Bush: With more 'success,' more come home

The Demoncrapic Leaders are rejecting it because they have invested everything in defeat (Democratic congressman even said success in Iraq is bad for the Demoncratic party). The Demoncraps (most anyway) do not want success, they will ignore any success, and continue to be negative, negative, negative. They want defeat, plain and simple.

You call this success? More dead, more wounded, more cripled, and more billions spent just to be back where the "surge" started. With "success" like this we will soon be crawling home with five thousand dead and thirty five thousand wounded and Iraq still a disaster.

Dubya's speech Thurday and this morning's radio address can be reduced to two words: Happy Talk.

What his speech really amounted to is rope a dope. Except that Muhammad Ali had chumps fall for it in the boxing ring while Americans proved in the '06 election and subsequent polls that we won't be fooled again.

Bring the troops home.

Only the Iraqis can fix their civil war.

John D

The resident troll.

Yeah, the Democrats don't want success. Too bad the administration can't define success. You mind telling us what success is?

Keep in mind that the President and his minions gave us a bunch of reasons for attacking Iraq. You remember, WMDs, Saddam, etc.

Well guess what? All of those things have happened.

In the recent briefings to Congress did you notice that there wasn't ONE issue that was presented that dealt with anything that had to deal with the security of the United States?

Other than the fact that this President has ZERO skills when it comes to foreign affairs, why is it that we can't go to the UN and ask them to set up a multinational force to go into Iraq and help create a stable government? Why does it have to be the US setting up their colonial, puppet government?

Until folks such as yourself realize that YOU'RE simply lemmings jumping off the cliff, the US will never find a solution.

The US is tired of your arrogant us or them nonsense. 2006 was just the beginning. 2008 will be the next nail in the coffin of the neoconservative disaster.

Wrong again, John D. You know all us Democrats and Independents believe every word president Bush says, so when he announced his "Return on Success" plan, naturally we were overjoyed. We just think he's being too pessimistic about the situation in Iraq. As so many of our GOP Congressmen have told us after their extensive tours of the Green Zone, Iraq is exploding with success! People there are so happy, they celebrate every day with gunfire and fireworks! We may have been hesitant at first, but if it gets our troops home I think we can all agree that Dubya's Iraq war has been one huge flaming pile of success!

EXACTLY why I made this country's first and only CONSERVATIVE MUSIC CD!
Someone had to do it!
conservativemusiconline.com

If at first you don't suceed, redefine success. - G. Dubya Bush

Lefty Roadkill Brains:
Success in Iraq is being to leave a country in which its government can govern and its military and police can protect its citizens. A successful Iraq is not leaving it so Iran can take it over or Al Qaeda can take it over. A successful Iraq is such that when we do leave, the same carnage that occurred in Southeast Asia doesn't happen there.

I know you perpetual dumbasses like to call the democratically elected government of Iraq our pets, it's just one more proof you folks don't want success there, are incapable to grasping reality and are too clueless to understand facts.

Lefty Roadkill Brains:
Posted by: John D | September 15, 2007 12:32 PM

So it seems Iraqs' fate rests in the hands of its government. How's that going?

What exactly is "success" in Iraq? Is it measured by only defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq, or is it defined by defeating the enemy whereever they are in world? What the President misses in fighting the enemy "over there" is that the real fight is not over there. The real fight is to stop putting our heads in the sand and protect ourselves at home - the real reason 9/11 happened. 9/11 occured because folks were here on expired VISAs and no one was checking the status of who was in this country. That's the real fight - at home - securing our borders and understanding just who is here and who shouldn't be here AND enforcing our laws. Until we get our sh*t straight about what the constitution really says - securing domestic tranquility by securing our borders, fighting "over there" is just a smoke screen to justify a mistake.

John D.

Your nonsensical rant doesn't impress anyone but you.

Notice, you say NOTHING about the security of the United States. If we're going to start establishing puppet colonial governments all around the world, this country is in BIG trouble.

We go to war for OUR security NOT to establish safe secure governments for the neoconservatives.

And notice, not ONE disparaging word about conservatives, Republicans, right winged radicals.

The world learned to deal with bullies in the third grade. You might want to try to take the HIGH ground and actually discuss the issues.

Vietnam. Don't even try that nonsense. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this Bush fiasco. You remember President Bush and his purple heart from Vietnam? Oh yeah he was too busy helping the political campaigns to serve.

John D, rambling on like the lunatic he is. Get a grip, you whacky halcyon consumer. Your boys Cheney, Bush, etc, have created a morass from which there is no end in sight. I guess it's wrong for astute people capable of thinking on they're own to question the loss of lives and treasure incurred in Iraq. Questioning an administration that continues to mislead the American public as Mr Bush did in his factually challenged speach the other night is subversive. Right John. John D, two words, WAKE UP. Two more, GET BENT!!!

