This whole thing about him already having the money set aside is very fishy to me. So who voted to give the money for this before Bush "made his decision" to send in more troops? How does he already have the appropriation? Was this money hidden in a bill so that congress did not know they were voting to give him money to do this? Or was this all a ruse and they all knew he was going to send more soldiers...now saying they had no idea and are against it...politics as usual.

Remember, this is a Clinton...Bill or Hiliary...S.O.S! "The answer my friend is Blowin in the Wind!"

Ms. Clinton's views seem to shift with the political winds. A politician at the core, not a populist, and out of touch with the people. I almost always vote Dem, but I refuse to vote for Ms. Clinton.

Troops out now. The only people who want troops in Iraq are Mr. Bush & his cult followers, and the Iraqis controlling the puppet government. Listen to the troops on the ground and read their personal accounts - most feel that 20,000 more isn't enough, and that the current mission is essentially futile, but obviously hesitate to say so out loud.

The only people who have any hope for the situation are the ones who live safely 8,000 miles away, and aren't there on the ground in Iraq.

I don't understand why no politicians have the cojones to call W out for what he is doing.... sending another 21k troops to band aid Iraq until the next president comes in to deal with it.

There is absolutely nothing we can hope for from such a small surge. All my intelligent friends liberals & hawks alike think its a failed policy... you either go in with a lot of force (500k or so) so that you can keep a tight lid & then spend a lot of money on reconstruction and hope you get another Japan or Germany; or you pull back a light force to the regional bases and let history play itself out stepping in to limit the massacre of Sunnis etc.,

Either way we are screwed and in this for a long time. The third option... negotiate with Iran, Syria and other players in the middle east is probably the best one for U.S. long term interests but its a political timebomb given the absolute dumbicity of W's Axis of Evil speech.

If Katrina proved anything it is that there is still a huge racial divide in this country. That makes Obama chances very slim indeed. Why is partitioning Iraq into 3 seperate countries such a hard concept for the administration to accept. It would immediatley solve 2/3 of the Iraq problem. Clearly the only way to hold that country together is to implement the kind of policies that simply can't exist in a democracy.

Stop the pussyfooting, Hillary. Take a REAL stand. War is war and it WAS wrong and IS wrong. And the US cannot win an old fashion military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and Iran and Syria for that matter.

Let's turn this massively destructive ship around. Fresh thinking is required. A radical commitment to peace, sanity, respect for our fellow men and women.

What about this for an eye-opening presidential platform.

Not one dollar more for war in the nmiddle east. the US pledges one trillion dollars in food aid, medicine, school books, dams, roads, electrical grids, etc. Starting today.

We'll assign the Sec'y of State full-time to adminsiter these aid/self-help prograsm tghrough tghe United Nations. We'll stasrt pulling combat troops out of Iraq and Afghan. No more green zone construction. Militatry bases under construction by America wiill be c onverted to schoosl, hospitals, industrial parks -- some use OTHER than warmaking.

C'mon, Hillary, take a chance for life. No more war. Somebody has GOT to lead our good people back toward goodness.

And before we blow the bejeezus out of each other.

The self-proclaimed "joint presidency" of Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to respond appropriately to four or more direct attacks against the United States on both foreign soil and the first bombing of the World Trade Center, during their eight year reign in office. Why would anyone vote this couple back into office? Pres. Bush flew to the World Trade Center, consoled the families and workers, and promised immediate aide after the collapse of the twin towers-- before Ms. Rodham Clinton, their senator, even showed up. They later publicly booed her. Why would anyone vote for her now? Character counts. A person's choices define his or her character. She has consistently made poor choices.

Lochness:

He found some money in the pocket of his tuxedo pants.

But I think they're also spending money from the last budget. That's the problem. Congress has not been putting guidelines and benchmarks on the money. That has to change.

AND the Democrats HAVE to unify behind a single well thought out plan for Iraq.

What's so incredible is the ability of someone that has served two years in political life, and has the arrogance to run for the highest office. I have served under one senator for 6 years and held local public office. I'm more qualified than Sen. Barack Obama. Heck, the man who picks up my trash should run for president.
Are people that stupid?

I admire Hillary but she is not electable. There is too much baggage attached to her. Most of it unfair.This "yellow dog" wants to see the unbeatable ticket of Al Gore and Barack Obama.Gore can win again and Obama will be a better candidate with eight years experience as V.P.This ticket frightens the G.O.P.

