The Politics Of The Iraq War

Four Years After The Invasion, Almost Everything Is Different In Washington

(AP)  Four years into the Iraq war, about the only thing that has not changed is President Bush's insistence the fight can be won.

With more than 3,200 U.S. troops dead and still no clear way out, the political landscape could not be more different.

Public support for the war has fallen to its lowest levels. Republicans have lost control of Congress because of voters' angst over the conflict. Even the president has acknowledged the tactical approach to the war must change.

The debate on whether to launch a pre-emptive attack against a nation has given way to this question: How soon should U.S. troops leave?

"The war that we the Congress authorized the president to engage in is different than the one we're in today," acknowledged GOP Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, an ardent Bush supporter whose seat Democrats are targeting in the 2008 elections.

With sectarian attacks on the rise in Iraq, "I think we have to have a very serious appraisal of how you conduct yourself in that type of situation," Young said.

Young is not alone in questioning whether the U.S. is on the right track. Bush's critics and supporters alike say the four years of violence and the death toll has led to soul-searching over how far Congress should go to intervene in a war that has gone badly.

White House officials and many legal experts contend the Constitution gives the president supreme authority on foreign policy matters and control of the armed forces, whereas Congress' clearest option is to cut off money.

Democrats, reluctant to restrict that money for fear of being accused of abandoning the troops, are considering laws that would set a deadline for the war.

If these bills pass, Bush is expected to veto the legislation or ignore it.

But how much longer the president can hold out is uncertain. His Jan. 10 announcement that he planned to send in 21,500 more combat troops found support among most Republicans. Yet even they say the clock is ticking.

"If this current strategy doesn't work, the options aren't good," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. If the violence continues, "you're going to see more and more people suggest we've got to do something different."

Such skepticism was rare in 2003 when the bombing began. Members of Congress lined up in support of the U.S.-led invasion; many were Democrats who did not want to appear reluctant to prevent another potential Sept. 11 attack.

Among those who voted in favor of the war are some of Bush's chief critics, including Democratic presidential contenders John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Since then, public sentiment toward the war has changed dramatically. Almost three-fourths of people in the U.S. supported the war when it began in March 2003, while one-fourth opposed it, according to Gallup polling at the time.

Last month, AP-Ipsos polling found that not quite four in 10 people surveyed agreed with the decision to go to war and six in 10 opposed — the same levels of support found by a recent Gallup poll.

The inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq did not help in maintaining support for the war. The claim that Saddam Hussein possessed such weapons was a main justification the administration used for the war.

Public acceptance of the war eroded as American casualties mounted and U.S. troops, initially focused on Sunni insurgents, instead had to grapple with Sunni-Shiite violence. This past week, the Pentagon said the violence was taking on aspects of a civil war.

Military officials agree that the task of easing that bloodshed is best accomplished by Iraqi security forces, once they become capable.

Other blows to the once-popular war effort were revelations of American forces abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha. Most recently there have been reports of substandard care of wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

One political marker was last October when Virginia Sen. John Warner declared the war was "drifting sideways." A prominent Republican on military issues, Warner stood beside Bush in 2002 as the president signed into law the congressional authorization for the war.

But four years later, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, Warner said he had lost confidence that the Iraqi government was making progress and worried that sectarian violence had consumed Baghdad.

After the elections, Warner proposed a congressional resolution stating opposition to the president's plan to augment force levels. The resolution drowned amid partisan bickering and was never voted on, but it attracted enough Republican support to worry the White House that it was losing its support base.

In another sign of the changing times, news of al Qaeda member Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he masterminded Sept. 11 and plotted some 30 other attacks quickly gave way to another development. House Democrats won their first vote on a war spending bill that would demand the president pull troops out of Iraq before September 2008.

As that confrontation looms in the full House, Bush's supporters say they will continue to review their options to bring troops home.

Young says regardless of everything that has happened, he is not thinking of abandoning his president. But when asked if the war is winnable, Young's response was more one of optimism than anything else.

"It has to be" winnable, he said. "We can't let terrorists continue to threaten the United States."

