We also invaded Iraq to reform it and show the unstable, backward Muslim countries in the region by an Iraqui example that a much better life was available to them if they quit following extremists who murdered their neighbors and started living as a responsible world citizens under a new government which contained at least some element of democracy.

The leftist MSM feigns amnesia and ignores this part of the rationale because not one single Democrat has ever done anything so big and bold and which could potentially solve the Mid-East problem.

While we are a few steps away from total success, an enormous amount of progress has been made, and history is very likely to include George Bush as one of the worlds’ great visionaries: a thought which the Democrats and other enemies of America cannot stand because it exposes them as the small-minded whiners that they are.

The difference between the U.S. and AQ is that our military kicks there butt. And if you think that they are so tough, let them try to invade this second amendment country.

Johan Klaus on July 7, 2008 at 2:15 AM

Thank you Von Klaus, wisdom like this keeps my business in the black and my wallet fat. By the way, Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. We invaded Iraq because of their gigantic stockpile of WMD’s and their nuclear ambitions. Oh wait, sorry, I meant we invaded Iraq to rid the world of a brutal dictator. No, actually it was GOD who told GWB to invade Iraq to ensure peace for Israel and the Middle East. Kind of hard to keep track, huh? Well, the good news is, with an ever-changing array of excuses for the invasion, Bush will get plenty of opportunity to whip out his “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner.

I thought he was a dead white racist male. Haven’t liberals succeeded in getting “Tom Sawyer” and “Huckleberry Finn” banished from school reading lists? Funny how he is suddenly in vogue again.

SO much for a July Fourth week spent in idyllic celebration of our country’s birthday. This year’s festivities were marked instead by a debate — childish, not constitutional — over who is and isn’t patriotic. The fireworks were sparked by a verbally maladroit retired general, fueled by two increasingly fatuous presidential campaigns, and heated to a boil by a 24/7 news culture that inflates any passing tit for tat into a war of the worlds.

Beware your mind-masters, our elitist manipulative media!

Entelechy on July 6, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.
- Mark Twain

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
- Mark Twain

My kind of loyalty was to one’s country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to. Institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death.
- Mark Twain

DanKenton on July 6, 2008 at 6:20 PM
The difference between AQ and America is that we’re playing 2 different strategies; them chess and us checkers. If you actually think bigger government, this occupation and the TSA is keeping us from getting hit again on our soil, sleep tight sweethearts

The difference between the U.S. and AQ is that our military kicks there butt. And if you think that they are so tough, let them try to invade this second amendment country.

DanKenton on July 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM
AQ in Iraq is a punchline and just an excuse to keep throwing money and lives down a big, dark hole.

I seem to remember the U.S. being attacked.

although if they want to be cheeky, they should put out a new ad congratulating Barry O on his newfound openness to stability-driven “refinements” of his withdrawal plan. Imagine some lefty turning on his TV to find that spot running: “Vets for Freedom salutes its newest ally in the fight for victory in Iraq: Sen. Barack Obama.”

Do you really think that would affect a Barry supporter? If they’re a Barry supporter, they’ve already decided that honesty isn’t very important to them (either that, or they’re just morons). Remember that Obama supporters aren’t thinking people. That type of ad isn’t going to get their attention.

CBS – Obama’s Changing Iraq Stance?

HSBC will still be there when you get back. Don’t miss out on your chance to be a part of History. You’re young and you have your whole life ahead of you, don’t wait ’til you’re old to say “I should’ve done this or I wish I did that.”

The difference between AQ and America is that we’re playing 2 different strategies; them chess and us checkers. If you actually think bigger government, this occupation and the TSA is keeping us from getting hit again on our soil, sleep tight sweethearts. I’ve got 30+ trips to the Middle East on my passport since Desert Storm and we’re not welcome there regardless of what Right Wing blog convinced you we were.

If the USA gets whatever it wanted, to have an alliance treaty, to have oil exchange, or whatever, I’ll be happy. Otherwise, we had our victory with Saddam’s trial and execution and the Iraqi democratic vote and Iraqi constitution. Nearly a clean sweep temporarily, nearing this point before the election. Re: 100 years, I defer any judgment to Petraeus and his advisers IF the USA actually GETS EVERYTHING IT NEEDS from Iraqi treaty and deals.

