Unannounced Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is heading back to Iraq. She has been there a few times and disrupted the work of our soldiers. At least one was forced to pose with her for a photo, one he did not want to pose for. I do not know w…

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy that you can meet on a battlefield or bomb.

Sophistry

There is an enemy who is engaged in terror as a tactic, and we can and will kill him whenever he does it.

Going door to door in Baghdad? Don’t see how tanks or missiles or carriers really bring much to that, do you?

Take a tank with you when you go door to door? Try going without one. (Mogadisu)

Seriously, Honora, I thought you were smarter than that.
You have no idea what your comments reveal.

Otherwise, what is our absolutely overwhelming military power for?

profitsbeard on January 11, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Military power is a blunt instrument, good for large scale endeavors. Going door to door in Baghdad? Don’t see how tanks or missiles or carriers really bring much to that, do you?

We need to re-adjust our thinking. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy that you can meet on a battlefield or bomb. It’s frustrating, but there it is. This is one of those times where brains trump brawn.

Uh. . . give up?

(short, sweet, pithy)

rockhauler on January 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Great. I am more and more inclined to consider the Biden (and others, can’t recall who) idea of supporting a loose federation with partitioned areas and have our troops guard the borders. Containment. Isn’t that a bitter irony?

3) If the Iraqis don’t perform as needed, what’s the backup plan?

honora on January 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Uh. . . give up?

(short, sweet, pithy)

Bush then tells us the new plan; it’s clear that the plan pivots on the Iraqis doing what they need to do. If the Iraqis don’t deliver, it’s curtains.

1) At what point did it become okay for the United States to hand over its’ security to another party?

2) How certain are we that Maliki will, in the end, show his allegiance to a new Iraq, versus the Shiites?

3) If the Iraqis don’t perform as needed, what’s the backup plan?

numbnuts,

Danny Devito??

Was that pithy enough? I notice none of you numbskulls debated the content of the post, merely the “tone”. Just like the liberals do when they run out of ideas.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM

AND if the line about DIALOG WITH THE INSURGENTS wasn’t Hysterical to you, then you’re an idiot or a wimp who thinks that people who want you dead, give a f-ck what you have to “Dialog” about.

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM

I didn’t hear the President talk about “dialog[sic] with the insurgents” last night.
And I don’t care if that’s pithy enough for you or not.
The only dialogue with the jihadis I heard discussed was the talking end of an M-16 held by a US or an Iraqi soldier.
When “liberals” run out of ideas, they blame Bush–You wouldn’t happen to be a liberal, would you, Soothsayer?
That’s about as much of the “content” of your posts as this Conservative cares to debate.

That’s the only question.
Will we fight for our lives and our Civilization’s survival against resurgent intolerant Islamic Imperialism, wherever it rears it maniacal snout, or not?

Otherwise, what is our absolutely overwhelming military power for?

Either go in to win, or don’t go in.

We’re in. Now win.

Oh, and Soothsayer (at the risk of sounding like Columbo), just one more thing. Keep it short and sweet. That way, if it wasn’t sweet, at least it was short.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 10:46 PM

If you don’t like it don’t f-ing read it. BUt do not presume to tell me how to do anything you Bush supporting idiot.

Your name implies you have some kind of exclusive foresight into the future. Your narration of the already stated facts only prove you like President Bush and “His People”, cannot forsee the perils of war. Hind sight is 20/20.

sonnyspats1 on January 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM

KOOL AID DRINKER ALERT **** Obviously you drunk the Kool Aid. My NAME in no way implies “exclusivity” that’s what a dummy would say. Who’s to say there aren’t many people who think Bush is an idiot? I think there are. If you were to check you would find out that although I supported the war.. I did so only on the conditions that we get “fly over and refueling rights” AND on the condition that the “Oil would pay for the war”, these were the first things BUSH took off the table! I also AT THE TIME told anyone who would listen that Rumsfelds idea of a “smaller sleeker fighting force” was B.S. as I have stated on this site MANY times. I’m not using “hindsight” numbnuts, I was using FORESIGHT!