[forthepeaple]

I was once proud to be american and proud to say i i'm a vet,now i just want out.You all in congress and capital hill and white house should be working for america and the americans that elected you to protect us,that isn't the case and i know why. I have been looking and found something that all america has forgotton.Who said this statement: If the personal freedoms of all americans by the Constitution and bill of right are Inhibiting the Government ability to (Govern)that meant control, the people of united states of america..Than we Should look to Limit those GUARANTEES #2.The united states Government CAN'T BE so fixed on our desires to preserve the RIGHTS of ORDINARY AMERICANS #3.I can do any ********* thing i want,I'm president of the united states and you dont forget that.....who am I..... so you all have been following your orders well i want you all to know that i hold all of you accountable for the murders of thousends of americans that have died and wounded in a war we have no buisness being in, you all are makeing large sums of money on americans lives and you all will pay a big price for that someday,heavens gates will never open its golden gates to you.. i hope someday that america and true americans will wake up and see that this washington crime family has sold our country to the highest bidders, china being # 1 and is # 1 in the world now, they are the supper powers of the world now. THANKS..DAVID A BELANGER,FOR AMERICANS FOR AMERICA,AT [e-mail]

[forthepeaple]

HAVE BEEN TELLING ALL OF YOU TO GO AND READ THE FACTS TRUE FACTS ABOUT IRAQ AND IRAN..HOW MUCH LONGER TO I HAVE TO KEEP POSTING THE SAME THING UNTIL YOU ALL READ IT..go to www.scoop.co.nz go to search tab and put in PENTAGON WHISTLE-BLOWER IRAQ and read it..it is sad but true and until you americans wake up and smell the s/h/i/t/ that your government has been telling you for CENTURIES.....
I was once proud to be american and proud to say i i'm a vet,now i just want out.You all in congress and capital hill and white house should be working for america and the americans that elected you to protect us,that isn't the case and i know why. I have been looking and found something that all america has forgotton.Who said this statement: If the personal freedoms of all americans by the Constitution and bill of right are Inhibiting the Government ability to (Govern)that meant control, the people of united states of america..Than we Should look to Limit those GUARANTEES #2.The united states Government CAN'T BE so fixed on our desires to preserve the RIGHTS of ORDINARY AMERICANS #3.I can do any ********* thing i want,I'm president of the united states and you dont forget that.....who am I..... so you all have been following your orders well i want you all to know that i hold all of you accountable for the murders of thousends of americans that have died and wounded in a war we have no buisness being in,

[dallison7]

"Bush's critics and supporters alike say the four years of violence and the death toll has led to soul-searching over how far Congress should go to intervene in a war that has gone badly."

YOU WERE PUT THERE TO DO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, NOW DO IT!! VOTE AGAINST FUNDING FOR THIS 'CRIMINAL WAR FOR PROFIT"!!

[clemenhagen1]

Classic: The articles where Bush accuses the Democrats of "politicizing the war" allows for no comments. Who is he trying to kid? This coming from a guy who would not give a speech unless he propped himself up obligatory loyal troops! This coming from Captain Codpiece himself, who had an entire fleet position itself off of the coast of San Diego so that he could make a "daring" land and swagger across the flight deck declaring "Mission Accomplished!" This administration has cynically used the sacrifice of our troops (i.e. Pat Tillman) to seek and gain power; now the Democrats are playing the politics. Right.

[scott4261]

"Bush's critics and supporters alike say the four years of violence and the death toll has led to soul-searching over how far Congress should go to intervene in a war that has gone badly."

YOU WERE PUT THERE TO DO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, NOW DO IT!! VOTE AGAINST FUNDING FOR THIS 'CRIMINAL WAR FOR PROFIT"!!
Posted by dallison7 at 01:03 PM

--------
dallison7, what is most frustrating for me is that even IF the House had its s h i t together:

1) The Senate has such a razor thin margin, with Tim Johnson out of commission for the foreseeable future, and Joe Lieberman (independent caucusing with the Democrats, but...), who is functioning as a Republican on this issue. (that's 49 functional Democrats, by my count...)

2) The Senate needs 60 votes for any meaningful legislation which would tie Bush's hand and force the redeployment of the troops. Ain't gonna happen in this Congress.....

3) Given the above two points, NOTHING will really happen until Bush is gone, EVEN if all of all of the Democrats were singing from the same book. The numbers just are not there!

Frustrating, indeed.....

