posted on April 23, 2007 06:54:57 PM
Leave Iraq now, and you'll find that answer in about 5 to 10 years.
Instead of arguing amongst ourselves, here at home, we should be placing pressure on the adminsitration to go in there and clean the mess up.
If we don't, those nine lives and the other 3000+ will have died for nothing.
I am a Democrat and twice in my lifetime, the Democratic party has us retreating in the face of adversity. Where are the leaders? What a terrible disgrace to our troops and those who gave their lives.
posted on April 23, 2007 07:40:48 PM
Tom, you are so right. This war is basically between the Sunni and Shia. What are we doing there? Our young men and women are being slaughtered in an Iraq civil war. The supposed danger to America and Americans if we leave Iraq is another of this administrations scare tactics. They use fear to keep us in this mess until Bush is out of office. It is sickening.
posted on April 23, 2007 07:44:38 PM
kozersky, don't you remember all the BULL ROAR from Bush and his gang telling the American people about all the victories in Iraq The victories that were helping us "win the war"?
You must remember how Cheney and Bush told us all how the enemies were on their last legs?
Below are some notes from THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR over the last over 4 years.
Latest Military Fatality Date: Apr 23, 2007 nine more American Troops lost their lives in Iraq today.
Total Fatalities since May 1, 2003: 3432
March 20th through May 1st: 140
Hostile US Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 2611
Hostile Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 2789
US deaths since July 22, 2003: 3095
(the deaths of Odai & Qusai Hussein)
US deaths since July 2, 2003: 3125
(Pres. Bush announces, "Bring Them On"
Total Hostile Fatalities since December 13, 2003: 2549
(Saddam Hussein is captured)
Coalition Deaths Since January 30, 2005: 2006
(First Nationwide election since the toppling of Saddam Hussein
Coalition Deaths Since December 15, 2005: 1248
(General election to elect a permanent Iraqi National Assembly)
Coalition Deaths Since June 7, 2006: 889
(Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)
Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since February 22, 2006: 23936
(Al Askari Mosque bombing)
Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since April 22, 2006 21567
(al-Maliki tapped as Iraq's prime minister designate)
Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since June 7, 2006 19978
(Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)
HELLS BELLS IT LOOKS LIKE WE WON THE IRAQ WAR TIME TO LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
posted on April 23, 2007 07:51:34 PM
All you are giving me is Democratic talking points.
When the German Army was rolling across the Ukraine, Kruschev standing on a high point watching the advance observed, Lenin left us a strong country, we let it turn into shi*.
Now, we are close to observing that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, left us with a strong country, and we are letting it turn into shi*.
posted on April 23, 2007 08:03:21 PM
I read somewhere, and I will look again so that I can establish the authenticity of my facts that over 15,000 Americans were murdered each year. Where is the same outcry.? I do know that over 65 murders were committed in Compton, CA in 2005. Any concern? What about those students at Virginia Tech?
Or, 3000 innocent people killed in the 9-11 attacks?
It is more popular to #*!@ at the guy in office, and weaken our position in possibly negotiating some semblance of peace in the Middle East.
Follow those Democrat leaders off the cliff. Do you really think that they give one hoot about you or your children's welfare?
[ edited by kozersky on Apr 23, 2007 08:10 PM ]
[ edited by kozersky on Apr 23, 2007 08:12 PM ]
posted on April 23, 2007 09:00:10 PM
candy rice gets on a airplane turns waves and smiles, she gets off a plane smiles and waves. BUT NO DEALS DOES SHE BRING HOME FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.
BUSH SAT BACK AND DID NOTHING BUT LET THE OIL COMPANIES MAKE BILLIONS IN RECORD PROFITS. He did nothing to help break the hold the middle east has over America for oil.
Bush weaken our position in negotiating around the world with his "YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US" cowboy talk and action. Even England is dumping BUSHY.
posted on April 23, 2007 11:46:45 PM
"""I read somewhere, and I will look again so that I can establish the authenticity of my facts that over 15,000 Americans were murdered each year. Where is the same outcry.? I do know that over 65 murders were committed in Compton, CA in 2005. Any concern? What about those students at Virginia Tech?
Or, 3000 innocent people killed in the 9-11 attacks?"""""
What does any of that have to do with slaughtering and maiming thousands of people, Iraqi and Americans, in Iraq based on lies?
Where is the outcry for the incidents you mentioned???? Are you deaf and blind? You really haven't seen any? Have you been underground for the last several years?
"""It is more popular to #*!@ at the guy in office, and weaken our position in possibly negotiating some semblance of peace in the Middle East.""""
