Comments on: Bush Seeks Advice On Iraq

President Meets With State Department Officials, Then With Historians And Generals

[tejasdemo]

Bush is fighting his own personal holy war long after all the jerks that got him into power in the first place have been stripped of their holier than thou positions and been shown to be the blatant lying crooks that thinking knew they were

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front. Now those traitors have occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq; the President hasn%u2019t been impeached. Why?...I'm waiting.

[clestes-2009]

to continue...

How can progress be made when no one is unable to walk down a street and talk to people about what they want?

The ongoing civil war MUST BE UNDER CONTROL, this is so important I will repeat, MUST BE UNDER CONTROL before any other govn work can even start.

And from all the signs, Dubya does not plan on changing anything of his stay the course plan, except call it a different name. And that has already proven to be a failure to everyone except Dubya and Cheney. No, those 2 remain firmly in outer space.

The Dems will take control in 2 years folks. Hang in there. In know the death toll will be high and I bleed in my heart for all of you that will lose loved ones to this lost cause.

Maybe this congress can get something done about bringing an end to this madness. I sure hope so because I know for sure Bush isn't going to do it.

[clestes-2009]

So, Dubya has finally defined his version of sucess.
Preisdent Bush defined success in Iraq as "a country that governs, defends itself, that is a free society, that serves as an ally in this war on terror."

Too bad he is way down the wrong road to get there. Instead of moving forward towards that goal, we have been making steady backward progress away from that goal.

The American installed govn of Iraq is no more able to control the violence now than they were last month or the month before or the month before that. It has been doing nothing but steadily getting worse for YEARS now.

Until that happens, the US troops are wholly unable to contain the insurgency because they keep getting shot by the participants on BOTH sides of the civil war, and yes there is a civil war. In fact, until Bushie admits that there is a civil war, his goal of success is impossible.

Why, you Bushies ask?? Well, because whatever small amount of progress is made towards stabilizing Iraq is immediately negated by the murder of the people trying to make progress. Or their families, if they still have their families there in Iraq.

[webdepot]

I don't think anyone would argue against the statement that our service people have died with honor.. they are, after all, following orders.
I do however, argue against the statement a prior poster made that these men and women volunteered for the armed forces "to spread democracy and freedom" throughout the world.. they signed up to defend America, plain and simple..
The uselessness of their deaths comes from the fact that Iraq is not, nor was ever, a threat to America.. We are there as invaders based on the demented thinking of a lunatic commander in chief.
No country will accept a different form of government shoved down their throats unless they were already at the point of prosecuting their own coup.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front. Now those traitors have occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq; the President hasn%u2019t been impeached. Why?...I'm waiting.

[patriotic9]

Why doesn't he hear advices about how to capture OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN.Didn't he start this war to capture him DEAD OR ALIVE?Why doesn't he hear advices about how to stop OSAMA BEEN FORGOTTEN from buying NUKES form NORTH KOREA who built em for business reason and to stop NUKES attack against UNITED STATES MAJOR CITIES in the next possible terrorist attack.
These RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are PSYCHOs.Having Bush in power is just like having JOHN HAGEE or PET ROBERTSON in power.Bush should wait for SANTA CLAUSE to come on a flying horse to distribute candies and should send EASTER BUNNIES to fight war in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front. Now those traitors have occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq; the President hasn%u2019t been impeached. Why?...I'm waiting.

[webdepot]

I swear, Bush has to be the biggest horse's a$$ I've ever witnessed.. Someone tell me, just what is the incentive for Iran and Syria to quell the violence in Iraq...
Syria, a sunni dominated country that is not a democracy.. and
Iran, a shia dominated country that is not a democracy..
now, just why would either of these countries want to see a successful democracy in Iraq, when a successful democracy there would only foment unrest in their own countries.. threatening the powers that be in those countries.
The way I see it, Iran and Syria are in the perfect place, being able to wage a war against each other by proxy, spilling all the blood in Iraq... and at the same time being able to blame it all on the U.S... For them, it doesn't get any better..

[frankly6]

The Decider........