-The Democrats, when they used the phrase “we need to get our troops out of a bloody civil war” were invariably referring to the the Sunni/Shia conflict (and sometimes the Kurd/Arab Sunni conflict). What’s is happening right now is actually much more like a Civil war, whereas what existed before was not, it was complex sectarian violence. If you take Obama’s llatest characterization of things, which seems to be borne out of ignorance and can be reduced to “see they are still fighting, we can never control them”, then yes it’s a failure. I believe he is profoundly wrong, and Iraq is getting better and better. It’s not a straight line, since there has been a long truce and now there is a battle. But pointing to what’s going on and claiming “same old same old” is disingenuous or misinformed.

-The Civil War that’s going on right now is the Government, which obviously has some relationship with Iran but is more on the side of law and order vs. another group that is clearly supported by Iran and is very destabilizing to law and order. It’s the last uncontrollable target in Iraq, and if and when it’s overpowered, Iraq will be peaceful barring direct aggression by Iran or dramatic and quick withdrawal of US troops.

-The war is progressing as I expected in the sense of exposing the weak points, in strategy and personnel of the Iraqi Army. Unlike the caricatures painted in the mainstream media, things are going well, although perhaps not as well as in Maliki’s most optimistic scenario.

"For him who has bourne the battle. . . ."

Oh, and if I were able, I would do it all over again.   And you John Ryan?

Because the images of Americans torturing Muslims in the confines of Abu Graibe are being shown to Muslim Children in Saudi sponsored schools throughout the Islamic world:  Raising a new generation who will always associate a "Crusader" mentality with Americans invading, occupying and torturing Muslims on behalf of a Fundamentalist Christian President.

And all the FoxNews alibis beamed at American audiences will do nothing to ameliorate it.

Please explain how Iraq threatened–or threatens now–my freedom.

What is it now?  Excatly.  Not in broad generalizations.  And how many years (decades?) and lives and treasure are you willing to spend in order to get it?  (And if you answer is the stock "whatever it takes", then you are obviously willing to bankrupt our nation for your cause, which meets my definitin of a dangerous fanatic, so I would appreciate an exact number.

.

Re: "And to fight over what quabble that Rumsfeld and Powell now is behind us."

But the cost isn’t.  And Conservatives alwys deny accountability by "putting it in the past".  On a totally different different topic, Bill clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky is "in the past".  Has even one Conservative let that go?  No!

.

Re: "my post was sarcasm."
That’s cool.  I actually do appreciate humor once in a while. We shouldn’t always take ourselves so seriously. 

.

Re: "As always, Steve and Doug completely hijack a thread and bastardize it with their bias and complete disdain for their political opponents"

How did I hijack this thread?  Conservatives view of the civil war in Iraq consists of two views:
1. If violence is increasing, it is a sign that the US should stay ther forever.
2. If violence is decreasing, it is a sign the athe US should stay there forever.

One way or another, Conservatives are 100% wedded to the US occupying Iraq forever.  My point is that, as long as the US is an occuping force in Iraq, the civil war will last forever as well:  Because the US is training, equiping and paying all sides in this civil war, and taking casulties and intervening when one side or another starts to win too much (except for the central Iraqi government, which does not exist outside of theGreen Zone).

I was disagreeing with option 1 above, which was the theme of this thread.

And, I never made any claims that the government of Saddam Hussein had ZERO contacts with alQaeda, ever.  Just that he had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, which about 40+% of Republicans still insist.

I also never claimed ther were ZERO foreign fighters in iraq.  I jsut cited Pentago studies that put their composition fo the "insurgency" at less than 10%.

The evidence is thatIraqis are fighting a civil war that began shortly afte the Iraqi army disbanded (both by decree and by individual action) in 2003 and the Iraqi army weapons depots were left unguarded for months.  meanwhile the Bush Administration pretended for more than a year that nothign was happening and did nothing to stop the war when ther was even a slight chance of preventing it.  And for all those deaths and destruction since then, I hold Geroge W. Bush accountable:  Although Conservatives give him a free pass because in the federal government there was at least one employee who was a holdover from Bill Clinton.

.

Re: "Assisting the Iraqi people in achieving/obtaing their freedom)s),"

In the 2000 elections, George w. Bush sneered at "Nation Building".  Since he has obviously changed his mind, so have all conservatives.  That is why I assert that Conservatives take most (though not 100%) of their mental outlook from George W. Bush.  However if President Bush gets his (effective) thrid term through John McCain, then we will expect that transformation to be complete.

.

Re: "It’s coming to a point in time when and where there are those among us, the chaff in the wheat if you will, that needs be threshed from the grain.   And in my minds eye, the sooner the better.   There are many in our society that need to be made examples of, Pelosi, Mutha, Reid, Kennedy, and some that post here come to mind."

After separation, the chaff is usually physically destroyed.  Exactly what kind of "examples" are you proposing to make of thse people?  Are you suggesting something along the lines of Conservative hero Ann Coulter’s past suggestions?  Or are you too coy to be specific, and accountable?

