make cash off of a national disaster. You gotta love those Bush's and their Republican values. How was that one, pj61938? See I didn't even have to mention drugs to implicate that family of scum bags, did I? Stay tuned, I have a lot more. (302 days left) "

The Original Truth wrote on Mar 24, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Is Tom 7 years old? "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:08 PM:

" I didn't know much about Iraq, but I knew a couple of things from the previous Iraq War. 1) Iraq was not in the midst of a civil war. Saddam was a tyrant, but the political situation was stable. Therefore, there was no unrest for the US to exploit. The US could only create unrest as a prelude to remaking the country as it wished. Saddam was pretty high on the tyrant list, but he wasn't the only tyrant around. The liars and cheaters in the White House were simply focused on him for reasons of their own. I knew this then. And I knew that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were liars and cheaters who associated themselves with liars and cheaters. 2) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It didn't matter what fuzzy pictures the Bush administration showed us, Saddam had already showed us, in 1991, that he couldn't even get many Scud missiles to Israel. Was I now to believe, after twelve years of sanctions, that he had built himself not only weapons but also a delivery system? Never believed it for one moment. And those who were telling me he had done so had proved themselves liars and cheaters. 3) Bush and Cheney were hungry for war. Nothing they said could hide their eagerness. The story they put out, they had found out things, and they had explored all options, and now the invasion was a last resort, was evident bullshit. They never for one second had the demeanor of men who were thinking things over and weighing least bad options. They were hot to attack and impatient with anyone who stood in their way (the name Hans Blix springs to mind). The drumbeat began before the election of 2002 and continued through the winter. The Downing Street Memo later proved that they intended all along to attack, but their body language gave it away every time they were on camera.

In other words, I was against the Iraq War because I distrusted the motives of its architects, because the story they cooked up was full of holes, and because when they were telling that story, their body language revealed their bad faith. I was also against the Iraq War because I could imagine myself as an Iraqi. Let's say China decided that regime change in Sacramento was necessary, so they landed an army at San Francisco and Los Angeles and carpet bombed us into throwing Arnie out. Would I embrace them? Would any American embrace them? The shock of invasion would certainly arouse anger and resistance. So, I saw, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had no realistic understanding of human nature to add to their other personal failures.
— JANE SMILEY "

Kyle wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:10 PM:

" To pj61938:

I am not now, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Please do not assume that everyone who opposes this futile, self-deating war fits into some simple, cookie-cutter package. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:36 PM:

" ""the war" in Iraq is unwinnable by anyones definition or goals." **** I disagree. Even with the recent attacks, violence is down and more and more areas are coming back to life socially and financially. And just a few days ago the Iraqi government passed a Provincial Election Law that clears the way for a national vote in Oct that will give the Sunnis more political power. This was thought to be an impossible stumbling block just a week ago, and now it's in action. Mugtada Al Sadr also announced that his Shia militant group has failed in Iraq and in his latest message, Bin Laden was desperately begging for more foreign fighters to help out. These are major, positive developments, by anyone's standards. We need to give our troops the time they need to continue this momentum. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 6:43 PM:

" Question- The Downing Street Memo has been proven to be a farce. And none of your long-winded Jane Smiley rant can trump Saddam's own Documents that prove he was in bed with Al Qaeda Subsidiary groups and that he was a clear threat to the U.S.
Your myths are busted! "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:03 PM:

" The Wall Street Journal Monday March 24 2008:

Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.

The redacted version of “Saddam and Terrorism” is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of “exploitable” documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam’s willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.

“The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s ‘coercion’ toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power,” the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat’s private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose “emir” was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Hey Question, it looks like old Doh is getting so rattled he can't decide which name to post under. LOL "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:14 PM:

" One in ten Ohioans are now on food stamps. Do you think those folks will be voting Republican next November? So much for the fantastic Bush economy we keep hearing about. I would suggest that McCain might want to consider flying over Ohio during this campaign. "

The Question wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Question- The Downing Street Memo has been proven to be a farce.
----
In fact, even Tony Blair refused to disclaim the Downing Street Memo.
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did not confirm or deny the accuracy of the memo when questioned about it
- George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress regarding the memo's accuracy.
- When asked about the contents of the memo by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price in the House of Commons on 29 June 2005, Blair again refrained from disputing the document's authenticity, saying only "[…]that memo and other documents of the time were covered by the Butler review. In addition, that was before we went to the United Nations and secured the second resolution, 1441, which had unanimous support."
- According to CNN, currently classified documents which were dated at the same month as the Downing Street memo, March of 2002, were uncovered in Iraq, and contained evidence that Russian intelligence notified Iraq about the "determination of the United States and Britain to launch military action."
Therefore, you are lying, Ditto. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Doh Lying? LOL "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:38 PM:

" To Steve Ditko, the "positive developments" you mention are not signs that we are winning the war. Armed occupation is not a win and these positive developments you quote are dependent upon armed occupation. Armed occupation continues to fuel the fires of hates and puts our military into an unwinnable situation. "

Locke wrote on Mar 24, 2008 8:20 PM:

" "If the soldiers are saying it's worth finishing, then why are people trying to keep them from completing their job?" // Well, it's because we have a democratic form of government with a military that is bound to the will of the people. Hey, let's just do what the military elite wants -- just like the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Iran under Saddam. Moron. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:06 PM:

" "Well, it's because we have a democratic form of government with a military that is bound to the will of the people."

------

Interesting Locke-

Since Congress controls the purse strings of the military-

why does Congress insist on those progress reports from General Petraeus?

"

lefty wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:17 PM:

" I dont support the troops, and Im a right of center guy. They signed up and knew what they were getting into. "

HisChild wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Nope, many didn't know what they were getting into. We know many who were LIED to! "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Tell me Question, do you recall what the reporter who "discovered" the so called Downing Street Memo said? "Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals." Typed copies, Question? He destroyed the originals, Question? And you have the audacity to doubt the Pentagon's Report on the Captured Iraqi documents? Really?

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:54 PM:

" "To Steve Ditko, the "positive developments" you mention are not signs that we are winning the war." ****** They're not shumphreys? Then what are they signs of? ****** "Armed occupation is not a win and these positive developments you quote are dependent upon armed occupation." ****** I never said it was won. I said it is getting better. And the more the Iraqi army and police take over the better it will get. ****** "Armed occupation continues to fuel the fires of hates and puts our military into an unwinnable situation." ****** Not if it's the Iraqi army and police who are armed and occupying.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:19 PM:

" "just like the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Iran under Saddam. Moron"

--------

Oh and one last thing- Locke

"and Iran under Saddam. Moron"

Uhm- Iran was never under....Saddam.

Yes- those morons are a pesky lot- aren't they Locke. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:32 PM:

" " They're not shumphreys? Then what are they signs of?"

They are signs of an improving security situation, which is a tactical improvement but not a strategic advance.

The security situation was just one immediate practical concern within the larger goal, which was to advance U.S. interests by creating a democratic, prosperous and stable Iraqi regime that was friendly toward us and would draw goodwill from other Arab countries.

No matter how much the security situation improves, the "brain drain" exodus of affluent Iraqis means that the economy will never truly recover. We may be able to createt a stable, democratic Iraq, but it most certainly won't be friendly to us whenever we leave (today, tomorrow or in a decade), it will be aligned with Iran against our interests.

And goodwill from Arab countries? Ha. That's essentially dead for the forseeable future.

The goal wasn't to create a stable Iraq. The goal was to advance U.S. interests through creating a stable Iraq. And that is long lost and irrevocable.

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Kyle, areas that are coming back to life socially and financially and the passing of the Provincial Election Law that will give the Sunnis more political power are not tactical improvements. They’re social/political improvements that could very well be permanent. And you have no way of knowing if affluent Iraqis will return as the situation improves. And how can you say the Iraqi economy won't recover? There were reports out just a couple of weeks ago about the Iraqi government swimming in oil revenue. And if the Iraqi government is willing to give the Sunnis more political power, how does that make Iraq more aligned with Iran? The idea here is to "infect" the Middle East with democracy. And none of the Arab governments are going to want that, much less have any good will towards it. But the Arab people just might. But neither you nor I can know for sure. So let's give the crystal ball reading a break. "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:24 PM:

" coonbug (Mar 24, 2008 1:31 PM). Wow! That's quite a response to the DailyKos poll question, isn't it? Am I reading that right? A total of 49 votes? "

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:42 AM:

" BASRA, Iraq (AFP) – “Fierce clashes between Iraqi security forces and militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday killed at least four people and wounded 18 in the southern city of Basra, police Major Abbas Youssef told AFP.

“They were killed in clashes in the northern Al-Mawana neighbourhood of Basra,” Youssef said.

The fighting broke out early on Tuesday between the Mahdi Army militia and Iraqi forces as the government launched a crackdown on armed groups in Basra, which is engulfed in a turf war between rival Shiite factions.

British military officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Basra to personally oversee the major security force sweep in Iraq’s second largest city, but that British troops were not taking part.”

Sadr’s organization already has issued a statement asking for a negotiated peace. They know that they cannot defeat the Iraqi Army, even if Sadr decided to fight all out in Basra. The Mahdis have never really represented a military threat to either the US or trained Iraqi forces; their only victories came against green IA units in the first days of their reconstitution, four years ago. The Mahdis are nothing but a gang with military pretensions, and Sadr knows that better than anyone else. - HotAir.com

///////////

This is a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government.
"

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:46 AM:

" More from HotAir.com- "The Sadrists want to blame this clash on the Iraqi central government, but Nouri al-Maliki had little choice. The Mahdis and the Badr Brigades have been fighting a gang war for control of southern Iraq, and the central government had to put an end to it to demonstrate that their writ runs in all of Iraq. Sadr should have gotten a clue when Maliki quarterbacked a political deal between the central government, the Kurds, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that runs the Badr Brigade last summer. The writing was on the wall, but Sadr apparently didn’t bother to read it.

Maliki himself has come to Basra to show that the Baghdad government intends on restoring order in the South. That sends a powerful message of confidence to the Shi’ites who found themselves stuck between the warring militias. It also sends a message to Iran that they backed the weak horse in Basra. The defeat of the Mahdis will also boost the confidence of the Iraqi Army, which has gone into a significant engagement without robust assistance from Western forces for perhaps the first time.

PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH: "Some news outlets act as though this negates the surge, and shows Iraq on the brink of heightened hostilities. However, Basra had always awaited a final reckoning, and the longer Maliki waited, the worse it would get. This will test the Baghdad government’s control over the entirety of Iraq and bring the province in line after it slipped from Maliki’s control last year. It doesn’t negate the surge but shows how the surge allows Maliki and the elected government to enforce a rule of law and displace the gangsterism that had engulfed Basra. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:54 AM:

" For my friend Coonsey. I find it quite odd that the immature little person who ran off so many from your site, with his stupid remarks, now laments the lack of posters. You and I both know he posts on this site too. The only reason I quit posting there was because he has such an issue with me and it seems like he wanted to share his hate of me with your other posters. I chose to not allow him to do that. At least on this site he can't resort to his foul mouthed, and overt racists comments. He is forced here, to be a little more subtle. If this small minded person ever decides to grow up, I'm sure the reasonable people will return. Hang in there, my friend. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:03 AM:

" Here's what Bush's PR surge has accomplished — nothing!
------
Iraqi forces clashed with Shiite militiamen Tuesday in the southern oil port of Basra and gunmen patrolled several Baghdad neighborhoods as followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered a nationwide civil disobedience campaign to demand an end to the crackdown on their movement.
Explosions rang out across central Baghdad as rockets or mortars fired from Shiite areas targeted the U.S.-protected Green Zone for the second time this week.
The violence was part of an escalation in the confrontation between the Shiite-run government and al-Sadr's followers — a move that threatens the security gains achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. At least 22 people were killed in the Basra fighting.
Al-Sadr's allies have grown increasingly angry over raids and detentions against them by U.S. and Iraqi forces, who insist the crackdown only affects rogue elements loyal to Iran.
------
Here's a good rule of thumb for American citizens: when members of the Bush administration say something is working, they are lying. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:16 AM:

" First, Sen. John McCain repeatedly blurs the lines between the threat presented by al-Qaida in Iraq with Iran's role there by saying that the Sunni terrorists are being trained in the Shiite country. Either he doesn't understand the region -- a frightening thought -- or he's deliberately conflating the two, as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted. Then, on Sunday, while on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Lindsey Graham called Iran the "cancer of the Mideast."
Perhaps Graham and his ilk assume that Americans can't read, because when it comes to damaging the Middle East, no one can touch our record. Along with Britain, we orchestrated a coup in Iran, overthrowing a democratically elected leader, all for oil (Operation Ajax, which re-installed the shah and gave U.S. and Britain access to Iranian oil). The U.S. sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq during their war. And then there's a matter of this pre-emptive war in Iraq. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Iran helped us form a relationship with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and was a willing partner right up until the moment President Bush labeled Iran a member of the axis of evil. Yes, there are some truths buried in the propaganda we're being sold. Like ours, Iran's government isn't a study in successful diplomacy. But casting the country as the next natural frontier in this "war on terror" will only pile more lies on the heap of lies that have brought us to this point in Iraq, with 4,000 Americans dead and counting. Haven't we had enough? "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:50 AM:

" To Steve Ditko the positive signs you point out are temporary and only where and as long as we have massive troops on the ground. A win would be a stable Iraq that would not have armed troops occupying the country either ours, another nations, or Iraqi troops that we have trained. The dream/fantasy of training Iraqis to take over their nation isn't going to happen. Armed occupiers even their own will continue to fuel the fires of hate. Democratic forms of government can not be forced upon a people, they have to want and be willing and able to earn and defend that style of government. All the insurgents have to do, which is what I suspect they are doing, is go underground/lie low until the US pulls out and then waltz in and take over the country. The only reason they haven't done this (I suspect) is that they get too much enjoyment out of inflicting injury and humiliating the US. No one ever wins in any war. One side just looses less then the other. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:23 AM:

" "So let's give the crystal ball reading a break. "
-----
That's right. This failed Bush war policy has only been tested for five years, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, the world reputation of the US and $2-4 trillion so far. Let's not be hasty in judging it. Give it a century or so of failure, as McCain advises, before you pronounce judgment. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:35 AM:

" shumphreys- "positive signs you point out are temporary and only where and as long as we have massive troops on the ground."
Now you have no way of knowing that. And the entire idea of the counterinsurgent operations is to allow Iraqi troops to establish peace in the worst areas and then hand over peace-keeping to the local Iraqi police units. This has already happened in key areas like the Anbar Providence. And I might also note that in those areas the Iraqi's themselves rejected the militant groups. And that was an area that was written off as completely lost just a year ago. Now how do local Iraqi police units cause resentment among the citizens? And this statement- "Democratic forms of government can not be forced upon a people, they have to want and be willing and able to earn and defend that style of government." What? How on earth do you "force" freedom on people? "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:50 AM:

" "No one ever wins in any war. One side just looses less then the other." *****
So we really lost The Revolutionary War less than the British? We really lost WWI less than Germany? We really lost WWII less than Germany or Japan? Fine. If that's your definition of victory, then I hope the U.S. and the Iraqi Army and Police lose in Iraq less than Al Qaeda and the militant groups. The U.S. and Iraqi forces can't bring back their fallen comrades, but they can d#mn sure make their ultimate sacrifice matter- if they are allowed to finish the job. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:15 AM:

" We don't even know which "insurgents" we're talking about in Iraq. The Al Qaeda Sunnis would be wiped in in short order as soon as the US left Iraq, thanks to the Shiite "insurgents," who would shortly be known as the government of Iraq — if they aren't already. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:35 AM:

" One other thing, you can't change, subdue, or fight "ideology" with force, guns and bombs, threats of hellfire and damnation, economic sanctions, or fear. That is why the "War on Terror", the "War in Iraq", is unwinnable. Peace will never come to the Middle East until individuals decide, on their own initiative, to put an end to the ethnic, religious, social, & tribal hates and fears (change their ideology). "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Hah! Looks like RavenH4 just scooped Questions Basra story and gave more details that proved Questions version was inaccurate. lol! "

father bob wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:02 AM:

" interesting:

zero connection between iraq and al qaeda.

http://tinyurl.com/2f9fas "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:36 AM:

" " Hah! Looks like RavenH4 just scooped Questions Basra story and gave more details that proved Questions version was inaccurate. lol! "
-----
That's right. The breakout of massive civil war violence in Iraq is a good thing, isn't it? That would be sarcasm, by the way. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Here's just how wonderful everything is in Surgin' Iraq.
----
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the BBC: "Militias have taken over almost the city and law and order has collapsed, although it is not a hopeless case because the government is taking measures to reverse the situation.
"Remember, Basra is the lifeline of Iraq. Most of Iraq's oil exports go through Basra."
Moqtada Sadr called in a statement for Iraqis to stage "sit-ins" and threatened to declare a "civil revolt" if attacks by US and Iraqi forces did not stop.
In Baghdad's Sadr City, Mehdi Army fighters reportedly ordered Iraqi police and soldiers out of the district.
The raids come a day after a curfew was imposed in Basra.
Hundreds of protesters marched in the Iraqi capital to launch a campaign of civil disobedience, calling on shops to shut.
"

Kyle wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:51 AM:

" "So let's give the crystal ball reading a break. "

The old fallacy of equivocation: the argument that since we don't know for sure, all options are equally valid.