BUSH weakened our position of negotiations by not USING ANY!!!!!
Why NOT b!tch at him...isn't he the "decider", the "war President, THE Commander in Chief ????? The HEAD of our country???? THE GUY RESPONSIBLE ????
"""Follow those Democrat leaders off the cliff. Do you really think that they give one hoot about you or your children's welfare? """"
Do YOU really think the people in the bushit administration who planned this war LONG BEFORE 9/11 and then USED that as an EXCUSE to maim and kill Iraqis and Americans by the thousands really give a hoot about anything but their own evil agenda???
The Democrats are the ones trying to drag us back UP the cliff that the bushit administration threw us over!!!!!!!!!!
posted on April 24, 2007 09:31:05 AM
Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable to Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.
Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." When's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda? Just wondering.
Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"
NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 24, 2007 10:32:49 AM
So bear, you believe whatever the terrorists say?
So then it follows that the "surge", which isn't working, won't work....the terrorists will just wait it out .
WHY didn't the bushits KNOW that BEFORE they opened up Iraq to the terrorists??
Seems the bushits didn't know quite a bit before they blundered into Iraq....or DID THEY ???????
As to Reid's comments:
Why does anyone have to use vitriol everyday about al Quaeda? Isn't it a given they're bad? You really think there has to be constant screaming about it?
But there's IS a need , a right, a duty, to speak of ""the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty"". (Ongoing and PROVEN)
""""NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too.""""
Get out your dictionary and look up the word "FINITE".....or do you believe that we should just keep killing American soldiers until we're drafting 8-year-olds????
Terrorists are ALL OVER THE WORLD and the Democrats have no plans to quit fighting terror.
posted on April 24, 2007 11:00:45 AM
The Surge....
Last month “marked the first time that the U.S. military suffered four straight months of 80 or more fatalities”
– The deadliest single attack since the war began occurred this month, a suicide truck bombing in Tal Afar that killed 152 people
– The deadliest attack yet inside the Green Zone also occurred this month, a suicide bombing in the Iraqi Parliament
– Yesterday marked the deadliest day for American ground forces since the war began
posted on April 24, 2007 12:21:15 PM
Using your reasoning, I would expect flags to be flown at half-staff in virtually every major city every day. Or, are the lives of those who are murdered in the cities worth less?
posted on April 24, 2007 02:13:36 PM
Craw, I believe you demos are aiding and abetting the terrorists agenda by giving a statement of intent to withdraw troops.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 25, 2007 05:33:13 PM
I agree the dems are once again chosing to side against what's in America's best interests in the ME and side WITH our enemies.
We're the bad guys....they're just peaceful, peace-loving innocents that American soldiers are murdering each and every day.
They're just VERY confused....as they were during the VN war. THEY helped the communists defeat the US. And now they're working towards the exact same results with the muslim terrorists.
BUT.....their game of CHICKEN may NOT work to their advantage as so many here believe it will. It might just BACKFIRE.
American's didn't vote them in to ADMIT DEFEAT....nor to take the side of our enemies. IF they actually believe that....they are delusional.
And at least ONE liberal agrees their leadership is taking their party down a VERY dangerous path.
"Today, history is repeating itself -- with the parties reversed. This time a Republican president is offering talks to recalcitrant Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can justify going to Syria to talk with President Bashar Assad; however, she cannot justify rebuffing an overture to talk to President Bush, as she and Senate majority leader Harry Reid appeared to do last week before hurriedly (and wisely) changing course."
"Democrats should not be misled by polls showing that most Americans support the idea of cutting off funding for the war unless benchmarks of success are reached. Of course they do, in the abstract. But Bush's counterargument -- that Democrats are prepared to undermine troops in the field -- will be a powerful one, in part because it is far more concrete than Democrats' complex, poll-tested plan."
"In short, Democrats would do well to compromise. If that means accepting a "clean" supplemental funding bill, so be it. While Democrats must continue to criticize the prosecution of the war and the Bush administration's failure to promote political reconciliation, they should also recognize that the public has not yet elected a new commander in chief."
The 2008 election is the Democrats' to lose.
Attempting to usurp the powers of the commander of the chief -- or risking the charge that Democrats have abandoned troops in the field -- is one of the few ways the party could jeopardize its seemingly impregnable position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 25, 2007 05:46 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2007 06:01:02 PM
For what, tom?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy
and BECAUSE, Tom
"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."
John F. Kennedy
========
That was back in the day when the DEMS valued what America has ALWAYS stood for.
When they NEVER even THOUGHT of admitting defeat to our enemies.
NOT the liberal branch of the dem party that we have today.....not by a LONG shot.