[scott4261]

Another point:

1a) Even if Chuck Hagel were to vote with a unified Democratic party here (A futlile hypothetical exercise because, again, 60 votes would be needed so the point is moot....and again, even if that weren't the case, the Republicans have D i c k Cheney to tip the vote in their favor.

Nothing's gonna happen until these BOZOS are gone, unless some more Republicans come over to our camp. But I just don't see the numbers working our way any time soon.....

[bluestardad]

STAY IN IRAQ CAUSE ISRAEL WANTS AMERICA TO? NOT!

HERE ARE THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION IN 08 WRITE THEM ASK THEM IF THEIR SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL TRUMPS THEIR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING KILLED FROM THEIR STATES?

ASK THEM HOW MUCH AIPAC INFLUENCES THEIR VOTES ON IRAQ?

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm


Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[musty2u]

The run has been lengthy and isn't over yet. All the complaining, ranting, threatening, etc., do nothing to bring one troop home. During the next 12-24 months things will start to slow down and many of the units will be deployed elsewhere, so the name of the game must be patience. No sense in getting stressed over it. Five years from now the remaining troops should be under 15,000 and everyone will be happy.

[feelfree1]

Are you fed up with the mass-murderous, Constitution wrecking, blood and treasure wasting Bush League?

Find an event near you, to display your dissatisfaction:

www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3545

[j0hnwi11iams]

Micromanage? How about MANAGE at ALL? What about a schedule? What about a budget? I would like to micromanage his *** in prison for criminal negligence.

[fredgrad2000]

We all know in spades now, and have for years, how everyone here feels about George Bush and the battle in Iraq...spewing the same rhetoric over and over is a waste of breath and effort. Especially those just spewing MoveOn.org conspiracy theories about Halliburton and Israel. Simple question that I never see even discussed on these comment boards, what now!? We know that if we leave now, it will be Al Qaeda and Iran that beat us and that they will be the big winners...Iran will emerge as the primary benefactor of a Shiite majority government with heavy control over it and Al Qaeda will gain a safe haven for further attacks. We also know that Al-Qaeda will not say "gee whiz, we won, let's just be content here now" - they WILL attack our "allies" and TRY to get at our interests here at home again, we KNOW they want to. SO, the new "Surge" may not work (though everyone on the ground says its showing SOME progress), and we may not be able to stabilize all of Iraq...so without giving the surge a try, what is all of the distinguished posters here's plans for how to prevent a "loss" in Iraq from ending up much worse for us? Discussions of how or why we got there are irrelevant now to that question...

[fredgrad2000]

To finish...I mean, seriously, Iran and Al-Qaeda have both stated they want us out AND how they intended to do it (wear us down like Somalia in 1993 and get us to withdraw, to "beat" ourselves) - doesn't anyone consider WHY they want us out so badly? Iran has made no secret of wanting to be the hegemony in the Middle East, and Al-Qaeda has made no secret of wanting a new "Afghanistan" (an even better one in the heart of the Middle East) from which to launch attacks on "Moderate" Arab regimes and on the US!! These are clear, stated aims of our two biggest enemies should we withdraw. Now, I agree with everyone here that the invasion was a mistake and I can see anyone's point that says we may not be able to "win" here as the President defines it...but rather than revisiting the past over and over as Congress and everyone here seems intent on doing all the time ad nauseam, my sole question is, knowing what Iran and Al Qaeda want, and knowing that any rationale person here knows their stated aims above are unacceptable to the US' national interests and security - how do we turn what has been a debacle to date into something that prevents those who hate us most (and who have attacked us repeatedly) from acheiving their goals against us? Any withdrawal, reployments, whatever we call it...that doesn't achieve the "victory" as defined by the current President, must at MINIMUM at least address how we contain the extent of our enemies' victory at our expense.

[johnshaft4]

Hopefully, the Iraq nightmare will be the catalyst to the demise of the Republican party of war criminals/profiteers. Other then kill/maim a bunch of us and loot our treasury, what did they accomplish?

[gkc99]

It is useless to discuss where we might go from here without understanding the arrogance and stupidity of the Bushits who got us here in the first place. Since Bush and his supporters have clearly bungled the situation, their opinions no longer carry any weight! They have no credibility! That is why it is important to understand just how deep a hole the neocons have dug for the US. Helping Iran was one of the risks that was thoroughly presented prior to Bushit's optional war, and he just blew it off. The Bushit style is to threaten, or question the courage or patriotism, of anyone who didn't buy his fairy story. So don't pretend we shouldn't consider how we got here in the first place!

