Yet earlier I specifically, and repeatedly said 2005:
“Kerry’s but one loser, other Democrats are already saying the war is lost, and only a fool would pretend “redeploy” hasn’t been the core Democratic Party position since fall 2005 when the DNC called for draft Iraq strategies (ie, when Rep Murtha began calling for redeployment, when that same Sen Kerry you point to “demanded” that 20,000 troops be withdrawn immediately).”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19095

Did ya see that 2005 in that first mention? No, then how about the next time I cited “2005″?

“What’s odd is that you somehow ignore the fact that my comments were on the mark and true as well. He did DEMAND the immediate withdrawal of 20,000 Americans in late 2005 just as I said.”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19100

Missed it the second time? Ok, how about the third time I said 2005?
“btw, remember that claim I had about Sen Kerry back in 05 demanding immediate withdrawal?
‘Noting that “it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down,” Kerry called upon the president to bring home 20,000 troops over the Christmas holidays, after the December parliamentary elections. Kerry has said that it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.’”
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/13/a-true-iraqi-patriot-and-ally/index.html#comment-19106

Only a complete moron could miss that THREE TIMES and then call ME dishonest for somehow now mentioning 2005…that makes you either a straight up liar, or a complete moron for missing it three times then calling me one.

“NO PROGRESS WAS MADE IN THE POLITICAL FRONT”
-not true. You say NO PROGRESS, but even Democrats in their 7 minute speeches to Gen Petraeus cited some progress-just not enough. Gen Petraeus was very clear as well in HIS comments to Congress that political progress was being made at the lower levels, but just hadn’t made it to the Parliament-still ironic that the Iraqi Parliament’s passed more legislation and law than the Democrats’ Congress. Reminds me of when the Democrats’ Congress went on vacation in August and complained that the Iraqi Parliament was going to take a vacation.

I read your web links. The question is did you?

Let me give yo an example of what’s in it ;

From Scott. http://www.talkleft.com

On the web site there is a comment from Kerry IN 2005 (of course scott forgot to mention the year the remark was made) saying that he sees a need for the pull out of 20,000 troops by December –of 2005. Based on that, Scott concludes that in effect Bush is simply following Kerry’s wishes. Never mind that today the troops are not out (there’s is simply a proposal by Bush), never mind that if and when they are out, it will be in 2008, not in 2005, and never mind that if you add 30,000 troops (because of the surge) and then you deduct 20,000 troops for the pull out you in fact have a net gain of 10,000 troops in Iraq. OH, and never mind that the real reason the troops are out is becaue their 12 month tour will be over, and the 3 month extension to the original tour will be exausted.

This is why I tell you that you and scott and of course Bush are not honest with the facts. I can’t put it more clearly that this.

Now god knows I tried, and even gave you the point that there’s progress in al anbar and a drop in violence in Baghdad. Unlike you a do accept what’s in fron of my face and I don’t have the arrogance you people display.

In accepting the progress in al Anbar and Baghdad, if you abd scott were honest (again the word) you would qualify it with the fact that NO PROGRESS WAS MADE IN THE POLITICAL FRONT — And that was the purpose of the surge after all. Furthermore, if you and scott were honest you would grant the point that the al-anbar success has nothing to do with the surge, and fially agin if you and scott were honest you would admit to the strong possibility that once the surge ends, since there’s no political agreement, we will be back to square one.

Do I need to give you web sites for what I just said? What’s the point you simply will not get arround at granting any one any sence of intellectual HONESTY. I guess is an arrogance thing with you all.

The road to learning and maturity wordsmith, starts with accepting our short commings, and confronting our mistakes.
The Iraq war was a mistake, and it’s execution has been criminal. Don’t take it from me, I can give you a long, long, long, long list of Republican politicians from the present, from the past, Republican Diplomats from the present and from the past, members of this administration, all the retired Generals that served under this Administration in Iraq, the bast majority of heads of state arounf the world, the bast mahority of the world population, the bast majority of Americans, and all the Arab Nations we were supposed to “protect” when we invaded but some how is the “Democrats” the ones that are “working to defeat America”.

That’s why I call you a dishonest debater.

Listen wordsmith I truly hope you are right, and I am wrong and that in the end after this latest surge we finally “win” in Iraq— But if we don’t, if one year from now we are at square one— Find the streght of character to say that you were wrong– And start to grow as a man.

