Under-fire

I agree. I am afraid it would be much, much worse.

But take heart. If the Democrats win control of at least one house of Congress next month, then the Congress will be so busy investigating the Bush administration and the Republicans in the Congress for the next two years that it will take away from the time that the folks in Washington have to pass ever more intrusive laws.

 

Yea, I for one wouldn't want to return to the peace and prosperity we had under Clinton's administration.

 

Well I for one have prospered greatly under Bush.

 

We are paying the price for Clinton's appeasement policies and will continue to do so for some time.

 

Well, "I'm sure" you're right. If Mr. Clinton were still in office we'd be much, much worse off. Now we're both sure. Isn't that special?

 

Yep return to Clinton era methodology with a little North Korean ingenuity . . . start nuking mosques until they hang osama and let us pull our troops out . . .

Clinton gets a bad rep sometimes - he just didn't have a chance to put all of his planning into action . . .

Then when that is done, nuke them until they have all repented of that evil satanic religion.

It would be easier and cheaper to preach revival . . .

But, God's people would rather argue over politics . . . and be nice and comfortable in their armchairs while they quarterback the world's problems.

Sin and separation from God are the problem :jesus: is the ONLY ANSWER.

 

That is true. The most under reported (surprise, surprise) "scandal" today, the most crippling policy failure- was Clinton's appeasement policy toward N Korea. While we gave them aid fulfilling our side of the bargain, they continued with nuke development.

The odd thing is that upon Bush's arrival to office, the intelligence world suddenly realized they'd been cheating... or perhaps Clinton knew they'd been cheating and suppressed the info to avoid the political costs.

 

Not surprising but similar things have often been said of men who took determined stands against tyranny.

Bush doesn't need "help". He needs support. Our people and politicians need to wake up to the reality that we face an enemy set on destroying us because of our ideals. They need to stop believing the liberal lie that we are dealing with criminals.

The blind who are leading and being led here are those who don't see this threat for what it is... who intentionally or unintentionally fail to see the motives behind their actions.... who would rather blame us or Israel than recognize that these people are motivated by ideology not any offense by us... and certainly not by a compulsion to free people from oppression.

 

Patriotism isn't blind support for a government on the wrong path, or a President on the wrong path. Not supporting the mistakes and prevarications of the current regime does not mean one is either unpatriotic nor believing that "we are dealing with criminals."

Invading a country that never attacked us, nor presented a clear and present danger to us, only has validated Al Qaeda's attacks in the minds of many Arabs. The sectarian violence now destroying Iraq was, at least, kept under control when Saddam's goons ruled that nation. We have now established in Iraq, a training ground and recruitment inducement for terrorist organizations. That is not a policy I will ever support. This great nation that I dearly love needs new leadership and new direction.

 

Is your source open or closed . . . if closed, you should not have even mentioned it, if open - please name your source?

 

Even Clinton recognized the need to stand . . .

And any one leaning to the left of that has reallllll issues.

:BangHead:

 

Nitpicking to create a rationalization for opposing a direction may or may not be unpatriotic. It is more than likely political opportunism however.

And this is based on a false premise. The official reports acknowledge that there was a relationship of unknown extent between Iraq and al Qaeda. The intel before the invasion affirmed over and over that Saddam had WMD's and the will to use them against the US or supply them to those who would. Saddam openly proclaimed his desire to foster terrorism against the US.

The rhetoric you recite is basically just more denial. You want to isolate this to individual crimes and criminals. You apparently don't see this as a broad struggle against many loosely allied factions with a common ideology and goal.

Your argument applied during WWII would have condemned allied leaders for attacking Nazis in North Africa instead of Italy, France, Poland, etc.

Like it or not, regardless of who sits in the WH, this is not the first battle front nor the last. The difference between this one and the previous ones is that this time we chose the field instead of allowing the enemy to do it (resulting in our inevitable defeats in those battles).

