Progress in Iraq...and What To Do About It

But McCain says when the troops come home is not too important:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/199687.php

Joe--

You need to make up your mind. If the Kagans' are "blithely innocent about the role of the Iranians in calming things down in Basra and Sadr city," aren't you displaying the same naivety when you credit the US military?

What bothers me more is the recurrence of the Beltway Consensus view of a permanent US occupation, ratcheted down here from Cheney's 2004 plan of 50,000 troops to 30,000.

An occupation is an occupation. And 30,000 soldiers is a lot of soldiers. Do you really think the Iraqis will stand for this? Or do you think that Iraqi sovereignty is not in the cards for the foreseeable future?

ugh...McCain...

But besides that, i have a question. You've routinely described Sadr as a nationalist who is very popular with the people in Iraq. After Maliki's attacks on his movement, is he still as popular?

If he is, then he still would have a good shot at, as you put it, "romping" the November regional elections. What exactly would that do to conditions on the ground? Does anyone know?

I'll believe the claims of success when we see the troops come home – alive, for a change.

Joe,

Please clarify why the Kagans are even a part of this post.

You say, on the one hand, they don't know squat about why things are happening (which is the only important aspect here) and they don't know squat about much in the Middle East, really, and they have been horrendously wrong about a great many things, but you go on to say that they have cleverly figured out the obvious.

Why include them at all, since you article doesn't actually discuss their article, but discusses the implications for an obvious condition that is better stated and explained in any number of places by many other sources.

In light of the reengagement of Vice-President Cheney's office on an ill-advised attack on Iran, is it wise to give the imprimatur of approval to the Kagans by citing them in your post?

The Kagans, all three, like Pollack and O'Hanlon are among an elite group of thoroughly discredit scribblers on Iraq. None of them has paid any price for the rubbish they have flung around and analyses and commentary on Iraq pre and post war. So your reference to them is somewhat puzzling. Does American "success" in Iraq mean anything.

We have Maliki visting Iran and talking to their Supreme Leader/Ayatollah. We have Iraqi parliamentarians screaming loudly that they don't want American to have a number of bases in Iraq and all kinds of legal immunities. If the Iraqis don't want us there why are we insisting on staying? If it oil I can understand that. If it means to contain Iran: that looks like provocation.Why are you talking about success when lives are still being lost?

Wow, sounds like all we need is 6 more months and then we'll have turned a corner...

I have a few questions. Based on what you say, the surge has worked. True, such a statement understates the continuing issues with Iran, the Shi'a conflicts and Shi'a-Sunni reconciliation, and it ignores the critical role of the Sunni Awakening Movement and al-Sadr's ceasefire in quieting down the violence and enhancing reconciliation (these two developments probably had a greater effect than any U.S. troop surge), but to the American public at large, it will begin to look like the surge has fulfilled its purposes.

Republican hacks have already begun to use this as a talking point, repeating again and again that McCain was right about the surge, and Obama was wrong. In their story, McCain had the judgement and the courage to see it through, while Obama just followed the party line, and failed in his judgement.

I don't agree with their analysis, especially because there is no proof that Obama was wrong; for all we know, a careful withdrawal could have been used to accelerate reconciliation, as many believed at the time, and we wouldn't have lost so many more lives and dollars.

But will this Republican version about the surge stick? And if it does, is it enough for Obama to have been right at the beginning of the war, and right about where we need to go from here? If not, how does he deal with it?

I think it is mainly because Iran wants us out.

The best way to do that is to give no excuse for keeping combat troops there.

This WON'T be a victory in the neoconservative sense of things at all, so those idjits need to keep on moving - right out of the country, prefereably. Not REAL Americans, anyway...

Maliki's government is getting support from Iran because at least if the fighting against Shia continues, they are afraid that we might stay.

Watch for things to change ABRUPTLY following the election.

If a Republican gets the nod (God help us all...), obviously, the number of troops there won't be enough to contain the coming explosion, particularly if Israel or the US attacks Iran.

At that point, we are looking at both economic and humanitarian hades. I'll leave that at that.

If a Democrat gets the nod, look for the situation on the ground to make for an easy withdrawel, to Iran's great relief.

Ironic that SOFA, which sounds so comfy and inviting, is such a deal breaker. If Iraq is settling down, then all the more reason to accelerate the withdrawal schedule. My feeling is that Sadr is just chilling until he can consolidate his power in the upcoming elections.

If the meme is the surge worked, than bring the boys home. Hurray, we won!

As others have noted, its not just that violence in Iraq is killing American men and women. Its that it is bleeding our treasury dry. Less violence against Americans is not going to substantially reduce the cost of occupation when we're talking about 150,00 troops (plus apparently at least that many "contractors").