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 25, 2007 06:06 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2007 06:08:37 PM
""""Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy"""
What in the heck has that got to do with the war in Iraq ???
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
John Kennedy would flip over in his grave if he saw what bushit has done to our country....your MIS-use of the quotes of a great DEMOCRAT fools no one....
He was the LAST dem president with the backbone to stand up to our enemies.
carter didn't.
clinton didn't.
and now the liberals in the dem party are calling for us to RUN and admit defeat.
cowards with NO PLANS as to what we do then.
I guess my tag line from coulter was VERY correct...
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
=================
"A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten."
John F. Kennedy
And the truth is THAT is why the dems now control our congress. The people didn't insist upon QUALITY leaders....ones with BACKBONES....not ones holding up and waving the WHITE FLAG of surrender
posted on April 25, 2007 06:25:55 PM
Put Bush's 'puppy dog' terror theory to sleep
By RICHARD CLARKE
Posted Wednesday, April 25th 2007, 4:00 AM
Be Our Guest
Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will "follow us home" like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we "lose" in Iraq.
The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."
Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. "We lose this war and come home, they'll follow us home," he says.
How is this odd terrorist puppy dog behavior supposed to work? The President must believe that terrorists are playing by some odd rules of chivalry. Would this be the "only one slaughter ground at a time" rule of terrorism?
Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.
Some 100,000 Iraqis, probably more, have been killed since our invasion. They have parents, children, cousins and fellow tribal clan members who have pledged revenge no matter how long it takes. For many, that revenge is focused on America.
At the same time, investing time, energy and resources in Iraq takes our eye off two far more urgent tasks at hand: one, guarding the homeland against terrorism much better than the pork-dispensing Department of Homeland Security currently does the job; and two, systematically dismantling Al Qaeda all over the world, from Canada to Asia to Africa. On both these fronts, the Bush administration's focus is sorely lacking.
Yet in the fantasyland of illogic in which the President dwells, shaped by slogans devised by spin doctors, America can "win" in Iraq. Then, we are to believe, the terrorists will be so demoralized that they will recant their beliefs and cease their terrorist ways.
In the real world, by choosing unnecessarily to go into Iraq, Bush not only diverted efforts from delivering a death blow to Al Qaeda, he gave that movement both a second chance and the best recruiting tool possible.
U.S. military raids in Iraq have uncovered evidence that Iraqis are planning attacks in America, perhaps to be carried out by terrorists with European Union passports that require no U.S. visas. But such attacks here over the next several years are likely now no matter what happens next in Iraq - and that is because of what Bush has already done, not because of any future course we choose in Iraq.
But we can be sure that when the next attacks come in the U.S., if Bush is down on the ranch cutting trees, he and whatever few followers he retains by then will blame his successor. You can almost hear them now: If only his successor had left enough U.S. troops in the Iraqi shooting gallery to satisfy the blood lust of the enemy, as Bush did, then they wouldn't have come here.
The truth: If not for this administration's reckless steps to push America into war - and strategic blunder after strategic blunder that has satisfied the blood lust of the enemy - fewer evildoers would follow us home like the dogs that they are.
Clarke served as chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He is now chairman of Good Harbor Consulting
posted on April 25, 2007 06:34:13 PM
The trouble with that stupid agrument, CC, is that AQ ALREADY came to visit us on 9-11. Think they don't want to TRY AGAIN?
They ARE in Iraq....they ARE supporting financially the Iraqi insurgents [TERRORITS].
Why should we leave Iraq and let the AQ and those terrorists they ARE supporting WIN?
What possible explanation could ANY stable American have for admitting DEAFEAT to our ENEMIES?
Except they are FEARFUL....cowards....who lack any backbone to fight them.
Instead of copy and pastes....why NOT give us your SOLUTION. Just withdraw our troops and WAIT until AQ attacks AGAIN?
This is NO GAME. They're REAL serious. Too bad some dems have their head stuck in the sand and REFUSE to deal with the reality of the situation.
They're rather blame this President.
You'll soon see their terrorist GOALS have NOTHING to do with Bush....their goals won't be set aside in 'Jan '09.
Time for SOME dems to WAKE UP.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 25, 2007 06:40:07 PM
kozersky - the stats you were looking for can be found on most any google search. There you'll find many sources stating the numbers.
This one, taken from www.politicalnewsdaily.com
said in their:
Putting it in Perspective section:
Terrorism Against U.S.