[progressv]

Fredgrad2000 asks:

"How do we turn what has been a debacle to date into something that prevents those who hate us most (and who have attacked us repeatedly) from achieving their goals against us? ... What is all of the distinguished posters here's plans for how to prevent a 'loss' in Iraq from ending up much worse for us?"

Good questions. Here is a radical response. We attack the root causes that make terrorism attractive to young, dispirited folks (at this time, particularly Muslims). We've spent $1/2 trillion on the war already and will spend at least $2 trillion, according to a study by leading economists (including a Nobel laureate), as reported today at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/iraq/main2574891.shtml . How far could that much money go in easing the everyday plight of Palestinians, attacking starvation and disease, improving education and medical care, and in other ways showing the U.S. to be a generous and beneficial leader of the world community? Very, very far. (It equals 400 years' worth of direct food assistance to the starving, for one example.) I say we dramatically increase our funding for good deeds in the world as we draw down troops in Iraq and, without ceding any legitimacy to terrorism, we keep asking ourselves why we are targets, face the answers honestly, and address what motivates people to become our enemies. In other words, a long-term solution.

[misha131]

From the Senate Iraq War Debate:

A Senator from both sides said neither side had a plan. To a large degree both sides lack a complete plan -- no definition of success, no criteria for complete disengagement, weak or non definition of the non-military components of the plan (diplomatic and internal projects (justice, police, administration. etc)). Generally there are at leat two Senators with a 1/2 a clue each.

A Senator from both sides said neither has a plan B. In fact the most realistic plan A and B revolve around the two options presented for the military. Surge or Redeploy -- redeployment outside the sight of the Iraqi populace supports the view we intend to leave and allow us to provide greater control of border areas. The surge may provide a short term breather for the Iraqi government to clean up some of it's act. In fact each Senator was again at least 1/2 right neither side has a plan B or the criteria to switch plans.

On the other side if they cooperated they have the pieces of a plan A and B and numerous Senators have suggestions for operating criteria and evaluation criteria to establish complete plans with evaluation checkpoints and a coordinated chance of success.

It is time for both sides to think which is the best complete plan for the country, troops and region and not for their respective careers/parties.

[forthepeaple]

The American People are not stupid! We know that if the Democratic Majority does not approve the Iraq War Supplemental Budget Requested by President Bush for the War the War Stops!

IMMEDIATELY No matter who they are, Democrats in positions of Leadership, from the County Leadership to the Leadership of the Congress that do not execute the will of the people, must be removed from their Leadership Positions and replaced with someone that will effectively execute the office in which they are trusted.

CONGRESS FIDDLES WHILE IRAQ BURNS AND BUSH RUNS AMOK!

Write your Representatives and Senators! SHOW THEM YOUR DISDAIN OF THEIR COWARDOUS ACTIONS WHILE OUR TROOPS ARE BEING KILLED AND OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE BEING TRAMPLED ON BY THIS

SO VOTE FOR A REAL AMERICAN THAT WANTS TO GIVE ALL AMERICA BACK TO WHO OWNS ITS AMERICANS, AND HIS MANE IS DAVID A BELANGER FOR PRESIDENT AMERICA CHOICE FOR FREEDOM.. SENT HIM A NOTE AT [e-mail] AND SHOW HIM YOUR SUPPORT

[firststate]

The United States can't put the "Iranian influence in Iraq" genie back in the bottle. It was broken the minute the invasion started.

A nasty reality to be faced is the fact that 95% plus of our casualties die as the result of weapons and other support being pumped into Iraq, but not from Iran. Our good friends the Saudis and the Jordanians supply the Sunnis who are responsible for more than 95% of our casualties. Instead we *** and moan about Iran helping the Shi'ites. Reality check needed.

Until someone slaps W back to reality, no real progress in Iraq is possible. As long as he maintains his delusions, everything that is going on is busy work. His denial of reality is the reason Iraq is FUBAR. Generals know that their stay depends on keeping him happy. They tell him what he wants to hear, making them complicit in the reckless endangerment of our troops.