And wasn't the surge supposed to stabliize the situation SO THAT WE COULD WITHDRAW? If that wasn't the purpose, than Republicans will still be held accountable for the fact that they lied yet again about what the purpose of putting more troops into harm's way was.

Unless, of course, the real goal is to keep Americans in Iraq until Americans are no longer being killed in alarming numbers, afterwhich we stay forever. Sounds like a winning formula for a McCain candidacy (not).

And wasn't the surge supposed to stabliize the situation SO THAT WE COULD WITHDRAW?

No. As McCain has made clear, the surge was supposed to stabilize the situation so that the permanent US bases could be staffed without American soldiers being at risk of being killed by Iraqis.

Less attacks on US soldiers is good news, indeed. But the "success" of the surge and of our overall strategy needs to be debated in terms of political reconciliation. (Less violence is better accomplished by simply honoring the cease-fire that existed between rival Shiite factions, as Sadr did.) So are Iraqi sects reconciling and how has the surge effected this?

I don't know that you can read much into people standing when Maliki enters a room. Especially when we see that Maliki's image in a Saddam Hussein uniform was burned at a recent protest http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/39032.html . But perhaps Maliki gained some respect for not immediately signing the security agreement offered by Bush (see bellow). Further, the decision for Sadr to "stand down" is most likely the result the dramatic increase of US attacks in densely populated areas of Sadr City. Sadr allowed the Iraqi Army access in order to stop civilians from getting killed, not to embrace Maliki http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203869_pf.html . Also, paying and arming Sunni militias (Awakening Councils) is not a good idea and can't possibly be seen as contributing to Iraqi harmony. Therefore, I don't see how any of the surge tactics have helped the political situation.

Reconciliation won't happen until the business of governance is left to the Iraqi people. Of course, you need some basic stability for this to occur. I feel that if our troops took a passive/peacekeeping posture rather that an aggressive/biased (favoring Maliki over Sadr) stance, a more robust stability would follow involving fewer troops and with less chance of disintegrating. Increasing the occupying forces and having them attack the popular nationalist movement will not foster political reconciliation.

To determine the true goal of the surge and recent US decisions toward Iraq you have to put it in terms of neo-conservatism (call me pessimistic, but its clear they have been calling the shots). The surge was enacted to support the SOFA - to pressure Maliki to sign it and weaken the opposition to it (Sadr). I see no other explanation that makes sense. The Kagans' article (and Joe Klein's) present false hope that the surge has had any positive effect other than less attacks on US troops (there would be much less if the troops were not there at all). It falsely suggests that Bush and McCain were right to back a surge of troops, thereby furthering the neocon, imperialist movement. The best way to advance the nation of Iraq is to begin withdrawal procedures.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

Unfortunately "the surge worked" is going to be the story -- and, as srw said above, it will be spun as McCain was right and Obama wrong. As pleased as I am with the lower casualty rates, there are factors other than the surge that were responsible.

Joe, I respect your knowledge of the situation in the middle east, but it would be useful to see some mention of the number of Iraqis that have fled from Iraq, particularly Baghdad; the concrete barriers that were placed throughout the city to essentially stop free movement and make it harder for dissidents to create havoc. There are other, similar things that I understand contributed a great deal to the violence cut back, but didn't necessarily help restore the quality of life there.

I did read all the way through the Kagan's happy days article, although I must admit I nodded off several times in the process.

My feelings are summed up in Joe's last paragraph with the exception of any hope for optimistic scenarios prevailing for any length of time. The surviving insurgents don't just see the light one day and everybody lives happily ever after. In fact, I have often wondered why they haven't totally gone underground already in hopes that the US will get out they then can assert themselves more effectively and establish a truly sectarian authority that will make Sadam look like Mother Teresa. One day, some US President will figure out this foreign policy thing and get it right. Oh well...

Though they'd likely have no interest (see the U.S. Grant years in DC), either Dave Petraeus or Ray Odierno would make great VEEPs, for either candidate.

Smart, tough, and straight.

Like so many of our other heroes, mostly unsung, rarely appreciated (until the bullets start to fly), and stubbornly optimistic about America and her true aspirations.

Obama may like talking to available retirees, but he really needs to meet these guys on their turf, if he's ever to be taken seriously as a potential POTUS.

On, Brave Old Army Team!

ivb brings up a good point about the physical (one might call Israeli-style) impediments to movement that the U.S. is setting up to keep Iraqi factions separated. Is this really a long term solution? I suppose its the best we've got at this point.

