As I see it, this is due to the conflation of nationalism and patriotism that began after 9/11 and persists to this day. It’s the same mindset that had a woman berate me for not buying a yellow ’support the troops’ ribbon magnet, and that had a man ask me (with disdain) why I wasn’t flying a flag. (Free clue: I wore the uniform for six years; I don’t need to show a piece of cloth to love my country, and I don’t have to prove myself to anyone.)

I’m reminded of this bit of wisdom from President Eisenhower: “Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

Many of us seem to have forgotten Eisenhower’s warning altogether, and some seem to have discarded it willfully. We are a weaker nation for it.

When the cost of errors is measured in the lives of our soldiers, I would suggest that “problem” is too light a word.

I have read it all before. I know that we smacked some terrorists around while we have been in Iraq. I am not ignoring any of the threat that Saddam posed or any of the accomplishments once we got there. My point is that the ultimate winner is Iran.

Well hoooya on the “not ignoring” and “accomlishments” part, CentFla. Since you recognized Saddam’s threat, then leaving him in place was too large a security gamble.

Iran the winner? A country constantly morphing. Iran is a better candidate for internal rebellion and diplomacy than Iraq was. Ahmadinejad’s economic policies are slowing cutting into his power. The youth of Iran has been poised for a more westerized Iran for some years now, and the world has a wary eye on their nuke aspirations. What you see as benefits, I see as inevitable changes induced by a neighboring fledgling democracy. Nothing is static.

Oddly enuf, the only “drumbeats for war” on Iran come from media and liberals…. trying to convince a nation prior to elections that GWB is planning yet another invasion.

And agreed that the Iraq reconstruction efforts and oversight of cash is a problem, and not run efficiently.

My complaint is that when I complain about the war it is all BDS but when I back him on Immigration I am a leftie. Aren’t you suffering from BDS if you disagree with him on spending?

It is a sill double standard when it comes to this dang war. Disagree with the war and you are a surrender monkey.

Having said that I have always agreed that we had to follow through once Bush dragged us into this thing.

and Mata I’ll ask you to forgive me for not commenting on the tome you planted here. I have read it all before. I know that we smacked some terrorists around while we have been in Iraq. I am not ignoring any of the threat that Saddam posed or any of the accomplishments once we got there. My point is that the ultimate winner is Iran. And Iran was always and remains a much bigger threat to us that Saddam ever was or hoped to be both to us and most certainly to the Israelis. But now the Army and my Corps need to play catch up and we continue to pour billions and billions into that country and they can not even decide how to spend the massive surpluses that we have won for them. I did not suffer under the illusion that the reconstruction would pay for itself but for crying out loud pay for one fricking bridge or power plant or pick up the freaking trash put pick up a tab every now and then Iraqis!

He blew it in Iraq period. Wrong war, wrong time. It could never have made us safer and in fact the only benefactor is Iran who IS enriching uranium. But if you point out how it has not made us safer and in fact made us more unsafe you are a surrender monkey. That is my valid complaint.

I wager most of us who support the liberation of Iraq have beefs with the way it was waged. Then again, that could be said of any war… all were fraught with strategic blunders.

But I disagree that it “has not made us safer and in fact made us more unsafe”. If one looks at the overall picture, we have the Global Islamic jihad movement that has been growing in strength and boldness for over two decades, until finally they came ashore on 911.

Since then, the Taliban was weakened, and tho regrouping, re’aligning, there are serious rifts with the jihad organization itself, tearing it apart at it’s very foundations. Mulla Omar, once host to al Qaeda, has distanced his Taliban from OBL and ilk. The new neo-Taliban is a mixture of AQ fighters ostracized from the old Taliban (Omar/Rahman JUI-F). Iraq has found their own formula to unite Iraqis against the jihad movement in their midst. Needless to say, jihad is not popular in Iraq, nor Pakistan. Both former enemies. Libya surrendered their nuke problem after we entered Iraq.