The Iraq war and thus country is a mess. Sending more American people to get wounded or die for a politically created war is crazy.

UN are reporting 34,000 Iraq's dead and the U.S. has lost over 3,000. Time to plan for removal rather than increasing troops.

The nature of the Bush Administration's actual strategy for Iraq is becoming distressingly clear with each passing day and each pronouncement:

Step One: Announce Surge of troops. Liberally pepper all comments on the surge with statements that the Malicki government may not be capable of doing it's job. Ignore all outside advice and strategies on Iraq, while claiming no one else has a plan, sepecially congressional Democrats.

Step Two: Surge an insufficient number of troops to Iraq to actually make a difference. Make no effort toward a political solution in Iraq.

Step Three: Sit back and watch as surge has no effect beyond increased deaths of US servicemen and women.

Step Four: Announce that the Malicki government has not done it's part. Withdraw from Iraq. Blame congressional Democrats for the failure of the surge.

Step 5: Watch Iraq descend into complete chaos, as the Saudis intervene in the south to protect the Sunni (as they told Sec. Rice they would yesterday), As Iran becomes the protector of the Shia, and as the Kurdish areas come into conflict with Turkey.

Step 6: Blame the Democratic Party for the largest foriegn policy failure since the Second World War in the 2008 elections.

Whether one agrees or otherwise, the truth of the matter is, he is the President and under the Constitution, and for good reasons, he has the power to do whatever he believes best protects the interest and security of the U.S.A.
Once the troops are there, there is no way any sane American will cut off funding for the troops. It would be political suicide, tantamount to abandoning the troops.
Bush knows this, and that probably accounts for his cockiness and arrogance.
Until the troops are home, there's nuts anybody can do to rein in this president. Period.

Posted by: lochnessmonster | Jan 17, 2007 6:47:55 AM

=========

Are you kidding? Bush has been running this scam under "emergency appropriations" since day one.

It's been common practice for Bush to do his thing, then get approval from the Republican Congress later.

It's not accounted for in the normal budgeting process and Bush is basically kicking the costs down to your Children and Grandchildren.

The Dems are trying to change that....but I tend to doubt it will happen, with idiots like you voting.

Mrs. Clinton's statements regarding Bush's constitutional authority are on point.
Her comments in reference to Mr. Obama are entirely appropriate.
This woman is conducting herself in extraordinarily diplomatic fashion.

Watching last night's broadcast of the Jim Lehrer report - I heard from Bush three different references to his perceptions of this terrible war of his and his so called new plan - they were "They promise" "I hope" and "I believe".
What does he mean he hopes and believes that they will keep promises? They (being the Iraq government) are going to keep promises to their cohorts and others NOT to Bush! He sounded like a disfunctional parent of spoiled child. He has allowed this to go on this long causing the deaths of thousands. It is too late for a "time-out"! We must leave now!

Why should we believe George Bush now that he insisted on his new plan to be success when he already lied to the American people few times 3 years ago with the same stragety. The main point is that, the situation in Iraq all depends on the Iraqi people themselves. The question is that, are they willing to do all possibilities to prevent the civil war now? Or, what's the difference between now and then? To me is no difference. All politics, Amen.

When will the democrats learn ?
They should cut the fund for war.
Appropiate enough funds to bring the troops home

Maybe one of the women or blacks running for President as a Republican would like to reply?

Oh,I forget,the Pubs only let angry old white men run for higher office.Why not continue,look what they've done the last six years!

AND the Democrats HAVE to unify behind a single well thought out plan for Iraq.

Posted by: Leo T | Jan 17, 2007 7:48:47 AM

I agree with you Leo T, but may I remind you that Mr. Bush just two weeks ago came up with a plan. The way it turned out I believe the Iraq study group was just a ploy to buy time. Lets use an example....The building you are in is on fire. The plan on the table is to jump out of the window. Now...do you need another plan to know that jumping out of the window isn't the way to go?

Remember, this is a Clinton...Bill or Hiliary...S.O.S! "The answer my friend is Blowin in the Wind!"

Posted by: FrankT | Jan 17, 2007 7:07:33 AM

Another of the right breaks wind and is gone.

Hillary vs. Obama for the Democratic nomination...should be a good one!