But let's think about the refugees for a minute. No one knows for sure what the real numbers are, but using an aggregate of the estimates I could find, I put the legitimate refugee population that fled what is now Israel at about 800-900,000 individuals. Two generations later, having not been repatriated, the refugee population is in the 4 million persons range. Needless to say, those refugees have caused a whole lot of problems for the world community and the countries they reside in.

Now let's look at the Iraqi refugees. The UN http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=briefing&id=46d3f68f4 estimates that 4.2 million Iraqis have been displaced, with about half of those having left the country. That's almost THREE TIMES more refugees displaced than were in a similar situation in 1948 after Israel won their war of independence. Considering how much trouble those Palestinian refugees have caused, one can only imagine the trouble that will arise from the many many more Iraqis that have been displaced.

We haven't even begun to reckon with the enormity of the calamity that George Walker Bush has brought upon this nation and the world.

Piper, all of the refugees are suffering their plight for the convenience of Isreal, but I am not sure the 2 populations are congruous, that is, those run off their property in Palestine by Isreal and the Iraquis who had the skill and resources to leave their property in Iraq due to the mess created by the US. I don't limit the mess making entirely to Bush because he has such support from Congress, the media, and much of the public.

Piper, thanks for following up. Many of the refugees were not those with skill and resources, but ones who left because they had no house, their family wasn't safe, etc. and they picked up and moved with the clothes on their backs.

As to those who stayed, NPR had an interview a month or so ago with a "middle class" person who described his daily life as like being in prison. He could only go to certain markets, travel was nearly impossible with the barriers, all they could do with some safety was stay in their house and watch tv, but then the limited hours of electricity hampered that. I knew about the electricity, but was struck by his mention of the barriers and how bleak his neighborhood was with so many people gone. Not sure if I can find a link, but I'll try and if not here will post in another relevant link.

The Surge worked because it freed American soldiers to stay in FOP's and did not allow the murderers to return after they first ran away. Iran's role in this was simple they provided training and weapons and when their people were captured or killed and after the noose tightened on the border the flow of bombers and bombs stopped. Sadr gave up and ran away to Iran because he was losing more men than they were killing.

Spin, spin, spin democrats but the American soldier snatched this defeat right out of your hands and returned to you a victory. I am happy to tell you Alka Seltzer still is sold to help with your queasy, turn tail and run stomachs.

OOOHHHRRRAAAAHHHHHH Marines!!!

Saddam Hussein had to go. It was a longstanding article of U.S. policy which he continued to deserve. He's gone now and the world is better for it, whether it will acknowledge that fact or not.

Try to imagine what the situation would be like with Saddam still there and in possession of a $ 130 dollar a BB oil gusher today. He'd be loose from U.N. sanctions, racing Iran for an A-bomb, still threatening an area of vital interest to the U.S., still paying suicide bombers in Israel and who knows where else, etc... No thanks.

The war was not a mistake. If you want him back, go dig him up.

Klein, your last paragraph makes almost zero sense:

Even if the optimistic scenarios prevail, this war was a mistake from beginning to end. It was a scandalous waste of lives, money and American prestige. It diverted U.S. attention from the real threat of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan--a war that still needs to be won.

If the optimistic scenarios prevail, the following will have taken place:

1. deposal of Saddam Hussein
2. establishment of stable, friendly and democratic Iraqi government in the heart of the middle east
3. significant weakening of Al-Quaeda, which threw most of its resources into the fight in Iraq and is now on the brink of defeat there.
4. Significant anger in the Muslim world against Bin Laden as a result of tactics against Muslims in Iraq, resulting in lower approval for Bin Laden than Bush in most of the Muslim world.

Yeah, none of that stuff will have been worth the war. Much better to have let Saddam stay in power so we could keep arguing about whether he had WMDs or not. Oh, and Osama would still be popular in the Muslim world beacuse he would've not offended them by his actions in Iraq.

Great idea Klein, let's withdraw just when victory--the anathema to your ilk--is in sight.

Mr. Klein, you, most of your readers, and Mr. Obama show an obscene and dangerous amount of hubris and narcissism. It is absolutely amazing that you can write such an intellectually dishonest column and continue to be paid to write more.

You grudgingly admit that our strategy is working and we are on our way to success and then turn your focus to the issue of bases which is wholly unimportant, and furthermore continue to maintain that it was a strategic blunder. For the first time in history then, will victory not be enough to prove that a military strategy is correct just by the mere fact that our side was victorious. Unbelievable.

Furthermore, even though you grudgingly admit that we are winning, you fail to see the consequences of that. What this means is that, at great political risk, John McCain from the beginning backed the right strategy, while Barack Obama from the beginning criticized the correct strategy. This means that John McCain can be trusted on the issue of war and Barack Obama can't. You just admitted that Barack Obama is a candidate we can't trust on the issue of war, and John McCain is. The fact that in your long winded diatrobe you failed to recognize that obvious fact shows just how much your own biases affect your work.