Internationally, the jihad movement has lost respect amongst Muslims, with more of them now no longer supporting, or in awe of OBL. The previous EIJ commander, Sayd Imam, imprisoned in England, wrote a “new rules of engagement” and chastised his successor, Zawahiri, for waging jihad in a manner that is distinctly unIslamic with his AQ association.

Thus, if you consider that AQ and the jihad movement had ample time to demonstrate to the world how ruthless they are, and managed to lose Muslim support rather than gain it, then add that if Iraq isn’t abandoned and turns into a western tolerant, intel supplier in fight the jihad, we are most certainly safer, and the ideology of jihad has been on the approval decline.

Then the final point… While we have no plans for a permanent base in Iraq, should we need a stepping stone in the event of a future blow up with Iran, or Syria, we’re parked right in the middle of them geographically… friends with the garden State of the Middle East (ala, all the fresh water rivers, and a wealth of natural resources”.

Uh… perhaps the strategy… even with the speedbumps, hiccups and missteps… ain’t so bad afterall.

He blew it in Iraq period. Wrong war, wrong time. It could never have made us safer and in fact the only benefactor is Iran who IS enriching uranium. But if you point out how it has not made us safer and in fact made us more unsafe you are a surrender monkey. That is my valid complaint.

Thank goodness McCain is coming to fix this mess.

It cost him in 2000 when he was knee-capped in South Carolina, but he remained above the lies. He will do so in this election as well. I believe that this time he will prevail

The man will get his ass handed to him if he continues to take the high road in the general. Those fangs I was talking about have not been seen yet. A few claw marks, sure, but nothing that will come his way during the general.

Yet if you complain about this president’s policy at any level you are a surrender monkey.

Baloney. Those of us who are behind the President have complained about his policies plenty. From his decision to take the high road and not can all of Clintons political appointees, to his immigration policies, to his spending. There is a difference between valid complaints and plain ole BDS….and you, my friend, are inflicted with that virus as bad as Doc and Philly.

Wes, at this site it frequently doesn’t matter what you actually wrote; what counts is what people wish you’d written. They hang onto that like a bulldog with its favorite bone, no matter how much you bring their attention to your actual quotes.

frustrating…

But the real reason for the comment is that McCain has always taken the high road. It cost him in 2000 when he was knee-capped in South Carolina, but he remained above the lies. He will do so in this election as well. I believe that this time he will prevail, but even if he did not personally resort to slinging mud there will be others who will do it for him. The author of the post claims that the uber-left will have their fangs out for McCain, is the same not happening right now against all three candidates? You post those very fangs in the same discussion in the quotes from Freddoso.

There will be plenty of mud slung in every direction as it always is. I expect John McCain to rise above it either way because that is the kind of man he is. That is why he has always been my candidate.

As far as my “attempt to envelope (sic) the Democratic campaign rhetoric” is concerned, did you even read what I wrote?

“I’m much less concerned about the presence of US troops if they’re in an overwatch role instead of daily patrols and IED-hunting. (It also seems obvious that fewer US troops would be required for such a role.)”

Where did you see “timetable” or “home now?” I’m just curious, because I certainly never said that. Personally, I think we’ll be in Iraq for at least another 10 years. However, I do NOT think we need to be doing what we’re doing today for those 10 years. We need to get to the ‘overwatch’ role I described, which is exactly what the commanders on the ground have described as their goal. The question of troop levels is tied directly to that goal; if we’re in an oversight role, we can probably reduce our troop presence by 50% or more; that’s a reasonable, worthy goal, but we MUST get the Iraqis in gear before we can get there. Otherwise, we’re writing blank checks for an inept/ineffective Iraqi government and signing them with soldiers’ lives - and I can’t support that.

As I said, you don’t have to believe him, you just shouldn’t lie about what he has said. He has not promised to raise taxes on the middle class, he has promised to lower taxes on the middle class.

It’s perfectly fine to diagree with a candidate, but I would hope McCain would have enough faith in his own positions without distorting someone elses.

Ask Abu Laith al-Libi about the US in Pakistan.