I’m not buying into the “bad managment of the war” line being drummed into us by the media. If Al Gore had won the election in 2000 (God help us), he would have probably followed the same path. But the media would be rallying the masses behind the war, not droning out a daily casualty rate. They would be showing daily footage of 9-11, and reporting only the successes of the troops, and the deaths of our enemies.
The polls would show a majority still support the war, the presidential approval ratings would be high, and those who attacked us, would now fear us. In other words……IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Several findings are interesting.
- Seems the Iraq war, or Bush Administration policy in general for the last 5 years, is not creating support for terrorism. If anything, the reverse.
- In other findings: Seems that people’s satisfaction with their lives and their own country is linked to their country’s economic growth.

So where does that leave the Dems? Shrillary vs. Silky Pony? But he doesn’t seem ready for primetime either. His “Two Americas” class warfare theme is increasingly detached from the reality. So… it’s Shrillary?

On the Republican side, Rudy still loses my respect for buying into Manbearpig… but gains my respect for openly challenging Dem healthcare “socialism” (his term). I’m waiting to see if Rudy or Fred is better.

Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons ‘in any circumstance’… ‘I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,’ Obama said, with a pause, ‘involving civilians’ Then he quickly added, ‘Let me scratch that’…

What a joke.

Replace “Sunni areas” with south Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and there you have it. A tired liberal rerun.

Besides, they’re only poor and misunderstood bumperstickers, right keogh? The kind that are so peace loving that they’d shove a grenade up their ass rather than go back to Club Gitmo.

“From past encounters, I have reason to believe you don’t really want that.”
Save that type of childish attack for people like NDT, V&K and the rest of the children.
It does not suit you.

A President Obama wouldn’t attack Pakistan under any circumstances. No way. No how. It’s an empty throw-away. Completely unserious.

Obama was much more intersting before he decided to run for prez.

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

He caught hell for that… the truth can sting.

Fact – Another major factor is Iran, both in supporting al Qaeda somewhat, and (more) in supporting Shiite militias such as Mookie’s.

Fact – al Qaeda dominates the native so-called “insurgents” by assassinating tribal / Sunni leaders who object to al Qaeda and torturing their children. (I mean real torture here, keogh/gil. Not your fake kind.)

Fact – as the Sunnis themselves increasingly turn on al Qaeda and join America and specfically the ISF (that’s Iraqi Security Forces, keogh/gil), the native Sunni part of the so-called “insurgency” (which actually represents Baathist forces of reaction) is shrinking.

Fact – all that al Qaeda has to do to dominate events in Iraq, or any country for that matter, is continue committing their heinous acts of terrorism there.

Fact – al Qaeda has declared their own State inside Iraq.

Fact – al Qaeda has declared their intention to rule Iraq as the core of a new, militant and expanding Islamic Caliphate, as the U.S. leaves.

Firmly-based conjecture – if the U.S. pulls out too soon, before ISF are firmly established and al Qaeda in Iraq defeated, then

(1) al Qaeda gets to dominate the Sunni-majority parts of Iraq; again by widespread torture, murder and terrorism;
(2) the Shia-majority parts will turn to militias for protection, aided and abetted by Iran;
(3) War then breaks out along sectarian lines. (Possibly made worse by Turkey invading the north, to prevent Kurdish independence.)
(4) With the total breakdown of all order and services, an unimaginable humanitarian disaster then results. Most civilians will die from plain disease, starvation, etc. – though many will certainly also die from terrorism or direct war.

Does that answer your question?

Our military/treasury will be free… to actually attack Al Qeada where they are.

Our military is already doing that, keogh/gil. It’s this certain country called, um… you know… Iraq.

Thus we could actually win the “WOT”

From past encounters, I have reason to believe you don’t really want that.

The same way that they do now, but with far less interruption.

Again, gil, why should we believe that you “will” fight al-Qaeda, when you and your Democrat Party are actively trying to withdraw our troops from the area where they are most active, most numerous, and most dangerous NOW?

Furthermore, gil, you and your leftist allies argue that we should withdraw our troops because invading other countries and fighting on their territory only strengthens al-Qaeda — but then you argue that you want to invade other countries and fight on their territories with these withdrawn troops?

I don’t think they will. Once our troops leave, the small amount of Al Qeada in Iraq will lose its influence over the Sunni militias.

Our military/treasury will be free from occupying/policing a nation and be able to actually attack Al Qeada where they are.
Thus we could actually win the “WOT”

Interestingly enough, I seem to remember you posting something previously about al-Qa’ida in Iraq, torrentprime.

Namely, that it was AQ’s “most visible and capable affiliate” AND, most importantly, the one that had the most willingness to attack AND presented the largest danger to the United States.

Therefore, according to Democrat strategic logic, we should deploy our troops AWAY from it so that it is not impeded in the least, and put them in nice places like Okinawa, where al-Qaeda hasn’t shown any interest in attacking.

Or we should use them to invade a country that is already fighting al-Qaeda, despite the insistence by leftists like Obama previously that invading other countries only made the populace mad and helped al-Qaeda.

So, to summarize:

– Democrats claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq was the largest threat — but want to completely remove all troops from Iraq.

– Democrats insist that invading Muslim countries only results in hard feelings and increases al-Qaeda’s power — but then wants to invade Pakistan.

– Democrats demand punishment for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are actively fighting Islamist terrorism and have been for years — but completely oppose anything of the sort for Syria and Iran, who have been encouraging and supporting Islamist terrorism for years.

If there is no real and substantial political progress in Iraq, the US military must stop policing the streets of Iraq which will put real and substantial pressure on the Iraqi gov allow Al Qaeda to slaughter Iraqis by the millions and send the clear signal that the United States will abandon its allies in the face of terror.

There, fixed it for ya.

You and yours claim to be appalled by the carnage and thinking only of the poor innocent Iraqis being killed…….but, as our troops are drastically reducing both, you want them yanked away, ostensibly to punish the Iraqi politicians.

Which will increase the carnage and number of poor innocent Iraqis being killed.

The new spin of the racist Democrats like gil is to insist that progress cleaning out insurgents and turning the Iraqi people against them is worthless because there’s no “political progress”.

The irony is made only more palpable by their support of the do-nothing Democrat Congress, which is castigating the Iraqi Parliament for taking a recess just as they themselves are walking out the door for theirs.