“President Bush did not begin this war”

Wordsmith. Please try to be honest in your answer. We, last I checked were taking about the Iraq war. And Bush did start the Iraq war. And is (same as scott) extremely hard to take seriously any debater that makes those extremely dishonest remarks. After all what would you think of me if I start telling you that Bush was the one responsible for the 9-11 attack???? You will think I am some nut, and not worth your time in a debate right???? So be careful with what you post, because frankly wordsmith I had you as some one that had some sence, apparently you just have moments of sence.

Is impossible to reason, let alone debate with people that can’t even accept that Bush started the war in Iraq.

Look wordsmith.

This is the deal. I find myself here in your blog arguing with people that A) consider that the Democrats are working to defeat America, B) worry about my spelling of al-anbar , but ignore that al-anbar was not part of the surge at all, and that the Iraqi Government does not agree with the SUnni in al anbar getting help from the U.S. C) That now considers Bush’s policy the same one as the man he fired, (Rumsfeld), that I am not supposed to talk about Rumsfeld when talking about Iraq, or that he has no relebance in your pretence that you know how to do counter-insurgency(He was just fired 5 months ago), etc, etc.

Frankly wordsmith you and the other guy scott, are taking me for an Idiot. al-anbar has nothing to do with the surge (third time I say it), or the ultimate success or failure of Bush’s policies in Iraq. And al-anbar if anything validates the fact that political talks have to come before security on the grownd to be long lasting.

I find myself in one of those idiot contests where one guy picks on something you said, disagrees with you, inults you, and then makes a bunch of comments like “The Democrats want to surrender” and that’s what passes for debate. All usless, and all stupid. And now i am doing the same to you guys, and that’s not right. Frankly I should have know better that to try and debate with partisans and extremist. My fault, I took you for people that actually are open to debate with open minds. ALl I can tell you is the obvious regardless of what in you think we are doing in Iraq, the American people does not give a rat’s ass (pardon my French) about your ideas, and is either you PRODUCE or you are out. Simple as that. The time for “progress” pal is over. Maibe you believe in Santa, and think that the American people will support your effort forever, because OH my GOD!!!!!! You will call us cowards if we don’t!!!! Wrong. I would tell you to Go “progress” to some other country, and with some other taxpayers money, but I’ll just settle for cooperating to get your side out of power.

It is understood that if you find scott for example correct in saying that the Democrats want America to lose, then of course there is no missrepresentation in your eyes right???? But do you honestly believe that you would take me seriously as a debater if I start by telling you that I find Republicans to be in collusion with al-Quaida, Osama, and in general a bunch of traitors to our country????

If you and scott honestly believe that Democrats are traitors, would it not be your duty to go to the police and make that accusation??? But I am the one that sets the tone of the debate!! If I was pal, I would have been calling you a traitor a long time ago. You are no traitor Wordsmith, but you, and scott are dishonest debaters, and can’t see it if your life depended on it, I can tell.

This blog is like a buch of kids playing Indians Vs. Cowboys, and making pretend. A Traitor if there is one will be arrested, prosecuted, tried, and a sentence be given. If you people feel we Democrats are working to defeat America , then pull up guys, come and arrest me if you can, get a gun and start fighting your “traitor” fellow Americans— Or please GROW UP and learn how to properly adress decent. Is that a proper enough setting for the debate wordsmith?? now if only you can follow it we ‘ll get ourselves a serious debate. I tried to give you some sense of rules, but of course you were not interested. Instead this has degenerated into a series of accusations, counter-accusations.

Now as for this al anbar business. Nice try wordsmith, but al-anbar has not a darn thing to do with the surge, or a victory in Iraq. And when I talk about passing on the buck to the next Administartion or taking responsability– You just made my point.
You people simply refuse to accept responsability for the mistakes, and the people you supported in the past, and continue to support. Bush will pass the mess to some one else? No, what ever gave you that idea!!! Responsability, accountability foreign language to you right pal?

I would like you to tell me here in this blog the following; ” Yes we Republicans from the Right, and Neo-Cons started a war where there were no WMD’s , had no post-war preparation, mess up the occupation in a criminal way, did not held any one accountable, and now we feel we still have credibility to continue to act like we know how to fix the very same mess we created”, we kept on asking for time, and in the end we ran out of time, but not of excuses — But that would be to ask for honesty–
and accountability, and basic desency, and a sense of shame— And that would be way too much to ask from extreme partisans like you people.

SO to end this sharade we have ourselves going wordsmith, let me finish with the obvious ,

In 2008, just as in 2006 the American people will go to vote, and if as predicted by every poll the Democrats win the White House, and retain and enlarge the gains in Congress. there will be change. Now you can call that change wherever the hell you like, and you can (as you did ) continue to lie to yourself and be dishonest with others, and say that the 2006 “wipping” (Buh’s own words) was not really about Iraq. In fact Come 2008 you can say that the Martians are to blame for your Party losing again, not the war in Iraq– But in the end Sir, it would be you talking to yourself, and a very small percentage of the American extreme Right…. You know scott, and his pals.

