Out of Iraq

[texaspackerbacker]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Gunakor`s argument that Iraq was wrong priority is reasonable.

[hoosier]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

I think I get it now. Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected. Something tells me you're a difficult man to reason with.

[Harlan Huckleby]

An April 2 CBS/NYT poll shows that over 60% of the American public feels that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Sounds to me like the "bulk of the American people" precisely agreeing with Obama's position.

I'm surprised that the result isn't higher, maybe some are being defensive.

But the question of the invasion is just a distraction from the real hard choices to be made. I know the Dems are solidly behind a withdrawal within two years, but I doubt the majority of Americans are so sure.

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/04/09/1/a-conversation-with-john-burns-and-dexter-filkins

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I couldn't have said it better, Tyrone.

However, as the election approaches, things always turn around--when people get the unfiltered versions, and Democrats can't hide from their horrendously bad for America positions. That's what got Gore and Kerry beat, and Obama/Hillary are already behind where those guys were in 2000 and 2004.

I think I get it now. Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected. Something tells me you're a difficult man to reason with.

Something tells me you are part of the evil cut and run, america hating left.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected.

I think you get Tex.

[texaspackerbacker]

Things are the way you say they are. And if the facts should happen to get in the way, you'll just write them off as momentary glitches soon to be corrected.

I think you get Tex.

The point is, Hoosier (and Harlan), the facts NEVER DO GET IN THE WAY--if they did, I wouldn't say the things I say.

Tyrone, much as my heart is trying to convince me you are for real, my mind has this sarcasm alert going off. I love your words, just the same.

[Gunakor]

I didn't mind at all the fact that Barak Obama pointed out his position back in '03 or whenever it was, because that just highlighted the fact that he was WRONG IN A GROSSLY ANTI-AMERICAN WAY THEN, JUST LIKE HE IS NOW!

The media can twist and spin things any damn way they want to twist and spin them, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the American people have a helluva lot more sense than to side with the rotten cut and run crowd--so let Obama spell exactly his position. Let him spell out his positions on all the issues, and it will only serve to put on display for everybody how extremely much out of the mainstream of American views and values he is.

Gunakor, exactly what good would it do to capture Bin Laden? Even killing him--which would be FAR SUPERIOR to capturing him--would do nothing except give us some feel good revenge. It's highly unlikely that Bin Laden has done much operationally with al Qaeda ever since he's been holed up wherever he is.

Committing major forces to hunt him down would be making the same mistake the Soviets did in Afghanistan--and would undoubtedly mean a lot more casualties than we have had in Iraq if we deployed a similar number of troops. And for what?

As for the comment about Bush's presidency without "the war", does that assume 9/11 happened, or not? If you are assuming it did--and Bush prevented any repeats--either with or without "the war", then THAT is a pretty monumental achievement, wouldn't you agree?

Furthermore, if you assume 9/11 did occur--with the horrendous economic hit it brought us, the magnificent comeback from it and economic boom which is only now subsiding, resulting from Bush's tax cuts, is another HUGE achievement. I shutter to think of how BAD things would have gotten if 9/11 had occurred in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Either almost certainly would have STUPIDLY raised taxes and driven the country rapidly toward third world status--which probably would have delighted the imbecile, Gore, as it would have transitioned perfectly into his horrible tearing down of America to feed the idiocy of his global warming crap.

9/11 obviously did occur. Osama bin Laden was responsible, not Saddam Hussein. There was no conspiracy between the two - they were not partners in any capacity. The fault was not in reacting to 9/11. The fault was with the shift in focus from bin Laden to Hussein.

You could be right that trying to hunt down bin Laden is pointless at this point, but go back 5 years. That's when the focus shifted to Iraq. Why? It was bin Laden that was the mastermind behind 9/11 and it was Al Queida that carried it out. Neither were in Iraq in March 2003. That's how they lost my support for the war - they forgot the reason they went to war in the first place. In effect, they started a second war. True enough, the two are connected now. But regardless how the media and the government tried to spin it, there was no connection back then. Other than the fact that Hussein and bin Laden were muslims of Arab descent anyway. Assuming he's telling the truth that he's not at war with Islam, what was his purpose of going to Iraq in the first place? Oil? Revenge? Maybe, but IMO whatever it was it wasn't worth 3500+ American lives.

As I said, however, we can't just pull out now. There's too much at stake. Although there was no imminent threat from Iraq 6 years ago, there certainly is now. If we were to leave before acheiving stability and with Iraq having a well trained and equipped police force to enforce law it would most certainly come back to bite us later.

My point was that it shouldn't have had to come to this in the first place.

[hoosier]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?

[hoosier]

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.

I think the Dem candidates have been reduced to this strategy in the wake of the last two presidential elections. Put yourself in their shoes. You've seen what happens when your party tries to stake out reasoned positions on the war on terror: you get branded flip-flopper, anti-american, you get swift boated, and so on. The turn to image and sound bite politics strikes me as a survival technique. It doesn't bode well for the future of political debate in this country, but I certainly understand why both Dem candidates would take this approach.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

works ok for me. probably your wife is picking up the phone & breaking your dial-up connection.

[texaspackerbacker]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am troubled when Hillary & Barack promise to "end the war" on the campaign trail. I know it is just words, but it`s an empty deception. I thought the lesson of Vietnam and Bush & Cheney was that our leaders should be honest. The only way to "end the war" would be to have a draft and send 2 million soldiers to Iraq and impose martial law.

I think the Dem candidates have been reduced to this strategy in the wake of the last two presidential elections. Put yourself in their shoes. You've seen what happens when your party tries to stake out reasoned positions on the war on terror: you get branded flip-flopper, anti-american, you get swift boated, and so on. The turn to image and sound bite politics strikes me as a survival technique. It doesn't bode well for the future of political debate in this country, but I certainly understand why both Dem candidates would take this approach.

that's a good point, especially on the flip flop. Sometimes it is necessary to flip-flop, the world isn't static. I wish either HC or BO would say what they REALLY expect to do. BO has drpped some hints recently about a residual force. He did ask some good questions about specific conditions for withdrawal. Well, maybe BO should state HIS conditions if he indeed has some. After all, it's his judgement that will count in 9 months, not Patraeus.

the way we choose leaders is nuts. those fuckers should be cross-examined and expected to answer hard questions.

[Joemailman]

The truth is the next President will have to reduce troop levels in Iraq or risk losing Afghanistan, which could be worse than losing Iraq. Petraeus has agreed that Al-Qaeda is more dangerous in Afghanistan than in Iraq. The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.