"Character counts. A person's choices define his or her character. She has consistently made poor choices."

Posted by: Linda Amstutz | Jan 17, 2007 7:44:25 AM

Linda, after all this mess, you still think Bush has a fine character?

Tony, good analysis. I'm afraid that you may turn out to be correct.

FrankT-
You're so right on that one..."blowing in the wind."
Before B.J.Clinton made a decision,he'd have his adviser,Dick Morris,do a poll to see if there would be any political fall-out from it.Hillary has learned well...still there is no leadership with the Clintons,just poll data.
Paulo

FrankT-
You're so right on that one..."blowing in the wind."
Before B.J.Clinton made a decision,he'd have his adviser,Dick Morris,do a poll to see if there would be any political fall-out from it.Hillary has learned well...still there is no leadership with the Clintons,just poll data.
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | Jan 17, 2007 10:46:21 AM

Paulo...Are you really that naive? That's politics. You think it's only one side? Please
grow up and pick an intelligent argument.

Raving Loon - careful, the last thing we need is Condi running for President. She was our National Security Advisor when 9/11 happened, was warned twice before it happened, and did nothing. Sounds like someone the GOP would love to put on the top of a ticket.

Sorry billr....wrong again.
The Clinton's don't have the stones to decide a tough issue,without a poll,that is.
Reagan,J.F.K and George W. Bush made tuff decisions to do what was best for the country.
Reagan didn't take a poll before he called on Gorbachev "to tear down this wall"
J.F.K didn't take a poll before he decided to blockade Cuba with warships.
And if W went by polls,he'd wave the white flag and let Iraq turn into another Viet Nam where hundreds of thousands would be slaughtered by terrorists.
Polls are for weak leaders,like Clinton was.Hillary would follow the same routine as B.J.and in a time of war,she doesn't cut it.
Paulo

Hillary is the perfect candidate for president. As politician, she knows the political cost of war. As a mother, she knows the economics of running the American household, she will take care of the motherland. A president is not judged by character (superficial) but by ones contribution to the country as administrator of its resources. George Bush is making mockery of this great nation.

Bush will preside over this debacle until he rides off into the sunset in 08. Of course he and his Neo-Con buddies will blame the Democrats. Of course some imbeciles will buy into the idea that the Democrats are at fault. The fact is, Mr Bush is the most dangerous person ever to hold the office of US President. He's not intelligent, he's not compassionate, he's not creative, he's not intuitive. He is elitist and he is religious; a deadly mix. Just hope (or pray if you must) that he doesn't start a war with Iran and Syria before he saddles up and sceedaddles.

For many, this administration and its having stolen two elections, killed thousands of citizens of the US and Iraq, abandoned American citizens decimated by Katrina, stood in the way of stem cell research, -- the lesson is clear. Never vote for a Republican. Never.

Bill R.,

Eric Zorn was right on the money when he wrote his "Paulo is an idiot" column the other day.

I can't believe that "Pauldo" is even a real person,the Republicans he claims to support won't touch the Pauldo robot,even they know stupidity when they see it.

We need to take a long review of how other nations have done when there was a lady in leadership.

If we look to the Holy Bible a woman should not be teaching men. Should this hold true for the leadership of a nation?

I can't believe that "Pauldo" is even a real person,the Republicans he claims to support won't touch the Pauldo robot,even they know stupidity when they see it.

Posted by: John E. | Jan 17, 2007 2:36:06 PM

We need to have Paulo and john D as the poster children for the republican party.

"If we look to the Holy Bible a woman should not be teaching men. Should this hold true for the leadership of a nation?"

No, it should absolutely NOT hold true. And I am a christian before you jump to assumptions.

Never is a bad word to use in politics. I bet many people who thought they would "never" vote for a democrat did, and look at congress now. Admittedly, many people who voted for dems did not vote before. They had never seen such blatant disregard for truth and the people's will, fatcats were getting busted in their elitist games, and huge disasters were being responded to with third world timeliness. We have high expectations in the democratic party, and its sad that every little failure they make will be harped upon. Power corrupts, and the republican party has been in power for a long time, with corruption slowly permeating into the culture. The American response was purely reactionary this last round, just as the initial support for the war was reactionary anger to 9/11 and the selective presentation of intel. As predicted, support waned as the war slipped, wmds were never found, and the quagmire has stagnated. What W doesn't seem to understand is that as long as there is American presence in the region, there will be violence against us and anyone who supports us. Worldwide terrorism, concentrated in the easiest place to kill Americans, true fanatics who are rewarded for dying...our honorable intentions, if you believe the rhetoric, fall on hard hearts and deaf ears. How is more troops going to do anything but give them more targets and greater resolve. Someday, we will leave, and regardless the fanatics will see it as a victory. They will never accept a government we support, and that is a definite never.