So have a nice one. And pal, Look up the words– ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CREDIBILITY in a dictionary, and then put it in the context of LACKING. I am telling you this, because you, and your side have no idea of the meaning of those words, and unfortunately that’s why you are going to lose in 2008, just as you did in 2006. I just don’t want you to again get the wrong idea as to why you are losing.

I can understand why you don’t want to talk about Rumsfeld,

No you don’t. Where have I said I don’t want to talk about him? Your obsession over something he said- calling the insurgents “dead-enders” is just…what exactly? There’s no point there. I already asked, “what if he called them scumbuckets”? So what?! Yes, some of the former insurgents we are working with now were probably firing at our forces before. So what?! Because Rumsfeld had lumped them all together as “dead-enders”, and now we’re working with them, this is supposed to be some sort of “gotcha” moment for Rumsfeld? That we’re “contradictory”? This is why I have a hard time following your logic.

the Iraqi people are only becoming more radicalized as time goes by, not less. I don’t blame them, me and you would be radicals by now if If we were seeing our people attacked every day simply because they happen to be Sunni, or Shiite.

Yup. And many of them are turning against the ones who are instigating the violence- which ain’t us. Or have you not been paying attention to recent developments?

And while all of this is going on, Bush marches on determined to end his Presidency and live the mess to some one else. That’s the REAL extent of his policy. Let’ sat least be honest on that.

and

could have been man enough to take responsibility and end it in his term.

What a bizarre mind you have. So, when the previous Administration left office, everything that was ever implemented and inacted under it, should now expire when the current one comes in? I vaguely remember something about Bill Clinton saying he’d bring our troops home from Bosnia….

So you basically think things in life require expiration dates. I suppose the next time we go to war, we should do so with the understanding that the war has to end under the watch of the President who “began” the war? That we set time limits?

President Bush did not begin this war. It started before he ever stepped foot into office. And it’s one that will probably be generational. It already is, that.

Since you don’t think it’s “fair” that a future president inherits “the mess” of the previous president, maybe you’d like to suggest presidents once again be electable for more than two terms? Let’s revoke the 22nd amendment! Excellent idea, Gil. Glad you suggested it!

You wanted evidence there it is crystal clear.

What evidence?!! Seriously, all you do is spout your opinions and emphatically insist “THIS IS FACT”, and base it upon a lot of suppositions.

The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.

Well the “present idiot” inherited the messes created by “past idiots” before him. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we find ourselves dealing with a theocratic Iran, and one half of the rise in Islamic militants hell-bent on bringing about the end of days to make way for a new Caliphate. Under President Clinton, our military was cut back. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12; the Navy was reduced by a couple hundred ships. The Air Force was also scaled back, with a reduction in squadrons. Military personnel was cut way back with 90% of those who were removed from the federal payroll coming from our Armed Forces. So, in light of a reduced military force, do you think that might have played a part in our military being overstretched today? Just set aside for a moment, the arguments about whether the conflicts we are in are “optional” or “necessary”. If we did find ourselves in necessary wars on multiple fronts, we would have to “go to war with the military we have, and not the military we necessarily wish we had”.

In addition to cutting the military budget, Clinton also cut our CIA budget by over 7 billion. The Cold War was over, they felt. Why keep our military and intell strong, and on the cutting edge?

Scott responding to the same quote by gil:

Yeah, but those tired soldiers who’ve been declared “broken” by the Democrats for (by then) 4 years, will rise up with a renewed vigor and eagerness to fight on under the leadership of those who declared the mission a lost cause but kept funding it for (again, by then) a min of 4 yrs. Dream.

Re-enlistment rates are up 130%, currently. Under Clinton, re-enlistment rate plummeted.

In this blog and in general, the Right keeps on ignoring that every General, every politician including Bush, every head of state around the world, has said correctly that the solution in Iraq is not military.

This, too, is strange to me. Like the anti-Bush Democrats who constantly get confused “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ with “there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda”. The arguments are not interchangeable.

The whole purpose of the military in providing security, is to help pave the way for the political process. To give it some breathing room.

In the false pretense that Security comes first, and political compromise second, we have had our Army pin down for years and counting, while the second part of the equation continues to fail with no one holding them accountable.

How can the political process move forward, if there is no security? If governors and officials are killed? Their families threatened? How does it work?