Until dumbya faces the reality of the situation that exists today, there's not much point to anything else. He has to deal with the war we have, not the war we might have wished to have, to paraphrase rummy. Our military can defeat anyone in traditional warfare, but they are trained, equipped or prepared to win against an insurgency. We would need the 400,000 plus troops Gen. Shinseki tried to tell him about at the start. We don't have them.

Everything goes back to the need to face reality.

[karlimhof]

"Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror," Bush, author of The Bush War

That's right stupid - we want the money spect on domestic needs - not your neocon adventure.

I say - like Mr. Silverstein said in NYC about WTC building 7 : Pull it, Congress, shut this show down.

[formrusmcsgt]

But when asked if the war is winnable, Young's response was more one of optimism than anything else. "It has to be" winnable, he said.


It has to be winnable based on what? All wars are not winnable. This response is from an individual who is incapable of accepting that America was led into an unwinnable war. Just because someone wishes a war to be winnable does not make it so.

America believed for over a decade in Viet Nam that we could prevail. The USSR felt that it could prevail in Afghanistan for 12 years.

It appears to me that there are those who a decade from now would say about Iraq "we can win it...just send more troops and treasure"......

[gunnerv1]

The Soviet Union would have prevailed in Afghanistan if the United States had quit suppling Osama. The United States would have prevailed in Viet-Nam if China and the Soviet Union han not been supplying North Viet-nam.

[gunnerv1]

Firststate: You got proof? Then run with it. I'm more that sure that the imbalaced congress will pick up and stumble with it.

[bluestardad]

Remember AIPAC, Israeli and Saudi Arabian Neocon Supporters are pushing America to fight their wars for them!

Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]." [SPIEGEL, p. 52].[citation needed] Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1]
Activities and stated goals
AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace".[2] It regularly meets with members of Congress and holds events where it can share its views. It also provides analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators with regard to how they voted on legislation related to Israel. The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."
READ AIPAC AD BELOW
http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm

[karlimhof]

The Soviet Union would have prevailed in Afghanistan if the United States had quit suppling Osama.
Posted by Gunnerv1


Ahmed Shah Massoud was the man who defeated the Soviets - not OBL - who was his cowardly assassin together with the Taliban.

Besides the Soviets were completely drained financially and physically after 9 years of fighting a myriad of insurgents, Massoud included - like in Iraq.

[us_infidel]

"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today. Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month."

Yet, CBS reports: "CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey reports few Iraqis feel there is anything to be thankful for"

So, who are we to believe......the Iraqis or CBS???

[Razzl]

The Founders did not conceive of a President as untouchable dictator in military matters. It was their belief that the Congress would be the leading body of the tripartite government, representing most closely the will of the people.

Legal experts who make claims about the imperial rights of presidents do so only from the perspective of recent history where presidents have geen able to grab such powers out of politics, but politics must change if we are to avoid dictatorship at some point in the future. We cannot continue to have presidents who can misuse their powers as "Commander-in-chief" and not be reigned in before the damage is done. This started with Kennedy and has be a continuous problem with half the presidents we've had since Vietnam.

I notice these legal experts are also unwilling to acknowledge that the Nuremburg Tribunals, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter, and the World Court all create legally binding limits on the use of military force which must at some point be honored as our government has signed on to them voluntarily. President Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes (according to Geneva Conventions), crimes against humanity (under Nuremburg principals) and crimes against peace a(under UN charter) which are all actionable and should be pursued. we need to stop listening to one-sided versions of international law in their defense.

[huskerarmy]

"So, who are we to believe......the Iraqis or CBS???"
Infidel, Talking about having your cake... Let's not forget that those same Iraqi's who feel they are better off still want us to leave. The fact that they feel they are better off now doesn't give us a pass to stay ad infinitum.

[huskerarmy]

The United States would have prevailed in Viet-Nam if China and the Soviet Union han not been supplying North Viet-nam.
Gunnerv, But since we didn't prevail in Viet Nam, why didn't the entire world fall like dominos and why aren't we now in the death grip of communism like the right promised we would be?