This is a democracy. We have a duty to discuss our "crystal ball" readings of what we believe will happen and how we should react to it. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Even more interesting:

Loads of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

http://tinyurl.com/27qpns

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Isn't it just fascinating fatherbob-

how you linked to an up-coming PBS special that claims to discredit Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda-

While I linked to the Pentagon Report-

that actually cites Saddam's own documents?

I believe you and PBS have been trumped- by Saddam himself.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Rockets pounding down on the Green Zone — that was always the goal of the surge, wasn't it, right wingers? Be sure and let us know just as soon as Karl Rove supplies you with your talking points, will you?
----
Iraqi forces clashed with Shiite militiamen Tuesday in the southern oil port of Basra and rockets rained down on the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad as followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr expanded a nationwide backlash against government crackdowns.
The U.S. Embassy said no deaths or serious casualties were reported in the Green Zone attacks — the second major barrage this week launched from Shiite areas. Two rockets landed on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's compound, but did not explode, an Iraqi government security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose the information.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:33 PM:

" No shumphreys- I don't think you can change, subdue, or fight "ideology" with force, guns and bombs, threats of hellfire and damnation, economic sanctions, or fear-

but I'll bet you can with democracy.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:37 PM:

" shumphreys- "Peace will never come to the Middle East until individuals decide, on their own initiative, to put an end to the ethnic, religious, social, & tribal hates and fears (change their ideology)."

I believe you've just described- democracy.

Again- that word is- "democracy"...... for you Liberals playing at home.

"

father bob wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:52 PM:

" pj61938 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:37 AM:
" Hah! Looks like RavenH4 just scooped Questions Basra story and gave more details that proved Questions version was inaccurate. lol! "

you best check out todays news....einstein "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:03 PM:

" Democrats plan an election campaign accusing John McCain of wanting “100 Years of War”, but may have some trouble explaining how Barack Obama’s chief military adviser offered the exact same advice five years ago. ////////////////////
"Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?

McPeak: "Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right.
.............Hopefully over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany — Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea."
//////////////////
Once again we see Question being less than honest. "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 1:45 PM:

" In Iraq, we are now seeing the results of another brilliant Bush policy - the wisdom of paying to arm all sides in a civil war you've unleashed. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Yes, Doh, and we all know that the Pentagon NEVER lies, right? LOL "

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Actually, my crystal ball reading is pretty good. In 2003, I said that the invasion of Iraq was a gigantic mistake that would turn into a civil war, and that we'd end up draining US blood and treasure into the sands of Iraq for several decades. The same kind of people who now tell me I'm crazy were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN then that none of those things would ever happen. They laughed scornfully at the very idea.
I have learned to question their judgment, and trust my own. Like other liberals, I find that my track record of predictions is much better than the Bush boosters', if only because I'm not impressed by conventional wisdom, and I don't have my thumb on the scale. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:48 PM:

" "The old fallacy of equivocation: the argument that since we don't know for sure, all options are equally valid."

--------

Actually Kyle- given the social, political and military progress that's been made since General Petraeus took over- I would say that the option of a lasting democracy is most valid.

--------

"This is a democracy. We have a duty to discuss our "crystal ball" readings of what we believe will happen and how we should react to it."

--------

Not so much a duty Kyle- but a right.

Don't the Iraqi's deserve a similar "rights"?

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:52 PM:

" "In 2003, I said that the invasion of Iraq was a gigantic mistake......"

---------

Now, can I find that in the JG-TC 2003 archives- Question?

"

father bob wrote on Mar 25, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 2:52 PM:
" "In 2003, I said that the invasion of Iraq was a gigantic mistake......"

---------

Now, can I find that in the JG-TC 2003 archives- Question?

um.....just ask Tommy for his "

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 3:17 PM:

" I think everyone should look at this part of my earlier post, again. It's from HotAir.com and they give a more comprehensive report on the Basra fight that includes some key background information.
PLEASE NOTE THIS PARAGRAPH: "Some news outlets act as though this negates the surge, and shows Iraq on the brink of heightened hostilities. However, Basra had always awaited a final reckoning, and the longer Maliki waited, the worse it would get. This will test the Baghdad government’s control over the entirety of Iraq and bring the province in line after it slipped from Maliki’s control last year. It doesn’t negate the surge but shows how the surge allows Maliki and the elected government to enforce a rule of law and displace the gangsterism that had engulfed Basra." This is hardly a civil war, it is more accurately, a gangland war.
"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 25, 2008 4:52 PM:

" I nominate Tom Andres as historian for this site. With his extensive files, he could solve a lot of problems and eliminate a lot of the arguments. Look at this way, old Tommy could be our very own fact checker. How about it Tom, are you up to the task? "

father bob wrote on Mar 25, 2008 5:11 PM:

" """This will test the Baghdad government’s control over the entirety of Iraq and bring the province in line after it slipped from Maliki’s control last year. It doesn’t negate the surge but shows how the surge allows Maliki and the elected government to enforce a rule of law and displace the gangsterism that had engulfed Basra." This is hardly a civil war, it is more accurately, a gangland war.
"""

Moktada al-Sadr called off his 6 month cease-fire...the surge had little to do with it. "

thumbs wrote on Mar 25, 2008 5:44 PM:

" I NOMINATE HARRY POTTER IDIOT OF THIS SITE "

The Original Truth wrote on Mar 25, 2008 5:51 PM:

" Since I cannot nominate myself, I nominate Thumbs for person who adds nothing to the discussion at hand on this site. "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 25, 2008 6:29 PM:

" truth, for you, we'll make an exception. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:01 PM:

" I've kind of thought the same thing, Original Truth. For the love of me, I can't recall one post from him that made any sense or added one iota of intelligent thought to the ongoing debate on this or any other thread. I suspect we have a 12 or 13 year old getting on Mom and Dad's computer. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:04 PM:

" "Actually Kyle- given the social, political and military progress that's been made since General Petraeus took over- I would say that the option of a lasting democracy is most valid."

I respectfully disagree. But as long as we stay there, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

"Not so much a duty Kyle- but a right.

Don't the Iraqi's deserve a similar "rights"? "

Everyone in the world deserves that right. But there's three realities that we must face:

1. The United States does not have unlimited resources with which to grant everyone those rights.

2. The war in Iraq isn't nearly the most efficient or effective way to institute those rights to the many, many people in the world who need them with the limited resources we do have.

3. No democracy has ever thrived without a solid base of economic prosperity, domestic security and social cooperation. At best, we have 1 1/2 of those three in Iraq. "

thumbs wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:18 PM:

" To Originional Truth; Thank you I accept.P.S. I feel honored with all the competition I've got. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:45 PM:

" "Moktada al-Sadr called off his 6 month cease-fire...the surge had little to do with it."

--------

You don't actually read any real news- do you fatherbob.

"Sadr emphasises the need to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue. Sadr is following the events and his instruction is to solve this problem politically with Iraq's leaders."

Sadr has ordered his militia to observe the ceasefire which he called last August following bloody fighting in the shrine city of Karbala blamed on his fighters." - BASRA, Iraq (AFP)

--------

Don't you ever get tired of constantly being wrong- bob?

"

The Question wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:56 PM:

" This is hardly a civil war, it is more accurately, a gangland war.
------
When gangs battle across a country, and one of those gangs is the government, we more accurately call that a "civil war." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:59 PM:

" Kyle-

"1. The United States does not have unlimited resources with which to grant everyone those rights."

Not everyone- just the Iraqi's

"2. The war in Iraq isn't nearly the most efficient or effective way to institute those rights to the many, many people in the world who need them with the limited resources we do have."

Not the many people in the world- just the Iraqi's

"3. No democracy has ever thrived without a solid base of economic prosperity, domestic security and social cooperation. At best, we have 1 1/2 of those three in Iraq."

It's only been 5 years- and the first 4 years were a stale-mate. The counter-insurgent strategy has only been in effect for a year and in that year- the results have been remarkable. Democracies aren't built overnight, and it is far too soon to make any final judgments. But the momentum is looking promising. Give the Iraqi's a chance- Kyle.

"

AJ13721 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:01 PM:

" HARRY POTTER~~~I think thumbs is making a lot of sense... like saying that your the IDIOT of this site.. now that is one thing but you to tell thumbs, thumbs is a 12 or 13 year old? That is just wrong and you shouldn't be suspecting anything... except that you are going to get a lot of nasty comments on this site... and how would you think well "know" that thumbs is a 12 or 13 year old? You are an IDIOT and you dont know what your talking about... and I hope you do get #1 on this site as ~TOTAL IDIOT!!! this is a place to express what we think and I think that your a IDIOT!!! "

Kyle wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:17 PM:

" "Give the Iraqi's a chance"

When it comes with a $3 trillion price tag, the loss of American prestige and diplomatic power, and the establishment of a major American enemy as the only major power in the region, I say the Iraqis can take a flying leap. "

Locke wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:22 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier, aren't you just the smartest person on the face of the whole earth. Congradulations! You found a typo. You want a bozo button? Good job! Now why don't you focus on the context of my criticism, instead of running your typo-finding mouth? You are the problem with this country. You don't (or can't) read and comprehend what the other person is saying, and instead, shoot off with your "pithy" little comments. Better yet, defend the rationale behind the argument to let the military elite control US foriegn policy. Oh wait, you can't handle the tought ones -- so you're going to stick to the typo patrol. Hey, whatever is your speed, moron. "

out-there wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:39 PM:

" Here's is a site that will make you think.It will also make other's bow there heads in shame.
frontline/pbs/bush's war "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:51 PM:

" "the loss of American prestige and diplomatic power"

-----

Establishing a democracy in Iraq will send a crystal clear message to the people of the Middle East that it is possible. How long will it be before the taste of freedom begins to infect Iran or Syria?

-----

"I say the Iraqis can take a flying leap."

Whoa! Does that include the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who reject radical Islam? How about the Iraqi's who are fighting along side our troops? Scr3w all of them- Kyle? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:59 PM:

" "Bryant Lamphier, aren't you just the smartest person on the face of the whole earth. Congradulations!"

Well if you say so.

------

"Better yet, defend the rationale behind the argument to let the military elite control US foriegn policy. Oh wait, you can't handle the tought ones"

I believe I asked you a question first-

and you never answered.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:02 PM:

" Let's try this again Locke-

"If the soldiers are saying it's worth finishing, then why are people trying to keep them from completing their job?" // Well, it's because we have a democratic form of government with a military that is bound to the will of the people. Hey, let's just do what the military elite wants -- just like the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Iran under Saddam. Moron."

------

Interesting Locke-

Since Congress controls the purse strings of the military-

why does Congress insist on those progress reports from General Petraeus?
"

sparkie wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:30 AM:

" out-there, Wow what a site. Thanks for the info. "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:23 AM:

" After five years of armed occupation, here's how well Bush and Cheney's Iraq plans are going.
------
Fresh fighting has erupted in the southern Iraqi city of Basra and elsewhere, as Iraqi security forces battle Shia militants for a second day.
So far more than 40 people have died and some 225 have been injured over the two days of clashes in Basra.
Fighting is also continuing in Baghdad, and there have been casualties after rockets were fired at the Green Zone. Five Iraqi civilians were killed by stray rockets, while inside the heavily fortified zone three Americans were seriously injured.
------
By the way, "seriously injured" would be Pentagon-speak for the fact the people in the Green Zone were killed, but they don't want to admit it. "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Iraqi PM Gives Basra Gunmen Ultimatum
---------
Gunmen (quoting Dick Cheney): "So?"
---------
"

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:06 AM:

" Question, you seem to be implying that the latest fighting in Iraq is some unexpected development. In reality Coalition forces led by the Iraqi Army and police have forced this fight as a final showdown with the Sadr militia.

///////////

MSNBC- "Ground commander Maj. Gen. Ali Zaidan told Reuters his forces had killed more than 30 militants on the first day of the operation, which began before dawn on Tuesday. More than 25 were wounded and around 50 were captured, he said.

“The operation is still going on and will not stop until it achieves its objectives,” he said. “It is on the same scale as [Tuesday].”

"

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Whoa! Does that include the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who reject radical Islam? How about the Iraqi's who are fighting along side our troops?
-----
And how about the innocent Iraqis who were blown to bits during Rummy's "Shock & Awe?" Stuff happens, does it? Your great sympathy for Iraqis runs awfully hot and cold, doesn't it? "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Oil Thieves Plague Iraq NBC Nightly News reported, "Remember, it was Iraqi oil that was supposed to pay for the war effort and rebuild Iraq, self-financing was how the administration described it. But like so many other parts of the plan, that hasn't happened. ... US investigators tell NBC News, between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels of oil are stolen a day worth $10 to $30 million."

can you say "h-a-l-l-i-b-u-r-t-o-n" "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Iraq On Edge Again As Violence Flares In Major Cities

In what is described as the worst outbreak of violence in months, the New York Times reports "heavy fighting broke out Tuesday in two of Iraq's largest cities, as Iraqi ground forces and helicopters mounted a huge operation to break the grip of the Shiite militias controlling Basra, and Iraqi forces clashed with militias in Baghdad." The fighting, adds the Times, "raised fears across Iraq" that Moqtada al-Sadr "could pull out of a cease-fire he declared last summer."

According to the AP, US and Iraqi troops "fought Shiite militiamen in Baghdad's Sadr City district after the local office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party came under attack. ... An American soldier was killed in fighting Tuesday afternoon in Baghdad" though "it was unclear whether Shiite militiamen were responsible." The Washington Post says that "when the top US commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker deliver a report card on the country before Congress next month, a key gauge of progress will be whether the Iraqi government and its security forces are prepared to take over as US troops withdraw." The Basra offensive, "an important test of that preparedness, was several weeks in the making. While it targets the Mahdi Army in particular, its goal is also to break the grip that other Shiite militias, criminal gangs and death squads hold upon the southern port city, the conduit for Iraq's oil exports."

The Wall Street Journal says that if "the increase in violence continues, it also could effectively rule out the prospect of additional US troop withdrawals this year."

The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Times, which headlines its story "Gains In Iraq Undercut By Recent Violence," also report on the clashes this morning. "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:16 AM:

" A "final showdown?" No, that happened before Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, remember?
Here's what the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has to say:
"Needing solid proof that the Bush administration's claims regarding the Iraq war are not to be believed, one need look no further than the words of its leaders. For example, on March 16, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the invasion/liberation of Iraq would be over right quick -- "Weeks rather than months" were his exact words.
He also said we'd "be greeted as liberators."
In June 2005, Cheney claimed that the insurgency in Iraq (where they clearly don't appreciate liberators) was in its "last throes" and predicted that the war -- which then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said would cost about $50 billion -- would be over by the end of the Bush presidency.
"Fast forward to this week, when the war is in its sixth year (that's 312 weeks for those keeping track), Iraq's liberation has proven to be an occupation with its cost conservatively estimated at about $500 billion, and our troop levels remaining slightly higher than 2005 levels. We're stuck in a disastrous holding pattern."

"

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:33 AM:

" Hail to the Chimp

" I think we agree, the past is over. "
- George WTF Bush, unwittingly foreshadowing his political philosophy "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:40 AM:

" No knows for sure what is going on yet but this seems to be an internal Iraqi fight. This is Shi'a on Shi'a violence. It is a power struggle between some combination of the various Shi'a factions in Iraq including: the Badr Brigades (loyal to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq), Mehdi Army (loyal to the Sadrists), and the Iraqi Security Forces (Which include elements of a number of factions).
The Bush administration may try to blame this all on Iran and confuse the issue. Iran will likely get involved in any intra-Shi'a struggle because it has so many ties into Southern Iraq. But at the end of the day, this is about the still simmering civil war in the South and the fact that we still haven't figured out how to address it or facilitate a political agreement inside of Iraq.
The million dollar question is: what is "a nationwide civil disobedience campaign?" If it is strikes and protests that's one thing. But if it is the beginning of the end of the ceasefire that is something very different.
— IILAN GOLDENBERG "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:02 AM:

" What have the US troops been sacrificed for?
------
The Bush administration still has not told us why they died. It was not to protect the US from "weapons of mass destruction" (that was a fabricated cover story). It was not to spread democracy. It may have been to nail down a major petroleum-producing country for US geostrategic goals (ensuring its resources were available to the US and could be denied if necessary to growing rivals such as China). If so, one has to ask whether the objectives (which were hidden from the American people) were the top priority for the US, or only for the petroleum industry; whether those objectives have been achieved; and whether there was another way to attain them. No such debate has ever been held. Was it in part to ensure Israeli security, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue (and Craig Unger implicitly argues, below)? If so, that should be stated, it should be debated. Even the former head of Shin Bet did not agree that it increased Israel's security. It is not right to ask men and women under arms to die for their country without telling them exactly how they are benefiting their country. For all we know, they have died so that Bush and Cheney could throw goodies to their "base," so that Halliburton could escape bankruptcy and Hunt Oil could get new development contracts.
— JUAN COLE "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 26, 2008 10:03 AM:

" "And how about the innocent Iraqis who were blown to bits during Rummy's "Shock & Awe?" Stuff happens, does it? Your great sympathy for Iraqis runs awfully hot and cold, doesn't it?"

------

Care to explain how you know which ones were innocent and who exactly blew them up- Question?

And if the U.S. troops pull out prematurely- what happens to the Iraqi's we know to be innocent?