And “holding them accountable”? Many brave Iraqis who do want to live under a democratic Iraq have given their lives to try and make it happen. You want things to happen overnight. That’s not realistic. With saboteurs creating havoc, it makes it even less likely to move any faster.

In the end he will not be able to hide from history.

Kind of like Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and Harry S Truman?

When you talk about the Democrats as losers, you forget they were the ones that won the last election. The Republicans lost Congress to those “losers” on the argument of Iraq….

I think there are several factors on why Republicans lost; it wasn’t just a referendum on being war-weary (after all, Lieberman won against his anti-war Democratic rival).

“The Democrats efforts are aimed at an American defeat”. I have a hard time taking seriously a person that makes remarks like that. In fact after that remark I have to tell you that you are not worth my answering to your posts.

For the love of mercy! ROLFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Gil, you’ve done nothing short of being anything other than a pot to our kettle. From your opening comment, you set the tone of the “debate”.

You came up with so many mistakes, misrepresentations of facts, exagerations, intellectual extremism, naked partisanship, and down right dishonesty in your posts, that frankly I would have to spend more time than is worth in answering all those remarks.

Are you addressing Scott….or your own reflection shining through on your computer screen? Seriously, that fits you like a “Tee”.

Research before you post

Throughout, Curt, Scott and I have provided you with relevant links, and you failed to even acknowledge them, let alone demonstrated that you read and understood them. What links have you provided for your assertions? Zero.

Scott wrote:

by any chance are you in high school?

Personally….my guess was that this is probably some old geezer learning how to use the computer and navigate on blogs and the internet. Old people all the time are asking me “What exactly is “the blog” I keep hearing about in the NYTimes and CNN?”

It’s al aNbar

rofl!

Now, I call your attention to the initial reporting of the “Anbar Awakening” back in May…
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/05/anbar_rising.php

please pay close attention to the section:
“The rise of the Provincial Security Forces”

You’ll find similar language and description of these tribal forces working with the govt as I described in General Petraeus’ report last week. Try spelling it right when you do the search, and ya might find it.

GIL: “In fact the Iraqi Government was very much , against it.”

REALITY: “These units have been augmented by more formalized paramilitary units of tribal fighters. Originally called Emergency Response Units, or ERUs, are battalion sized formations manned by about 750 tribal volunteers each. The ERUs have since been renamed Provincial Security Forces, or PSFs
…
“The PSFs fall directly under control of the Ministry of the Interior, and are controlled by the Provincial Police Chief. While the media reporting often refers to the PSFs as “militias,” they are officially sanctioned by the government of Iraq.”

Like I said, learn to spell it, and you’ll learn a lot more about what’s happening in al aNbar province.

btw, remember that claim I had about Sen Kerry back in 05 demanding immediate withdrawal?
“Noting that “it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down,” Kerry called upon the president to bring home 20,000 troops over the Christmas holidays, after the December parliamentary elections. Kerry has said that it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/10/26/589/58450

Of course, the 20k withdrawal had been announced in June months before Kerry “demanded” it with much press PR, but it’s a good thing that his pipedream of “it would be reasonable to return all the troops within 12 to 15 months.” was ignored as things were exponentially worse 12-15 months later even by his own accounts when he was whining about how bad things were in Iraq…a year after he’d have had troops leave.

“So I’ll live you with this advice take or live it. Research before you post, and don’t consider your fellow Americans your enemies because they don’t agree with you”

I don’t consider my fellow Americans enemies because they don’t agree with me, but if the enemy says, “We demand XYZ” and an American political party packed with partisans says, “Yeah! We demand XYZ too!” Then ya know what? You share the same objective as the enemy, and ISLAMIC HOLY WARRIORS LOVE DEMOCRATS is the truth. Zawahiri said vote Dem in 06, and you did. I can point to half a dozen other Islamic terrorist leaders who did so as well and as specifically, and you did their bidding. I can even point to the latest UBL tape, and show clearly how it’s a hare’s breath from a typical MoveOn.org… web rant, or KOSsack crap, or even a public declaration from the DNC Chairman himself.

One last thing…a tip:
“Funny thing was that Bush supported Rumsfeld every step of the way, and Rumsfeld policy in Iraq, was Bush’s policy in Iraq— So in the end Rummy was Bush’s sacrificial lamb for HIS policy.”

You advocated that very same policy yourself earlier-thus making it Bush, Rummy, and Gil’s Iraq policy, “The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.”

US forces were not doing the defense role until the surge-that’s why the surge was needed: to defend people and places (ie create security). The US had stepped down forces per Dem demands and reduced to a largely support, logistics, and COIN role.

by any chance are you in high school?