As soon as I read your piece, I was moved to counter it in my own blog. While it won't be as widely read, you should feel a sense of shame that an unpaid blogger has so thoroughly exposed your intellectual dishonesty. Here is the piece...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-view-of-iraq-progress.html

Dear Joe,

I used to be an avid reader of yours. Unfortunately you've digressed in the past two year from a reasoned, nuanced thinker to a less thoughtful partisan.

Why did you stoop? Why the digression?

Two years ago you never would have written things like:

"this war was a mistake from beginning to end. It was a scandalous waste "

No the War has not been a success. But, you know as well as I that once someone starts using sweeping language to describe enormously complex issues they have since left the realm of building an argument for an idea and have gone to partisan sophist persuasion. Something that is fine for whips, but beneath your intelligence. You write columns, not bumper stickers, Joe.

Finally - I have decided to not read your articles anymore. The last straw for me was your last line. You obnoxiously projected an unfounded emotion on John McCain that is beyond understanding. "HOPING?!" Your accusation that he would "HOPE" for 100 years is disgraceful considering he spent time as a POW. The subtle twist is worthy of the Huffington report or Limbaugh, not decent commentary.

No, I don't like the war. No, I'm not a McCain guy. All I've asked for was intellectual, thoughtful ideas. You used to be a good source for these. From now on, I would advise all to take your writing with the same grain of salt that they take an article by Rush. Yes, you've digressed that much.

Shame on you, Joe. How far you have fallen.

I wonder why you quoted 'success'... I've been following "Iraq Ops Updates" from http://www.globalsecurity.org/ for about 2 years... Militarily there has been success for the last year if not more, thus your ignorance troubles me.

Also, you seem to mention "...this war was a mistake from beginning to end." You can say that all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that you're there. With that rhetoric it's almost irrelevant at this point in the war. Again, your ignorance seems to baffle me.

Last point: Do you honestly beleive that Hilary or Obama would remove ALL bases and ALL troops from Iraq? Do you honestly believe Iraq will be American-free in 100 years? If you knew anything about history or American foreign politics, they tend not to leave their conquered territories.

Its been a few hours since the last time I checked this thread, wow. The last 5 entries provide no link, no evidence, and plenty of distortions. (I'm going to paraphrase some arguments) "Saddam H is a threat", he was a bad guy, but no threat. He was impotent and boxed in, like Bush Sr intended, and like the CIA knew and informed Bush Jr. "Iran provides training and weapons to be used against our soldiers"- show some evidence, Iraq says no, reporters were invited to see evidence once, but it turned out that the weapons were not from Iran and the show was cancelled. Iran doesn't support the insurgency. "Iran's nuclear weapon program", again evidence. I do know that the Supreme leader of the entire Shiite faith often condemns such weapons and issued a fatwa doing the same. Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy as granted by the NPT. Israel is the only nuclear armed country in the ME (Pakistan is Asian) and doesn't need our protection. "The surge is working", the surge is to encourage political reconciliation among Iraqi sects- not happening. "al Qaeda threw its resources into Iraq and was defeated", al Qaeda was never involved in Iraq before the occupation, and showed little interest in fighting US forces there. And the CIA told Bush as much. We are fighting Iraqi nationals, not international terrorists. I do like, however, that "Bush is more is more popular that Bin Laden is most Muslim countries"- talk about setting the bar low, hardly the stuff of "liberators" and "friendly nations"...

I've linked everything that I said here numerous times, if you read this blog, you've seen the links. Show evidence to support your points. Otherwise, don't post your slogans and diversions.

Better yet, why not examine your conscience. How can you support the neocon ideal of death and war as fiscal policy? How many hundreds-of-thousands of people have to die or become crippled before you feel the price of a gallon of gas is low enough? You should be ashamed of yourselves for joining in the campaign of black propaganda AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. This topic won't be truthfully debated because Bush and McCain can't reveal their intentions without causing outrage and international scorn. But the rest of the world is learning, and many here know as well. Soon we all will know.

Let's look at the facts, BMB.

First, Joe Klein wrote "Even if the optimistic scenarios prevail, this war was a mistake from beginning to end."

I pointed out how specious that claim is, since in an optimistic scenario, the war will wind up with:

1. Saddam out of power; a goal espoused by the U.S. govt. since 1998.

2. Iraq a friendly nation, reasonably democratic and the most liberal and free in the Arab world.

3. Al-Quaeda crippled in the region. Yeah, I am not saying that Al-Quaeda was there in any significant strength BEFORE the war, but the FACTS are that AQ sent its soldiers and resources TO Iraq to fight the U.S. The result has been an obliteration of Al-Quaeda manpower, resources and prestige. If you don't think foreign fighters have been going to Iraq you need to get your head out of the sand.