Continually referring to the Commander-in-Chief as a “moron” and a “buffoon” is offensive to me, as is punctuating it with cap locked-exclamations and written maniacal laughter.

WHo cares what you find offensive? Bush is a moron and so are ANY who support his illegal alien loving ass.

Hind sight is 20/20.

Amen, sonnyspats.

Your name implies you have some kind of exclusive foresight into the future. Your narration of the already stated facts only prove you like President Bush and “His People”, cannot forsee the perils of war. Hind sight is 20/20.

1. Primary challenge is a Sunni based insurgency.

Well, you’d have to be an idiot to think this. Even Republicans were warning about what might happen after Saddam was removed or more importantly, how would the PREVIOUSLY OPPRESSED SHIITES, respond without a brutal dictator to keep them in check? In fact THIS ARTICLE on FOXNEWS from 2003 Talks about the trouble that could arise from the SHIITE COMMUNITY, further making Bush, who thought that the beef was SOLELY from the SUNNIS look like A BUFFOON. Now this article is definitely attempting to soft sell any problems after Saddam but they do at least admit the POSSIBLITY of problems from non Sunni sources. Here’s a snippet…

Q: Would Shiite dominance of Iraq produce a Sunni backlash?

A: Possibly. Sunni political dominance stretches back to the birth of Iraq as a state after World War I. Sunnis have dominated education, the army and the economy, using military force to repress rivals. They are unlikely to surrender influence easily.

So the first ASSUMPTION on Bushs’ list makes him look like an idiot since CONSERVATIVE news sources seem to have been on the ball about where problems were likely to arise, when Bush WASN’T.

2. Political Progress will help defuse the insurgency and dampen levels of violence.

Well isn’t this one a GEM? While this can be debated several ways there can be no doubt of Bush’s stupidity and the stupidity of those around him given their RESPONSE TO their previously incorrect, “ASSUMPTIONS”. Look in the “NOW” column to see why the NO LONGER think that “Political Progress will help defuse the insurgency and dampen levels of violence” ! Here’s the relevant portion…

Political and Economic progress are unlikely absent a basic level of security!

BIG FREAKING DUH! Hundreds of people had to DIE before these NINCOMPOOPS realized THIS? That you can’t open a market if someones outside with a rocket launcher? That you can’t have an “economy” if theres ANARCHY? Please someone tell me how this NAIVETE and UTTER STUPIDITY doesn’t damn Bush and those around him?

4. Majority of Iraqis will support the Coalition and Iraqi efforts build a democratic state.

They NOW say, “Iraqis increasingly disillusioned with Coalition efforts” WELL LAH DEE FREAKIN’ “DAH’. What on earth could have led them to believe that the “MAJORITY OF IRAQIS WILL SUPPORT THE COALITION”? Was it because after the SANCTIONS failed, we supported grass roots Anti-Saddam rebels with financing, causing them to achieve heroic status within the underbelly of Iraq? And THEN and ONLY THEN did we ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD, that we had given Saddam enough time and that we posted the resolutions he violated on the internet for the curious but that the ATTACK ON IRAQ had ALREADY COMMENCED and we’re telling the stupid American Media about it after the fact so as to PREVENT SADDAM FROM MOVING THE WEAPONS?

Oh wait. That’s not what we did. We broadcast our intentions to go to war with Iraq, FOURTEEN MONTHS BEFORE GOING IN. And we DIDN’T start a revolution in Iraq or fund any “ANTI-SADDAM” dissidents because WE DIDN’T KNOW ANY. And we had NO F__KING reason to believe that these people, whose only meaningful uprising against Saddam was a couple of hundred Kurds, would love us at all. And if you added up all of the people kissing soldiers and posing for pics with us after Saddam fell, IT’S A PITTANCE. And my father would tell you that the GERMAN CHICKS who bent over for choclates and other commodities after WW2, weren’t really in love with us either. We were the victors and some people just go along to get along. BUSH HAD TO BE AN IDIOT TO ENTERTAIN THIS KEY “ASSUMPTION”!

