I will have it starting in November 2008 through January 2009 as Georgew. Bush hands out cartons of medals to everyone in his Administration who was responsible for the blunders.  Until then he will (I predict) hold off so as to maximize his chances of a "third term" through John McCain.

And, I repeat, Conservatives will be just fine with that.  You yourself, in eight months, will prove me correct when you defend it (or at least point to past abuses by Democrats, which I will concede ahead of time have happened, as justification).

I know I’ve said repeatedly that Bremer and Tenet deserved punishment not medals. Other FA writers have too as have readers. I’m pretty sure even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity blew fuses over that one. Please, inform us, show us, prove your allegation lest it be another of your lies.

Meaning we’re back to the “good old days” of 2005? That’s the raging success for which Conservatives everywhere are high-fiving themselves for their brilliance?

I can’t wait to see how many Medals of Freedom the Bush Administrations team gives themselves for “only” being back to where they were in 2005.

And every Conservative, everywhere will agree with those medals and demand that the Bush Adminstration give thems even more cudos for their brilliance.

Steve, that’s the weakest apology/admission of guilt I’ve seen since my 3yr old son wrote on the wall with a Sharpie yesterday. Still, at least you finally admit that when Sen McCain made his 100yr statement he was not pledging to continue the war for 100yrs as Democrats/your information sources tell you.

re withdrawal, I said back in 03 that the pdf plan on the WH site said they’d be mostly withdrawn in fall 0f 06. They would have been, but a spike in violence changed that, and the spike was set off by the Golden Mosque bombing as shown in the chart above. The surge has worked (militarily and is working politically-working faster and more efficiently than the US Congress). Hopefully US force drawdowns will continue into the summer, and then beyond. That (according to Democratic Presidential candidates) will “depend on conditions on the ground.”

The part about McCain’s willingness to have troops inIraq for 100 years, no. The part that McCain wants to see Americans fighting and dying for 100 years? Yes. That was hyperbole and I should not have said it.

However I am convinced that as long as the Americans are the police of last resort, the civil war in Iraq will not stop. al Qaeda has little to do with the factionalism that would exist even if al Qaeda-in-Iraq did not. The civil war, despite what George w. Bush asserts, did not “start” with al Qaeda. It existed in the resistance of Sunnis who were thrown out of the government, then given free access to weapons depots to fight their enemies, the Shia and the Americans.

We hear evey year how “100,000 police have been trained” (or whatever the number of the month is). But the streets not patrolled by American soldiers are patrolled by militias loyal to one warlord or another.

that means as long as Americans stay, the war will continue. And, if Americans stay for 100 years, then the war will stay for 100 years. But that said, I do not beleive my own “100 years” comment above. Even this war will peter out after twenty years or so. but the US will run out of borrowing power long before that to finance the war, along with our other deficits

(and please don’t counter with the “limited government” refrain. No Conservative has cut government since Herbert Hoover, and no Conservative ever will, no matter what they say on the campaign trail. So using that line is about as meaningful as saying, “maybe the tide won’t change today”)

So, the only question is, “do you want to plan our withdrawl while the US is making the decision, or when the World Bank tells us to as part of a bailout plan, the way they do with the Agentina’s of the world?

I’m going to have to call you on this one, Scott. It takes a special brand of (in my opinion) denial to assume that liberating an oppressed-for-decades Muslim population would not yield a power struggle between Sunni and Shi’a, and to further assume that said struggle would not lead to violence. We saw Sunni/Shi’a violence in 1980s Pakistan and Afghanistan, and (more specifically) we saw Hussein assert his Sunni background in crushing the 1991 revolt of the Shi’a and Kurds as something of a pogrom; his slogan for the process was “No Shi’a From Today.”

I can’t call this a “failure to perceive,” but rather willful ignorance of history.

Ready to admit you lied about Senator McCain’s 100yrs of killing and war comment, and that you were misled as well as deliberately misleading?
-Steve false claim-”The killing is implied since he considers our current state “winning”.”
-Sen McCain’s words-”As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”

So you agree with me that the Bush Administration’s decision to not prepare for the occupation and leave the Iraqi weapons depots unguarded for months was a blunder that provided tools for the insurgency that has cost thousands of lives?

How can one imply something while categorically saying the opposite? Maybe it’s a nutroots thing. Senator McCain didn’t imply anything about killing; he specifically said ‘NOT’ being injured, killed, etc.

In case you were wondering, I am Seal Patriot. I just decided I want to just post my comments under my real name.