Solders killed in Iraq (4 yrs): 3,478 (2,814 in combat)
Soldiers killed in Vietnam War (64-73): 58,200
Soldiers killed in Persian Gulf War (90-91): 382
Americans killed on
9/11/01: 2,986
Americans murdered in U.S. (1 yr) (2005): 16,692
[last year with available data]
And it's the same as when I posted all the deaths of Americans who die yearly in car accidents.
2005-2006 "42,636 American's died in car crashes in the U.S. last year."
NONE of which were fighting for the liberty and freedom of 25 MILLION Iraqi citizens.
=============
And another set of numbers says that MORE American's are KILLED by ILLEGALS in American EACH DAY....than we have soldiers in Iraq being killed.
SO where's the liberal OUTRAGE at those numbers????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 25, 2007 06:50 PM ]
posted on April 25, 2007 07:02:59 PM
"Instead of copy and pastes....why NOT give us your SOLUTION. Just withdraw our troops and WAIT until AQ attacks AGAIN?"
I guess you did not get anything out of that C & P, Linda. If we were out of Iraq, we could concentrate on protecting ourselves from terrorist attacks instead of spreading ourselves so thin for a bogus war--a Civil War between Sunni and Shia. Whom are we going to free, the Sunnis or the Shia? From whom are we freeing them? I do not think of withdrawing from Iraq as being an American "DEFEAT." I look at it as a victory in righting a terrible wrong.
posted on April 25, 2007 07:18:27 PM
Righting just WHAT terrible wrong, CC?
That for 13 years saddam thumbed his nose at the UN while he proceeded to work on his NW program?
That for 35 years he was responsible for KILLING thousands upon thousands of Iraq citizens? But THAT was okay with the liberals????? They wanted to ALLOW it to continue.
That he USED NW on his own people and on the Kurds????
All that was RIGHT??? according to you?
So....I guess clinton and his WHOLE adminstration LIED to us to huh? According to you? Since the past THREE administrations WERE all in AGREEMENT that saddam needed to be REMOVED from power. Do you believe they thought he needed to be removed because he was RIGHT???
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 25, 2007 07:21:40 PM
And C.C. - nothing sickens me more than to read a liberal use the EXCUSE of a civil war.
KNOWING full well....we haven't BEGUN to see the slaughter we're going to see when an ACTUAL civil war DOES erupt, SHOULD the liberals get their way.
THEN you'll see a repeat of the VN war as we left them to defend themselves against the communists.
You must be too young to remember THAT SLAUGHTER.
Liberals NEVER learn from our past experiences. They want to repeat them again.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 25, 2007 07:29:51 PM
Another problem with your copy and paste:
"But such attacks here over the next several years are likely now no matter what happens next in Iraq - and that is because of what Bush has already done, not because of any future course we choose in Iraq."
IF they're not going to 'follow us home' as your article laughingly states.....and it's all going to be this President's fault 'when they do'....THEN please explain just how this President was responsible for ALL the terrorists attacks BEFORE he took office????
You know, the FIVE times AQ attacked American interests and clinton DID NOTHING.
Doing nothing...didn't work. What part of that is so hard to comprehend for the liberals?
These nutcases are RAISED FROM BIRTH to hate westerners. I'm telling YOU this has NOTHING to do with THIS President. It's their religious convictions.
READ binladens words for yourself. HE wants us to STOP helping Israel.
Was THIS President the FIRST to do that? NO....
clue phone is ringing for all liberals to WAKE UP.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 25, 2007 07:54:37 PM
I want a smarter President. No just some stupid cowboy that has failed in everything he has done in life.
Democrat or Republican,I want a President who doesn't just talk the talk but who will really beef up homeland security not just talk about doing so.
LIAR_K,
Has ZERO answers she is all BULL ROAR. She has been absolutely shown her place by other women on this board much smarter than she time and again.
The new-cons pretend to be classy but have been shown to be classless.
posted on April 25, 2007 08:44:44 PM
"These nutcases are RAISED FROM BIRTH to hate westerners. I'm telling YOU this has NOTHING to do with THIS President. It's their religious convictions"
Exactly. How do you propose to change that which is so ingrained and has been for hundreds of years. I am not saying that Bush is responsible for every problem in the Middle East since time began. This war in Iraq is what he is responsible for, and that's more than enough. You know the drill---lied about reasons for invading Iraq and all of that. This war started with a lie and the lies continue to come--up to and including the Tillman friendly fire incident. Whether or not this came from the top, the Army took its example from the administration. Lie, CYA and treat the American people as though they are morons.
Why should anyone believe the "if we leave they will follow us here" claptrap, when we'
ve seen again and again that the administration manipulates through these lies and American soldiers are dying because of them.