Where is your great sympathy for them- Question? "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 11:06 AM:

" RavenH4 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:06 AM:
" Question, you seem to be implying that the latest fighting in Iraq is some unexpected development. In reality Coalition forces led by the Iraqi Army and police have forced this fight as a final showdown with the Sadr militia.

it's all about fall politics and US elections. the military will ramp this up into an escalation to attack iran. using Sadr and his "ties" to iran is just a political move. the puppets react when the US wants them to. "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Republican sage David Brooks, five years ago: “We are in this situation because the first Bush administration was not relentless in its pursuit of Saddam Hussein. That is a mistake this Bush administration will not repeat… Through the fog and verbiage, that is the essential confrontation. Events will show who was right, George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac.”
-------
Yes, events have certainly shown us that. Cue La Marseillaise.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 12:20 PM:

" BBC Mideast reporter Paul Wood notes, "The Americans are congratulating themselves at the moment on the success of the surge in averting a Sunni-Shia civil war - and over the thousands of former Sunni insurgents who have changed sides to help the coalition fight al-Qaeda. But the lesson of Tuesday's events is that intra-Shia violence could be just as dangerous to hopes of peace as sectarian hatreds or the insurgency." "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Obama adviser: War the fault of American Jews

"In an interview with The Oregonion about five years ago, McPeak argued that the influence exerted by American Jews is responsible for the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to the general the problem was New York and Miami.
“We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it,” he said.In the same interview, McPeak spoke of his personal experience with Israel.
“I’ve spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli Air Force as a junior officer,” he said, “but that’s maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population.”
McPeak also charged that Jews and Christian Zionists manipulated American foreign policy in Iraq. “Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq,” he said. - ynetnews.com "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:02 PM:

" HotAir.com-
"How can Obama explain this away? Will this be yet another “crazy uncle” whose views on Israel Obama will disavow while not repudiating McPeak? The last one, Jeremiah Wright, included anti-Israel rants in newsletter from the church that Obama has attended for 20 years and to which Obama has contributed tens of thousands of dollars. The animus towards Israel among Obama advisers has begun to form a distinct pattern, one that shrugs and wan, partial denials cannot hide.
And it’s not just the animus towards Israel that Obama has to explain, either. Why does Obama associate with people who indulge in conspiracy theories to explain reality? Wright believes that the government created HIV to commit a genocide; his replacement believes that the CIA created crack cocaine to destroy African-American communities; and now his military adviser believes that Jews and Christian Zionists conspire to undermine America. Is this the kind of Cabinet we can expect to see in an Obama presidency?" - by Ed Morrissey "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Shock video: Hillary proven right about Tuzla!
Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered...

http://tinyurl.com/2u3q7r "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:57 PM:

" It doesn't matter whether Iraq is as peaceful as a Zen garden, or the streets of Baghdad run with blood in all-out civil war. The neocons have no intention of having US troops leave Iraq under any circumstances, and never have had. They are to be a permanent occupation force.
----
The Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office.
The negotiation, set to conclude this summer, will establish the basis for a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq. According to the Bush administration, the Iraqi government requested a bilateral agreement to replace the expiring U.N. mandate for the occupation, which offended Iraqi sovereignty. Asked if there was any irony in preparing a plan to keep thousands of foreign soldiers in Iraq in the name of Iraqi sovereignty, a National Security Council official, who requested anonymity, replied, "Sure, but we plan to negotiate that aspect" of the agreement.
Critics in the U.S. and in the Middle East are talking about the impending accords as the fulfillment of a hidden agenda. On Al Jazeera's "Inside Iraq" program, a recent report on the negotiations began: "This firm handshake between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki may seal what had been predicted all along: that the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq." Indeed, for years, the U.S. military in Iraq has quietly constructed massive bases that can garrison tens of thousands of troops indefinitely.
— SPENCER ACKERMAN "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 26, 2008 1:02 PM:
" HotAir.com-

ROFLMAO!!!.....steve..are you really larry, mo, or curly?

the comedy show continues! "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:49 PM:

" According to the Bush administration, the Iraqi government requested a bilateral agreement to replace the expiring U.N. mandate for the occupation, which offended Iraqi sovereignty. Asked if there was any irony in preparing a plan to keep thousands of foreign soldiers in Iraq in the name of Iraqi sovereignty, a National Security Council official, who requested anonymity, replied, "Sure, but we plan to negotiate that aspect" of the agreement.

(Matt Mahurin) Critics in the U.S. and in the Middle East are talking about the impending accords as the fulfillment of a hidden agenda. On Al Jazeera's "Inside Iraq" program, a recent report on the negotiations began: "This firm handshake between President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki may seal what had been predicted all along: that the U.S. has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq." Indeed, for years, the U.S. military in Iraq has quietly constructed massive bases that can garrison tens of thousands of troops indefinitely.

Another line of criticism concerns both the timing and the unilateralism of the negotiations. The Bush administration has less than a year in office, yet it is now negotiating a deal that will commit the U.S. to an open-ended continuation of its most momentous, and controversial, foreign-policy decision. At the very least, the accord will prove a thorny issue for any successor Democratic administration that wins election on a promise to end the war.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate, wrote a letter to the president about this in January. The move "suggests the United States will indeed construct permanent bases in Iraq, feeding the perception that we intend to remain an occupying force for years to come," Obama wrote. "It would tie the hands of the next commander-in-chief, decreasing his or her flexibility to confront a dynamic threat environment that has shown Al Qaeda more dangerous than at any time since September 11, 2001."

Obama further requested that the president "submit any agreement reached in [U.S.-Iraqi] negotiations to the Senate for its advice and consent." That's precisely what the administration resists.

Ever since it announced in November that it would seek a long-term security agreement with Iraq, the Bush administration has refused to call the agreement a "treaty," since that would require Senate ratification -- something a Democratic-controlled Senate is sure to reject. A key State Dept. official, David Satterfield, recently testified that the agreement "will not include a binding commitment to defend Iraq or any other security commitments that would warrant Senate advice and consent." Critics describe that determination as both legalistic and cynical.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:56 PM:

" "steve..are you really larry, mo, or curly?"

--------

Don't tell me fatherbob-

you're really Shemp Howard and you're looking for a reunion.

I suspected it all along.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:59 PM:

" "Shock video: Hillary proven right about Tuzla!
Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered... "

http://tinyurl.com/2u3q7r

-------

LOL!!!!!

Now THAT was funny Steve!

Haaahahah

"

Kyle wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:32 PM:

" "Whoa! Does that include the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who reject radical Islam? How about the Iraqi's who are fighting along side our troops? Scr3w all of them- Kyle? "

If the cost of saving their country is 4,000 American lives, $3 trillion and Iran as the dominant power in the region, then yes. "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:49 PM:

" a great read.....very well written

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13696 "

father bob wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:55 PM:

"
Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 26, 2008 2:59 PM:
" "Shock video: Hillary proven right about Tuzla!
Hillary WASN'T LYING! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered... "

http://tinyurl.com/2u3q7r

-------

LOL!!!!!

Now THAT was funny Steve!

Haaahahah

OKAY......CIRCLE the calendar...HEY TOMMY....you listening? put this in my file.... THAT's funny "

AJ13721 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 5:32 PM:

" Thanks for not responding to my post HARRY POTTER and bringing everyone down so it would be a good thing if you never came on this site ever again... but I cant tell you what to do so you can do whatever you want but just remember.... I CAN EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS!!!! now that you wont stop me at!!!!! DOES ANYONE THINK HARRY POTTER SHOULD BE #1 FOR THIS SITE???? "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:07 PM:

" lmao! Shock video of Hillary in Bosnia!

Steve hahah! God that was hillarious. And when she pulled out the hand gun and started blasting lol! "

AJ13721 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:14 PM:

" HARRY POTTER is the #1 Idiot 4 this site???????? anyone agree? "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:15 PM:

" Oh and when sniper fire takes the guy's head off behind Hillary at :47 into the video lol! If I were Obama I would run this as part of an ad, his problems would be over in no time. "

The Question wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:01 PM:

" The improvement in Iraq amounts to casualty rates that have decreased to the unacceptable levels of 2005, no exit plan for years and a bill accumulating at almost $5,000 per second.
— NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:01 PM:

" News release: AJ13721 has just announced the formation of a Harry Potter fan club with her as president. This club will restrict it's membership to rednecks and uneducated hillbilly's. For further information contact her at the trailer park. Her trailer is the one with the Todd Reardon for states attorney sign out front. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 26, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Actually, AJ13721, as I traveled around the various threads on this site tonight, I have come to the conclusion that if anyone should be named the # 1 idiot on this site it would be you. Your inane posts offer nothing. If they were at least funny, that might be one thing but, sorry to tell you this, they are just plain dull and stupid. By the way, idiocy would be considered a measurement of intelligence, and you my friend are much more qualified for that title than I. I tried to dummy down this message for you, but you might want to get someone to interpret it for you anyway. "

whadevah wrote on Mar 26, 2008 8:45 PM:

" To the idiot posting as Harry Potter and Dohbaugh. Could you make it any more obvious that you're the same person? Come on, repeating the same point 14 minutes apart? Do you really think you're fooling anyone in here? "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:07 PM:

" bobby says "OKAY......CIRCLE the calendar...HEY TOMMY....you listening? put this in my file.... THAT's funny" // Yeah, got it, c&p'd, no noted, so mote it be, bobby thinks Steve is funny. "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 26, 2008 9:40 PM:

" I meant "so noted". "

Early Bird wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:08 AM:

" An observation: Every few months we go through a week or two of people accusing other posters of using multiple names. I have been posting on this site since the very beginning and note that this is a reoccurring situation. I myself have been accused of it on more than one occasion, and admittedly I have suspected others too, and have made a comment to that effect. I note that it's usually like minded posters who get accused of this, but I also note there are like minded posters on both side of most issues, and at both ends of the political spectrum. I have a tendency to agree with The Question, Coonbug and father bob on most issues, and just like Tom A. agrees with those on the right side, it doesn't mean we are all the same person. I think the real idiot is the person that always thinks that when someone comes to some ones defense that automatically means they are one in the same. Here's the funny part of the claim made last night, by a supposedly "new" poster by the name of "whatevah". I don't believe I have ever seen that name before, so I have to wonder how someone could come on this site for the first time and make that observation. Hmmmm...that seems a bit suspicious to me. For inserting myself in this latest claim, I suppose I will be accused of being either Harry P. or Dohbaugh too. Hey why not, for the most part I often agree with them too, so I won't really be to offended. LOL "

whadevah wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:58 AM:

" For the Early Bird~ I don't post very often and I don't post on many of the political topics on this site but I have been around for several months. As a matter of fact I was posting before Harry Potter showed up last Fall~ when I believe when he started echoing Dohbaugh. Do you happen to remember that Early Bird or do you think Harry has been around forever? I find it curious Early Bird that you're not the least bit suspicious about the back to back similar posts by Harry Potter and Dohbaugh. This seems to happen all the time on various threads and that doesn't pique your curiosity in the least bit eh Early Bird? Your curiosity seems to be a little selective doesn't it? "

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Shiite militants are hammering the U.S.-protected Green Zone with rockets and mortars for the fourth day this week.
Thick, black smoke is billowing from inside the heavily fortified home to the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government
Tens of thousands of Shiites took to Baghdad's streets to protest the government crackdown on militias in Basra as heavy fighting between Iraqi security forces and gunmen erupted for a third day in the southern oil port and the capital.
----
Never fear. According to our war-loving cheerleaders here, it's all part of Bush's "master plan" for a "final showdown" with somebody or other — whoever the heck today's enemy is supposed to be. Mission accomplished! Mission accomplished!! Mission accomplished!!! "

Late Bird wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:47 AM:

" LOL! AMEN! "

Late Bird wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Sorry Early Bird, I'm not usually up this early! LOL "

Late Bird wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:52 AM:

" The Question wrote on Mar 23, 2008 6:17 PM:
" I'll define the term for you, Soldier. Supporting the troops means ending the unjustified invasion and occupation that is getting them maimed and killed. "

Hmm...the military doesn't even support their own troops. When they are discharged due to medical reasons that the military caused, they are told they not only will not get any pay because of their disabilities, but also don't get anything stated in their contract like college paid for, etc....Something really stinks and it's our good ole US military! "

father bob wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:17 AM:

" equalizer, warrior, 1cav, chad(usaf), justasoldier, ravenh4.....just wanted to make sure you boys saw todays article on AK-47s.
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:50 AM:

" Did any of you notice THIS little tidbit at the very end of the AP article in todays JG titled:

Shiite militia return to Baghdad enclave complete with swagger, anger

//////////////

"MAHDI ARMY COMMANDERS have told the AP that the militia has recently taken delivery of new weapons supplied by BACKERS IN IRAN. The arsenal, they said, included roadside bombs, anti-aircraft guns and Soviet-designed Grad rockets.

They also said an infusion of cash, ALSO FROM IRAN, helped the militia set up new command centres equipped with Internet-linked computers, fax machines and satellite mobile phones. They have also received global positioning system devices, they said.

THE UNITED STATES HAS LONG ACCUSED IRAN OF PROVIDING SHIITE MILITIAS IN IRAQ WITH ARMS AND TRAINING. IRAN DENIES IT."

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:59 AM:

" SADDAM PAID FOR 2002 CONGRESSIONAL JUNKET TO BAGHDAD

"Federal prosecutors say Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion.
An indictment in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary. …
The lawmakers are not mentioned but the dates correspond to a trip by DEMOCRATIC Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. There was no indication the three lawmakers knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam."

////////////

Oh sure they didn't know- and they didn't care to inquire either.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:57 AM:

" While the Iraqi government continued its large-scale military assault in Basra, the NPR reporter’s voice from Iraq was unequivocal on the morning of
March 27: "There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen."
Such flat-out statements, uttered with journalistic tones and without attribution, are routine for the U.S. media establishment. In the "War Made
Easy" documentary film, I put it this way: "If you’re pro-war, you’re objective. But if you’re anti-war, you’re biased. And often, a news anchor will get no flak at all for making statements that are supportive of a war and wouldn’t dream of making a statement that’s against a war."
So it goes at NPR News, where -- on "Morning Edition" as well as the evening program "All Things Considered" -- the sense and sensibilities tend to be neatly aligned with the outlooks of official Washington. The critical aspects of reporting largely amount to complaints about policy shortcomings
that are tactical; the underlying and shared assumptions are imperial.
— NORMAN SOLOMON "

Rotty wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Just as Early Bird has stated, I, myself, started commenting, here on this website, on day one.
It now seems Mr. Reardon's band of misfits have went on a registering campaign to infect this site with their mindless nonsense & drivel, with no logical or original thoughts, or even jokes, of their own.
Other than "some" of their political beliefs, I'm pretty much in agreement with alot of the other long time regs on here.
And as EB said, it seems like we go through this reoccurring ignorance & inane commentaries every couple of months or so, & hopefully it won't last much longer, this time around.
Now, back to the war haggling.
LOL "

coonbug wrote on Mar 27, 2008 11:51 AM:

" This trip was APPROVED by the BUSH administration and the State Dept.

Complain to THEM. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:13 PM:

" Whoa Steve!

Did you just say that the MAHDI ARMY COMMANDERS themselves are saying that they are getting arms, supplies, and money-

FROM IRAN?

Question- buddy! How can this be????

Didn't YOU just post this? -

"The Bush administration may try to blame this all on Iran and confuse the issue."

"

Equalizer wrote on Mar 27, 2008 12:15 PM:

" father bob wrote on Mar 27, 2008 9:17 AM:
" equalizer, warrior, 1cav, chad(usaf), justasoldier, ravenh4.....just wanted to make sure you boys saw todays article on AK-47s.
"

So you think this list of names you mentioned are all boys eh? -smirk- "

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:36 PM:

" What Bush-Cheney kleptocrat corruption buys with your massive national debt.
-----
The Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.
With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.
Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:43 PM:

" The Question- what?

Did you just post an article that said
NPR is "aligned with the outlooks of official Washington."

What? So now the highly liberal NPR- is now pro-war?

ROTFLMAO!!!!! LOL!!!

You gotta be kidding. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 2:58 PM:

" "This trip was APPROVED by the BUSH administration and the State Dept."

------

Coonbug- each and every member of Congress should ALWAYS vet the sources of such ventures. Wouldn’t the possibility of exploitation have crossed their minds — and shouldn’t the three Congressmen have asked the FBI to check out Al-Hanooti at the time?
"

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:06 PM:

" The plans for the Bush administration to begin mass murder of the Iranian people have been put in motion. The plot was stalled temporarily by the National Intelligence Estimate report released last fall, a report which said that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program...
When historians write about the catastrophes that struck the world in 2008, events that have taken place in March of 2008 will surely loom large. The worldwide economic meltdown finally became impossible to deny, with the Federal Reserve using the workers’ dime to bail out a major investment banking firm, Bear Stearns. Dick Cheney traveled to Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, making sure his nefarious plans went off without a hitch. John McCain claimed that Iran was the home of al Qaeda, the bogeyman that sends already trigger happy Americans on bloodthirsty rampages. Democrats who had the power to stop Bush in his tracks, once again pledged to do nothing.
In 2007 both the Senate and House passed resolutions that backed war with Iran. Impeachment, the one weapon Congress could use to stop further war making, is ignored and forgotten by John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary committee.
— MARGARET KIMBERLY "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 3:39 PM:

" MAHDI ARMY COMMANDERS themselves are saying that they are getting arms, supplies, and money-

FROM IRAN

Question- did you NOT read this?