If we look to the Holy Bible a woman should not be teaching men. Should this hold true for the leadership of a nation?

Posted by: Eldon | Jan 17, 2007 2:42:52 PM

Ahhhhh...once again the smite from the holy bible. Best example of why the republican party
would never run a woman for president. Lets look at the holy bible written thousands of years ago to see what to do. Even after it has been translated to fit whatever you would like it to say. Do you really think jesus was against woman?

Ms. Clinton is a politician, not a leader. Expect anything other than a convenient non-answer and you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

The ex-President even took sharp notice that the Republicans didn't win the last election - the Democrats lost - because they didn't actually take a a stand or attempt to represent a competent vision of what America could or should be. It's sad to see the Democratic party supporting another useless Kerry-esque mannequin with nothing more to offer than obvious criticisms of the current regime. Hardly inspiring.

If the Democrats want to "win" then they should at least have the courage to let the public have a glimpse of what's intended post-election by concretely expressing themselves now. I don't necessarily support Obama, but he seems far more frank and forthcoming.

How can anyone in their right mind even consider Hillary as a viable presidential candidate? When is the last time we saw a Hillary Press Conference? Has she ever done an interview or gone onto a talk show that didn't lob softball questions at her? When is the last time we heard any form of substance from this woman? She is a walking rhetoric machine, a political monster, a person focused on nothing but absolute power, a person who tried to guide our country down the path of socialized medicine, a left over has been peacenik from the 60's who still lives under the assumption that we could actually sit down with a terrorist and negotiate with them. I agree with some of the posters here that the 20,000 troop increase is wrong. We need more, but the libs in the media have done such a good job at brainwashing the American people into thinking this is another Viet Nam, pretty soon, we will be living this self-fulfilling prophecy. I know alot of good, honest, hard working democrats, and their party is being hijacked, and I hate to see that happen. God help us all if this woman steps into the oval office.

Hillary says she would not have voted for the war if she knew then what she knows now. Well, duh! Isn't that what helped Kerry lose the election by saying, "I was for the war before I was against it". If America is stupid enough to vote her in as Presdent, then America deserves exactly what they will get from Hill and Bill which is the same ole' crap we got for 8 years.

Mr Sommers, you are about the best example I have ever seen of a leftist media kool aid drinker. You need to stop listening to everything the media tells you. You need to read, educate yourself, and make up your own mind. Don't go by what they are telling you. You still have a chance to save yourself.

We have enough troops in Iraq to do the job. We just don't utilize them. Currently they have to consult a manual on who to shoot, when to shoot, how many times, not at the mosque even though they are getting fired at, etc. Let it come down to a "weapons free" environment for the military and you would see victory. The troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Senator Obama does not have enough experience to be president. Senator Clinton brought shame into the white house for eight years!! we need a strong leader who will stand up to the Islamic threat to our society.

I Feel like I’m taking Crazy pills. Just because he can give a good speech does not mean he is experienced or qualified enough to be president. Moreover, We elected a president with no foreign policy experience and we see where that has gotten us. Let’s not make another choice without properly vetting people. What does he stand for? What does he believe? I am a democrat and if it came down to him and McCain I would vote for McCain simply because he has experience.

If we look to the Holy Bible a woman should not be teaching men. Should this hold true for the leadership of a nation?

Posted by: Eldon | Jan 17, 2007 2:42:52 PM

Margaret Thatcher was an effective leader and I don't think I read about Great Britain burning in Hell

Mr Sommers, you are about the best example I have ever seen of a leftist media kool aid drinker. You need to stop listening to everything the media tells you. You need to read, educate yourself, and make up your own mind. Don't go by what they are telling you. You still have a chance to save yourself.

Posted by: Harpo S | Jan 17, 2007 3:26:27 PM

And if you do all that Mr. sommers...you can learn to say really cool things like kool-aid drinker and then just listen to their media.
Pleeeeeeez!!!!