[tomar0317]

Wars are never winnable. Everyone loses. Yeh you may replace a dictator as in Germany but once that's done, get out. The Germans have successfully rebuilt their country as will Iraq. How it is built and with what type government should not be our responsibility. We helped the Iraquis get started in the right direction, it's their responsibility to continue in that direction or change course as they may. Too many people are casualties in wars, not just the militaries. It's over. It's time for our troops to come home. We're not being unpatriotic as are leaders claim. We're extremely disappointed in our leaders performance. Last Novembers election was a statement by the constituencies. Our leaders, and I use that term loosely, just don't listen!

[tejasdemo]

Anybody who still believes that George Bush is anything but a loudmouth, born again, fruitcake is an idiot.

[montraville]

"Wars are never winnable. Everyone loses. Yeh you may replace a dictator as in Germany but once that's done, get out "

-Even people who disagree with this will hopefully agree that America doesn't fight wars for simple "victory". When America goes to war, it's to solve a problem, or right a wrong. We have never been a conquering, imperial people. We've never needed to be, because our strength is in commerce and culture.

[gunnerv1]

I guess I'm an Idiot. (But you will be proved wrong in the long run) These Colors Never Run (unless your a liberal).

[random_radar]

"We have never been a conquering, imperial people. We've never needed to be, because our strength is in commerce and culture.
Posted by montraville at 11:34 AM : Mar 19, 2007"

I beg to differ with you. I wish what you say were true, and it should be. But America has become an Imperial power in the last century. We style ourself as the world's policeman, but we have become the world's biggest bully trying to force other nations to do what is in our interests. No one respects us anymore because we use violence to get our way--like the two year olds we are.

[stevex47]

Infidel now quit lying,
"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today"

Here's the latest truth:
"Face-to-face interviews with 2,212 Iraqis -- a survey jointly sponsored by USA TODAY, ABC News, the BBC, and ARD, a German TV network -- find a nation that in large part has fragmented into fear. Six in 10 Iraqis (61 percent) say their lives are going badly, and only a third (35 percent) expect things to improve in the next year."

Infidel, join the last of the lemmings....

[scott4261]

I have to ask the question again: HOW has the war in Iraq been worth it? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden couldn't have conspired to attack the U.S. because they hated each other. Saddam was secular and Osama is a religious extremist. This war was not worth one drop of American blood. And the very occupation by the U.S. has created a vacuum for terrorist activity where there was none before.

And for what? To benefit Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, and KBR? I believe that one need only to follow the war profiteering money trail to find out just how much is wrong with this war and why I detest what is happening now.

And before the Bush apologist start bashing my post, let me say this: I get irritated when I am told that I am somehow undermining troop morale, that I hate America, that I'm a traitor, that I'm unpatriotic,.....whatever...you name it....just because I choose to speak out against the actions of this corrupt administration. I love my country and that is why I am willing to speak up.

This war has been a grave error.

[stevex47]

Scott,
Love your posts. "And before the Bush apologist start bashing my post, let me say this"

They've been taught to bash (limbaugh, swiftboats, etc). That's all they know. Evidently they think they get some reward for that. Sad, how many rallied around limbaugh the drug induced loudmouth.

[sjc_1]

When I see all the blood, lives and money expended ending up a very lucrative deal for the oil companies, it makes me furious. Our soldiers did not become wounded or die so that the big oil companies could get even richer off a 30 year exclusive deal that gives them almost everything they could ever want out of a cripple Iraq.

[sshard]

sjc
Before Cheney became VP, he said %u201CSo where is the oil going to come from?%u2026 The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world%u2019s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,%u201D

You do think this kind of thinking played a part in forming policies in Iraq?

[scott4261]

Stevex47,

I heard Air America's Sam Seder play a clip of OxyContin-addled Rush from the day after the Scooter Libby trail was over, complete with sound effects of a bong bubbling in the background! LOL! I was laughing so hard, I had to pull over to the side of the road!

[bluestardad]

YES WE ARE CUTTING OFF FUNDS FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ!

IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT CUTTING OFF FUNDS FOR THE TROOPS THEN YOU HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR KNEES SUCKING THE TEXAS DICKTATER! STAND UP AND WIPE YOUR CHIN OFF!

Israel is pushing America to Stay in Iraq!

DO A LITTLE RESEARCH OR SHUT THEHELL UP YOU IDIOTS!

TRULY SOME OF YOU ARE SO IGNORANT IT DEFIES REASON THAT YOU CAN CROSS THE ROAD!