The rest of us are sick of watching the body count continue to climb in the sick game of whack-a-mole being played out in the searing desert heat. We're fed up with VA hospitals filling up with wounded soldiers. We're tired of being fed a line of BS from a reckless, failed administration. More than anything I'm sick of mororns like you who tow the party line at all cost. Even if you bare little burden other than wasted tax dollars. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go look at that flag that's folded in a triangle in my house. That you a%shole, is a real sacrifice. One you wouldn't understand!!!

Success in Iraq is being to leave a country in which its government can govern and its military and police can protect its citizens. A successful Iraq is not leaving it so Iran can take it over or Al Qaeda can take it over. A successful Iraq is such that when we do leave, the same carnage that occurred in Southeast Asia doesn't happen there.

Posted by: John D | September 15, 2007 12:32 PM

Brilliant satire, John D! Kudos to you....
Unless I knew any better, I would swear you are describing Iraq before we invaded!

And who says we NeoCons dont have a sense of humour?

Stewart Smoot, TMD
US Navy (4-F)

John D is right the Democrat Congressional leaders own defeat in Iraq they care more about power than they do about the best interests of America.
We will be successful in Iraq and no thanks to Chuckie Schemer Schumer, Dickie Durbin, Nancy Pelosi,Ram Rahl Emmanuel,Howard Dean, John Edwards, John F Kerry and old Ted Kennedy. I am so glad I belong to the GOP I couldn't stand with these traitors.
MoveOn.org is a Clinton website and they said General Patraues or Did You Betray Us. This website funded by George Soros, a tax cheat,was started to defend Bill after impeachment and disbarment can't we just move on Lanny Davis would say. Now James Carville, Begala, Ickes,Wolfson are all back running the Clinton War room to ruin the Bush presidency and to get Hil elected. Good luck with her negative poll numbers and recycling Hillary Care.This ad about Patreus is an insult to every man and woman in American uniform. Did I say the Democrats aren't patriotic I sure did. Jerry White, Springfield, IL Go GOP!

Listening to Bush is so painful. One of these days he's going to call a press conference and when all the reporters file in he's going to pull down his pants, defecate, and start flinging poo at all in attendance.

That's when we'll see the real George W Bush.

This ad about Patreus is an insult to every man and woman in American uniform. Did I say the Democrats aren't patriotic I sure did. Jerry White, Springfield, IL Go GOP!

Posted by: Jerry White | September 15, 2007 2:46 PM

I wore a uniform in another unpopular war and I can tell you it is not an insult to me. I would imagine that every brother who has taken a stand to protect your freedoms would know that freedom of speech is one of those freedoms jerry doesn't have the slightest clue about. I would also guess that Jerry doesn't have the jingle in his pants to do much more than rant. Unpatriotic? Why Jerry, where I come from, those would be "fightin words". You got a jingle on the blog....hows your face to face game?

Jerry White - The Petraeus ad.

Did you ever think about this perspective? Petraeus is in his position because he thinks he can do what the President is telling him to do. If he didn't, Bush would get someone else. Nothing wrong with that as an idea, but don't expect Petraeus to give you an unbiased opinion of things.

The Moveon ad is wrong?

How about the Freedoms Watch ads from Ari Fleischer and the other neocons behind them? You know the ones that connect Iraq with 9/11.

So who are the neocons trying to manipulate with that nonsense? THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ!! If you watch ANY of those ads, it would be hard to come up with any other conclusion.

For those new to the swamp, please know that Jerry White is a proven traitor to this nation. To this day, he condones outing CIA agents during wartime. Enlist traitor or shut your pie hole!

Bill R.,

That's the rub isn't it?

Not one. Not one of the chickenhawk QWERTY Chaireborne Commandos who post on this blog has ever been in the military.

They have no problem with you, me and others getting their asses shot at and/or killed but they are under no circumstances about to join up themselves.

The few the proud the cluck -n- post...

I am hopeful and waiting for Admiral William Fallon- CentCom Commander and Petraeus' military superior- to testify before congress. I have heard Fallon sees things a bit differently than Petraeous.

I think that Bush admitted he sees no success in Iraq. He basically told us on an evening TV chat that the war will be handed off to the next president. I don't think playing hot potato with another 1000 American lives is a very fun game. I don't believe that the only way to honor fallen soldiers is to keep making more of them.

Doug Zook.....it's always? I support the troops...as long as I don't have to be one". But of course, no looney lefties could put their butts on the line.. right? Half those who have died for your freedoms, where "looney lefters", and these people haven't earned themselves the right to call those fallen brothers anything.

Doug Zook.....it's always? I support the troops...as long as I don't have to be one". But of course, no looney lefties could put their butts on the line.. right? Half those who have died for your freedoms, where "looney lefters", and these people haven't earned themselves the right to call those fallen brothers anything.

Posted by: bill r. | September 15, 2007 7:24 PM

Your out of line bill.

