A $27 million dinner

Zeleny charactizes the Democrat policy on Iraq as "seeking a defined exit strategy". This is one of the more imaginitive euphemisms for "retreat and defeat" ever invented. I guess the British at Yorktown in 1781 were also "seeking a defined exit strategy". Ditto the French in 1940. Closer to home, the 2006 Cubs also seem to be "seeking a defined exit strategy".

Stay the course (whatever that means) is not a strategy.

My 24 year old Army sergeant nephew "in country" deserves better than the mindless wittisisms from the neo-con chicken hawks.

We need to leave Iraq NOW.

Our troops have become recruiting and training aids and live fire targets for terrorists and insurgents.

We need to leave Iraq NOW.

Is the Republican Party so bankrupt of ideas that perpetual war is their only strategy for electoral victory?

And while they were partying and throwing millions around the two missing soldiers bodies were recovered last night. (Just saw this on MSNBC.)

An early withdrawal, before we completed the missions, would say to the United States military, 'Your sacrifices have gone in vain,'" Bush said.

How right you are, AWOL Boy. Those sacrifices were in vain; those whose bodies are yet to be slaughtered will also die in vain, thanks to you "pro-life" types who insist on "staying the course.

As has been often noted (see, e.g. http://www.slate.com/id/2125910/), W's "thinking" (have to use that term loosely with him) is an example of the "sunk costs" fallacy, e.g. continuing to operate your Betamax factory because you spent so much building it. Instead of recognizing the initial bad investment and moving on, you continue to throw good money after bad.

The question is simply whether preserving lives (all lives, not just fetuses) is more important than helping War Proponents save face.

What some refer to as a "cut and run" strategy others see as a reasonable approach to having the Iraqi government take responsibility for their emerging nation. As a taxpayer, I don't want to see another dime (let alone another $100 billion) spent on this war. We have many, many issues in here at home that demand our attention and resources; at this point the entire situation is an avoidable distraction. While we spin our wheels in the deserts of the Middle East, North Korea is ready to fire rockets. Enough with Iraq. Enough with Bush. Enough with Republicans beating their chests and claiming that Democrats are soft on terror.

Will someone please define what constitutes winning the war on terror. Is it eradicating Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the entire Middle East of Muslim Extremists? What about the rest of the world? How do we know when we’ve won, will they put up a white flag? This war is very real in the fact that we have lost over 2500 American lives, and spent 100’s of billions of dollars, but is it really a war where we can actually define a winner? Europe, Russia, and Northern Ireland have been fighting terrorist extremists for decades on their own soil without a clear signal of what constitutes the winner. How can the Republican Party tell us they can win the war on terror? Obviously invasion and occupation is not the way winning could be accomplished. I think what Democrats realize but Republicans refuse to acknowledge is we need to approach this with a new strategy. Staying the course is no longer the strategy that will ever solve the problem, it will just prolong it.

Poor analogy, Bruce. Don't forget that WE are the invaders. And by the way, are you writing from your sofa, or from the front lines in Iraq? Only those wanting to reap the profits of the war industry would want to continue this illegal invasion and not care about squandering the little honor and capital this country has left. This isn't a baseball game.

Stay the course? Wasn't that what the captain of the Titanic said?
What should one do when finding oneself in a deep hole? Keep digging?
I'm not much for slogans, but here's one I like:
When all around you are losing their heads, use yours!
This Iraqi adventure is and has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning. Forget "Desert Storm", forget "Iraqi Freedom", its only proper title seems to be "Operation Tarbaby".
This President, however, will admit no error. He is, in equal parts, arrogant and obstinant. But to give him his due, I doubt that (considering his objective) that it was a miscalculation or an error. He wanted to be a "Wartime President"; he still wants to be a "Wartime President"; as such he can present himself as above reproach.
I hate to admit it, but had he, when dolled up in his "Flyboy" suit on the carrier deck, proclaming "Mission Accomplished" followed through and brought the troops home, he would have had the best possible results out of a sorry mess.

Yes, once again Jeff "Zany" Zelany shows most Trib reporters are editors are incapable of nonbiased reporting.

On Meet the Depressed with Tim Russert, John Murtha told Russert that the troops should be pulled from Iraq and redeployed to other areas nearby such as Kuwait and Okinawa. When Russert said Okinawa was far away and not close enough in case troops needed in Middle East, Murtha said, it's just a plane ride! Yeah, let's transport 150,000 troops via a plane ride -- quickly!!

Bruce,
So if the dems strategy is "retreat and defeat" what exactly is the gop strategy? "Stay the course"? That a slogan or a plan? Fact is the gop has no plan..Define winning for me as pertains to Iraq..Why is it that our coalition patners in Iraq are starting to release there troop draw down plans? Are they all wrong and Shrubya right? I think Tony Snow defined perfectly what the gop and there ilk think of American kids dying in Iraq when he stated that the 2,500th dead twenty year old was "just a number"........