Harpo -

And...what should I read? The deep thoughts of Rush Limbaugh? The insights of Doctor Dobson? The brilliance of Newt Gingrich?

What "media" should I avoid? TV? Faux News? Newspapers? The Wrong Books? Podcasts?

You presume to know what I know, and to know where I learned it. You don't know anything about me, except that I disagree with you. If I read the crap you want me to read, I'll still think what I think, but I'll know how your mind became poisoned.

If the media told me that the past two elections were stolen, there are facts to support that allegation. If I think Bush lied us into war in Iraq, only a few truebelievers would disagree at this point in time. If I think that religion causes more problems than it solves, I can make that case. And if you want to disagree, knock yourself out.

Harpo s-

You need to be listening to sources of information other than the President.

Things are not going well in Iraq or Afghanistan. Our Armed Forces are stretch every thin currently. Providing even the 21,500 additional forces Bush wants for Iraq is going to be difficult, let alone sending more as you suggest.

You need to read, educate yourself, and make up your own mind. Don't go by what they are telling you. You still have a chance to save yourself.

Wow! You are a bunch of very angry people! I can't believe I am still seeing comments about W "stealing" 2 elections! You all need to get this behind you and look at what is happening today - you have won both the House and the Senate, based on promises made by your Democrats. Why hasn't this made you happier people? Are you afraid of your Democrats? Do you ever think of what would have happened had Al Gore been in the Whitehouse on 9/11? How about John Kerry? Do you really believe you can negotiate with people who have publically, and forcefully, stated that they want death to the United States? Where do you start that conversation? "Please be nice to us. We like everyone"??? Get real folks!

If there is one thing the Iraqi war has taught us it is that certain countries and their regional cultures are not ready for democracy. Sanctions don't work, aid doesn't work, even invasion and rebuilding don't work. So what will? Unfortunately the only thing that I see working in our lifetime is make damage to that country or region so devastating that the risk of attacking us is simply too high.
It is barbaric and depressing....but effective.
We won't even consider it now but when we're hit again...and we will be....then we'll see????

Let's use an analogy. Imagine that someone broke into your house in the middle of the night, when you least expected it, and stole all your possessions. Then, they aired on national TV a video recording of them informing you that they were coming soon to kidnap your kids and after that they would come back to kill your wife, and after that to get your parents, and after that your siblings, and so on. They made it their mission in life to get you. Who on this blog can tell me that they would respond "diplomatically?" That would be suicide. You would use every means necessary to protect your family- even if it went beyond your financial means to do so. Hire security detail, install fencing, alarm systems, buy a gun, etc. If you DIDN'T do these things, what would your family think? So why, then, do we allow people to undermine the national security of this country with self-serving, politically-motivated personal attacks on our President and anyone that supports freedom and defense of our nation? Diplomacy and weakness, all you liberal geniuses, doesn't work when someone is standing in your face ready to punch your lights out. You talk, you bleed. That's the dilemma we're in with terrorism. To think that we can cut-and-run from Iraq and expect the problem to go away is liberal idealism. Get real guys.

Clinton? Obama? Count me out. Again.

seth hoyt and EasternDiamond for Prez and VP!

It's interesting to see all the commentary. Even more interesting is that Hillary who spent a mere day on the ground in Iraq now has all the answers.

"I am opposed to it.'' Returning from a one-day trip to Baghdad, the senator said: "I talked to a number of our troops… as well as members of the Iraqi government…. I do not think this strategy has a very high level of success at all attached to it.''

I ask where is the real thought here? She talked to a couple people, a couple troops, some members of the Iraqi government. But what's lacking in the statement is what they actually said. The above is only her personal feeling and opinions. Political ones at that.

Also let's get real. Do you think for one minute in the single day that Hillary’s PR trip that she actually went out and talked to the grunts on the ground out at our forward operating bases? No! She was nicely ensconced in the rear with people chosen to come see her. Take a risk Hillary and get your hands dirty. After all isn’t she the senator who didn't show up to ground zero until after President Bush had already come and left.

Some parting comments here for those of you who are reading this.

First if you've never served for your country you can say what you will but your opinions don't count. You have sat safely at home all of your lives while the people in the service do what's necessary to protect YOUR ability to go to Dairy Queen.