The GOP should have a check list ad of positive accomplishments that Bush achieved to clear the field of the monopoly of negativity drowning the media.

Morons need not get bent out of shape. I am not saying that Bush is perfect and did no harm. His RINO qualities are infamous. But he deserves credit for telling our “allies” to put up or shut up at 9/11 and our need to respond. He probably threatened Islamic countries to be nuked if ANYONE again attacked our territory during his presidency, preventing another 9/11 despite his failure to provide border security. Having ousted Saddham Hussein, ONE Arab threatening the USA, Bush deserves credit for FINALLY allowing Petraeus to deliver us from our inept Iraqi ways.

I’m just continually amazed at the military-hating asshats who try to use that argument to prop up their anti-war agenda. As if they give a rat’s ass.

Having said that, don’t they teach kids about Iwo Jima anymore?

Don’t these jerks know how many American casualties there were during the Clinton administration?

Punks.

Didn’t Maliki just kick Iran out of Basra and Baghdad (not to mention a number of other provinces?)

Well, the Mahdi militias. Groups aligned with/supported by Iran.

I think the Iraqi Shi’a are much more independent thinking than those who believe they’ll just gladly (broadly speaking) march along with the Iranians. History shows that, it seems to me.

‘Course, if one thinks all Muslims are a near-monolith in their views of the West, there’s not much I can say to counter things.

I.e., we’ve given the country over to the majority Shi’a by defeating the Sunni Baathists and they’ll be aligned with Iran no matter what we do.

Unless we stay there forever.

SteveMG on July 6, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Didn’t Maliki just kick Iran out of Basra and Baghdad (not to mention a number of other provinces?)

We will need some kind of presence there for awhile. Just like Japan and Germany …. gee, where did I hear that before?

The arguement boils down to: after spending over 4,000 lives and billions of dollars to rid Iraq of Saddam, we give it to Iran.

Yes, but you know the rejoinder.

I.e., we’ve given the country over to the majority Shi’a by defeating the Sunni Baathists and they’ll be aligned with Iran no matter what we do.

Unless we stay there forever.

I think it’s a simplistic view of Islam and Iraq (as NY Times reporter John Burns pointed out, during the Iran-Iraq war the majority of Iraqi Shi’a freely defended their country from the Persians – no sectarian affinity led them to joining with the Iranians).

- The Cat

It’s not an entirely bad argument.

SteveMG on July 6, 2008 at 4:35 PM

The arguement boils down to: after spending over 4,000 lives and billions of dollars to rid Iraq of Saddam, we give it to Iran.
.
It really isn’t a very good argument.

So tell us Mr. Kenton, what is your suggestion? Pull them out?

Playing the devil’s advocate here, I think the argument is that we simply cannot expend the resources in Iraq that we’ve had to (and will continue to do so albeit on a lesser scale), that the enterprise will inevitably fail (democracy can’t take hold in such a culture) and that it’s smarter to focus/expend resources on our security here at the homeland instead of nation-building abroad.

Further, AQ simply can’t succeed in Iraq, they’ll eventually be driven out of the country and if somehow they do get a foothold we can always attack them from the air or use other measures.

It’s not an entirely bad argument.

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2008/07/judgment-on-iraq-sorting-right-from.html

http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/volunteer/

U.S. men and women are getting killed and having their arms and legs blown off at an all-time low since the beginning of the invasion. Translation: Americans are STILL sacrificing their lives for a group of people that have been killing each other since the dawn of their existence. Maybe one day they’ll say thank you by giving us some of that oil for a deep discount. Of course, if McShame has his way, they’ll have at least 100 years to make good on their collective debt.

So tell us Mr. Kenton, what is your suggestion? Pull them out? Do nothing? I bet dollars to donuts that you simply like whining to hear your own voice and tow the liberal bumper sticker mindset. How about offering a suggestion on how to improve the situation?

::cricket cricket::

Yep, thought so. You don’t HAVE a solution. You can’t COMPREHEND the concept of long term occupation for long term peace. You simply ebody the teenage temper tantrum thinking of the left.

If you don’t have a solution, have a nice hot cup of Shut the Hell Up.

::end rant::