The weak link in your chain is equating invading Iraq with "protecting America" and fighting for the "freedoms…for this country."

How has the war in Iraq ever been about protecting America?  Our country was never threatened by Iraq.

It’s coming to a point in time when and where there are those among us, the chaff in the wheat if you will, that needs be threshed from the grain.   And in my minds eye, the sooner the better.   There are many in our society that need to be made examples of, Pelosi, Mutha, Reid, Kennedy, and some that post here come to mind.

Assisting the Iraqi people in achieving/obtaing their freedom)s), while protecting America was the right thing to do (in my opinion).   Some of you feel differently.   So what.   That doesn’t mean my feelings are any less vaild than yours, and I’ll not bandy words with you that are foolish enough to think otherwise.

We have seen the results of leaving a task unfinished.   My heart cries out for those that many in this country have pulled the proverbial carpet our from under to include our own, and I wouldn’t want to see it again.   Give those who have laid their lives on the line for the freedoms of the Iraqis, and yes for this country, the opportunity to finish that task.

"Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for his friends", and I would take that a step farther, his fellow man.

First off, nobody knows what percentage of Iraqis like us and what percentage hates us. Anyone who makes the absurd claim that they do is just plain asinine. Anyone who tries to use polls to justify why he or she believes most Iraqis hate us and support the insurgents is shooting his or herself on the foot given the lack of credibility in those polls.

As mentioned multiple times in this blog as well as others from both sides of the political spectrum, the polls, studies, and political documents created by meda outlets that assess the ground situation in military areas of responsibility are all botched or tainted, as well as being biased to absurd extremes. 

A great example of a botched and tainted study would be the Lancet Study. Some good examples of biased polls would include the ABC, and BBC polls that Doug has cited before. Some really good examples of political documents whose authors tried to pass them off as ground assessments or intel assessments would be; the papers that Carl Levin claimed as being proof that no Al Qaeda members were in Iraq before the invasion and that they had no ties to Ba’ath members, and of course there is the recent NIE Report. All of these were disproven shortly after being made public, and some were even disproven before hand.

The papers that Levin doctored, claiming that there were no Al Qaeda members in Iraq was disproven two weeks before they were scheduled to be presented to the Senate Select Intel Commitee because the contents just didn’t add up. The NIE Report was disproven a few days after it’s release because it was based on the claims of Iranian officials loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and whom were partly responsible for the deaths of innocent people in Iraq, and Azerbaijan.

Overall, with these facts at hand, I have no clue why Steve and Doug constantly try to shove their vile down our throats. Forgive my choice of words. However, it is hard to not feel like they aren’t trying force feed their political creeds to us because they always bring up some of the talking points that they had brought up not too long before even after we had rebuttled them and had proven them to be false or unreliable, or both.

If Steve and Doug think that the claims they make will become accurate and their sources truthful after repeatedly stating them over and over again, then they must’ve drank too much kool-aid. Since in the real world, that isn’t the way things unfold. We don’t just tap our feet together and say "There is no place like home" and wind up from being completely lost to at home safe and sound!

my post was sarcasm.

(One more reason we should stay is the free balloons) … nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

And if it is a good thing to you that many thousands and thousands of civilians die in Iraq then you must be an incredibly happy person.  Unfortunately this whole war was supposed to be in OUR national interests and it has done nothing to make us safer despite the thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands maimed and trillions and trillions of dollards pledged. 

We could have made you happier and killed lots more people much cheaper. 

And Stix, where the weapons come from do not matter.  These are Iraqis killing each other.  You have to be in a time warp to claim that the majority of those killing each other are from other countries anymore.  The foriengers came to kill us not Iraqis.  That was so two years ago.  The psycho Iranians and supplier far fewer weapons than we are but this is still a Civil War that we are trying to quell.

And to fight over what quabble that Rumsfeld and Powell now is behind us.You move on and adapt. that is waht the military does, unless you think that every war and battle goes exactly to plan. I guess you never saw the Battle of the Bulge, The Longest Day, or anyWWII movies. If that was the case we would have stoppped at Normandy, that was a complete screw up from the beginning, but we stayed with it and eventually defeated Hitler.

And that Cresent that faces Mecca is an abomination to those that were on that flight.  Read up on the Flight 93 Memorial and see the Magreb and similarities to what go into a Mosque.  It will be a eye opener if you read into what the geometry and symbols of Islam are going into a Memorial in the USA for passengers that saved us from more harm on that day.

If you believe that we only go after Bush and McCain or any Republicans only when you chime in you have not read most of the Right Wing Blogs for some time.  Do you remember the Port Deal, Shamnesty, McCain-Feingold, etc. etc,etc.?????

I know Steve you are just a great scholar on the conservative mind.  I mean you have us dead on all the time. Just look at how many times we agree with you.