Is this not an act of war on Iran's part?

Hello?

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:08 PM:

" CNN- “And now the most lethal attacks on U.S. forces, the most coordinated attacks on U.S. forces, the most daring attacks on U.S. forces in the country are committed by IRANIAN-BACKED breakaway elements of Muqtada’s militia faction.”
The violence in Basra — which has spread to Shiite areas throughout the country, including Baghdad — is a kind of fighting Americans are unaccustomed to seeing, said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Donald Sheppard, CNN’s senior military analyst. Video Watch the violence multiply »
“This is intra-Shia. This is not Sunni vs. Shia, THIS IS NOT CIVIL WAR, THIS IS NOT SECTARIAN VIOLENCE, it’s intra-Shia politics for control of the government,” he said."

"

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 4:59 PM:

" Iraq has erupted into virtual civil war and Bush’s supporters, who have been crowing about the reduced violence there for the last year, have instantly switched their propaganda to proclaim that the increased violence was Bush’s plan all along.
As Colton said, “If Satan ever laughs, it must be at hypocrites; they are the greatest dupes he has.”
"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Oh my goodness, what keen observation skills you have. Two people post similar thoughts within a 15 minute period, so they must be the same person. Wow! You get the the Sherlock Holmes medit badge for that one, Einstein. I have to wonder at times, where do you people come from? With that sort of reasoning, I certainly hope you're not the product of our local schools. So share some of your posting names with us. I have noticed that those who accuse others of this are usually the ones who post under about 8 or 10 names. So how about letting us in on your little secret? Notice that I didn't address you by any paticular name because it's hard to tell what name you will be using today. "

The Question wrote on Mar 27, 2008 5:50 PM:

" Bush's "master plan" continues to unfold.
----
The State Department has instructed all personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad not to leave reinforced structures due to incoming insurgent rocket fire that has killed two American government workers this week.
In a memo sent Thursday to embassy staff and obtained by The Associated Press, the department says employees are required to wear helmets, body armor and other protective gear if they must venture outside and strongly advises them to sleep in blast-resistant locations instead of the less secure trailers that most occupy. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Of course Iran is supporting certain factions. What can we do about it? "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:38 PM:

" Yeah, incoming insurgent rocket fire Question. And would you care to tell us just WHERE those rockets came from Question? Oh that's right, they came from Iran didn't they Question. Now tell us again how innocent those Mullahs in Iran are. Tell us how they don't pose a threat to the U.S. Then tell us how Saddams own documents are all wrong and that he was never really a threat. As the resident apologist for global Islamic dictators and Jihadist you should have plenty of practice at this. "

lefty wrote on Mar 27, 2008 6:56 PM:

" Ha! To all of you chicken littles who believe the war is going so well, here is an article for ya.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/us-embassy-personnel-in-b_n_93762.html Ha! "

HisChild wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:01 PM:

" None of my comments about this showed up.
So...I wonder why
" Proposal would eliminate fall leaf vacuuming at curbsides in Mattoon " was put into the archives in less that one day, hmm? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Lefty- why not just link us to Al Jezeera? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:35 PM:

" "Of course Iran is supporting certain factions. What can we do about it?"

---------

Just what the Iraqi and American forces are doing right now- crush the Sadrists.

Now ask yourself Kyle- why is Iran so intent on waging this proxy war in Iraq?
"

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:44 PM:

" I just have one question. If Harry Potter is me, then why the heck isn't he making my house payments? Come on Harry P. Lets get with it. LMAO! "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 27, 2008 8:19 PM:

" Oops! another question, how's the surge going, Doh? "

Kyle wrote on Mar 27, 2008 10:27 PM:

" "Just what the Iraqi and American forces are doing right now- crush the Sadrists. "

Also known as spending way too much money tracking and wasting worthless foot soldiers.

"Now ask yourself Kyle- why is Iran so intent on waging this proxy war in Iraq? "

The same reason that we supplied weapons to the Afghanis during the Cold War. Because it weakens their enemy (us) and forces us to stretch our resources further than we can allow them to be stretched.

It's guerilla warfare 101. They use some cheap guns and homemade explosives to kill a solider we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars housing and training, and then we use multimillion dollar planes to try and hunt them down.

We used it against Russia, now Iran uses it against us. Because it works. "

lefty wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:00 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier, I didnt link to Al Jazeera because I dont read Al Jazeera. But if you want to pretend all is rosy in Iraq, you can continue lying to yourself. Also, making snide comments to make yourself look smarter is a good option. "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:55 AM:

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:07 AM:

" Suddenly the spokesmen aren't speaking. Must all be part of Bush's great "master plan" in Iraq, eh? Boy, what a genius that guy is.
-----
An Interior Ministry official says the civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation has been kidnapped and three bodyguards killed.
Tahseen Sheikhly is a Sunni who often appeared with U.S. military and embassy officials at news conferences to tout the successes of the crackdown that began in Baghdad and surrounding areas more than a year ago.
The official says gunmen stormed Sheikhly's house Thursday in a Mahdi Army stronghold southeastern Baghdad and torched it.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 5:08 AM:

" Iraqi lawmakers will hold an emergency session on Friday in an attempt to end violence in the oil city of Basra after an army crackdown on Shi'ite militia sparked fighting across the south and mass protests in Baghdad.
Authorities have imposed a three-day curfew in the capital to contain the violence, in which more than 130 people have been killed.
-----
What's all this about some "emergency?" Haven't they heard that this is all part of the great Bush "master plan" for a "final showdown?" Just relax, Iraqis. Don't worry about a thing. Leave your fate completely in the hands of the great master strategist, George W. Bush. After all, that's what Americans did, and look how well that worked out.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:21 AM:

" The Pentagon has suddenly classified the numbers of attacks in Iraq for September through November of this year -- after providing the figures for every month since the war began. Why?
Maybe because what you don't know can't hurt the Bush administration, eh?

"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:33 AM:

" You gotta love that drug addict and gay radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. Not only is he hawking the idea that he is entirely responsible for the rift between Hillary and Obama, but he is also selling tee shirts and coffee mugs to his fans proclaim his responsibility for this division. Leave it to a Republican, like Limbaugh, to make a buck off a lie. Dick Cheney didn't do too bad either, did he? "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:34 AM:

" Basra doesn’t reflect a failure of the surge, but instead reinforces its necessity.

BASRA A BRITISH FAILURE: TIMES OF LONDON

"British forces, who can probably cobble together an armoured battle group of a few hundred soldiers, may well be asked to intervene should the Iraqi offensive fail. If that happens, any hope of the withdrawal promised by Gordon Brown last year of another 1,500 British troops this spring will have to be shelved until Basra can be stabilised.
It may even be necessary to reinforce the British contingent with more combat troops, something that the Ministry of Defence can ill afford as it prepares for the fighting season in Afghanistan.
The only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq. That would mean an ignominious withdrawal and handing over control of Basra to the Americans, who grudgingly would have to take over responsibility for the south. As American officers and officials have privately made clear, much of today’s problems in Basra can be traced back to Britain’s failure to commit the forces necessary to control Basra and southern Iraq in general.
Whereas President Bush’s “surge” tactic of sending 30,000 reinforcements to central Iraq has succeeded in bringing down the level of violence in Baghdad and Anbar province, the Americans believe that the gradual withdrawal of British troops from the south has had the opposite effect, a point that Mr al-Maliki and his soldiers are discovering to their cost on the streets of Basra today."
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:36 AM:

" ED MORRISSEY- The fighting that has erupted in Basra should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the course of the war in Iraq. While the US has spent the last year increasing force size in western Iraq and more aggressively challenging militias in Baghdad, the British have become more passive in Basra and have significantly reduced their footprint to one-tenth of their original commitment. That has made them almost invisible in the south, and since the Iraqi Army did not have a large enough presence there either, the British reduction allowed competing Shi’ite militias to take control of the area. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:37 AM:

" What you people fail to realize is that the insurgents are in their last throes. I know because Cheney said that and he would never lie to the American people. WINK WINK "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:38 AM:

" ED MORRISSEY- The British took the wrong tack in the south, and the results have been plain for at least two years. Instead of remaining in control of Basra and keeping order until Iraq could build their new security forces, their reduced footprint created a vacuum for order that the militias were only too happy to fill. The Sadr Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades started seizing control of the streets in 2004, when the British reduced their forces to 8600 troops, and they have only strengthened their grip while the British retreated further. The Washington Post noted the problem last summer, as the surge began showing signs of ending the sectarian strife everywhere else.

The fighting in Basra now was inevitable at some point. Baghdad couldn’t allow a major city like Basra to operate outside its control forever. Instead of an orderly transition from Coalition to Iraqi security control, as is happening in the West, the Maliki government now has to take Basra by force — while the rump of British power sits in its bases, unable to contribute at all to security any longer. Whether Maliki decided to do this next week or next year, the fight in Basra had to happen at some point in order to apply the rule of law throughout Iraq.

That’s why this isn’t a collapse of the American surge, but a demonstration of the folly of premature withdrawal. The lack of fortitude on Iraq left a vacuum that created bigger problems and more serious fighting than tenacity did. Had we listened to the war’s critics in 2005 and 2006, gangsters would have swallowed the entirety of Iraq, and we would have a second Somalia in southwest Asia.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:23 AM:

" "The same reason that we supplied weapons to the Afghanis during the Cold War. Because it weakens their enemy (us) and forces us to stretch our resources further than we can allow them to be stretched."

------

I disagree, Kyle- Resources can be drawn from peaceful regions in Iraq (thanks to the surge). So far U.S. intervention in Basra has been limited mainly to air support.

Let me remind you Kyle- thanks to the British pull back- the surge was never allowed to develop in Basra. Had the Brits lived up to their commitment- Basra never would have festered to this point. See what a Liberal withdrawal policy gets you?

"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:38 AM:

" the Tragedy Revisited by Beryl Crowe 1969 p.13

The technology of guerilla warfare has made it evident that, while the state can win battles, it cannot win wars of values. Coercive force which is centered in the modern state cannot be sustained in the face of the active resistance of some 10 percent of the population unless the state is willing to embark on a deliberate policy of genocide directed against the value dissident groups. (I would add unless we blow the cities and the entire civilian population of the face of the map) Mr. Ditko and others haven't learned anything from Vietnam or Korea. Those that fail to learn from the past repeat it.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Kyle- Iran is desperately trying secure a sizable piece of influence in the predominantly Shia faction of the Iraqi government. Up until this point most Anti-war proponents were arguing that Prime Minister Maliki (a Shiite) was in the back pocket of Iran. The Basra fight shows the contrary.

What you are missing is the fact that Iran is NOT playing offense here- they are playing defense.

Iran can ill-afford a burgeoning democracy to take root in a neighboring state. Can you imagine the potential for an Iranian revolt? Iranian society is more developed and more open to western influence- if you don't think that puts a cold chill down the backs of the Mullah's- then you're not paying attention.
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:40 AM:

" "Bryant Lamphier, I didnt link to Al Jazeera because I dont read Al Jazeera."

-------

If you're reading the Puffington Post-

you might as well be reading Al Jazeera.

Sorry you missed my obvious point. "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:45 AM:

" Rockets probably are coming from Iran, although I'm don't know why they'd bother since Bush's disastrous invasion has already turned the government of Iraq over to Iran's Shiite pals. And the Saudis are supplying weapons and fighters to the Sunni insurgents, but we're not supposed to talk about that because the Saudis bought and paid for the Bush family a long time ago. In fact, I'm sure millions of people right across the Mideast would be only too glad to help the Iraqis drive out the invading foreigners who have occupied their country. That's why the five-year Bush-Cheney-McCain "master plan" has worked out just so darned well. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:45 AM:

" "But if you want to pretend all is rosy in Iraq, you can continue lying to yourself."

--------

When did I "pretend" all is "rosy"?

Evidence please.

What is it with you idiots- it's either all disastrous

-or all rosy.

Where's that subtle in-between nuance you Liberals are famous for?
"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:49 AM:

" "Also, making snide comments to make yourself look smarter is a good option."

-------

None of my comments could possibly make me look any smarter than your ridiculous posts- lefty.

And since when did you Anti-War Liberals have a problem with "snide comments"?

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 8:53 AM:

" "Actually, they were fired by Iraqis right outside the Green Zone. You know, those people who were going to "greet us as liberators."

------

Uhm.......yeah....I know Question.
But the rockets themselves were supplied by Iran- don't cha think?

You know, IRAN that little ole country that never threatened the U.S. "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Basra doesn’t reflect a failure of the surge, but instead reinforces its necessity.
----
Bombs away! Way to win those hearts and minds, baby! And if full-scale civil war happens to break out in Iraq, a shining halo will illuminate Petraeus' visage and bluebirds of happiness will fly out of all Bush's orifices. Hooray, hooray! Mission accomplished! Mission accomplished!! Mission accomplished!!! "

father bob wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:47 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 27, 2008 7:30 PM:
" Lefty- why not just link us to Al Jezeera? "

bryant.....just more proof you're a brainless moron. kind of like the old:

"if you're against this war you don't support the troops" line, or how about "you're either with us or against us" or how about "i would not lie to the american people" or the greatest rightwing mantra in history "Mission Accomplished"

but then again EB, Question and I are surely islamic terrorists. "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 9:53 AM:

" I guess dancing on our Soldiers graves with the 4000 “milestone” wasn’t enough, now the mainstream media have to show how ignorant they are in assessing what is going on in Iraq.
The press practically ignores Iraq and the progress that has been made over the last year,only to jump on front page stories again with the smoke coming from bombs and “concerned” broadcasters pumping their “civil war, all is lost themes” some more.
Maliki is taking a stand against Sader and his Militias,something the defeatist said he would never do,and
is showing the country that the government is in control and
is looking out for everyone,not just the shia. But of course none of these facts are taken into consideration because that wouldn't fit very nicely with the all-is-lost theme that the media insists on ramming down the public's throat.

"

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Here's something the Iranian Military might want to keep in mind if they really want to push the U.S. into an all out war.

From The UK Telegraph. Laser plane could destroy tanks from 10 miles

The United States Defence Department has developed a prototype of an aircraft armed with a laser gun that could destroy tanks 10 miles away.
The Airborne Tactical Laser weapon is to be mounted on a Boeing aircraft and is capable of destroying targets up to 15km (10m) away, according to Defense Update online magazine.

The ten-centimetre-wide beam will heat targets almost instantly to thousands of degrees and will slice through metal even at maximum range. It is intended both for battlefield use and for missile defense.

It is anticipated that the beam will be adjustable, allowing the gunner to choose between, for example, targeting a vehicle's fuel tank to destroy it utterly, or slice through a tyre to bring it to a halt without injuring the driver.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:08 AM:

" "but then again EB, Question and I are surely islamic terrorists"

--------

Really bob? I didn't know that you 3 wrote for the Puffington Post.

My criticism was directed at the source- not the poster.

Something troubling your feeble little mind fatherbob-

other than the average basic arithmetic equation? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:55 AM:

" "(I would add unless we blow the cities and the entire civilian population of the face of the map)."

-------

shumphreys- The success of the counter-insurgent operations (The Surge) have proven that there is an option other than genocide or scorched-earth tactics.

The current problem stems from the fact that the British NEVER implemented The Surge strategy in Basra.

Those that fail to learn from the present, continue to live in the past.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Iraq's government has extended by 10 days a deadline for Shia militiamen fighting troops in Basra to hand over their weapons in return for money.
----
Oooo, I bet those Shia militiamen are shaking in their booties now! If they don't shape up this time, our puppet government in Iraq might just extend the deadline another month or three, and up the payments. That'll show em!!!
But don't worry. It's all part of Bush's Final Showdown Master Plan. You'll need the decoder ring to understand it, but you can get one for only four boxtops!!!

"

pj61938 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Something troubling your feeble little mind fatherbob, other than the average basic arithmetic equation? ******* bryant lamphier, lol! youre killing me buddy! "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:28 PM:

" No Mr. Lamphier the current problem stems from the problem that the surge strategy is armed occupation in an ideological war. Armed occupation lasts only as long as the numbers of the armed outnumber the unarmed and is unsustainable over the long run. You don't fight an ideological war with guns and bombs. I suggest that you (and others) face the reality of the present, learn from the past so that you can make intelligent decisions about the future. "

father bob wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:49 PM:

" right - left or indifferent

remember earthhour '08 tomorrow night.

http://www13.earthhourus.org/
"

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:06 PM:

" The empire's officials seem unable to admit the truth about the US' place in the world--at least in public. The economy sinks into deeper recession while Bush and Congress **** away billions each week on un-winnable wars in Afghanistan and Iran. To create further anxiety, Bush and Cheney periodically threaten war against Iran and occasionally Syria as well.
— SAUL LANDAU "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:08 PM:

" "No Mr. Lamphier the current problem stems from the problem that the surge strategy is armed occupation in an ideological war."

--------

The Surge strategy- shumphreys- is to replace U.S. forces with Iraqi military and police units so that those local units can eventually keep the peace on their own. And in the meantime- as more and more areas are settled- it gives the Iraqi government more time to work on the political reconciliation that we are demanding.

There is an "ideology" here- shumphreys

It's called democracy.

