As was shown by the willingness of leftists like yourself, Michael, to leave the Iraqis to be terrorized, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by the millions under Saddam — because you had “no skin in the game”.

And I’m over trading selective talking points. Everyone wants this horror of a war to end soon and well. But supporting a path because it’s proposed by your “side” isn’t gonna get us anywhere. It may be fun to spar politically on domestic issues. But it’s not when the deaths of our fellow citizens and those abroad become an abstraction; war too easily ends up as a game when viewed from a secure distance with no “skin in the game.” Over there, it’s ugly and sad. And the brutality of war changes the people who fight it for the rest of their lives.

I wish we had a media that would show reality on the ground and inform us with sober clarity. We don’t. I just saw this Channel 4 piece from the UK. Why don’t we see pieces like this in our so-called liberal media? If we did, it’d at least be harder to give our government a free pass for failing to take better care of soldiers when they return.

Please check it out:

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=4300

And also check out Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s website (www.IAVA.org) where I found the link.

First Ian:

I’m not surprised you missed Michael’s entire point. Bush’s depraved joking attitude about the taking of a human life is at issue, not Tucker.

Then Michael:

Well said Ian. Peter, I don’t know whether Tucker’s self-declared conversion was heartfelt or a PR stunt and neither do you; neither one of us is a mindreader. But Bush’s mocking callousness in an unguarded moment is telling.

Both of these people are arguing that Bush should be pilloried for refusing to stay the execution of a cold-blooded killer who murdered innocent individuals and was convicted by a jury, given the full right of appeal, and ultimately lost all of them.

And yet, when it comes to removing a regime that systematically terrorizes, imprisons, tortures, and murders millions of its citizens, including some for the mere crime of being the infant child of a political dissident, they consider it “unnecessary and unjustified”.

As that shows, Michael, you and your fellow leftists don’t care one whit about human life, not when you’re whining about the death penalty for a convicted brutal murderer one minute and defending a despot who killed the innocent with impunity in the next.

And furthermore, Michael, notice something about all those sources you cite; they are FORMER generals.

Which means they are no longer active, nor do they have access to the volument of information that the actual, active commanders do, or that the President does.

Furthermore, the irony is that, if it were up to leftist Democrats, McCaffrey, for one, would not have led troops in the first Gulf War because there wouldn’t have been one; leftists Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy, to name several, all voted against military action against Saddam Hussein even when he had invaded one country and was threatening numerous others. Why McCaffrey wants to suck up to them now, I have no idea, but I would wager it has something to do with the fact that failure to spout the network’s line gets one fired as an analyst.

Regards,
Peter H.

After reading the fair and balanced reporting of Michelle Malkin et al., benefited from your comprehensive understanding of Iraq’s past and present, and your argumentative prowess, I would like to apoligize for my former posts and thank you for helping me see the truth.

Fully joining your side, I would like to alert you to other, as you note, “superficial and unserious hatemongers.” They are actually doubting the wisdom for deploying 21,500 additional troups! Of course we all know where their true sympathies lie.

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the Central Command
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War
Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency
Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the Army
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, former Secretary of the Navy
Senator Dick Lugar, Republican of Indiana, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, served in the Navy

“Too little and too late,” is the way Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, described the effort to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The additional troops are intended to help pacify Baghdad and a restive province, but General Hoar said American leaders had failed to understand the political forces at work in the country. “The solution is political, not military,” he said.

“A fool’s errand,” was the judgment of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded troops in the first Gulf War. He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer.”

Describing the situation in Iraq as “desperate but not terminal,” he said Iraqis had to try to make political deals domestically and negotiate for stability with neighboring nations, particularly Syria and Iran.

The American effort in Iraq has gone badly because the United States did not understand the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, said Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency. He said the principal beneficiary of the war was Iran and Al Qaeda, not the United States.

In statements and in questioning, senators were skeptical about the increased commitment of troops and the likely outcome of the deployment. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, noted that he had raised questions about the effort in Iraq as long ago as 2003, and said, “Today, I don’t have an understanding about how it will work militarily.”

Senator Warner’s proposed resolution against sending more troups: “The Senate disagrees with the ‘plan’ to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals with reduced force levels than proposed.”

Peter and Doyne, these disgraceful traitors certainly hate America, want us to lose in Iraq, and are terrorist sympathizers. It’s our patriotic duty to call on President Bush to declare these “men” (the name Lugar sounds French to me) enemy combatants; revoke their Constitutional rights; and immediately render them to Guantanamo, Syria, or Egypt for “coercive,” “aggressive” “interrogation.”

Who else with me? Before you answer that question, remember that if you’re against me, you’re clearly with the terrorists.

Patriotically yours,
Michael

Now, if we’re talking about reporters who get outside the Green Zone and do, you know, real reporting – first-hand stuff – as embeds, or whatever – OK, they have tremendous courage, which I praise and honor.

But – Problem for michael is: now we’re talking about people like… oh, I dunno… Michelle Malkin… Bill Roggio… Michael Yon… Milbloggers (i.e., actual field soldiers who report via blogs)… etc.

Oh, so journalists have more courage than American soldiers? If it weren’t for the soldiers in the first place, journalists wouldn’t be free to publish whatever dreck they feel like to the likes of al-AP and al-Reuters.

Nice try.

Regards,
Peter H.