4. The Muslim turn against Osama Bin Laden. This happened because of Al-Quaeda's overreach in Iraq, the result being deaths of thousands of fellow muslims. As a response, Bin Laden's OWN MENTOR condemned him and now AQ is unpopular across the region, quite a change from the pre-Iraq war state. If the U.S. does not go into Iraq, we may not have defeated Al-Quaeda and certainly Bin Laden's prestige and popularity would not be in the single digits across the region.

The fact is that all wars have unintended consequences. WWI begat Hitler and WWII begat the Iron Curtain. The Iraq war had some good ones and some bad ones, but right now, the good ones are starting to outweigh the bad. Namely, we are kicking AQ's ass across the region and we have not been hit by an attack since 911.

As proof of how right Bush was in his approach to the WOT, watch as succeeding presidents consolidate his basic approach, just as happened after Truman. Just watch.

You've been totally wrong about this for 5 years so, now that you're finally admitting what you can no longer deny, we're supposed to care what you have to say? No thanks. We'll leave it to those who knew what they were doing while you tried to stab them and us in the back.

You guys make me sick.

Your political party is far more important to you than the truth or even the welfare of your own country.

Well, your obviously all in the right place. TIME should change it's name to LEFT Magazine. It's hilarious to listen to this guy grudgingly admit that Al Qaeda in Iraq is very close to being defeated, then say that the war was wrong because it distracted us from the "real" threat of Al Qaeda!

This falls in line with all of the other garbage that TIME and the media peddles in place of the truth. We're also less safe now than we were after 9/11 is another favorite. We were attacked and virtually everyone agreed there would be further attacks and that there would be no way to stop them. They had training camps and had built up a sophisticated international network and their focus was on us and coming here to get us. They built up all of this strength while Clinton was in office. They even attacked the World Trade Center while Clinton was in office and Clinton chose to ignore it and play it down as no threat at all. Then after all of his negligence you guys and your beloved political party actually had the nerve to blame it on a president who had just come into office! Al Qaeda succeeded and were going to succeed again. Now they are a shell of their former selves. They did everything they could to drive us out of Iraq and were beaten to a pulp in the process. Their focus had to shift from attacking us here to fighting in their own back yard. There never was any other attacks here. However, that means nothing to you.

How dare you say the troops lost in Iraq were wasted lives. They undoubtedly saved many future lives and are as much the reason that there have been no further attacks on U.S. soil as anything else. It's the same old story. People like you putting on this pretense that you care about our troops when you couldn't care less. What is a shame is that they saved you as well as everyone else. If only there were a way for people like you to be the only ones to suffer the consequences of their own actions. I know none of you would consider dying for your country in a war, but I wonder if you would die for your political party which is obviously much more important to you?

Joe is under the same spell (or drinking the same kool aid) as those he accuses of being naive about the progress in Iraq. He fails to see that Iraq War has decimated Al Qaeda both militarily and ideologically (even the CIA concurs). Does he think that Al Qaeda's decline occurred in a vacuum? To whom or what does Joe credit this advance? Luck? Fate?

Contrary to Joe, or Democrats, or Iraq nay-sayers, Al Qaeda has consistently said that Iraq was CENTRAL to their plans. Not a tangent, not a diversion, but central. They thought they could humiliate and drive the US from Iraq and gain an oil-rich country along with millions of new faithful (faithful to Al Qaeda). After all, only the left thinks Al Qaeda would rather have Afghanistan than Iraq.

Instead we get a two-fer (and not Hill and Bill this time). Not only does the US punish Al Qaeda militarily, but Al Qaeda's OWN SIDE (the Sunnis) turns on them.

Pre-Iraq War, who would have believed somebody who said they were going to create a "terrorist magnet" that would draw Al Qaeda into a war they could not win, and in the process separate them from their own support. Brilliant!

Oh, I almost forgot the icing on the cake! I guess we can throw the "Sunnis and Shias can't work and live together" theory out the window. Nobody seems to talk about the misjudgment of the "experts" or how this new paradigm can apply to the Middle East as a whole.