I wonder why that other Bruce left out Nixon's "defined exit strategy"? We had to wait until 58,000 of our young men died, then guess what, Vietnam went commie anyway, and now they are a valued trading partner.
I say we make Iraq a valued trading partner now and spare us the next 55,500 deaths.

Since they have no real issues to run on.They will try to buy the election

The conservatives are standing behind the troops.

Far behind the troops.

Ok Bruce, what exactly is the repub's policy on Iraq besides "Uhh...they'll fend for themselves someday right?"

Bruce, that brings up a couple questions:

Would the British or the Americans have been better off if the redcoats had "stayed the course"? The English could have shipped more troops over and fought until thousands more were on both sides were dead and they could have bankrupted their treasury in the process. Were they wrong to quit when they did?

So far, the lives of our soldiers and half a trillion dollars have bought us a lot of dead Iraqis and a democratically elected Islamic government with close ties to Iran, and George managed all that without uncovering a single WMD. Whether you call it a "defined exit strategy" or "retreat and defeat", it's time to declare "mission accomplished" again and start bringing our troops home.

And in all three military situations, it was clear that retreat was the only reasonable option to avoid more slaughter.

According to the President we will "win the war on terror". How will we know that we have won? When will our troops come home from Iraq? These questions have to be answered or "defined". Wouldn't that make it a "defined exit strategy"? The President should tell us exactly what he means by "winning". Or is he just waiting for the next President to handle those issues? By the way, haven't we already "won" the war in Iraq? Why are we still there???

Investment Opportunity - US Government representatives for sale. A $27 million dollar investment could earn you billions. Just ask our friends at Halliburton and Exxon.

this is like a broken record, if the Conservatives are so good at defending this country then how come Osama still walks the earth and it took us 2 years to capture a terrorist WE created and who WE knew was in Iraq???

If they're so good at Defense why are we still fighting a war that was started on false pretenses, (WMD's?? where did they all go? There were non!) If they're so good at Defense why is it that the top Conservatiove around - George Bush, ducked and dodged military service as a Youth but wasted no time in sending America's children into a war that had no defined enemy?

So like Bruce says, lets keep fighting this war that should've never started, lets continue to kill our young men and women of the armed services for false causes. Because the Conservatives are tough on Defense.

Mr. Frist, what do you mean by victory? Is it defined by body count, ours and/or theirs? Our presence in Iraq generates terrorists. And until we leave, there will always be more and more terrorists. There is no end in sight unless it is defined! Why are we there, for what real purpose?

The real strategy for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein:

1. Attract terrorists to Baghdad with opportunities to kill Ameican soldiers

2. Keep terrorists busy with target practice on U.S. troops, so they don't have time to sit back and plan spectacular attacks on America

3. Allow multiple attempts at self-rule to implode, justifying a long-term colonial occupation

4. Iraq provides easy access to both Syria and Iran, both anticipated near-term conflicts over uranium enrichment in pursuit of a nuclear bomb

5. Punish Islamic terrorists by occupying land that Muslims deem Holy

The comical thing is that after several years the Democrats are STILL "seeking" a strategy. It shows just how unserious the Democrats are that at this late date they can't come up with any policy at all, let alone a rational policy.

a Bruce, what the hell does your last post mean? i asked you earlier to define the gop strategy and "stay the course" ain't a strategy...like all other gop lemmings you have no answer..put your thumb back in your mouth, and please just go away....

Actually, TheIrishCurse, G, Jerm and the rest of you ingrates, rather than Bruce leave, why don't all of you just go away and head to France or Cuba?

The strategy, and I know anything beyond first-grade math is too difficult for libs to understand, is to plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. For decades, tyrannical regimes have ruled there, helping to develop and perfect terrorism. For decades, most of the world just hid its head to Islamic terrorism, hoping they would go away or behave. That clearly hasn't worked.

So, if you have rational, democratic governments running Iraq, Afghanistan, and hopefully others such as Iran and more, rather than have countries supporting terrorism, housing terrorists, you have governments that treat their own decently, do not house and support terrorists, etc.

It may be a gamble, but what are the alternatives? Never hear ANY viable solutions from you looney lefties, except for cutting and running. There is a democratically elected govt. in Iraq now, one in which the leaders seem to be rational, thoughtful, decent people. We are staying there to give them the support and help they need to get Iraq under control and on its path to being a positive country in the world. You leave now and everything done the past 3 years will be lost and all the lives lost will have been in vain.

And, I must ask AGAIN: Why did you looney libs support removing Milosovic under FALSE pretenses, but are so hatred and vitriolic of removing an even worse menace in Hussein???? Answer that? Hypocrites!!