OH, and Scott before I forget. ABout your observation about the surge and al Ambar.

“Militarly bringing about security so militias can disarm and organize with the Government rather than around it, and outside of it, the surge has brought that success”.

It might comes at news to you, because i can see that you simply posts material with absolutely no sense, or knowledge of what you are saying…. But, no scott the Insurgents in al-Ambar are not beeing disarmed or working with the Government. It’s the opposite . The Insurgents in al-Ambar are making an alliance with the U.S. Army to fight al-Quaida. This alliance will give them U.S. money and logistical support, and this alliance is outside the Iraqi Government. In fact the Iraqi Government was very much , against it.

Not that real facts matter to you, but I tought I would let you knwo so that in the future you might grow some shame (if you have any) and try to at least research before you make a fool of yourself.

You came up with so many mistakes, misrepresentations of facts, exagerations, intellectual extremism, naked partisanship, and down right dishonesty in your posts, that frankly I would have to spend more time than is worth in answering all those remarks.

That’s another resason why I tell you to please try to behave in a more reasonable way. Sorry but one can’t debate with some one that right off the starting line considers me a traitor (Democrats are working for the defeat of America) for the simple fact that I don’t agree with Bush’s ideas.

Hey, Bush was the one that fired Rummy was he not??? I am sure he did not do it because Rummy was doing a great job right??? Funny thing was that Bush supported Rumsfeld every step of the way, and Rumsfeld policy in Iraq, was Bush’s policy in Iraq— So in the end Rummy was Bush’s sacrificial lamb for HIS policy.

So I’ll live you with this advice take or live it. Research before you post, and don’t consider your fellow Americans your enemies because they don’t agree with you—- Grow up, you live in a Democracy. The Democrats if they win, will win just like the Republicans did. With the majority of the people behind them. At that time if the Democrats come with a plan you don’t like, you are free to go against it without me calling you a defeatist, a coward, and a man that works for the defeat of America. That’s called maturity– And you need a lot of it.

Oh, I fully believe your comment about Sen and failed Presidential candidate Kerry. I do. What’s odd is that you somehow ignore the fact that my comments were on the mark and true as well. He did DEMAND the immediate withdrawal of 20,000 Americans in late 2005 just as I said.

“In the end pal reasonable people will understand that the war is not about the Democrats or the Republicans.”

No, it’s not. Here’s where you lose it. It IS about politics. War is politics. Technically, war has been defined for hundreds of years as one nation imposing its political will upon another through violent means. Then you go off about how Bush started the war as if he were a king and not a President given authority by Congress. Democrats eager to shirk their accountability will tell you it’s “Bush’s War” just as they did earlier wars. History books are filled with Democrats talking about “Mr Lincoln’s war” or “Nixon’s war” and Republicans did it as well with “Mr Roosevelt’s war”, but you can’t see that. War is politics, and this one continues not because of Bush’s incompetence (as if he’s out there personally leading or even trying to lead troops), but because of the Democrat’s political support for the enemy.

“Get yourself some sense of proportion friend, and understand that you are talking to a fellow American that loves his country just as much as you do, and will never want to see it defeated.”

Really? Then how have you helped bring about the enemy’s defeat or America’s success while at the same time advocating the success of the enemy’s objectives?
So far, ISLAMIC TERRORISTS LOVE DEMOCRATS

“Go back grow up and learn how to debate without insults”

I have yet to begin to insult

As we watch from the comfort of the computer chair, we can see the internet’s famous moonbattus denialious;commonly known as demoonbat. These creatures are reknown in their ability not only to view conspiracy and paranoia as reality, but also in their ability to deny reality. This is a simple defense mechanism bred into its DNA, and like the instinct of the ostrich to bury its head in the sand or that of the lemmings to follow their leaders off cliffs, the moonbattus denialous-when looking out over the abyss of the reality that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror, these paranoid creatures maintain that there is no cliff, there is no fall, there is no river of crocodiles and Islamic holy warriors below. No, instead all the moonbattai see is a road home to that fictional happy place in history where everything was hunky dory, and there was no world wide war on terror. In fact, as moonbattai by the millions follow their pandering political leaders over the edge and into the abyss they remain in denial that they are even falling for their leaders’ lies.

(bumper sticker/soundbite translation for the simple-minded)
ain’t denial funny to watch?

A few observations.

When you talk about the Democrats as losers, you forget they were the ones that won the last election. The Republicans lost Congress to those “losers” on the argument of Iraq…. As a result your real loser Rummy lost his job.

But tell me scott because I am curios to know. If you lose to a loser what does that make you?