I wish that those of you who so glibly criticize the US occupation of Iraq with your feigned patritism and your pretense of being concerned with our troops' lives (as if any of you served with us in the military in other than desk jobs, perhaps) would take the time to educate yourselves on the kinds of efforts it took in Germany and Japan, in particular, to rid those countries of exactly the kinds of fanatics we face in Iraq. While good sources abound, you might read John Dower's seminal work "Embracing Defeat" for an analysis of the efforts that went into our occupation and pacification of facsist Japan and its social, cultural, economic and political underpinnings. Our task in Iraq is no less formidable, and no less consequential for the US and our allies (the number of whom grow monthly as more countries see the existential risk of jihadism).

mosebar- per your points:
1) Saddam was a power in 2/3 of his own country, the Northern third was a no-fly zone. Hardly worth the risk and not much of an achievement.
2) If a freindly nation is part of your best case scenerio, then indeifinite occupation and intensified bombings are not a good way to get there.
3) AQI represents 2% of the total voilence in Iraq. The terrorists are in Afg and Pakistan. If terror was Bush's top priotity then we would not distract our military with Iraq. Our fight in Afg has significantly hurt al Qaeda, not our folly in Iraq.
4) al Qaeda has always been unpopular among Iraq's Sunnis- they're Baathists and have secular rulers. If, in fact, there is any "souring" on AQ in the ME, it is through no action of our our's. I would imagine that the 4.7 million refugees resulting from our invasion feel more afinity for Bin Laden than us.

Moreover, you have not addressed that the CIA was purposely ignored in favor of the corrupt and biased OSP, nor the lies being regarding Iran. Most of all, you have not disputed McCain's connection to the neocon movement and its imperial ideals.

BMB,

I was just wondering what your initials stand for?

Is it Biased Moronic Blowhard?

Your a typical example of the projection problem that the left demonstrates on a regular basis. You have no facts or proof but you tell the people who do that they don't.

You accuse people who haven't lied of being liars.
Which of course, makes you the liar.

You pretend to be for the people when your "ideas" would actually hurt them.

You pretend to be patriotic when you are far from it.

You pretend to support the troops when you actually are more akin to the people who spat on my brother when he came home from Vietnam.

You pretend to be against the rich in the name of poor people but you are only for yourself and are just pandering for political gain.

You pretend to be for protecting the environment when you only want power over the people you hate.

I could go on and on.

WHAT the...this post was booted to the second page which I wouldn't normally go to, but did, and find these neocon, right wing, formerly Trotsky diatribes (BMB excepted). Interesting...you guys just lurk in the shadows until the party is over then swoop in? Did you learn that in some zionist training camp? The thing about Sadam, is that American made him and bought him, and he was ours. Just like Isreal. Tread softly, because what happened to him can happen to Isreal just as easily because American foreign policy is obviously very fickle and slightly schizoid. Obama has expressed support for Isreal. I suggest you accept that and be a little more friendly with him, because he will be the next President.

"The thing about Sadam, is that American made him and bought him, and he was ours. Just like Isreal."

What I find most amusing is the schizoid ramblings of liberals who claim that we made Saddam what he was. In the next breath, they argue that he was no threat. If he was "made" and armed by the U.S. then he was one of the most dangerous SOBs on the planet. They say that we gave Saddam WMDs, but Bush lied about WMDs. Pick a canard and stick with it for Pete's sake!

We found 300,000 bodies in mass graves. 3/4 had no wounds, so they were killed by chemical weapons. Many were women and children. Saddam had chemical weapons and used them.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the U.S. assisted Saddam in obtaining these weapons, why would that be a valid argument against the war? We supplied them and Bush says he still has them, so naturally Saddam destroyed them all. He also made sure that there was nothing to corroborate their destruction.

Assuming, once again, that we ignored WMD when Saddam was on our side...So we gave a 6 year old a BB gun and he shot old ladies instead of rats like he promised. As a parent, do you take away the BB gun or allow him to continue shooting old ladies?

This is not a complicated issue. After 911 Bush asked for intel. There were gaps, so he assumed the worst case for the gaps. What choice did he have? There had been an anthrax attack from an unknown source. Only a few countries, including Iraq, weaponized anthax.

Where would Bush have been if there was another chemical/biological attack on the U.S. that could have been traced, even remotely, to iraq? Simple, he would have been impeached for failing to "connect the dots". On 9/10/2001 there was a ton of evidence that Saddam had WMD. How much evidence was there that suicide bombers would crash planes into the WTC? The WMD angle had more dots than an Indian soccer game! As a political matter, this was a war of necessity.
Grow up!

Of course, we didn't make Saddam.

But assuming we had, then wouldn't it have been our responsibility to correct the problem by removing him ?

It's done.

It's been so long that people have forgotten how truly bad Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were.

Yes, we should have adopted a more aggressive counterinsurgency plan sooner. McCain said in August 2003 that something was wrong with the Iraqi security forces and that a change of plans was necessary, but he was derided by the right for being too "defeatist." Turns out he was correct.