Bush whether knowingly or accidentally is employing the same strategy that finally won the Civil War for Grant. For almost four years, more intelligent and sophisticated Generals chased Lee around Virginia. Outmanned and outsupplied, Lee nonetheless won battle after battle because he almost always chose the field. Grant didn't chase. He went on a deliberate march to Richmond forcing Lee to put his inferior force in front of his army. The war ended within months with relatively fewer casualties.

In Iraq, we have forced al Qaeda and others to put their "army" in front of ours. Instead of their "army" attacking our civilians or isolated military units, they have to present an "entrenched defense". They have to fight people that are trained to fight them... and they are losing on the ground. Like Tet, their "victories" so far have been in the press and public opinion. Otherwise, we are consuming their evermore limited resources and killing their soldiers and recruits in massive numbers.

If failures andsuccesses had been accurately and proportionately reported Iraq would have most likely achieved a measure of peace by now. The insurgents are urged on by the idea that we are weak and as only bad news is being reported to us... we will give up and let them win. Unfortunately, they are probably right.

That is exactly what it was prior except they could train in security then carry the battle to us.

Recruiting would dry up to a trickle immediately if they didn't think they could win by making us give up.

Unless you do think we are dealing with crime, do you really think that winning a war is a clean and easy process with no set backs, mistakes, or requirement for determination?

At what point during the almost 300,000 deaths over 4 years do you think we should have decided the costs were too high for defending our lives and ideals from Nazi fascism? Good grief, shouldn't there have been calls for "new leadership and new direction" somewhere in there? Of course a main difference between the Nazis and al Qaeda (like our soldiers are fighting in Iraq) is that no one directly associated with Hitler's philosophy ever attacked us. The enemy our guys fight daily are directly associated with those who attacked us on 9/11. We have chosen the field of battle- their back yard... and they know it. That's why they are investing so much to insure that Iraq doesn't successfully establish a functional constitutional democratic republic. The notion that people can self-govern is anathema to their views on theocratic politics.

Japan attacked us but they weren't interested in destroying us so much as establishing a 19th century style empire.

What? More appeasement? More words without actions? More "cut and run" to minimize political costs like in Somalia?

 

What official reports? Only in the mind of the administration.

Where do I say this? Nowhere, that's where. In fact, if you read my post, I explicitly said you are wrong on this point.

Where do you come up with this junk? Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before we started a war there.

Like has been said before, invading Iraq after 9/11, would be like FDR invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

Iraq is neither The CSA, nor Nazi Germany. Your parallels are weak.

Baloney! We have given them a way to test the US military. A better training and recruitment operation they could not have bought for any amount of money.

Not related at all. Do you honestly believe they are not planning future attacks on civilians?

Not according to any sources on the ground are they losing. We have an administration that states the insurgency is in its final throes, that we have "Mission Accomplished", followed by an endless quagmire of death and violence. We have absolutely NO control of the western 1/4 of Iraq. Doesn't sound like they are losing very badly.

Of course not, but this is an elective war that is a mistake from day one. No honor or even good sense in continuing to send Americans into the meat grinder of a civil war that we will never solve. The Iraqis have to figure it out for themselves. They will never accept an American-imposed solution.

Again, this is not the Nazis. Iraq never attacked us, never was going to attack us, and Saddam and Al Qaeda were enemies. Totally different for a number of reasons. We marched into Berlin. Where is Al Qaeda's capitol?

The notion that we will impose a Jeffersonian democratic republic in Iraq is a pipe dream.

Being tied to a failed policy and "staying the course" is not cut and run, nor appeasement. We have real threats (PDRK and Iran for example), along with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iraq is a costly diversion to the war on terror, not the main front as asserted by Bushco.

 

All of them. Even the much heralded 9/11 commission report that liberals spun endlessly against the war acknowledged the relationship.

Allies don't invade allies. They did visit there. Allied terrorist groups trained there under an umbrella of security provided by Saddam.

Nope. Like invading Italy after Pearl Harbor.

The military comparison is absolutely dead on. Virtually any ROTC cadet could explain Grant's strategy and why it succeeded when smarter Generals had failed.