I suggest shumphreys- that you (and others) attempt to accurately understand the facts of the present, and stop living in the past-
so that you can make intelligent decisions about the present as well as the future. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:13 PM:

" "Oooo, I bet those Shia militiamen are shaking in their booties now! If they don't shape up this time, our puppet government in Iraq might just extend the deadline another month or three, and up the payments. That'll show em!!!"

-------

You need to make up your mind Question-

First you say that the U.S. and the Iraqi government are killing "innocent" Iraqis-

Now you're complaining that the Iraqi Army isn't killing "innocent" Iraqi's fast enough.

So which is it- Question? "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:17 PM:

" “The current problem stems from the fact that…”
????? Our “current problem,” Bryant? But there is “no current problem.” Your comrade Raven H4 says the fighting across Iraq is not a problem but “…a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government.” He adds that, “In reality Coalition forces led by the Iraqi Army and police have forced this fight as a final showdown with the Sadr militia.”
Now, which one of you has misread the latest set of Stepford Republican talking-point lies from Karl Rove? You’d both better double-check to get on the same propaganda page.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Paul Craig Roberts noted: "Noam Chomsky recently wrote that America thinks that it owns the world. That is definitely the view of the neoconized Bush administration. But the fact of the matter is that the US owes the world. The US 'superpower' cannot even finance its own domestic operations, much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to lend it money that cannot be repaid." "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:38 PM:

" To shumphreys, aren't *all* wars ideological to one degree or another? "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 1:53 PM:

" Did you miss this "signing statement" by Bush?
Underneath the recent Defense Authorization Act, Bush wrote that he did not feel bound by the law's explicit prohibition against using the funding:
"(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," or
"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
So those who are still wondering about the real reasons why the US invaded Iraq, Bush has helpfully provided an autographed summary of them. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:18 PM:

" (Your comrade Raven H4 says the fighting across Iraq is not a problem but “…a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government.”)

-------

I couldn't find that quote - Question.

I would like to look at it in its entire context.

Could you tell me where I can find it? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:28 PM:

" "(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,"

--------

Well now that's what we did in Japan, Germany, Korea, Bosnia..... what's the problem?

---------

"(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

--------

I believe the Iraqi government is still deciding the fate of their oil. As I recall they are entertaining the idea of a constitutional amendment.

I also recall that that point was brought up to you a couple of weeks ago- Question.

Did you have another one of your famous memory lapses with the facts?

hmmmmmmmmmm?

"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:32 PM:

" To pj61983 indeed they are. Too bad men like mr. Lamphier can't understand that. Also Mr. lamphier Democracy is not a weapon, Democracy can not be forced upon a people that are not ready, willing and able to accept it. That is the lesson that one could learn from the past if HE was intelligent enough to study the past. The idea of training Iraqis to take over for themselves is "pie in the sky" and ignores the reality of the situation.The surge is still armed occupation any way you look at it. "

The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:44 PM:

" I couldn't find that quote - Question.
----
Try here - RavenH4 wrote on Mar 25, 2008 7:42 AM:
BASRA, Iraq (AFP) – “Fierce clashes between Iraqi security forces and militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday killed at least four people and wounded 18 in the southern city of Basra, police Major Abbas Youssef told AFP…..
….///////////

This is a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:56 PM:

" "This is a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government."

-------

I can't tell if RavenH4 was referring to the negotiated peace at the time- or the conflict itself.

But on it's face- I would NOT say that the Basra fight is a tremendous victory for the Iraqi Army or the Iraqi government.

I would say that it indicates more work needs to be done. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 2:59 PM:

" "Also Mr. lamphier Democracy is not a weapon, Democracy can not be forced upon a people that are not ready, willing and able to accept it."

-------

shumphreys- please explain to me how freedom can be "forced" on anyone.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:02 PM:

" "The surge is still armed occupation any way you look at it."

-------

shumphreys- how will an Iraqi military and police force be an armed occupation?
"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 3:58 PM:

" It can't Mr. Lamphier which is my point. A Democracy by the way, is more then staged elections. Unfortunately men like you and Bush don't seem to comprehend that concept. When it is Sunnis in the military patroling Shite areas or vice versa or both patroling Kurdish areas, where men with military weapons are required to keep the peace, where armed militias in control of a Mullah are more powerful then the government it is an armed occupation. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:04 PM:

" To pj61938 not only is there an ideological component to all wars that component is not the same in all wars. Until men understand what makes the Iraq situation different from World War II and more like Vietnam this dialogue will continue to go round and round in circles and we will likely be talking about this for the next 4 years. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 4:32 PM:

" "It can't Mr. Lamphier which is my point."

--------

Let me try this again- shumphreys

Freedom can not be forced upon a people that are not ready, willing and able to accept it?

If the people are FREE- then where does the FORCE come in?

And there are areas where Sunni and Shia are serving in the Police and military together.

And there was never any Surge elements in the Mullah backed Basra area- hence the festering situation that has come to a head.

AND the Basra fight is predominantly Shia IA (Iraqi Army) and police, against Shia militants.

AND the Shia dominated Iraqi government recently passed a Provincial Election Law that should give the Sunni minority more political power.

Tell me again how well you comprehend the current situation- shumphreys?

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Oil-For-Food exec a Russian spy

TimesOnline: A UN official who held a pivotal post in the Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq has been exposed by a defector as a Russian spy who diverted almost half a billion dollars to top Russian officials in “one of the richest heists in world history”.
Alexandre Kramar, who set the price of Iraqi crude as a UN oil overseer from 1996 to 2003, was an undercover agent for Russia’s foreign intelligence agency, the SVR, his former handler says.
The revelation throws new light on the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, which implicated dozens of politicians, diplomats and businessmen around the world, as well as the UN official overseeing the programme, and the son of the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
It provides fresh evidence of Russia’s complicity in helping Saddam Hussein to circumvent UN sanctions imposed after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The crumbling of the UN embargo, which was designed to prevent Iraq from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction, was one of the factors behind the US and British decision to go to war in 2003. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 28, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Russia, one will recall, bitterly opposed the efforts by the US to invade Iraq. Along with France, the Russians had deeply commercial reasons for their efforts to keep the status quo in place. With their spy in place and a tap into the flow of Iraqi crude, the Russians would never have a chance to profit like that in an open market. They needed Saddam in place, brutally oppressing his own people, so that Russia and Saddam could steal the money that was supposed to feed the Iraqis who suffered under the heavy economic sanctions that supposedly put Saddam in a “box”. - by Ed Morrissey "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:05 PM:

" The iraqi people are not free by any stretch of the imagination Mr. Lamphier. They may have been freed from Sadam Hussein but they were put into the hands of other tyrants. The US forced this "freedom" on the Iraqi people. I didn't say there weren't places where the Shites and Sunnis are attempting to work together. Attempting is the operational word here. "pased a law that should give" is also the operational word here. The first election should have set up an operational government. You use alot of shoulds and that sounds to me like wishful thinking and a failure to face reality. "

lefty wrote on Mar 28, 2008 11:55 PM:

" "And since when did you Anti-War Liberals have a problem with "snide comments"?"

You know what kills lock step lil foot soldiers like yourself, BRYANT? I am not a liberal. I bet you cannot fathom why someone right of center might be anti war? Probably makes your frontal lobe pop. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:53 AM:

" "The US forced this "freedom" on the Iraqi people."

------

You've yet to explain how freedom can be "forced" on anyone- shumphreys.

------

"The first election should have set up an operational government."

------

Oh really? Is that the rule-of-thumb for new democracies that are built out of 30 year old tyrannical dictatorships?
The first election and-
Presto! A fully operational government?

------

And Sunni and Shia ARE working together- not just attempting to.

------

"You use alot of shoulds and that sounds to me like wishful thinking and a failure to face reality."

------

I thought I used only one "should".

And you- shumphreys, sound like a doom and gloom nay-sayer whose "reality" has no other face but failure.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 29, 2008 5:54 AM:

" Found on line:
Does anyone ever get the feeling, during Bush's speeches, that you're being talked down to and lectured by the dumbest guy in the room?
I mean...lemme spell it out ferya...the sky is blue, cause I say so, not cause it is. And even if it were, which it ain't, if I say it is, it is, understandify? Law stuff is like that too...even if it's illegal, if I say it's legal it's legal which means it's legal as long as I say it's legal, even if it's illegal...understandify? Were winnin cause winnin is the way we win, and America doesn't stand for not winnin, cause we're winners...and we're gonna win this one even if we lose...is that perfunctorily clarified? I learned a new word...but I forgot it, so it mustn't be a word, cause I don't know it...that's complete understandifcation there!
"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 8:59 AM:

" I'm anxious to hear the spin on the latest increase in violence, in Iraq, from our resident war monger. "

The Question wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Kill those women and children, win those hearts and minds.
----
U.S. jets widened the bombing of Basra on Saturday, dropping two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of the city, British officials said.
Iraqi police said that earlier in the day a U.S. warplane strafed a house and killed eight civilians, including two women and one child.
Maj. Tom Holloway, a British military spokesman, said U.S. jets dropped the two bombs on a militia position in Qarmat Ali shortly before 12:30 p.m.
The radical Shia Iraqi cleric Moqtada Sadr has defied a call by the Iraqi government for his powerful Mehdi Army militia to lay down its weapons.
Arms would only be handed over to an Iraqi government willing to end the US occupation, his senior official in Basra, Hareth al-Ethari, told the BBC.
Fighting has claimed at least 200 lives across Iraq since Tuesday.
"

cd wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Guard & Reserves are military forces. The military train for deadly battles, not to just collect a check and get an education. Anyone who joins any branch of military thinking that it is all going to be 'Love and Peace' during their enlistment are fools, and idiots. If these people don't want to be in combat...STAY OUT OF THE MILITARY! Those that never served in combat are fortunate, and I have no ill-feelings against them.
------------------------
lefty wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:17 PM:

" I dont support the troops, and Im a right of center guy. They signed up and knew what they were getting into. "

HisChild wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Nope, many didn't know what they were getting into. We know many who were LIED to! "
"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:21 AM:

" Mr. Lamphier why don't you learn how to read. Honestly. Go back and read what I have written then come back again with a sensible comment. "

cd wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:22 AM:

" “Winners never quit and quitters never win.”
Vince Lombardi
--------------------------------------
Quitters!
Nobody likes a quitter, folks used to say. In recent years it's become almost fashionable to quit. Kids quit school and go pro -- or online -- and get famous. Famous athletes and TV stars retire while at the height of fame, and are hailed for their courage. It's international news when singers want to quit and have babies. Our love/hate relationship with quitting comes from a gut feeling that it must feel good to just chuck it in, while knowing that it feels good to stick it out, too. Here are a few examples of some famous quitters, people who didn't always stick it out:

On the throne of England for a year in 1936, KING EDWARD VIII embarrassed the royal family by going ga-ga over an American divorceé, Wallis Simpson. Rather than give up his relationship with Simpson, Edward gave up the throne and his brother became the king.

The 37th President of the United States, RICHARD NIXON, was a quitter twice over. After he lost a presidential election in 1960 and a gubernatiorial election in 1962, Nixon declared he was through with politics. He went on to become a twice-elected president anyway, only to be forced to quit in 1974.

U. S. Senator EDMUND MUSKIE ran against Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1972, and had a good chance at the Democratic nomination. But Muskie dropped out during the primary elections. In an outdoor press meeting, it was thought that Muskie had wept while defending his wife, and the fallout forced him to quit the race.

MCLEAN STEVENSON played Henry Blake, the bumbling camp commander in the TV sitcom M*A*S*H. In spite of the show's popularity, Stevenson went AWOL in 1975, hoping to be a big star on a rival network. It didn't happen.

GARY BURGHOFF was another M*A*S*H regular who quit the show while it was still a hit. Gary played "Radar" O'Reilly, the company clerk and one-time aide to McLean Stevenson's character. Something must have rubbed off -- Burghoff left the show in 1979, with results even less sterling than Stevenson's.

An alumnus of the famed comedy troupe Second City, SHELLEY LONG starred as Diane Chambers in the hit sitcom Cheers during the 1980s. In spite of the popularity of the show and her character, Long quit the show in 1987 to jump into a career in the movies. Although she never became an A-list movie star, Long continued to pop up on Cheers and its spinoff, Frasier.

DAVID CARUSO didn't even have the patience of McLean Stevenson or Shelley Long. The red-headed star of NYPD Blue was in the show for a little more than one season before jumping ship. A much-publicized bid for big-screen stardom fell flat.

In 1992 ROSS PEROT ran against the Democrats and Republicans for the presidency, using his own dough and an energetic grassroots organization. In the middle of the summer's primaries, Perot suddenly quit. A few weeks later -- before the election -- he tossed his hat into the ring again and ended up with 19% of the popular vote.

NEWT GINGRICH was the hero of the Republican party after the 1994 elections, credited with engineering a long hoped-for Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Only four years later, he was the goat. Disappointment over the 1998 election spurred Gingrich to gather up his pens and notebooks and go home. He resigned as Speaker of the House and left Congress in 1999.

The Spice Girls, the '90s' version of The Shirelles, had taken the world of pop music by storm. They even made a movie. Then in 1998 Ginger Spice, a.k.a. GERI HALLIWELL, suddenly quit. She later said it was because of a conflict with her charitable work for breast cancer.

After years of great reviews and TV's highest ratings, JERRY SEINFELD declared his intention to retire from his sitcom Seinfeld, while still on top. He walked away from the show in 1998 to pursue what appears to be a career in television commercials.

Oft-proclaimed "best basketball player ever" MICHAEL JORDAN has the I'm-quitting-wink-wink reputation of Richard Nixon and the quit-while-you're-ahead style of Jerry Seinfeld. Jordan abruptly retired from basketball in 1993 to pursue a baseball career. He returned to basketball in 1995, but retired again in 1998, after leading the Chicago Bulls to a total of six championships. After a stint in the front office of the Washington Wizards, Jordan un-retired again, announcing on 25 September 2001 that he would suit up and play for the Wizards in the 2001-02 NBA season. Jordan retired again -- possibly for good -- after the 2002-03 season.

Radio host ART BELL started his nationally syndicated talk show in 1993. Year after year, night after night, Bell and his guests discussed UFOs, witches, crop circles, government conspiracies, ghosts and all manner of strange subjects. In October of 1998, Bell suddenly announced that he was leaving broadcasting for good, effective immediately. The reasons were veiled in mystery. Was he abducted? Did the government finally silence him? Two weeks later he returned to the air without explanation. In April of 2000 he announced that he was retiring from broadcasting altogether, dogged by false accusations and preoccupied with a family tragedy. But in 2001 Bell went back on the air with his syndicated program, Coast to Coast. Bell retired again at the end of 2002, giving way to new host George Noory, but the indefatigable Bell returned again late in 2003 to serve as weekend host of Coast to Coast. After a topsy-turvy 2006 -- his wife died, he remarried, he broadcasted for a while from the Philippines -- Art announced in July of 2007 that he was retiring to spend time with his new wife and their baby daughter.

The popular TV talent show American Idol spawned several overnight sensations, from 2002 winner Kelly Clarkson to enthusiastically off-key charmer William Hung. The chance for a recording contract and national exposure put stars in the eyes of young singers across the United States, including New York's MARIO VAZQUEZ. Early on in the season Mario seemed to have the edge, either as "the cute one" or "the one with the hat." But a mere eight weeks into the competition, Vazquez suddenly dropped out, citing undisclosed "family reasons."
To learn about other 'retiring' types, try our loop on famous Recluses.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:45 PM:

" "You know what kills lock step lil foot soldiers like yourself, BRYANT? I am not a liberal. I bet you cannot fathom why someone right of center might be anti war? Probably makes your frontal lobe pop."

-------

Is the "lefty" moniker some of that biting irony- that you "Libertarians" are so famous for?

Help me to fathom that "lefty". "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 12:58 PM:

" From the "Young Radiator" thread:

lefty- "I disagree. Military training in my downtown is not a positive use."

-------

Help me to "fathom" this "right of center" position of yours- lefty.

I shall brace my "frontal lobe". "

The Question wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:36 PM:

" Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash that his offensive, which began Tuesday, provoked in areas of Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power.
----
That statement would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic. Al-Maliki must be nearly as stupid as his puppet master, Mr. Bush. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 2:47 PM:

" I get it now, Bryant. The insurgents are in their final or last throes, right? Why didn't you just say so? You could have saved yourself day and days of non-stop blather trying to justify all of this. "

The Question wrote on Mar 29, 2008 3:24 PM:

" So much for the surge. The US is now in panic mode, trying to ensure the survival of its unpopular client regime in Baghdad.
This is much more than a power struggle between Shi'a sects. The forces of Moktada al-Sadr consistently oppose the US occupation itself and call for American troop withdrawals. al-Sadr himself has outwitted the US commanders who have tried everything from arresting him to coopting him since 2003. Now Petraeus finds himself dependent on al-Sadr's unilateral cease-fire to keep the lid on Baghdad, while at the same time backing Maliki's war against al-Sadr's militias in Baghdad.
Petraeus is due to testify before Congress April 8-9, and faces the greatest public relations crisis of his tenure in Iraq. It is an opportunity for the presidential candidates to be questioned about the viability of their proposals to leave thousands of American advisers and trainers behind - on the failing side of a sectarian war, as the events in Basra are revealing.
— TOM HAYDEN "

Tom Andres wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Here's a point to ponder - in answer to some who complain about the high cost of this war. Some say the cost of the war will soon be measured in trillions of dollars. That's probably true, but just like anything else, if someone suggests an alternate plan, it seems only fair that the cost of the alternative plan be disclosed as well. Can anyone come up with the price tag for NOT fighting this war on terror? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:09 PM:

" The Question wrote on Mar 28, 2008 12:03 PM:

Iraq's government has extended by 10 days a deadline for Shia militiamen fighting troops in Basra to hand over their weapons in return for money.
----
Oooo, I bet those Shia militiamen are shaking in their booties now! If they don't shape up this time, our puppet government in Iraq might just extend the deadline another month or three, and up the payments. That'll show em!!!
But don't worry. It's all part of Bush's Final Showdown Master Plan. You'll need the decoder ring to understand it, but you can get one for only four boxtops!!!