This war was very justified. There is now have a state that is free, democratic, and soon to be stable without a large US force--in a region that was a paradise for despots and religious fanatics. There is now have a country with a free and open media on Iran and Syria's border. There is now a country with a multi-ethnic and secular military, and it's not just the toy of a madman.

The "100 years in Iraq" is a quote taken completely out of context to try to scare people. I find it a little ironic that the "Hope" crowd has to use so much scare tactics.

As a Marine who saw some combat in the Nam back in 71,I am so dissapointed with the way our great country is turning into. Let me tell you people something, and I am talking about all you "bring the troops home people" you would'nt know a troop if one bit you on the backside. Yes I will agree war is a most horrible thing having been in one myself, but you know what else was horrible too, standing on the other side of the Hudson river less than a mile away on 9/11 and watching with a pair of binoculars people falling to their deaths,and I could not do anything about it, I only lost two dear friends that day but what the heck they were only two CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS who just loved their family and their country and were living their lives the best they knew how. But then again to you people 9/11 was a conspiracy? Yea right. America is the greatest country on earth and always will be, regardless of how hard you far left liberal wackos try to destroy her.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Klein, you're a blithering idiot. The fact that we're winning this war is just killing you, isn't it? I know that you and those of your ilk have laid awake at night for the past four years fantasizing about "another Vietnam" so that you could rub it in Bush's face and undulge yourselves in another multi-year orgy of recrimination and self-loathing.

Sorry to disappoint you, bud, but it ain't happenin' this time. THIS time, we're gonna WIN! No thanks to you and the rest of the "surrender monkeys" in the Democratic Party, most definitely including Barack Obama.

Are you seriously asking me to believe that the reason that the Iraqi Army rolled up the thugs in Basra is because Iran acquiesced to it? ROTFLMAO!!! If Iran did indeed acquiesce to anything, it was only because they saw their Mahdi Army surrogates getting their tails thoroughly kicked and they wanted to stop the fighting while they still had some assets left. Do you really think, for one second, that Iran would have agreed to a cease-fire if it were otherwise? If you do, then you're an even bigger fool than I thought (And believe me, that's saying something).

The fact is that the Iraqi Army that WE trained and that WE equipped kicked the Mahdi Army, Iran's chosen surrogates, from one end of southern Iraq to the other. The only reason the Sadrists agreed to let the Iraqi army into Sadr City without a fight is because the army had let it be known they were coming in anyway whether Moqtada Al-Sadr liked it or not.

Everybody wants the troops to come home, you stupid toad. The question is do we draw them down carefully over time so as not to jeopardize our hard-won gains? Or do we pull them out as fast as humanly possible and damn the consequences? Anyone who's thinking with their brains instead of their glands would go with option 1, which no doubt explains why you and the rest of the liberal fruitbats are whining for #2 so loudly.

And of course, you and the rest of the media have COMPLETELY missed one of the single most important results of the entire conflict, which is that public support for Al-Qaeda in muslim countries has absolutely cratered over the past two years. That's called winning the War on Terror.

McCain will win the election in the Fall for one reason: Americans don't respect wimps and they don't respect quitters.

So suck it up, Joe. I'm laughing at you as I type this.

Time Magazine has done another hit piece on the military.

I'm a former Marine living in Manhattan, New York. I have been throughout both Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe me, I've seen far more people on anti-depressants in New York.

We are winnig this war and Time Magazine's refusal to recognize that is a disgrace

matt-sanchez.com

You want evidence:

- Bush ignored conclusions of the CIA in favor of a small group of neocon political appointees on the OSP.
former head of CIA's Europe Div http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
former Treas Sec http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
former Chair of Senate Select Committee on Intel http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

- former Director of the OSP now running the Iranian Directorate http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_officials_doubt_Iran_uranium_claims_0818.html

- Iran not supporting insurgency
Iraqi Pres Talabani http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=56077§ionid=351020201
no evidence http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html

- al Qaeda wants us to fight Iran http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8701170513

- AQI represents less than 2% of the total violence in Iraq.
Link to Congressional testimony and reports http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/08/crs-al-qaeda/

- Iran's Supreme Leader reaches out to Bush for negotiations and offers to honor peace agreement with Israel, to stop Hamas from using violence, to pressure Hezbollah to be a political party only, to help stabilize Iraq and to fight al Qaeda. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539

- Study that our occupation fuels al Qaeda http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8577

- Surge tactics fuel resentment of Iraqi citizens http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203869_pf.html

- Lies about Iran (including not saying "wipe Israel off the map") http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/bush-lies-about-iran-on-now-ruz.html

- Neocon Lawrence Kaplan saying "...if John McCain wins the presidential election, neoconservatism will have been vindicated. Because by voting him into office, people will have tacitly given their endorsement to that sort of foreign policy." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-551828,00.html

I don't know if anyone will go back to this thread, I just don't like being called a liar.