On your comment about Kerry. I posted what he said. You don’t believe me get a transcript of the program. But do not invent what he said, and call me a liar in the process. If you have a big mouth, and can’t help to trow insults around fine, just make sure you can back up the isults with facts, because if you can’t (read the transcript) then you turn yourself into a clown with a big mouth– And we don’t want that to happen do we?

Now the Democrats can say that the war is lost, or the Republicans can say that the war is won. In the end pal reasonable people will understand that the war is not about the Democrats or the Republicans. Is about a man (Bush) making a desicion that has demonstrably turned into a mess. Any one can draw conclusions, and you can call me a Bush hater….. You know what? I do hate a man that kills thousands of my country man becasue of pure incompetence. And I do deeply resent people that ignore that fact and call us “losers” for pointing out to you the fact that all you ever did was TALK about victory. And talk pal, is cheap.

“The Democrats efforts are aimed at an American defeat”. I have a hard time taking seriously a person that makes remarks like that. In fact after that remark I have to tell you that you are not worth my answering to your posts. Get yourself some sense of proportion friend, and understand that you are talking to a fellow American that loves his country just as much as you do, and will never want to see it defeated. The fact that you and I disagree on the way to win, or at least stop the losses in Iraq, does not make you a loser, or a defeatist any more than it makes me anithing other than an American with a different opinion than yours.

Go back grow up and learn how to debate without insults, and grand standings. Until then talk to some one else.

Now, gil’s got a great point that everyone says success in Iraq comes from political means-not military alone (even Pres Bush has said this going back to early 03), but the debate appears to be:

political THEN military
vs
military THEN political

in the case of the former, the second half wouldn’t be necessary, and thus the argument is an oxymoron

in the case of the latter (military bringing about security so militias can disarm and organize with the govt rather than around it and outside it), the surge has brought about that success, and while the Iraqi Parliament hasn’t met all of its benchmarks put forth by a Democratic Congress which was seeking failure talking points rather than measures of success, it is ironic that the Iraqi Parliament has passed more laws and legislation than the very Democratic Party’s Congress which is arguably the least accomplished Congress in American history to date (having passed fewer laws and legislation than the Iraqis or any previous American Congress). So, gil prefers to believe in the oxymoron strategy and the complaints of a representative govt pot calling a similar govt kettle black.

I gotta say, I really liked the part about “inheriting” a mess. That was rich. I mean, if Pres H Clinton comes is elected and 8 months later there’s a terrorist attack in the US, there will be legions of people who blame W for 911 excusing her.

Again, this looks like just another debate with a Bush hater who either doesn’t realize he’s nothing more than a paypal campaign contribution receipt to some dem, and that the entire Democratic Party effort re Iraq has been aimed at American defeat with zero examples of working towards success in Iraq. I wonder, how can a Democrat become President then bring about the success in Iraq that the majority of the American people want when no Democrat-not a one-has experience in working for success in Iraq? That’s a complete 180 degree change in effort on their part, but we’re supposed to believe they can do it? I suppose if anyone can flip around to the opposite side of a position, a Democrat can do it, but only Bush haters would be so blinded by partisan hate and political disenfranchisement as to believe it. With no GWB to whine about, the Democrats will have their nightmare scenario in Iraq:

accountability for their own actions.

Instead what we have today is an Administration on a holding action called the “surge” that will simply take Bush to the end of his term. I understand, and even agree with those that say that the present surge has had some positive effect. But having said that, it is dishonest for any one to extrapolate the success of the present surge with an ultimate victory in Iraq as the Right defines it.

Hense the obvious. If the present surge will not give us victory, but simply what can very well be a temporary drop of violence in Baghdad, and a possible alliance with the SUnni on al-Ambar thanks to the titanic effort of our troops…..What good will that do to the strategic effort and ultimate victory in Iraq if it can ever be achieved?

What you guys on this blog keep on exalting, is at best a temporary local victory in al-Ambar, and a temporary drop in violence in Bagdhad that will yet again disapear the moment our troops inevitably live. In this blog and in general, the Right keeps on ignoring that every General, every politician including Bush, every head of state around the world, has said correctly that the solution in Iraq is not military.

Yet, the Right continues to give the Military the responsability for solving Iraq’s problems. In the false pretense that Security comes first, and political compromise second, we have had our Army pin down for years and counting, while the second part of the equation continues to fail with no one holding them accountable.

I already made the observation (unchallenged) that the very success in al-Ambar shows clearly that Political compromise has to come first, and then be followed by the security equation to have any chance for success not only be true, but LASTING.