Second please stop clamoring about what the strategy should be in Iraq. As civilians on the ground we know what we see on CNN, CNBC and FOX. This is not reality. It's Television. News is all about ratings and dirty laundry. So getting straight facts from where we sit is next to impossible. So please stop the arm chair quarterbacking. You know nothing.

Third, get over your incessant hippie like attitude of Peace and Love. Let’s send food, shelter and aid…. There are people in this world who want to come and hurt you and your families. Not because you're nice or mean. They just don’t like you or your way of life. Better over there than here. But then again if they were on your street corner blowing things up perhaps that's what it would take for you to wake up, put the remote down and defend yourself. But hey that would be Bush’s fault too right?

Lastly- Prey for our troops. They deserve your support no matter what cause they are fighting for.

"Let's use an analogy. Imagine that someone broke into your house in the middle of the night, when you least expected it, and stole all your possessions. Then, they aired on national TV a video recording of them informing you that they were coming soon to kidnap your kids and after that they would come back to kill your wife, and after that to get your parents, and after that your siblings, and so on.."

Matt M. - That's exactly how a great many Iraqi's view the US. Thinking that adding a mere 21,500 more troops is going to end the Iraqi resistance is conservative idealism. Get real.

"Do you think for one minute in the single day that Hillary’s PR trip that she actually went out and talked to the grunts on the ground out at our forward operating bases? No! She was nicely ensconced in the rear with people chosen to come see her."

So true Dan. I've been so moved by all the time President Bush, Secretaries Rumsfeld, Rice & Gates have spent in Iraq out on the sharp end of the spear. They never just ang out in the green zone, they always make a bee line for the forward fire bases. Watching President Bush under fire in a foxhole really showed me what leadership is.

"But then again if they were on your street corner blowing things up perhaps that's what it would take for you to wake up, put the remote down and defend yourself."

Yep. And guess what? So would Iraqis. That's the problem Dan. We invaded and occupied another country.

Come on folks! Nothing we can do to stop Bush from doing what 80%+ of America disagrees with?

IMPEACH

If the republicans were shouting to impeach Clinton just for getting a little on the side, then we all should have been shouting "IMPEACH BUSH" a long dang time ago! For what Bush has done is far far more serious than what Clinton ever did (or didn't do). Hell, I'd bring Bill back in a heartbeat over what we have in office right now. I'm ashamed of America for voting G.W. in for a second term.

BUSH LIED

PEOPLE DIED

IMPEACH George Dubbaya Bush TODAY!

"We need to take a long review of how other nations have done when there was a lady in leadership.

If we look to the Holy Bible a woman should not be teaching men. Should this hold true for the leadership of a nation?

Posted by: Eldon | Jan 17, 2007 2:42:52 PM"

Is this Osama BL?

I might add Golda and Lizzy the 1st to the list. How about Cat the Great?

Eldon,
I give you a chance to retract. I actually think you must kidding us around.

C Mo,

I think Eldon might be telling you what he actually believes,as sick and twisted as it may sound.

There are still many churchs in South Indiana that believe women have no place in church leadership postitions.

"Tony- That's exactly how a great many Iraqi's view the US. Thinking that adding a mere 21,500 more troops is going to end the Iraqi resistance is conservative idealism. Get real."

Tony, like Hillary, how is it that you are an expert on "how a great many Iraqi's view the US?" Did you just return from your diplomatic journey to Baghdad? Or is that what Wolf told you on CNN? Or maybe Katie on the Today show? You don't know how a "great many Iraqi's" view the US, nor do I. Based on the liberal logic, we should return them to the peaceful, civil life under Saddam. Or under Obama's logic, should have never gone in to Iraq and they should still be under the murderous dictatorship. Oh yeah, i forgot, to the liberals America is just a bunch of murdering idiots anyways... You liberals act like America is the great enemy. Hell, we are the ONLY nation that was willing to liberate these people!!

"They just don’t like you or your way of life"

Posted by: Dan Rand | Jan 17, 2007 4:35:34 PM

I'm so tired of reading ignorant comments like this.