-------------------

The Question wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Kill those women and children, win those hearts and minds.
----
U.S. jets widened the bombing of Basra on Saturday, dropping two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of the city, British officials said.
Iraqi police said that earlier in the day a U.S. warplane strafed a house and killed eight civilians, including two women and one child.
Maj. Tom Holloway, a British military spokesman, said U.S. jets dropped the two bombs on a militia position in Qarmat Ali shortly before 12:30 p.m.
The radical Shia Iraqi cleric Moqtada Sadr has defied a call by the Iraqi government for his powerful Mehdi Army militia to lay down its weapons.
Arms would only be handed over to an Iraqi government willing to end the US occupation, his senior official in Basra, Hareth al-Ethari, told the BBC.
Fighting has claimed at least 200 lives across Iraq since Tuesday.

----------------------------------

Ah yes-

The two faces of The Question.

First we aren't scaring the militia's

and then-

We're killing nothing but innoccent women and children.

"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Wow, cd, just learn to cut and paste? I hope Tom doesn't see this. You are definitely violating his wordy rule. LOL "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:28 PM:

" We're just a few day's into the Basra battle and ALL is lost.

The U.S. has only begun to give air support- and ALL is lost.

The fighting is in the Basra areas in southern Iraq and the Green zone of Baghdad- and ALL of Iraq is lost.

The Media plasters pictures of explosions and militia fighters all over their papers and web sites and proclaim- ALL is lost.

So goes the breathless, orgasmic, excitement of the Anti-war crowd.

But I wonder-

If things start to turn around in Iraq-

will we see equally enthusiastic acknowledgement from the media?

Or ANY acknowledgement from the pull-out-now-crowd in here?

Uhm.....no. No we won't.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 4:40 PM:

" "Mr. Lamphier why don't you learn how to read. Honestly. Go back and read what I have written then come back again with a sensible comment."

---------

I would say the same thing to you- shumphreys.

"

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 29, 2008 5:25 PM:

" This should really be good. Filmmaker Oliver Stone is planning a movie about the life of George W Bush. One report says Stone is planning showing the world the answer to this question: How did a man go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? Good, because a lot of us are wondering that too.

Hmmm...I'll bet the Bush fans will just love this film.

Any thoughts on this, Bryant.

I have a hunch this film, planned to be released before the elections, might have some influence.

The film hasn't even be made yet, but I imagine some of you folks will want to start your critiques already. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Some key points to remember here about Basra:
(1) It's likely to get worse before it's better; (2) No one seems to doubt Iranian backing for the violence; (3) This isn't about religion, it's about money and power; and (4) Unlike Al Qaeda in the north, this isn't so much a fight to the finish, but rather the use of violence as a negotiating tactic. It's not a civil war. (5) This is not an indication that the surge has failed because the surge was never used in Basra. (6) The British pulled out of Basra last year and openly let the Shiite militias take over. (7) This showdown was inevitable.

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 5:46 PM:

" (cd wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:22 AM:)

cd, what the he11 are you talking about? "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:22 PM:

" The left is absolutely desperate, desperate beyond all rationality, to see a US defeat in Iraq. Nothing turns on the spigots like any possible setback.
The word a year ago was that the Iraqi government wouldn't fight the Shia militias, therefore why should the US help stabilize the country? Now they start fighting the Shia militias and the usual suspects are in a high state of animation, running around flapping their wings like a bunch of old hens, shrieking "disaster" at the top of their tiny lungs.
When violence was steadily declining for the last year, no one on the Left cared to listen to the Iraqi’s as they told of the improvements in their lives. But NOW, now that a major fight has broken out, WELL NOW, let’s all interview an Iraqi! And if that Iraqi says that coalition forces are killing women and children, well let’s run with it! Should we bother to check that Iraqi out and see if maybe, just maybe, he’s a member of the militias? Nah! Where’s the fun in that? Besides, that wouldn’t advance our agenda of immediate surrender now would it?
The entire initiative is only a few days old and we are already being bombarded with enemy propaganda -- quotes from angry Sadrists, and dire predictions of doom. And most of it is being written by those who echo uncritically whatever the Jihadists spew out.
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:38 PM:

" WASHINGTON POST EMBEDS WITH THE ENEMY:

"As a heavy barrage erupted outside his parents' house, Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, a political and military adviser to the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, rushed through the purple gate and took shelter behind the thick walls. He had just spoken with a fighter by cellphone. "I told him not to use that weapon. It's not effective," he said, referring to a rocket-propelled grenade. "I told him to use the IED, the Iranian one," he added, using the shorthand for an improvised explosive device. "This is more effective."

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:39 PM:

" Well color me shocked, but the Washington Post has a reporter embedded with the Mahdi Army. They are receiving first hand reports on how the Iranian-backed militias there are trying to kill our troops. I am just curious about how it would have gone over if they had embedded a reporter with the SS in France as we invaded Normandy, or in the caves on Okinawa to report on how well the Japanese were doing slaughtering Marines.

Fortunately for us our media has no qualms about engaging with (not in the proper way), reporting on, and essentially becoming terrorist press agents. AP photog Bilal Hussein is in Iraqi jail for his role spreading the lies and propaganda of the Sunni terrorists and AQI. Let there be no doubt that the press is not on our team and at some point those chickens need to come home to roost. - blackfive.net

Un-freaking-believable!
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 7:41 PM:

" NOW is it okay to call the press traitors? "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:04 PM:

" A Washington Post reporter embedded with the Sadr malitia? You got to be kidding me! Would any of you surrender-libs like to explain that one to me? Now why oh why would the militia let an American press reporter amongst their ranks in the middle of combat? And just how accurate are his reports going to be, if he wants to live? I think we just found the source for all those innocent civilian death stories didn't we. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:37 PM:

" The Sadr Militia is losing clout with other tribal leaders:

"Again, as predicted in an earlier post, Sadrists have approached tribal leaders and clerics and asked them to mediate between them and the government. The prince of the giant Rabi’a tribe will lead a delegation to negotiate a solution with the government.

Last but not least, it’s good to finally hear Maliki acknowledge the danger that Sadr’s militia pose to the country. Saying that Shia militias are “worse than al-Qaeda” signifies the ferocity of the battle and the enormous pressure it applies on the government. It makes me optimistic that the leadership has realized the extent and nature of the threat. In fact I hope that my expectation of a truce that spares the heads of evil proves wrong. Avoiding taking a battle to the end could cost us several times the price in recurrent outbreaks of violence.

While most influential parties seem to be in favor of the crackdown on Mahdi army (including Kurds who view Sadr as an obstacle to establishing the federal system that would grant them control over Kirkuk. Also recall that Masoud Barazani was so vocal in expressing his hostility to Sadr back in late 2003 when he was temporary president of the GC) Sadr’s old ally Ibrahim Jaafari stepped forward to call for an end to the fighting and to accept the Sadrists back in the political process. The statement was described by Maliki’s advisor Sami Askari as “inappropriate and meaningless“. - Mohammed Fadhil

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 29, 2008 10:46 PM:

" It's looking more and more like everyone in Iraq is sick and tired of the Sadr militia. Their days are numbered. A few strategically placed 500 lb bombs in the heart of Basra and some laser guided rockets will quickly remind the Sadrist's that he who conrtols the skies, controls the battle. It'd be a shame if some journalists got smoked in the process. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 29, 2008 11:28 PM:

" "Any thoughts on this, Bryant."

-------

Just one, Harry- yawn* "

Kyle wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:14 AM:

" Yeah, who wants the press to actively try to gather independent information?

We should all just accept what the government tells us at face value. They'd never lie to us. Not one of them. "

Kyle wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:07 AM:

" Wait, you can be jailed in Iraq for spreading propoganda?

Great freedoms we're spreading over there. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:57 AM:

" NOW is it okay to call the press traitors?
-----
No. The traitors are the liars who sent US forces to invade, occupy and kill thousands of people in a nation that never attacked or threatened this country.

"

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Fighting sparked by a government-led push against "outlaw" militias in the southern city of Basra had left more than 280 people dead by Saturday, according to Iraqi authorities.
The unrest has stretched across southern Iraq's Shiite heartland up to Baghdad, where a ban on pedestrian and vehicle traffic was kept in place just hours before it was due to expire Sunday morning
----
All part of Bush's Final Showdown Master Plan. It may cost another several trillion in US taxpayer debt, and hundreds of thousands of lives, and a century or so of armed occupation, but it's sure to work. Just you wait and see. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:25 AM:

" I think I would be careful beating up the press, if I were you, Bryant. Isn't this the same press that has given Bush a total pass on things from day one, like his desertion during his Air Guard days? Isn't this the same press that has allowed Bush and Cheney to use this war to reward their friends with lucrative no-bid contracts? Isn't this the same press that has turned a blind eye to things like Halliburton selling our troops contaminated water? Isn't this the same press that has not demanded Bush account for the billions of dollars in cash, sent to Iraq, that no one seems to know what happened to? Isn't this the same press that has allowed Bush to continue to lie to the American public about this war? Isn't this the same press that has allowed Bush to go unquestioned about not wanting to find the mastermind of 9/11? Isn't this the same press that has allowed the Bush administration to operate in total secrecy in areas that are not of a national security nature? All in all, I think Bush should be pretty pleased with the press, Bryant. I realize that people like you would prefer for the press to do like Fox news, that is completely roll over and wave the flag for anything this bunch does, that is, Bush and his unethical VP, Cheney. Considering you never answer any questions put to you, I really don't expect an answer. So just continue to go about your merry little way, and keep reminding us how great the war is going. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Mr. Ditko you poked fun at my comment about the only way to win is to bomb a city and the civil population off of the map."A few strategically placed 50 lb bombs in the heart of Basra and some laser guided rockets will quickly remind the Sadrist's that he who controls the skies, controls the battle." It is that total disregard for the civilian population that has caused the US to lose this war and that has fanned the flames of hate. It doesn't do you any good to "control the skies" when you can't control the hearts and minds of the people on the ground. You never win minds by bombing them into submission. Your tactics are the tactics of the bully and exactly what has gotten the US into this mess. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:47 AM:

" Yawn? That would be similar to my thoughts regarding your non-stop blather about how well this war is going on, Bryant. By the way, you better have a talk with your like minded friend pj61938, who sort of admitted that things might not be as great as you are pretending. You had better rein in old pj. You know how you Bush boot polishers and sycophants like to stick together and all. Perhaps pj could use a attitude adjustment. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:52 AM:

" As we mark this painful milestone, we must ask ourselves: what is the moral justification for allowing this war to continue? Can we honestly say that the disastrous mission in Iraq warrants the sacrifice of more of our troops and the heartache and loss that so many loved ones continue to suffer?
In March of 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq, I made a final plea to the administration and my colleagues in Congress to avert a war that I believed would reap sorrowful consequences for our nation. In a speech entitled "We Stand Passively Mute." I expressed my outrage at the fact that the United States Senate -- the world's greatest deliberative body -- stood "for the most part-silent-ominously, dreadfully silent" on this monumental question.
Sadly, my worst fears have been realized. The decision to invade Iraq may go down as one of the gravest foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.
Yet the war continues. American troop levels are higher than they were the day President Bush flamboyantly swooped onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished."
— SEN. ROBERT BYRD "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:39 AM:

" Bush has delivered permanent war, a shredded Constitution, a back-breaking $9 trillion national debt, torture, a flood of illegal black market labor, outsourcing of middle class jobs, health care that is now unaffordable and an economic crash caused by unrestrained Wall Street thieves, all slathered with his sticky Jesus syrup.
We’re told that if we hope have a chance to correct any of these things, we must pander to people who believe scientific facts are liberal lies, who treat blacks and gays with contempt and who plan to fly into the sky like Peter Pan and Tinkerbell when they “Rapture.”
Sorry, but if we have to out-lie and out-stupid the Republicans, then I doubt that we’ve got enough cynicism or enough stomach for the job.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.
- Mark Twain

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:44 AM:

" REMIND ME AGAIN — WHO'S LOSING IN BASRA? - March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

When the Iraqi government finally took the long-expected action to establish control of Basra after the British pullback left it in the hands of militias and gangsters, suddenly the media declared that the country had reached the brink of collapse. They highlighted stories of defections from the Iraqi military and opined that the surge had failed. Moqtada al-Sadr would finally achieve his goal of controlling the South and would expose the Baghdad government as a house of cards.

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:46 AM:

" REMIND ME AGAIN — WHO'S LOSING IN BASRA? - March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Guess which side just sued for peace?

From- MSNBC "Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr’s order, saying it was “positive and responsive.”
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices."
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:47 AM:

" REMIND ME AGAIN — WHO'S LOSING IN BASRA? - March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Anyone who follows the news closely in Iraq knew this day would come. The British left a power vacuum behind in the south that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005, as Steven Vincent tried to warn people just before they murdered him in Basra. The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.

Did our media give anyone this context? No. They reported it as some kind of spontaneous eruption of rebellion without noting at all that a nation can hardly be considered sovereign while its own security forces cannot enter a large swath of its own territory. And in the usual defeatist tone, they reported that our mission in Iraq had failed without waiting to see what the outcome of the battle would be.

Sadr now wants to disavow anyone with a gun. The Mahdis, which found themselves on the short end of the stick, have just watched their Fearless Leader surrender — again — and this time leaving them twisting in the wind. That isn’t the action of a victor. Perhaps our media would like to explain that in the context of their clueless reporting so far.
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:50 AM:

" REMIND ME AGAIN — WHO'S LOSING IN BASRA? - March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Update: Unilateral retreat:

AP- 25 minutes ago- "Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison."

And Nouri al-Maliki remains in Basra. Buh-bye, Sadr. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:03 PM:

" A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste. (it should be displayed on the Internet)

-Dohbaugh "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:07 PM:

" shumphreys, I didn't even read your ridiculous comments about bombing civilians and city's, and I couldn't care less about your Neville Chamberlain naivete when it comes to combat. In a city dominated by Sadr’s Militia, how do you know who is truly innocent and who killed who? Or who is using human shields? Why don't you give the Iraqi Army and the coalition forces the same benefit of the doubt that you tend to heap upon the lawless militias? The Iraqi Army is doing most of the grunt work here, and I have no doubt that that sends a positive message to the majority of Iraqi's. Read my post from last night by Mohammed Fadhil (an Iraqi) Sadr's militia is seen as a cancer by most Iraqi's and they would like to see them dealt with. You really don't have a clue do you shumphreys. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:13 PM:

" Kyle, who wants the press to actively try to gather independent information? Are you kidding me buddy? How independent and accurate could the information be from an embed reporter with the militia? Do you think maybe the bad guys are monitoring his reports to make sure that he paints them in the most positive light? Maybe? Do you think if he wishes to continue living he will do just that? Maybe? Do me a favor Kyle, pool your money together with shumphreys and buy a friggin clue already. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:14 PM:

" George Orwell- "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.” "

Dohbaugh wrote on Mar 30, 2008 12:32 PM:

" Why is it that so many conservatives seem to hate free speech? I'm not referring to intellectual conservatives, such as Bill Buckley for example, but the run of the mill self proclaimed conservatives that post on here, that say if you don't agree with me, you are stupid and should shut up. On another thread last night, one of them (cd) went so far as to say that dissenting outspoken liberals should leave the country. Generally speaking, I don't think conservatives, at least the mind numb ones, like free speech very much. "

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Well this is encouraging. From The Long War Journal ******
Mahdi Army taking significant casualties in Baghdad, South
By Bill RoggioMarch 29, 2008 10:07 PM

With the fifth day of fighting in Baghdad, Basrah and the South completed, the Mahdi Army has suffered major losses over the past 36 hours. The Mahdi Army has not faired well over the past five days of fighting, losing an estimated two percent of its combat power, using the best case estimate for the size of the militia. **********
The major political parties in the ruling Coalition remain united in supporting the offensive against the Mahdi Army and the Iranian-backed Special Groups cells. President Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barazani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government reiterated their support for the operation on Friday, while Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ratcheted up the rhetoric against the Shia terror groups. **********
I invite everyone to read this site http://www.longwarjournal.org/ They have independent reporters on the ground and they have been very accurate in the past. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:11 PM:

" "I think I would be careful beating up the press, if I were you, Bryant."

----------

So you think the press lies- huh Harry?

So why are you listening to them now?

----------

"Yawn? That would be similar to my thoughts regarding your non-stop blather about how well this war is going on, Bryant."

----------

Yeah- but YOU asked my opinion Harry.......I never asked yours- because I don't care.

So what's your problem- Harry?

----------

"things might not be as great as you are pretending"

----------

I didn't realize I was pretending that things are great- Harry.