REGION has a strategic interest in the stabilization of Iraq

HUH? Whaaaat? The “region”? Like who, IRAN? IRAN SURE DOES have a “strategic interest in the “stabilization” of Iraq” but UNDER WHOSE RULE? OURS ??? HELL NO! They have absolutely ZERO interest in seeing an IRAQ that we put together thrive! That’s insane. See the BUSH IDIOTS thought this because IRAN like IRAQ has a SHIITE dominant population and they figured on some kind of what? Solidarity? Never thinking that IRAN whose SHIITES were at WAR with the SHIITES in IRAQ for years, despite their “solidarity”, would see this as a good opportunity for shall we say, “land acquisiton”? Wow. This “Key Assumption” is stunning. And further proof that BUSH IS AN IDIOT.

MAJORITY of Iraqis and Iraqi leaders see their interests as best advanced by a unified Iraq

You mean the “IRAQIS” who were violently oppressing other “IRAQIS” for years because they were on Saddams “Friends” list? Or perhaps they refer to the Iraqis that put all those other IRAQIS in those oft mentioned “MASS GRAVES”, to hear these buffoons talk, you’d think Saddam did all that killing stuff with
his kids and his brothers!

6. “DIALOGUE” with INSURGENT GROUPS will HELP REDUCE VIOLENCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha haha ha ha ha aha ha h,,…choke spit ….giggle, …….sorry, I’m okay now.

BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THIS ONE BEING A KEY DUMB ASS ASSUMPTION! The only thing I can think of with this one is the “ODD COUPLE” routine where FELIX UNGER laboriously points out that “WHEN YOU ASSUME, YOU MAKE AN “ASS” out of “U” and “ME”! And that’s exactly what this retard had done to us.

The others are pretty innocuous but the ones I’ve pointed out show Bush’s dereliction of duty through utter and complete STUPIDITY and political correctness, “Dialogue” with the insurgents…my God.

There would be such a sh*t-storm in the blogosphere, if a slaughter began to occur, that eventually it would break through the MSM’s anti-truth force field.

smellthecoffee on January 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I agree about the blogosphere having more influence now but it is not nearly organized to a point where it would make more than a moderate impact.
My opinion is that the blogosphere is divided along pretty partisan/ideological lines. Those who want to ignore it will not see it, those who want to have it broadcast, will see the independent news. I think you must consider the demographics as well – a heavy number of baby boomers don’t rely on the internet nearly as much as the under 40 crowd. Twenty years from now that will reverse but it is a natural progression, not one that can be easily forced.

I think at some point the blogosphere will have truly unbiased sources that will report and let the readers decide.

One additional observation – the MSM has been this way for decades and decades. McCarthyism, isolationist sentiment in pre WWII, etc. It is the nature of journalism that more liberal thinkers have chosen this occupation. The internet and blogs may alter this noticeably but IMHO not just yet.

Am I the only one who wants to throw up?

PinkyBigglesworth on January 11, 2007 at 2:05 PM

No. No you are not. Playing shameless politics with troop funding is playing with soldiers’ lives. That’s absolutely intolerable. Not to mention the effect this kind of sh*t has on morale–as if it wasn’t bad enough the way the November elections hung the troops out to dry. Now they have to worry about terrorists in front of them and “Lose At All Cost!” Democrats behind them.

“Twenty-one thousand five hundred troops ought to have 21,500 strings attached to them,” said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.)

Am I the only one who wants to throw up?

The Dems have no idea what this country is up against or what is going on in the world. It is only consolidation of power, nothing more, oh…… defeat Bush, humiliate Bush, impeach Bush! Translated as defeat the United States, humiliate the United States, discrace the United States!