Bruce, please tell us what planet you’re on? And how you manage to equate every Republican shortcoming to Democrats. To the best of my knowledge the Republican Party has been in the White House for almost 6 years and the majority in both Houses of Congress for the past 12 years. What exactly is the Republican strategy other than “Stay the Course” which is no strategy at all.

John D. posts, "So, if you have rational, democratic governments running Iraq, Afghanistan, and hopefully others such as Iran and more, rather than have countries supporting terrorism, housing terrorists, you have governments that treat their own decently, do not house and support terrorists, etc."

Yeah, that's working well in Palestine right about now.

This is certain to be a waste of time, but I'll respond to John D's latest nonsense anyway.

1. "Planting the seeds of democracy" is not a military strategy. It is only a lame metaphor that Dittoheads like you and Codpiece spout as a substitute for thought.

2. A democratically-elected government is not automatically the same as a government that does not support terrorism. Palestine might be one example. Iran is another. Iraq, once its majority Shia take democratic control, will certainly affiliate with Iran.

3. BTW: Your hero did not start the war to "plant the seeds of democracy." He supposedly started because Iraq violated UN resolutions relating to WMDs. Your memory gets conveniently bad when the facts cut against you.

4. You might be the only person on earth to defend Milosevic. Did he get hold of those pix with you in a compromising pose with a parrot?

Blinken, not surprised you missed the point. It's a common occurrence for libs. In fact, anything that requires thought is completely missed by libs.

In no way was I defending Milosovic. I'm asking: Why was removing Milosovic OK for libs, but not Hussein? Why was invading Serbia OK to libs, but not Iraq? Our involvement in Serbia and Kosovo also could be considered under false pretenses as Clinton said hundreds of thousands were being ethnic cleansed, when in the fact the numbers were just in the thousands. Hmmm, Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own. He had used WMDs, blah, blah, blah (all facts concerning Iraq are ignored by you folks, so why continue?).

Also, Dienne (geez, didn't your parents or you learn how to spell Diane?), just because the Palestinians elected the wrong people doesn't make democracy wrong. Also, Iranians did not elect their leadership. Afterall, you libs keep electing the Blagoyavich's, Strogers, Durbins, Clintons, Daleys, Madigans of the world over and over again and most of those folks are so corrupt they make Tony Soprano look like the Lone Ranger.

John D:: time to push away the crack pipe..We going to support the "democratically elected" leaders of the Palestinian people Hamas? oh wait,that's right we're NOT..and don't make me laugh on Afghanistan with that lame ass crap you wrote about the democracy in that country..The Taliban still controls more of that country then Karzai and the central government, and still gaining ground...and the only reason Iran is a threat is they are the only country in the world with a president loonier then ours.....

John D. posts, "Dienne (geez, didn't your parents or you learn how to spell Diane?)....".

Whoa, now that's an argument - very persuasive, too, you sure convinced me. Thanks for sticking to the discussion at hand rather than resorting to irrelevant insults.

John D - Your "strategy" is to invade Iran, Syria, and/or Saudi Arabia based on our success establishing democracy in Iraq? That's a good one!You know, your Stephen Colbert type jokes are harder to get from the text alone. I think some of the readers here took you seriously.

Can you imagine the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars your "plan" would cost? We'd have to be INSANE to do that! But that's what makes your comment such an effective parody of Bush supporters. Thanks for the laughs.

John D - The Iranians did elect their current prime minister, but just like the palestinians and the Iraqis, they didn't pick the guy our government preferred. I can't imagine a single reason why all these Iranian axis-of-evil folks over there wouldn't vote to support a friend of George Bush, our crusader against evil.

Mr. John D, if you are going to keep on the soapbox of democracy, then you need to embrace the ideology with all its ramifications, including the election of Democrats. Seems you like democracy when the winners are of your chosing. A frustrated dictator perhaps? And it's hardly a good time for you to be pointing the corruption finger at Democrats when the Republicans are the fun ones to watch right now...and how about those fraudulent elections last 2000 and 2004?

Oh Darlene and the rest of you fogged-brain libs. First, fraudulant elections of 2000 and 2004? Seems to me it's you folks who don't like democracy. Also, only people who have been convicted of election fraud in either election have been Democrats.

Free elections in IRan? First of all, it's a president in IRan, not a Prime Minister. Second, just like the IRaqi elections in which Hussein would get 100 percent of the vote, the Iranian elections are not true, free elections.

More on fraudulant elections, hmmm hasn't it been the democratic party in Illinois and Chicago that has done ballot stuffing, dead people voting, etc.? And speaking of corruption, we have Democrats such as William Jefferson Louisiana, A democrat in West Va., our own Boy Governor, Daley administration, Cook County board.

But as usual, you fogged-brain libs don't live in the real world.