The next Administration Republican or Democrat will have to come to terms with the fact that our Army is not designed for Nation building, and that the Iraqi Government will have to compromise at last or die as a political body. Needles to say that the responsability of understanding that and acting on it beloged squarely in the shoulders of Bush, but he went AWAOL living the Army stuck, and the Republican Party in a death spiral.

Bush in my view is an incompetent, arrogant individual, and a coward at hearth. He has spent the last few years hiding behind the troops, and the last few months hiding behind Gen. Petraeus.

In the end he will not be able to hide from history.

lol, did I say “gotcha”-methinks not

“Now, in my posts I also make it clear that the role of our Army after the 2008 elections will change. The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.”

ie, the Bush plan per that was posted in pdf form on the White House website from 2003-2006. Btw, I personally suggested and pushed for that plan to Congressman Ryan, Sen Brown, and Sen Voinovich back in the late summer of 06, and they blew it off. I wrote it up, drafted it, even drafted the bill, and they ignored it. Why? ’cause the war in Iraq isn’t about winning/losing anything in Iraq…not to DC politicians-ESPECIALLY Democrats. It’s about maintaining the political wedge issue that gets money into campaign funds, gets telephone volunteers, gets press, and gets voters to come out and vote rather than stay home and watch American Idol. Republicans stood for national security, Democrats stand opposed to it.

“The new policy will be put forward by Democrats, and no Democrat is running from that responsibility. Just Sunday on meet the Press Sen. Kerry repeatedly said that the Democrats were not planning to abandon Iraq, and that we needed long term relation’s with the Iraqi Government on wherever for it ultimatelly takes.”

Kerry’s but one loser, other Democrats are already saying the war is lost, and only a fool would pretend “redeploy” hasn’t been the core Democratic Party position since fall 2005 when the DNC called for draft Iraq strategies (ie, when Rep Murtha began calling for redeployment, when that same Sen Kerry you point to “demanded” that 20,000 troops be withdrawn immediately). No, the Democratic base-as you yourself point out later, wants out of Iraq at any cost immediately.

“The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.”

Yeah, but those tired soldiers who’ve been declared “broken” by the Democrats for (by then) 4 years, will rise up with a renewed vigor and eagerness to fight on under the leadership of those who declared the mission a lost cause but kept funding it for (again, by then) a min of 4 yrs. Dream.

btw, I LOVE THIS FOLLOWING PART OF YOUR POST!!!!!!! (caps and punctuation there in homage)

“Finally, In your mention of all the things that Sen. Clinton has done, you forgot the main thing she needs to do;
Sen. Clinton will have to listen to her base, and follow the wishes of the American people to end this war, or at least end any major involvement by American troops in Iraq.”

See, that’s the part I love! I mean MAN!!! You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD! Let’s see it again in slo-mo

“Sen. Clinton
will have to
listen to her base…”

There is a difference between “the base” and “the American people.”
THE BASE-Democrats etc who want out of Iraq immediately irregardless of consequences
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE-56% of the American people want success in Iraq

What you’re saying is that Sen Clinton (Pres H Clinton) will have to find a way to pander and mislead THE BASE longer so they’ll stick with her despite having demanded immediate withdrawal for (by then 4-6 YEARS), and at the same time she’s gonna have to satisfy the American people who want success in Iraq, and that’s only gonna come if she follows the Bush Plan you described above without even knowing it (ever READ the Bush plan?)

“I know that your side forgot we live in a Democracy, that’s why we kindly reminded you in 2006, and will remind you again in 2008. Bush, and your side can free-lance stupid policies all you want while he is in ofice. Having said that, just be ready to pay the price if your side’s “policies” instead of solving the mess you guys created, turn instead into yet more empty “progress” rethoric, that by now the American people has turned off.”

I like that “your side” dribble. It makes you sound like a Democrat-not citizen of the UNITED States of America, and it’s especially funny since I voted for Clinton twice, drafted plans for Iraq and submitted them to DEMOCRATS who blew them off…and now you’re advocating almost the same plan. Somehow, if someone believes the invasion was the right decision, or believes that the occupation and reconstruction is right…they can’t possibly be a Democrat, right? Must be a Lieberman, or a Baird, or a Clinton-oh wait, she’s ok. KOS likes her, so she can stay despite having been key in forming the DLC which formed the PNAC’s Mid East policy so often fingered by leftist wackos and Bin Laden as the crux of a neocon conspiracy. Yeah, she can stay.

She promoted, authorized, and supported the war, called for more troops-then immediately opposed the idea when W did it, but you’d vote for her just the same. As long as she doesn’t have that scarlett letter R on her chest.