"We are not hated for who we are or what we believe; we are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that are despised; it is our policies" "Between 1989 and 1999, we invaded Panama, smashed Iraq, intervened in Somalia, invaded Haiti, launched air strikes on Bosnia, fired missiles at Baghdad, Sudan, and Afghanistan, and destroyed Serbia. We imposed embargoes and blockades on Libya, Iran, Iraq, and dozens of other states. The Iraqi sanctions may have caused the deaths of 500,000 children..."
"No doubt, in every instance America acted out of good and noble motives, but can we not understand how others might resent "Dirty Harry" on the global beat? And how has all this neo-imperialism profited our people?
The blow-back has been an Arab-Islamic resort to "the last weapon of the weak" Terrorists blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; Khobar Towers, the American military base in Saudi Arabia; the USS Cole; and the World Trade Center. Other plots to blow up US airliners, subway trains, and airports were aborted-at least until September 11.
Why did Osama Bin Laden target America? Not because we are a democracy, but, by his own testimony, because he wanted the American infidels off the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that is home to Islam's holiest shrines. The terrorists were over here because we are over there." -Patrick J. Buchanan

"You don't know how a "great many Iraqi's" view the US, nor do I.... Hell, we are the ONLY nation that was willing to liberate these people!! "

Matt, I have 3027 very strong reasons to believe that many Iraqi's haven't viewed us as "Liberators".

"You don't know how a "great many Iraqi's" view the US, nor do I"

Posted by: Matt M. | Jan 18, 2007 7:28:02 AM

Polls consistently show that 3 out of 5 Iraqis think its ok to kill American soldiers. Not that they want them to leave or they think they are mean, but they don't care if US troops are killed

" Hell, we are the ONLY nation that was willing to liberate these people!! "

Matt M,

I am sure the UK would beg to differ. Figure the percentages of UK/US soldiers to lose their lives and they are quite close. The us killed is about 2% of 150k in theater. The UK is about 1.8% of 7k. *

Hate to put numbers on it, but you said we were the only ones. Not true.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Unfortunately, the cause of all the deaths were due to lies.

* I simply used 150k US and 7k UK troops total in theater as a best guess at any given time. In the region there are more US and UK forces.

I'm just curious C. Morris, Jethro, and Tony- what is your opinion on Saddam Hussein? Were they better off WITH Saddam?

As for you C. Morris, I suppose that we should have either: 1. "negotiated" with Hussein, make nice with him, and hope that he all of a sudden stops torturing and killing people and invading sovereign nations (Kuwait). Or, #2- just stay out of Iraq, allow him to continue to defy international sanctions imposed by the UN-, as in UN-ABLE to accomplish anything meaningful. Think of it this way- if you have an employee or a partner in business who is doing things behind your back that are in complete violation of the agreement you have with that person, would you just continue to try to "talk" that person throught the problem?? If so, your ass would be out of business pretty quickly. You gotta have some balls sometimes and make tough decisions. Most of the liberals that are in leadership positions or aspiring to have shown a frightful inability to make these tough calls. Instead, they resort to polling. Well, if we just ran the country based upon polls we wouldn't need a President. True leadership sometimes involves making unpopular decisions that hurt in the short-run but pay off in the long run.

"Were they better off WITH Saddam?"

Posted by: Matt M. | Jan 18, 2007 1:49:41 PM

That's not the question you ask when you commit troops. Is Iraq a threat to our national security, is the question you ask. No they weren't Iran and North Korea posed bigger problems.

"Were they better off WITH Saddam?"

The sad thing is Matt, that it is argueable that they were. Iraq is such a mess. Hundreds of thousands dead. Infrastructure destroyed. Abu Ghraib. I think the average Iraqi is pretty hard pressed to see where their life is better than before.

Iraq has disintigrated into near chaos under our watch.

"I'm just curious C. Morris, Jethro, and Tony- what is your opinion on Saddam Hussein? Were they better off WITH Saddam?"

Matt M.

This bogus question, asked by Faux Gnus repeatedly, has been answered.

The world and the US was better off with Saddam in power in Iraq. The disaster is still unfolding. Let's see what YOU say in a year.

The answer to question #2 is; The original lie of 'containment and deterrence of Iraq is not working' is the problem.
We (US/UK) had Saddam all bottled up from the air and sea. When turned on his radar we creamed him. All we needed was to get Team Blix in there. Hey, we did.

Like it or not Matt, your boy pancaked the wrong country. Got 3K American kids deaded for nothing. I'm not the bad guy, Bush is.