http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/yates.pdf

page 14-17

Remember the early pre-war analysis? There were three hard issues on the table–Iraq, Iran and Korea– and the debate raged for months over how to sequence our approach to them. NK was considered almost impossible, militarily. So the first engagement, as a practical matter, boiled down to either Iraq or Iran. Iraq was considered less difficult. Among the arguments for prioritizing Iraq over Iran were that it would be a good training ground and a beach head for the larger/longer fight in the Middle East.

Of course we’ll have permanent bases in Iraq. That was the point of the invasion.- Stormy70 at 11:10 PM

That’s what I thought too, Stormy. Are we the only ones who heard that? Maybe we were just hallucinating. – petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Nope! Hearing that just tickled me pink … without the code .. ;)

We don’t need no stinkin’ EXIT plan!

Of course we’ll have permanent bases in Iraq. That was the point of the invasion.- Stormy70 at 11:10 PM

That’s what I thought too, Stormy. Are we the only ones who heard that? Maybe we were just hallucinating.

It’s more of the same beautiful plan I recognized in the beginning. We plant the flag in the muslim back yard and say to hell with their religious fantacism element that keeps them sequestered from playing nice with the rest of the world.

Now we emphatically make the point that we ain’t leaving. Time to grow up and join the 21st century. Good. Well done Mr. President. I’m with you.

Karl on September 14, 2007 at 3:00 AM

This is the definition of awesome.

Entelechy on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Machiavelli Ho!!!

Going to and staying in Iraq will have little to do with Saddam or the WMDs, though getting rid of him was necessary. Looking back 20, 30+ years it will have been brilliant. Being in Afghanistan as well. Geo- is waaaay more important here than local kibitzing.

We’re never leaving Iraq.

President Bush told us so last night.

ModernConservative on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 PM

You’re right. Just like we never left Germany, South Korea, etc. We are there to stay. And the Iraqis will have to begrudgingly accept it as long as Iran is breathing down their back.

Uninspiring man giving uninspired speech about a war front fought with confused motives and restrained military force against an enemy (Islamic/Koranically-based militants) he refuses to confront ideologically.

Bush continues to tread water instead of daring to start to drain the Islamic swamp of its malignant ideology.

profitsbeard on September 14, 2007 at 11:26 AM

This is precisely why I can’t listen to him (or any other politician) anymore.

All this talk about troop withdrawals, retreat, and benchmarks is totally trumped by one fact: We’re never leaving Iraq.

President Bush told us so last night.

You worry too much. Sen. Reed responding to any president, is just a little man entering the big picture.

Plus, who doesn’t know the libs’ games by now? I was more shocked that none of the leftie contenders for the presidencey responded. Talk about chicken! They know that they wouldn’t end the war, or as they say ‘occupation’ and, thus, wouldn’t expose themselves. No cojones, just games.

We cannot defeat fanaticism without undermining its rationale.

Which means analyzing the specific Koran verses (and Hadith sayings) which excuse and promote their “holy” terror.

“Democracy” will only allow the Koranically-brainwashed majority to gain power, when we should be confronting, lambasting, mocking and scholarly/intellectually destroying their “religious” justifications.

Bush continues to tread water instead of daring to start to drain the Islamic swamp of its malignant ideology.

He got off on the delusional Religion of Peace foot, and it has tripped him up ever since.

May the next fighter against Islamofascism be more honest (Guiliani?) so that we may fight more effectively.

I think this says it better, though.

W’s speech was good, and the local coverage on our community reaction was good, but I almost broke my tv when NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS all carried the “Democratic Response.” No shock that the Democrats would respond, but the fact that the networks actually carried a formal speech by a Democratic Senator immediately following in response to the President of the United States addressing the nation in time of war.

1) That is so over the top WRONG to put one Senator up equal to the President.

2) It’s not a “response” when he goes on the air 60 seconds after the President. That’s premeditated windbagging, and as far as I’m concerned it’s treason considering the subject matter. It showed me once again that the Democrats do not know how to listen and possess not one shred of intellectual honesty or ethics.

I really hope that what happened last night is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for the many moderates in the DP. Power to the people! Now all I have to worry about is what January 2009 will bring…

/vent

PJM Barcelona: Unsurprisingly, President Bush’s major speech on Iraq Thursday [full text here] became the hottest topic in the blogosphere like a shot. Here’s a sample of reaction………