If anything, the situation has deteriorated in the last year. While Saddam’s death might have thrilled the Shia and made you feel great, it’s fueling Sunni outrage and has intensified sectarian tensions.

Your claim that the study was done by journalists in the Green Zone is a lie. It was conducted national-wide by the Institute for Social Research, one of the world’s oldest survey research organizations. And don’t mock the courage of the journalists working in Iraq; 93 journalist have been murdered there (as well as 37 of their staff). It’s insulting to their memories and their families.

Sorry, your single blog report and “money quote” isn’t convincing next to a nation-wide study.I don’t doubt the report from the enbed blogger, but I didn’t say everyone wants us to leave within the year. Only 70% do.

And the talking point that we must fight them there or they’ll follow us back here is propaganda meant to frighten pussies like. I agree we should stay in Al Ambar and kill all the al Qaeda there. But Americans shouldn’t be dying in Baghdad’s Shia-Sunni sectarian war.

You’re apparently happy deluding yourself, discounting real facts to fit your preconceptions and ideology–knock yourself out. Fortunately, you’re part of a shrinking group, and saner minds will soon prevail.

Reminds me of Stephen Colbert at the WH Correspondents’ dinner:

“Now I know there’s some polls out there that say this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in ‘reality.’ And ‘reality’ has a well known liberal bias.”

“Pay no attention to people who say the glass is half empty…Because 32 percent means it’s 1/3 full. But I wouldn’t drink it. The last third is usually backwash.”

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002926.php

Regards,
Peter H.

Secondly, the “survey” commissioned by UM was done entirely inside the Green Belt where journalists “cover” the war but are not embedded with the troops. The veracity of this survey is quite frankly suspect. There is no mention of sampling population, questions asked, margin of error or poisson process. In other words, who was asked what questions?

Third, here is the blog from an actual embedded blogger in Fallujah who has a more recent (read: factual) perspective of the Iraqis, especially those who are training with the Iraqi army:

http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/hAjUllAfCaRT.cgi/2925

Money quote from “Mohammad” (who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution): “I think we need the Americans. If they go out right now it’s gonna be a disaster. And believe me, even if they get out of Fallujah, Washington itself will be a target.”

Match, set, game.

Regards,
Peter H.

An 8/17/06 US News & World Report article on University of Michigan study reports:

“There was more bad news for U.S. officials, who have worked hard to convince Iraqis that American intentions in Iraq are noble. The most recent survey, done in April this year, found almost no Iraqis who felt the United States had invaded to liberate their country from tyranny and build a democracy. Asked for “the three main reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq,” fully 76 percent cited “to control Iraqi oil.” That was followed by “to build military bases” (41 percent) and “to help Israel” (32 percent). Fewer than 2 percent chose “to bring democracy to Iraq” as their first choice.”

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17iraq.htm?s_cid=rss:site1

Also michael = “It does reinforce the widely-held Iraqi suspicions that we have colonial rather than virtuous intentions.” I suppose you have interviewed Iraqis that have told you this, no? If not, I would advise you to lay off the generalities unless you can back them up with facts.

And ian, YOU missed the entire point. Then-Gov. Bush was merely following “the will of the people” in not rescinding Karla Faye Tucker’s execution. His “mocking” was nothing more that presenting the pro-criminal position as espoused by Amnesty International and the Hollyweird left as being out of touch with everyday Texans. If anything, outside agitators “mock” the values of everyday Americans, and it is they who owe us the apology.

Regards,
Peter H.

LOL. It’s not invective to call the Democrats “superficial.” Why? Because you believe they are. But if I called George Bush “unintelligent” is would be invective because you don’t believe him to be so.

This whole business about invective and the breakdown in civil discourse as a problem with progressives is a joke here. Just review a few of the comments by Matt or the professor.

The truth is that discourse has become glib and personal on both sides. And if you want evidence of it on your side, besides reading this blog, listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush and friends. Libs are godless traitors, according to these paragons of polite discourse, but it’s okay to call them that because it’s true, right?

The original post says that “even some on the left acknowledge the shift in the strategy the president’s proposed surge represents.” Who are you talking about? Let’s be honest- if by “some” you mean Joe Lieberman, say “even Joe Lieberman acknowledges…”

Implying that people are critical of the policy because they are Bush-haters, unpatriotic, or want us to lose in Iraq IS invective. There’s a near consensus that Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. And everyone concedes that the policy’s success relies largely on Maliki, whose intentions are dubious at best. Throwing 20,000 more American soldiers into the mix doesn’t change these realities. It does reinforce the widely-held Iraqi suspicions that we have colonial rather than virtuous intentions.

In terms of an alternative, most Democrats believe that the Baker-Hamilton findings provide a better chance for success.

You’re right. The day she assumed room temperature should be designated, at the minimum, a state holiday. Everybody should take the day off and soberly consider the matter.

I lived in Houston back then. Tucker WAS a joke. Funny, isn’t it, how that’s all solemn, sobering and all that BS, but burning down the Branch Davidians was a BBQ Reno style.

least of all Bush and his Paris Hilton wannabe offspring.

Say, where’s Chelsea? Oh yeah. Busy making $100,000+ right out of college. Too much money to get sand in her vagina. Last I checked, we had a volunteer military. Or is it mandatory for people liberal douchebags hate?