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm

Republicans up for reelection!

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail]
Here is the Republican Party email address!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[stevex47]

"YOU HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR KNEES SUCKING THE TEXAS DICKTATER! STAND UP AND WIPE YOUR CHIN OFF!"

Normally, bluestardad is too hard core for even me, but this is just downright funny !! ha

[musty2u]

And the funds continue unscathed by those who want to defraud our government to those deployed.

[fredgrad2000]

Stevex47 - The GOP are the bashers!? - the last 6 years have been nothing but a kool-aid drinking left-wing bashing orgy by the MoveOn.org, CodePink, Air America crowd of the world that you must love...The Swift Boat group were all registered Vietnam veterans, entitled to say their piece, whether you agree with it or not...what are your immense qualifications for bashing? A mental disability?

[abbe7]

CBS ? I have still some trouble understanding why this doesn't make it to the headlines ...

"Rep. Waxman asks White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to explain why the White House failed to conduct any investigation following the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson%u2019s covert CIA employment. The letter follows the testimony of the Director of the Office of Security at the White House, James Knodell, that the White House Security Office did not follow the investigative steps prescribed by Executive Order 12958."

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1213

[mcvet]

Stevex47 - The GOP are the bashers!? - the last 6 years have been nothing but a kool-aid drinking left-wing bashing orgy by the MoveOn.org, CodePink, Air America crowd of the world that you must love...The Swift Boat group were all registered Vietnam veterans, entitled to say their piece, whether you agree with it or not...what are your immense qualifications for bashing? A mental disability?
Posted by fredgrad2000 at 07:02 PM : Mar 19, 2007

PLEASE tell me you aren't this stupid. I know being a fascist requires that you be stupid but you can't HONESTLY believe the "Swift Boat" Vets were just a bunch of concerned vets. ROFLMAO Let me guess, YOU still think we won in Iraq right? LOL The "Bashing" you talk about. Are you saying there is NO basis for concern here? That these AMERICAN's whom you fascist have focused hatred at now of decades didn't have REAL concerns to voice? ROFLMAO You need help!! Seek it NOW and for God sake stop whinning...it's disgusting! Sieg Heil

[mcvet]

guess I'm an Idiot. (But you will be proved wrong in the long run) These Colors Never Run (unless your a liberal).
Posted by gunnerv1 at 11:59 AM : Mar 19, 2007
+ report this comment


Who's running you MORON! God you Nazi's are SOOOOOOOOOOO stupid!! We're in the WRONG Contry you pathetic LOSER!! The "War" in Iraq has NOTHING to do with those who attacked us, they aren't even threatened at this point and are just continuing to do what they've always done. Maybe you can get together with you fellow Red Necks, Pool your intelligence and figure out that Bush was LYING to you. Dumb as a box of rocks!! Sieg Heil.

[mcvet]

Anybody who still believes that George Bush is anything but a loudmouth, born again, fruitcake is an idiot.
Posted by tejasdemo at 11:19 AM : Mar 19, 2007

I just do not think it can be said any better than you have said it. We can continue to hope and deny the obvious until the end of time and the results will be the same.

[mcvet]

It simly amazes me how leader after leader, expert after expert keep telling these fools who support the KING Fool of them all that there is no military solution to this mess and they just want to keep on keeping on. HOW many times have we heard this garbage about, just a few more months? Look we have been mislead into a Civil War PERIOD. These people do not want us and they sure as hell aren't going to allow us to tell them how to govern themselves. IF we start acting like visiting friends, IF we pull our troops back into camps and say to the people of the Country, How can we help, there may be a way out. It will take the world community though, you all remember the ones this Low life Scum, some still call a President, insulted when that help was offered upon entering Bagdad? Anyone who is fool enough, at this point, to think that what the Incompetent Commander in Chief told us is going to happen is smoking something illegal. Sieg Heil all you faithful followers of the Fuehrer.

[abbe7]

MCVet said and I mostly agree:

"The "War" in Iraq has NOTHING to do with those who attacked us"

unless "those who attacked us" and the same who are sending troops over there.

[abbe7]

MCVet said and I mostly agree:

"The "War" in Iraq has NOTHING to do with those who attacked us"

unless "those who attacked us" are the same who are sending troops over there.