Evidence please.

Perhaps you- Harry Potter- could use an intelligence adjustment.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:33 PM:

" "A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste. (it should be displayed on the Internet)

-Dohbaugh"

-------

Ah yes Dohbaugh-

The very words you live by. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Guess which side just sued for peace?
-----
Guess which side just dictated the terms of "peace?" And will live to attack another day? "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 2:46 PM:

" The New York Times quotes a former political adviser to the American military in Baghdad, Matthew Sherman, who cautioned that the conflict could easily lead to a situation similar to that in Lebanon in 2006, when Hezbollah claimed victory in a war of perceptions against Israel even after a bombing campaign had weakened it militarily. "The Sadrists will likely view their survival as victory," he said.
"Is it really possible to completely eliminate the Sadrists?" he said. "They are not going to go away or be beaten by military means alone." "

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:12 PM:

" More good news from independent reporters in Iraq:

From LongWarJournal.org *********
Sadr orders followers to end fighting
By Bill RoggioMarch 30, 2008 11:27 AM

Sadr’s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra.

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

US and Iraqi forces are maintaining the high pace of operations against the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups. While the daily reporting from Iraq is far from over, initial reports indicate at least 18 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed and another 30 captured.

US soldiers killed 14 Mahdi fighters in Baghdad during a series of separate engagements. Iraqi security forces killed four Mahdi Army fighters and captured another 30 in Babil province, where a major offensive led by the police has been underway.

"

RavenH4 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:16 PM:

" No matter how you slice it, the Iraqi Army and police along with the U.S. military have been pounding the Mahdi Army with tremendous losses. Sadr knows he can't sustain these loses, but events are still unfolding so we'll have to see what happens. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:41 PM:

" It is precisely because bombs do not discriminate between innocents and combatants, willing participants and unwilling participants, those used against their will as human shields, that urban wars are loosing propositions. OR Mr. Ditka will you be like a very early Pope during the early crusades who said "kill them all and let God sort out his own." The "winner" and you know i use that word with tongue in cheek, will be the one that wins the hearts and minds of the people, not the one with the biggest weapons.BUT that seems to be a common misconception among many men. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 30, 2008 3:52 PM:

" "The Sadrists will likely view their survival as victory,"

--------

What matters is how the rest of Iraq views this and THAT'S how the Sadrists will finally be defeated.

According to the posts last night- the Sadrists are not well liked by the majority of Iraqis. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 30, 2008 4:04 PM:

" So, is Bryant now admitting that things aren't going so well? LOL "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:14 PM:

" For once, George Bush's open-faced incomprehension - at Nouri al-Maliki's decision to set off a civil war inside Iraq's Shia community - seems entirely appropriate. When the American president admitted he did not know why the Iraqi Prime Minister had launched an offensive in Basra saying, 'I'm not exactly sure what triggered the Prime Minister's response', he was not alone.
The consequences of the decision to send 15,000 Iraqi troops, and as many policemen, into Basra has been the destruction of a nine-month-old ceasefire from Moqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army...
Petraeus is due to testify before the American Congress in two weeks' time, where he was expected to show his favorite slide - a graphic illustration of the steady decline in fighting and terror attacks since the surge. A new slide will now have to be prepared, showing an upturn in violence.
— The GUARDIAN "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:16 PM:

" Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel: I think it was arrogance and incompetence that put this country in such a hole around the world. Arrogance meaning they wouldn't listen to anyone. They didn't listen to our allies. Every major leader in the Middle East that I talked to, and I certainly know the President and others talked to before we invaded Iraq, warned the President, warned the Vice President, warned Secretary Powell not to do this. Even a number of senior Israeli officials warned them not to do it. Members of Congress asked questions, I was among one those, who said wait a minute, slow down, let the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency officials finish their job. Slow this train down. They wouldn't listen to anybody. It was just raw arrogance. Incompetence? I think it was incompetence, they wouldn't look at history, that part of the world. The complications the combustability, they didn't factor in the context of consequences for their actions to get us into a war. I quote Eisenhower in the book, he said this in the 1950s, that America should never put American troops in the Middle East. Don't get bogged down in that kind of a war. Other great leaders have said the same thing. and there was both, in my opinion, arrogance and incompetence that led us into this. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 5:32 PM:

" With volleys of mortars and rockets raining down daily on Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, security rules for soldiers and diplomats in the complex have taken on a chilling new urgency.
Two US officials and two Iraqi guards of Sunni Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi have been killed since last Sunday, when the first waves of attacks began on the zone, seat of the Iraqi government and home to foreign embassies.
Some staff members of the US embassy admit they are in a state of constant fear and prefer to sleep on cots inside the embassy building -- formerly a palace of Saddam Hussein -- than in their less-safe living quarters.
----
I guess you might call that "Bush victory." "

Kyle wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:06 PM:

" Liberals and conservatives both have poor records on free speech, they just oppress it in different ways. Conservatives tend to take shots at free speech in times of war, and liberals tend to take shots in the name of social progress.

Amazingly, our country has done a better and better job of protecting free speech throughout each war. War's inevitably trample on this right, but it seems as if we've gotten better over time. This war has seen virtually no infringement on speech, which I think is amazing and the current administration should be commended for it.

A good book on the subject is titled "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism." I think the Mattoon library has a copy, and I highly recommend it to anyone who believes in free speech. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:59 PM:

" This war has seen virtually no infringement on speech, which I think is amazing and the current administration should be commended for it.
-----
Hardly. The current administration faked newscasts, bribed columnists and hired a male prostitute to pose as a White House reporter. This administration has its own direct propaganda outlet posing as a cable news channel. People are free to say what they want on the internet, but not not the corporate news media, where it really counts. Phil Donahue got the ax for being the only media person on TV willing to question the wisdom of the Iraq invasion before the disaster occurred.
And once the Republicans and the corporations kill net neutrality, we'll see just how irrelevant internet free speech can be, too. "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 7:05 PM:

" By the way, Kyle, haven't you heard of "free speech zones?" Those are the small areas, far from TV cameras, where free speech is "permitted" when Bush is in town. They are never anywhere near him while he appears before audiences composed entirely of military people who do not dare to cross him or hand-picked Republican zombies. "

pj61938 wrote on Mar 30, 2008 8:24 PM:

" Looks as if, yet again, the biased western media's reports of impending doom in Iraq were greatly exaggerated. Score another loss of credibility for the NY Times, Washington Post, AP et al. This should be a real boost to the prestige of the Iraqi Army and should give Prime Minister Al-Maliki some political legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunnis and Kurds, since it shows he (a Shiite) is willing to aggressively go after the Shiite thugs in the Mahdi Army as aggressively as the Sunni thugs in Al-Qaeda. The next phase of Left-wing propaganda has already begun, now it is attempting to paint Sadr as somehow victorious and standing 10 feet tall despite the fact that his militia boys were getting their a55es handed to them. But of course, we never read that in the mainstream media at the time, did we.
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:49 PM:

" shumphreys- it is impossible to fight any war without the loss of innocent lives. Before you can win the hearts and minds of the innocent, you have to damage, maim and kill the will of the enemy. And how do you propose to do that when the enemy hides behind innocent men, women, and children? Would you ask the bad guys to sit down on your couch as they work their "issues" out on your shoulder over a nice cup of chamomile tea? Maybe you could do it during a nice touchy-feely episode of Oprah? Shouldn't you be on your way out to San Francisco to help your fellow Code Pinkos end the Marines "illegal occupation" of the Bay area- shumphreys? "

The Question wrote on Mar 30, 2008 11:42 PM:

" Oops. For once, Bush appears in front of an un-brainwashed audience.
-----
President Bush threw out the ceremonial first pitch tonight at the Washington Nationals season opener and the inaugural game at Washington's National Ballpark. But the President — an avid baseball fan and the former owner of the Texas Rangers — probably didn't get the fan response he was hoping for, as he was largely booed by the 41,000-person sellout crowd as he walked out to throw the pitch.
"

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:09 AM:

" Hazem al-Araji, an aide to Moqtada Sadr, told reporters that the cleric's appeal to his militias would not mean handing in weapons.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Baghdad says this means the Mehdi Army will remain intact.
He says that although the move gives Mr Maliki a chance to claim victory, the central demand has not been met and this is not a resolution of the conflict.
The prime minister had given militias until 8 April to surrender their weapons in return for cash.
------
So tell me who got "their a55es handed to them" again? "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:40 AM:

" shumphreys- it is impossible to fight any war without the loss of innocent lives.
-----
However, it IS possible not to invade and occupy countries that never attacked or threatened you, and it's possible not to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives there in your quest to permanently occupy and subjugate those people. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:17 AM:

" To my friend Susan (fellow code pinko), I gave up trying to argue with the closed minded bunch on here and now find it more fun to throw these monkeys peanuts. For the most part, you are only arguing with one person over this issue. PS, he bites every time too. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:50 AM:

" So tell me who got "their a55es handed to them" again? ///////////
I believe it was the Mahdi militia Question. Did your little news report go into any details about the losses that Sadrs boys were sustaining, Question? Because between deaths, injuries, and captures the invincible giants were losing 300 people A DAY. Did the BBC report that Question? Oh that's right, they were interviewing Hazem al-Araji, AN AIDE TO MOQTADA SADR. I guess Mooki's boy forgot to mention that huh Question?
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:06 AM:

" However, it IS possible not to invade and occupy countries that never attacked or threatened you, //////// That's not what Saddams own documents said Question. Telling lies comes second nature to you doesn't it, flakey. You could have taught Goebbels a thing or two couldn't you, Question. ////////// and it's possible not to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives there in your quest to permanently occupy and subjugate those people. ///////////// You mean the way we occupied and subjugated Japan, Germany, and Korea? Yeah, the U.S. is a real imperial power over those countries huh? Now go ahead and complete your little running propaganda loop (for the forty thousandth time) and throw in how we are stealing Iraq’s resources. This shouldn't be any trouble for you, after all, when you're spinning lies for the enemy you can pretty much say whatever you want. But what am I saying Question; you already know that don't you. Spin away Mugtada Al Question, spin away! "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Mr. Ditko when civilian "casualties" are greater than combatant ones it doesn't take a rocket scientists to realize that something is wrong. It does take someone with intelligence, compassion and who is able to think with her head rather than ........ Well you get my drift. Quit the name calling it is the sign that you realize you have lost the argument. If you had something intelligent to say you wouldn't resort to that tactic. "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:40 AM:

" The US forces and their Iraqi puppets may have a little trouble dancing in the streets to celebrate their "victory" because the Green Zone is still being blasted today. "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:33 AM:

" The parallels are striking: Determined to secure his political position, he launches an ill-advised military action that ends in stalemate and dramatically weakens him politically.
Maliki, not Bush.
— From today Talking Points Memo
Or rather, both al-Maliki and Bush.
"

father bob wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Kyle wrote on Mar 30, 2008 6:06 PM:This war has seen virtually no infringement on speech, which I think is amazing and the current administration should be commended for it.

BS....no pictures of flag draped coffins, suppression of news stories. canned press releases to reports. suppression of evidence. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:37 AM:

" "However, it IS possible not to invade and occupy countries that never attacked or threatened you"

-------

Obviously you're talking about poor ole Grandpa Saddam aren't you Question.

Because we all know that it was just a fluke that he was training and financing those innocent Al Qaeda subsidiary groups- wasn't it.

And he mistakenly fired at coalition aircraft- didn't he.

And he mistakenly defied those U.N. resolutions (all 17 of them) to show proof that he had disarmed- didn't he.

And ole Grandpa Saddam mistakenly targeted U.S. troops and interests the world over- like in Somalia where he had a direct hand in attacks on U.S. troops- right Question?

And let's just forget that he was actively bribing members of the U.N. security council in an effort to build up his dual-usage WMD programs- shall we?

Yep Question- no threats there. Just like Iran- they never threatened us either have they.

Nope. Of course they're fighting a proxy war against us in Iraq- but that's not technically a threat or an attack- is it Question?

Spew on with your half truths and lies Question- spew on.

"

father bob wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:46 AM:

" Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:50 AM:
" So tell me who got "their a55es handed to them" again? ///////////
I believe it was the Mahdi militia Question. Did your little news report go into any details about the losses that Sadrs boys were sustaining, Question? Because between deaths, injuries, and captures the invincible giants were losing 300 people A DAY. Did the BBC report that Question? Oh that's right, they were interviewing Hazem al-Araji, AN AIDE TO MOQTADA SADR. I guess Mooki's boy forgot to mention that huh Question?
"

HEY MORON!!.....and did they also have anything to say about the losses were largely due to US air attacks, or mention the number of civilians killed? pretty easy shooting fish in a barrel...eh steve? i wonder how many civilians "had their a55es handed to them" or the a55es of their children or their mothers and fathers.."hey here's your 3 year old's a55 complements of the USAF"......what a moron "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:26 AM:

" Come on Mr. Lamphier no one has ever claimed that Sadam was a nice guy. BUT the world is full of men that aren't very nice. That still doesn't justify "taking them out", entering a country illegally, destabilizing the entire Middle East, killing thousands of civilians, subverting our constitution and laws, ..... Explain why we haven't removed African or South American dictators? Could it be that their populations are primarily black,hispanic or mestizo? Could it be that they have no oil wealth? Could it be that Bush and Cheny and Rumsfeld didn't have personal scores to settle in those areas? Committing a nation to a war for personal vendetta seems to me to be morally wrong. "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
— John Quincy Adams, speaking of the United States.
Our problem is we went looking for a monster to destroy. He is long since dead, but our "victory" was Pyrrhic.
Note that here I am taking the explanations for the Iraq invasion and occupation at face value, for the sake of argument. But as we know, Saddam and the phony threats to the US had nothing to do with the reasons we are in Iraq. They are just the excuse. The real reasons cannot be admitted, because they involve the Project for the New American Century's plans for the US military domination of the Mideast.
By the way, Bush has insured that the 21st century will NOT be another "American century." Right now, it looks be a Chinese century. They're the ones loaning us money to kill people, after all, and they can cut off the flow any time they want. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:40 AM:

" "the Green Zone is still being blasted today"

--------

Oh......well in that case-

you're right Question-

all is lost.

Why not just say ALL of Iraq is burning- Question?

You're slipping- my little propaganda machine. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:30 PM:

" HEY IDIOT!!! In the middle of a war zone it's a little difficult to determine who killed civilians- especially when the enemy is known to use human shields. And how do YOU know how many militia fighters where killed in air strikes, moron? Shooting fish in a barrel bonehead bob? Well now that's funny, because the media reports from all those enemy embed reporters said that the militia was 10 feet tall and invincible. Did it ever cross your tiny little brain that the Sadrist would distort the number of "innocent civilian" deaths or maybe count their own fighters among the "innocent deaths", bonehead? You're actually weepy that the Sadrists didn't have a sweeping victory, aren't you bob! Brilliant reasoning bob......you frikkin imbecile. God help us if you and shumphreys ever unite to reproduce, it would no doubt result in a über-idioctic liberal offspring! Geezuz! "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:42 PM:

" shumphreys- Apparently you missed these 23 LEGAL reasons that Congress (including 29 Democrats) cited to take out Saddam Hussein.

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:43 PM:

" and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities
that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress,
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable’’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Oh and shumphreys, thanks to Saddams own documents, we now know that he was training, funding, and arming Al Qaeda subsidiary groups. AND he was bribing U.N. Security Council members through the Oil For Food program who were in turn helping him to ramp up his dual-usage WMD programs. AND those very same Security Council members, France, Russia, Germany, China, were all stalling our efforts for invasion and held off the war for 6 months, EVEN THOUGH Saddam was in violation of 17 of the U.N.'s own resolutions. But HEY! Lets just forget about all this inconvenient history. Yeah. Let's do that. "

shumphreys wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:13 PM:

" I haven't missed a thing Mr. Ditko but you certainly have. The pretenses put forth to justify this war were false then and they are false now. Actually it is too bad that folks like father Bob and I and many others aren't having more children, at least our off spring would be intelligent and encouraged to use their heads and their minds. Which I doubt that yours are or would be. I also suggested that you cut out the name calling, that just shows that you have run out of a legitimate argument to make. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:48 PM:

" "The pretenses put forth to justify this war were false then and they are false now." /////// Yeah sure they were, shumphreys. I'm still waiting for those highly touted impeachment hearings. I would personally love to see all the prewar Intel brought to a hearing. Get it all laid out, see who knew what. But I'm not holding my breath because the Democrats know they've got nuthin. Instead they like to keep repeating this mantra that they were somehow deceived, but they have no intentions of actually conducting any hearings. It's all smoke and mirrors for you mind-numbed Libs to drink up. "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 4:52 PM:

" Oh and, shumphreys, since you claim to be so intelligent and well-read, have you read the recent Pentagon report on Saddams captured documents? "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:27 PM:

" " Oh and, shumphreys, since you claim to be so intelligent and well-read, have you read the recent Pentagon report on Saddams captured documents? "
-----
No one has. It is almost entirely redacted, meaning the information has been cherry-picked to support Bush and Cheney's lies. "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Fox News analysts just reported that Al Sadr humiliated Maliki and won the encounter with him. Operating on the principle that virtually everything Fox News says is lying propaganda, I'll have to reconsider my position on this debate. "

The Question wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Senator John McCain said Monday that he was surprised by the latest turn of events in America’s current war in Iraq.
----
Difficult for the old GOP war mummy to keep up with modern events, isn't it? Kind of sad. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:52 PM:

" My little propaganda machine? Thanks, Doh. You made my day with that one. So what's the deal, can't decide between Bryant or Steve? LOL "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:57 PM:

" Now wait a minute, wasn't Tom Andres beating up on one of the more liberal posters for such long posts. I guess when it's one of his fellow right wing war cheerleaders, it's OK. How about it Tom, any comments for Stevie boy? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:46 PM:

" Redacted:

1) To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example)

2) To make ready for publication; edit or revise.