Therefore we should not have sent soldiers to Europe during WWII... that just gave the Nazis opportunity to "train and recruit" that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Under the logic you espouse here, you could never engage an enemy for fear that they might learn your tactics and adapt... which btw is something that military leaders are taught to anticipate, especially after Vietnam.

Nope. This is a war and the enemy should be expected to be planning counter attacks. However, the soldiers and resources needed to carry out those attacks are being inhibited and in part by their investments in Iraq.

The situation has not gotten better though due to the opportunism and disunity displayed by the left this is hardly an admission Bush can afford. However, it has gotten worse in large measure because the enemy has been encouraged directly by the dissension in the American politic... which in large measure is a result of biased reporting of the earlier results.

The liberal media has been saying "this war is now unwinnable" since it began. It is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy by in one stroke encouraging our enemy and demoralizing and dividing our own people. Had the same media tactics been used during WWII, FDR would have been voted out of office after the Phillipines were lost and we would have withdrawn our troops... the public certainly wouldn't have endured the thousands of deaths in N Africa and Italy. There is no way the US would have remained in the war to take part in D-Day.

All wars are elective. You make a calculation as to whether the costs of doing nothing with real force outweigh the costs of military action. You also try to evaluate the best you can how much it will cost you to wait until later. IMO, the miscalculation as much as it is prior to the invasion was partially caused by the fear that Saddam in 6 months or a year would be much better prepared to defend. Resolve for sanctions was failing. Oil for food was corrupt. Saddam was evading/resisting inspectors... and most importantly, intelligence agencies said he had stockpiles of WMD's at that time.

"Meat grinder" is overly dramatic. We have had less total casualties in the 4 or so years of Iraq than we had in minor Civil War battles or the second week of June 1944.

I grieve each death and wound but it is wholly inaccurate to portray Iraq as a particularly bloody operation for our forces.

That much is about half true. There is no chance that liberals are going to allow US morale concerning this operation to improve. Iraq is one of their keys to gaining control again in spite of the general unpopularity of their platform.

I agree with what Hillary says (at least sometimes she says it when she isn't saying something contradictory). We should withdraw our forces to Kuwait and Kurd areas. The Iraqi police should take over their business and we should react against militias and major military forces that muster. Added to that, we should shut down the border traffic by insurgents. Basically we should get out of the way while providing them with an umbrella to get their act together.

How do YOU know that? No less than Putin, who didn't exactly help us out, said that Saddam was committed to acts of terrorism against the US, that he would foster them.

The 9/11 report as well as other official papers and studies have suggested different. If they were enemies then why did they wait until after Saddam's ouster to come in and cause problems?

Wherever we can find their leaders. BTW, I wouldn't be nearly so cautious as Bush has been about attacking terrorist leaders in "sensitive" countries. If they are there and the native gov't won't do anything about it, we should... ie Pakistan.

We no longer have that here since liberals have successfully centralized power and wealth in the Federal gov't.

But you are right. At best, they will be some sort of lesser democracy. My solution would have been to create a confederation that allowed all of the groups some measure of self rule.

The policy should evolve and I am not necessarily convinced that Rumsfeld can do it. One thing I hold against Bush and believe will have tremendous indirect costs to the conservative movement is his allegiance to Rumsfeld.

Actually, al Qaeda and others would disagree with you on that. However those other things are big problems.

I have a bro-in-law in the NG who is being deployed to Afghanistan btw. He needs prayer.

If we cannot have unified support to defeat Saddam, do you really think the nation can stomach what it would take to defeat Iran or N Korea? Iraq is nothing compared to the costs of defeating these enemies.

 

Evidence of media bias:

It is interesting how definitions change based on what effect the press wants to have. They reported earlier that al-Sadr had seized control of a city of 750,000 only to withdraw when 600 Iraqi soldiers arrived. So with something apparently less than 600 troops, al-Sadr's militia had "seized control" of a major city?

Now the question is: Would that have been called "seized control" if our troops had that little grip? No. We have much more control and the press insists we have none.

 

Sorry. A report says there were approximatley 800 Mahdi militiamen.

 

Please describe the right path:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Thanks.