Oh yeah, Bush is attempting a $50 Bil blackmail of Maliki in order to force him to agree to permanent military bases and the SOFA.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-issues-threat-to-iraqs-50bn-foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

BTW- it should say "Surge tactics fuel Iraqi citizens' resentment of US" on 10:32 comment.

In all this, we should be clear on one thing: Even if the optimistic scenarios prevail, this war was a mistake from beginning to end. It was a scandalous waste of lives, money and American prestige.

We prevented Iraq from becoming Afghanistan 2.0 ... an industrial-strength, wealthy version of the nation that gave us 9/11, with the cash and connections to corrupt the very international bodies that were charged with its oversight and "containment".

It diverted U.S. attention from the real threat of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan--a war that still needs to be won.

Get yourself some new talking points, and stop looking at this as merely busting a ring of murderers ... al-Quada wasn't our only enemy. In fact, Saddam wasn't just a terrorist threat ... he was working hard to corrupt the international community through Crude-for-food, as well.

Actually, by not being obsessed with giving bin Laden what he desired -- martyrdom -- but instead isolating him, then destroying the tentacles of his network -- especially, now in Iraq -- the President has shown that American resolve can beat back terrorism with more than just symbolic gestures.

The threat of neoconservative neocolonialism overseas remains a real problem--and it is likely to be the fault line on which the foreign policy debate takes place in the coming presidential campaign.

In my 49 years on this rock, it is the "cowboy diplomacy", based upon CONFIDENCE in the fundamental values that have made this nation strong, prosperous, and peaceful ... values that are the basis of the neoconservative worldivew ...

... that has done more to liberate people from oppression ... reduce arms stockpiles in REAL terms ... and establish the conditions for sustainable peace ... than all the Kumbiyah diplomacy and "realism" over that same time frame, combined.

Maybe if y'all get over the arrogant idea that you are somehow beyond the need to get your hands dirty to defend life and liberty ... you will understand that the real peace song of our time is not Kumbiyah ...

... it is Yippie-Ky-Ay-A.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

Easy Way to Convert MKV Format to Other Video FormatMKV Converter
MKV to AVI ConverterXilisoft Video Converter Ultimate can convert MKV video files to formats for almost any portable device including iPod, iPod touch, iPod video nano, iPhone, Zune, PSP, video capable MP3 players, video capable mobile phones, and Pocket P.C., etc. MKV to DVD ConverterMKV to MPEG ConverterMKV to MP4 ConverterMeanwhile, it can also support output almost any audio or video formats like MP4, WMV, AVI, DivX, RM, 3GP, FLV, DVD, MP3, WMA. You can enjoy your Audio/Video life with this wonderful Video Converter from now on.MKV to FLV ConverterMKV to DivX Converter

May you have no idea about what I give you ,but it will help you a lot indeed.What you just do is to look througnt them!FLV to MP3AVI to FLV MacWMV to FLV MacMPEG/MP4/MPG to FLV MacASF to FLVDivx to FLvFLV to Ipod FLV to PSP FLV to Zune FLV to 3GP

اناشيد طيور الجنة
العاب تلبيس زفاف
العاب سونك
العاب
العاب ماريو
العاب
العاب باربي
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب طبخ
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب ترتيب
العاب ديكور
العاب بنات
العاب اطفال
العاب كرتون
العاب سيارات
العاب اكشن
العاب ذكاء
العاب دراجات
العاب رياضية
العاب قتالية
العاب بازل و متاهات
العاب ورق
العاب تصويب ونشان
العاب حربية
العاب فلاش
العاب مغامرات
العاب تلوين
العاب عربية
العاب قص الشعر
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
ريجيم ورشاقة
طبخ
ازياء
ميك اب ومكياج
اتيكيت
ازياء محجبات
اكلات
حلويات
الطب البديل والاعشاب
صحة المراة
العروس
اكسسوارات
ديكور
برامج
اغانى اطفال
توبيكات
صور سيارات
العاب
افلام كرتون
افلام عربية
العاب شمس
افلام اجنبية
اناشيد
دليل مواقع
عالم حواء
العاب بنات
برامج
العاب للبنات فقط
تحميل افلام
تنزيل برامج
شات
تحميل العاب
يوتيوب
مسجات
قصص
برامج الكمبيوتر
برامج انترنت
برامج صوت و صورة
برامج تصميم وفوتوشوب
مصارعه
برامج حماية وانتى فايروس
برامج صور
برامج ماسنجر
العاب
بروكسي
برامج الجوال
برامج بورتابل
برامج الشبكات