Sounds to me like you don’t care one iota about what’s really happening over there, happened, or will happen aside from the political rancor that you can play with. Meanwhile, the enemy is embracing Democrats, and Dems see nothing wrong with that at all.

In my posts I make it clear that I believe we will be in Iraq for “the next 50 years”. Obviously that will include not only a possible Clinton Administration in 2009, but many more Democratic and Republican Administrations.

So much for your “gotcha” moment right pal?

Now, in my posts I also make it clear that the role of our Army after the 2008 elections will change. The change will be for our Army to basicaly stand down from the primary defense role they have had all trough the Bush years, to a back up position, and to counter-insurgency, and special operations against al-Quaida.

The new policy will be put forward by Democrats, and no Democrat is running from that responsibility. Just Sunday on meet the Press Sen. Kerry repeatedly said that the Democrats were not planning to abandon Iraq, and that we needed long term relation’s with the Iraqi Government on wherever for it ultimatelly takes.

The difference between any future Democratic President and the present idiot in the White House, is that the new President will inherit the mess, and the new President will get by then an over extended Army, tired to the point of exhaustion by six years of an all out effort to nowhere.

Finally, In your mention of all the things that Sen. Clinton has done, you forgot the main thing she needs to do;

Sen. Clinton will have to listen to her base, and follow the wishes of the American people to end this war, or at least end any major involvement by American troops in Iraq.

I know that your side forgot we live in a Democracy, that’s why we kindly reminded you in 2006, and will remind you again in 2008. Bush, and your side can free-lance stupid policies all you want while he is in ofice. Having said that, just be ready to pay the price if your side’s “policies” instead of solving the mess you guys created, turn instead into yet more empty “progress” rethoric, that by now the American people has turned off.

yeah, keep counting those days because we all know oh-so-much is going to change in 2008.

Sen Clinton promoted the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton rolled over, asked her hubby if the intel threat reporting was real, and she declared it was
Sen Clinton authorized the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq
Sen Clinton called for more troops to go to Iraq last fall
Sen Clinton has already said she’ll only withdraw combat troops from Iraq (leaving tens of thousands to continue the UN-mandated occupation of Iraq; see also UN1483 and subsequent resolutions).

I mention Sen Clinton only because she’s the likely Dem nominee, but in reality all three leading Dem and all four leading Republican potential candidates will continue the war.

So…keep counting those days, and keep believing that it’s all a neocon conspiracy like Bin Laden, Ron Paul, Kucinich, KOSsacks, DUmmies, and MoveOn all say it is. Keep counting for that day when nothing changes, and you find some other paranoid conspiracy to wrap up in and use as a Harry Potter invisibility cloak. I hear such fear is warm and comforting.

My “fantasy world” is the one that has us in Iraq for 4 1/2 years and counting till the end of Bush’s term in office with more talk about progress every step alongthe way.

My “fantasy world” indicates to me that in that period of time many more of our soldiers will die to support YOUR FANTASY WORLD.

If mine was the “fantastic” world I would be talking about a war that is over, a mess that never was, a surge that resoved the Iraqi problems, a progress that materialized into a resolution, etc. So please Mr. Realist tell me what of the above mentioned has happened?

On the other hand you talk about “progress” as the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that. Then your side talks about A Democracy with a fractured Government unable to agree to anything substantial for years now, then your side starts a war on non-existant WMD’s, and said that the war was going to be paid with Iraqi oil, and said that the latest surge was going to give the Iraqi Government the room to make the tough compromises, etc.

SO I ask you again, Mr. Realist— What of the above mentioned has happened????

You wanted evidence there it is crystal clear. The only one living in a fantasy world is you.

Since you are now so interested in proper spelling, I am sure that you have a problem with Bush’s misstatements, and problems with the English language right?

The man has produced a multi-million Dollar industry about “Bushisms” — But of course that does not in any way shape or form makes him a President wannabe in your eyes does it??? Actually Curt, I would have loved for Bush to mangle the English language to the point of tears , if he had shown some intelligence in the conduct of his Foreign Relations, and the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Now, since all you could coment back from all my posts was a reference to the attacks in Iraq (actually is over a thousand per day) , I’ll just take it as a sure indication of your lack of understanding on the subject.

“You spout a lot of conclusions with no proof, no evidence”

Oh, and you do????

Your very remark in the posts shows no evidence on your acusation!!! What lack of evidence are you talking about?

Is not my problem that you don’t inform yourself about the topic. Don’t confuse your ignorance with my “lack of evidence” I am not your personal teacher about Iraq. This is a blog my friend, not a book with footnotes.