So how else was the Pentagon supposed to tell us what was in 600,000 documents written in Arabic and Farsi?

"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:30 PM:

" What about Africa and South America Mr. Ditko? You are ignoring the reality that we went into Iraq on trumped up charges, to remove an "evil" man and have ignored the rest of the worlds "evil men". Since you are so smart explain to me why Iraq and why not another country? North Korea has also been in violation of nuclear agreements, their leader is just as evil as Sadam but there isn't any oil there. Chavez hasn't said many nice things about the US but alas no oil there and who knows whether he has been looking for nuclear weapons. The world is full of nasty dictators Mr. Ditko but that isn't any justification for violating their rights or our constitution or for sending 4000 young men and women to their deaths not to mention the civilian deaths. "

Harry Potter wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:32 PM:

" The following Bush moment in history is dedicated to Steve Ditko, Bryant L and of course Doh, who we all know are three entirely different people. (wink wink).
We are a country of deep compassion. We care. One of the great things about America, one of the beauties of our country, is that when we see a young, innocent child blown up by an IED, we cry.

-President George Bush, defining compassionate conservatism, March 29, 2006

Can you believe that rotten piece of human trash, and all around scumbag, Bush had the audacity to say that? "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Oh right Question, the Pentagon Report on Saddams documents are now lies, huh? Got any proof of that? Of course you don't, but then, you believe the Downing Street memo is legitimate. That's right, the Downing Street memo, a document mysteriously found by a far-left anti war reporter who claims to have retyped the document on a type writer and then destroyed the original. Yeah! That's the story, sure. I guess this is another one of those Rathergate documents, you know, fake but accurate! LOL!!! But thank God it wasn't REDACTED! LOL!! "

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:21 PM:

" What about Africa and South America- shumphreys? Could any of those countrys warrant the 23 reasons we went into Iraq? But of course if you buy into the fantasy that the 23 reasons (that BOTH Democrats and Republicans endorsed) are lies, then this debate is a moot point isn't it? Did you read the recent Pentagon Report on the captured Iraqi documents? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:42 PM:

" "Chavez hasn't said many nice things about the US but alas no oil there"

--------

Please tell me shumphreys- that you didn't say that.

You've spent your entire time on this thread touting your Liberal intelligence-

and then you make a statement like that? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:49 PM:

" "Chavez hasn't said many nice things about the US but alas no oil there"

--------

The DoE report shows that at today's prices Venezuela's oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East - including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq.

Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years.

The DoE estimates that the Venezuelan government controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet.

I'm not going to call you any names shumphreys-

because there's no need to.

Your "intelligence" speaks for itself.

"

Steve Ditko wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:23 PM:

" LOL!!! ROFLMAO!!! On second thought, maybe shumphreys and fatherbob *should* procreate together! LOL!!! What do you think Bryant? LOL! Maybe The Question is really their offspring! LOL!!!!

"

shumphreys wrote on Mar 31, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Yes mr. Lamphier you got me on the oil reserves. So why aren't we going after chavez? I have no problem admitting that the world is full of men that aren't very nice. Do you? But that isn't justification for war. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:03 PM:

" "On second thought, maybe shumphreys and fatherbob *should* procreate together! LOL!!! What do you think Bryant?"

-------

Please Steve-

That's enough to keep me up tonight.

It’s truly a frightening thought. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:17 PM:

" "Yes mr. Lamphier you got me on the oil reserves. So why aren't we going after chavez?"

-------

Because he doesn't pose the same threat to our national interests that Saddam did- does he shumphreys.

Even though he has a LOT more oil-

No Mrs. Humphreys? "

The Question wrote on Apr 1, 2008 5:58 AM:

" The peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces _ said to have been brokered in Iran _ calmed the violence but left the cleric's Mahdi Army intact and Iraq's U.S.-backed prime minister politically battered and humbled within his own Shiite power base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had promised to crush the militias that have effectively ruled Basra for nearly three years. The U.S. military launched air strikes in the city to back the Iraqi effort.
But the ferocious response by the Mahdi Army, including rocket fire on the U.S.-controlled Green Zone and attacks throughout the Shiite south, caught the government by surprise and sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis.
The confrontation enabled al-Sadr to show that he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shiite parties that have sought for years to marginalize him. And the outcome cast doubt on President Bsh's assessment that the Basra battle was "a defining moment" in the history "of a free Iraq."
— ROBERT H REID
-------------
Bush's presidency is, however, "a defining moment" in the willful ruin of the United States. "

The Question wrote on Apr 1, 2008 6:03 AM:

" Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon's biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule, the Washington Post notes.
The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average.
------
The US military - bloated, incompetent and hideously corrupt. "

Harry Potter wrote on Apr 1, 2008 7:32 AM:

" Any comments about the length of Steve Ditko's loooooooong winded posts, Tom? His windy tirades are going to take up a lot of your storage space. LOL "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 7:44 AM:

" "The US military - bloated, incompetent and hideously corrupt."

--------

And that's different than most government institutions......

how? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:01 AM:

" "But the ferocious response by the Mahdi Army, including rocket fire on the U.S.-controlled Green Zone and attacks throughout the Shiite south"

--------

Hey Question-

You don't suppose the "ferocious" Mahdi Army killed any innocent civilians do you?

Hey Question-

Did this article happen to mention that the "ferocious" Mahdi Army was sustaining losses averaging 300 fighters a day?

And Question-

What happened to your claims that all of Iraq was burning down in the middle of a civil war and that the U.S. military was in panic mode?

hmmmmmmmmm Question-

What happened to those stories that were making you so giddy and breathless?
"

shumphreys wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:30 AM:

" AND Mr. Lamphier Sadam didn't pose the threat to us that Bush and his cronies claimed--no weapons of mass destruction, he didn't support Alqaeda, he wasn't involved with the bombings of the twin towers, the bombers were Saudis not Iraqis.......So why did we go after him? "

father bob wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:51 AM:

" " Bryant Lamphier wrote on Mar 28, 2008 7:24 PM:
" "oh come on bryant....knock the dust off you hood and robe.....you know you want to...just let go"

------

Would you still say that to me bob-

if I told you I was black?

i am black, and it's pretty easy to tell a lot of things from the hate you've spewed since you've tried to re-invent yourself. "

father bob wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:54 AM:

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:23 AM:

" "AND Mr. Lamphier Sadam didn't pose the threat to us that Bush and his cronies claimed"

--------

Uhm.....shumphreys-

29 Democrat Senators ALSO made this claim

--------

"he didn't support Alqaeda"

--------

Saddams documents clearly show that he supported Al Qaeda subsidiary groups whose members went directly into Al Qaeda.

These subsidiary groups were used by Saddam to intentionally "camouflage" any direct connect to Al Qaeda-

and THAT admission is stated in the documents.

--------

"he wasn't involved with the bombings of the twin towers"

---------

The Iraq War Resolution never claims that he was.

----------

"the bombers were Saudis not Iraqis"

----------

They were Saudi and I believe one Egyptian.

Did Saudi Arabia and Egypt have the history of WMD's, combined with the many violations against the world community-

that Saddam did?

--------

You still haven't read the Pentagon Report on Saddams documents-

have you- shumphreys.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:29 AM:

" shumphreys-

Doesn't your OWN mistaken example of Chavez-

destroy your OWN theory-

that the Iraq War was ALL about oil?

You seemed to have nonchalantly tip-toed away from that blatant flaw in your OWN logic-

haven't you- shumphreys. "

The Question wrote on Apr 1, 2008 11:08 AM:

" The monthly figure of people killed in Iraq rose by 50 percent in March compared with the previous month, according to official government counts.
A total of 1,082 Iraqis, including 925 non-combatant civilians, were killed, up from 721 in February.
The figures come from the combined counts of the health, defense and interior ministries.
March also saw an increase in bombings and intense fighting between Shia militiamen and government forces.
The number of deaths last month seems to confirm a trend of rising deaths due to violence.
More than 1,800 people were killed in August 2007. This declined to 540 in January 2008, but the figure has risen steadily since.
----
What if they threw a big "surge" and it accomplished zippity-do-dah? "

father bob wrote on Apr 1, 2008 11:11 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:30 AM:
" AND Mr. Lamphier Sadam didn't pose the threat to us that Bush and his cronies claimed--no weapons of mass destruction, he didn't support Alqaeda, he wasn't involved with the bombings of the twin towers, the bombers were Saudis not Iraqis.......So why did we go after him? "

Bryant lives perpetually in the year 2003, the thought of rationalizing what's going on in the real world is too much for him to handle....he could go into overload if he has to come to grips with the failures of his highly esteemed George WTF Bush.....it's just better for his mental well being to play pretend. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:04 PM:

" "i am black, and it's pretty easy to tell a lot of things from the hate you've spewed since you've tried to re-invent yourself."

-------

You've had 4 days now fatherbob-

and you still haven't answered my question-

---------

If I told you I was black- fatherbob-

would you STILL say this to me?

"oh come on bryant....knock the dust off you hood and robe.....you know you want to...just let go"

---------

I'm still waiting for your answer fatherbob.

"

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:17 PM:

" "Bryant lives perpetually in the year 2003"

---------

And fatherbob is perpetually stuck in Sept 10 2001.

---------

Have you read the Report on Saddams captured documents- fatherbob?

--------

Or are you protecting your mental well being-

(assuming there's anything "well" about your mental state bob)

by pretending the report doesn't exist?

"

shumphreys wrote on Apr 1, 2008 12:55 PM:

" To father Bob I think he has already blown a fuse. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 4:40 PM:

" "I think he has already blown a fuse."

--------

And this coming from the self-described "Intelligent Liberal"- shumphreys- who didn't know that Chavez had any oil?

AND who says the Iraq War is all about oil-

yet who- CAN'T rationalize her own logic to explain why we haven't attacked Chavez whose oil reserves are much larger than Iraq's.

---------

If I ever blow a fuse- it's because I'm trying to make sense out of a nonsensical Liberal like you- shumphreys "

The Question wrote on Apr 1, 2008 5:06 PM:

" An Iraqi Interior Ministry official said that in the aftermath of the failed assault, the government had dismissed 150 police officers and 400 policemen for refusing to fight in the conflict.
--
Thus reinforcing the enemy forces by another 550, oddly enough. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 1, 2008 8:49 PM:

" Mr. Lamphier just because I ask a question doesn't mean that I don't have an answer. Just because I made a statement about oil and Chavez doesn't mean that I didn't know that he had oil reserves. Sometimes I push buttons and jerk strings to push the discussion out of a rut and into a new one, and sometimes just to test other peoples knowledge. I am rather devious in many ways. Sometimes in order to get people to think seriously about issues rather than make snap judgments I have to resort to all sorts of tricks. It makes it all the more challenging. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 1, 2008 10:10 PM:

" "Sometimes in order to get people to think seriously about issues rather than make snap judgments I have to resort to all sorts of tricks. It makes it all the more challenging."

---------

Please, shumphreys-

Now you're insulting both our intelligence.

You have no answers- shumphreys.
Instead of admitting that obvious fact- like an adult-

you chose the excuse of a child-

"I meant to do that! Yeah....that's it."

I really did expect more from you Mrs. Humphreys.
I'm sorry I overestimated you, Madame.

You've insulted yourself more than I could have ever dared.
"

shumphreys wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:34 AM:

" Sorry Mr. Lampheir I haven't insulted myself, and I have admitted exactly what I did and told you why and now you will never know for sure will you? You might just have to start thinking seriously and facing the holes in your own arguments. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:47 AM:

" "I have admitted exactly what I did and told you why and now you will never know for sure will you?"

----------

You're proof positive that a formal education is no substitute for commonsense and integrity.

Your actions on this thread would make a strong case for a reimbursement of your tuition.

I will gladly argue your case-
I believe your chances for an out-of-court settlement-

are spectacular. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Mr. Lamphier I think that you are the one who should ask for a refund. BUt we can continue to trade snide remarks all day can't we? It is really quite childish, isn't it? You did it first? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Apr 2, 2008 6:02 PM:

" I think you have a lot of gall, accusing someone of lacking integrity, after what you did to Coonsey's site, Bryant L. There are a lot of us old timers who are not fooled by your name switching. I'll call you Bryant, but we know you used to post under the name of Doh. This month it's Bryant or Steve, but what will it be next month. The Question and father bob know darn well who you are too. For those who don't know of Coonsey's site, it is a site set up by a local political junkie to discuss political issues (in a civil manner) and our friend Bryant, Steve or what ever name he is currently using went on to and unleashed the worst bunch of foul mouthed filth and baloney you could imagine. The bulk of his tirade was racially degrading comments toward Obama. Then he started posting as doughball, real original, huh? So go ahead and deny it Bryant, but we know the truth, and the best part is that you know that we know. Yeah, Bryant by all means talk about integrity. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:47 PM:

" By all means Dohbaugh-

If you think I'm someone named "Doh"-
then show me.

Prove it-

Put up or shut up-

Show me "my" posts on "Coonsey's site"-

And then tell me WHAT "Coonsey's site" is- and for THAT matter- WHERE "Coonsey's site" is.

Oh and tell me why I would care about "Coonsey".

And while you're accusing me of being virtually everyone to the Right of you on this site-

would you care to explain where your little Harry Potter name is right now? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 2, 2008 7:53 PM:

" Oh and-
While you're here Dohbaugh- or Harry- or Moe- or Curly- or whatever-

Why don't you make yourself useful for a change- and try to make sense out of your friend- shumphreys- "intelligent Liberal" debate in here.

Starting with the whole-

Chavez = no oil = no war
vs
Saddam = oil = war

Go ahead chum-
I'll enjoy that. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 3, 2008 7:52 AM:

" Mr. Lamphier, you left out major parts of the Chavez=oil=war and Sadam=oil=war equation. Both equations also must include: =bad guy, and =threat to the US, and.... Can't include WMD's since there weren't any in Iraq or as far as we know in Venezuela. Let's correct the equations and then you again can answer the question why not Chavez and why Hussein? "

Dohbaugh wrote on Apr 3, 2008 10:14 AM:

" I doubt it, shumphreys, he can't even answer the question as to why Bush won't go after OBL. LOL "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:03 AM:

" "Both equations also must include: =bad guy, and =threat to the US,"

------------

I thought we already cover that- shumphreys

But since you're one of those extra "educated" Liberals- I'll dumb it down fer ya.

Saddam had a history of WMD use AND was in constant violation of 17 U.N. resolutions to show he disarmed AND had invaded a neighboring country AND was firing on coalition aircraft AND was harboring, training, and funding Al Qaeda subsidiary groups AND was giving financial aid to Palestinian suicide bombers AND had direct connections to attacks on U.S. troops in Somalia AND tried to assassinate a President of the United States AND was actively using the Oil For Food program to rebuild his dual-usage WMD programs by bribing U.N. Security Council Members AND was systematically torturing, raping, starving and murdering his own people.

Now you list Chavez's atrocities- and we'll compare.

Have at it- shumphreys "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:05 AM:

" Gee Dohbaugh-

I didn't know that Presidents went looking for terrorists-

I thought the military and Intel units did that. "

Dohbaugh wrote on Apr 5, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Here's a lesson in government 101 for you, Doh. The military serves under civilian control. Bush is the head of the government and the military does as he wishes. I'm surprised that you don't understand that. If you have any other questions, I will be happy to help you out. Perhaps if Bush hadn't dropped the ball and forgot about OBL in his quest to get Saddam, he would have been captured him by now. But I guess as Bush has said, he doesn't know where he is and he doesn't care. By the way, Doh, congratulations, I see you have a new doofus on your side, who goes by the name of ed miller. I hope it's really a new poster and not just a new name for you to post under. And by the way, I still haven't seen a decent answer to the question about Bush not going after OBL, but I suppose you saw ed miller's lame attempt to answer the question, and justify the actions of the current idiot acting as Commander in Chief. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 5, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Well I'm not Doh but I'll reply:
----------

"Bush is the head of the government and the military does as he wishes."

---------

Really Dohbaugh? Do tell?

And....a.....where does Congress come in?

--------

"If you have any other questions, I will be happy to help you out."

---------

Okay-

So does your blathering little left-wing tirade here-

mean that the military is no longer looking for Bin Laden?

---------

"I hope it's really a new poster and not just a new name for you to post under."

---------

You really seem to be obsessed with me Dohbaugh-

You think you see me everywhere.

Are you starting to stalk me?

Because you're starting to creep me out here- fella. "

shumphreys wrote on Apr 5, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Mr.Lamphier yes we have been over and over it and you don't seem to learn anything. It has gotten really tedious. Besides spring has sprung and I will be signing off until next winter unless something really egregious gets printed in the paper. I've got more enjoyable things to do this time of year. Happy growing season everyone. Susan H. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:35 PM:

" Have a happy spring- shumphreys.

Get out in that garden and enjoy life.
"