So what he is really saying is, if the troops screw up and aren't "successful" they'll have to stay? He's putting this whole mess on their backs??? How do you think they'll like that bit of news?

Your out of line bill.

Posted by: Force of Darkness | September 16, 2007 4:06 AM

forgive me if I differ.....
I, on the other hand believe those who would throw around insults and question ones patriotism, is out of line.

Let me clarify...I don't agree with the actions of Move-on, I think they only brought the discord to a higher level and were out of line. However, this has been the theme song for those hard core on the right. I find it funny how if you question their patriotism, they go through the roof yet we hear the same BS everyday. Question peoples wisdom, not their patriotism. Too many good boys on both sides of the aisle have given the ultimate sacrifice and deserve better.

George Will | Washington Post Writers Group
September 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - Before Gen. David Petraeus' report, and to give it a context of optimism, the president visited Iraq's Anbar province to underscore the success of the surge in making some hitherto anarchic areas less so. More significant, however, was the fact that the president did not visit Baghdad. This underscored the fact that the surge has failed, as measured by the president's and Petraeus' standards of success.

Those who today stridently insist that the surge has succeeded also say they are especially supportive of the president, Petraeus and the military generally. But at the beginning of the surge, both Petraeus and the president defined success in a way that took the achievement of success out of America's hands.

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time - "breathing space," the president says - for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq?

Related links
EUGENE ROBINSON: 'Six months' without end
CAL THOMAS: Facing evil
Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society riven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America's military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake.

The progress that Petraeus reports in improving security in portions of Iraq is real. It might, however, have two sinister aspects.

First, measuring sectarian violence is problematic: The Washington Post reports that a body with a bullet hole in the front of the skull is considered a victim of criminality; a hole in the back of the skull is evidence of sectarian violence. But even if violence is declining, that might be partly because violent sectarian cleansing has separated Sunni and Shiite communities. This homogenization of hostile factions - trained and armed by U.S. forces - may bear poisonous fruit in a full-blown civil war.

Second, brutalities by al-Qaeda in Iraq have indeed provoked some Sunni leaders to collaborate with U.S. forces. But these alliances of convenience might be inconvenient when Shiites again become the Sunnis' principal enemy.

Congressional Democrats should accept Petraeus' report as a reason to declare a victory, one that might make this fact somewhat palatable: Substantial numbers of U.S. forces will be in Iraq when the next president is inaugurated. The Democrats' "victory" - a chimera but a useful one - is that Petraeus indicates there soon can be a small reduction of U.S. forces.

To declare this a substantial victory won by them requires Democrats to do two things. They must make a mountain out of a molehill (Petraeus suggests withdrawal of only a few thousand troops). And they must spuriously claim credit for the mountain. Actually, senior military officers have been saying that a large drawdown is inevitable, given the toll taken on the forces by the tempo of operations for more than four years.

But Democrats cannot advertise a small withdrawal as a victory without further infuriating their party's base, the source of energy and money. The base is incandescent because there are more troops in Iraq today than there were on Election Day 2006, when Democratic activists and donors thought, not without reason, that congressional Democrats acquired the power to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.

A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, "fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it - to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end." Which is why "unconditional surrender" was a natural U.S. goal in World War II, and why Americans were so uncomfortable with three "wars of choice" since then - in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

What "forced" America to go to war in 2003 - the "gathering danger" of weapons of mass destruction - was fictitious. That is one reason why this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war - the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.

After more than four years of war, two questions persist: Is there an Iraq? Are there Iraqis?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/right/orl-syn-will0911,0,4147372.story

John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", continues to invest in the death of American soldiers of that he can have cheap gas. And now that Bush has been caught in a FLIP-FLOP (again), what will he say to the facts?

[quote]
Thursday night in his prime time address, President Bush will announce that a "total of 5,700 of the 21,500 combat troops added this year will return by Christmas."

This plan mirrors an August proposal put forth by Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who called on Bush to announce on Sept. 15 the that he will "initiate the first step in a withdrawal":

I say to the President, respectfully, pick whatever number you wish. You do not want to lose the momentum. But certainly, in the 160,000 plus — say 5,000 — could begin to redeploy and be home to their families and loved ones no later than Christmas of this year.

Yet on Aug. 23, the White House shot down the prospects of such a drawdown. Asked to respond to Warner, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "I think it's inappropriate for me to say from here right now what the president will or will not consider." A reporter followed up:

QUESTION: The president has frequently said a timetable would be a disastrous course of action.

JOHNDROE: Yes, and I don't think that the president feels any differently about setting a specific timetable for withdrawl.

The White House, concerned that the media was reporting that Warner had broken with Bush, "reached out to Warner's staff and asked him" to back away from his position. But Warner refused to do so, stating he stood by his remarks would not "issue any clarification."

The right wing also swiftly attacked Warner. Freedom's Watch spokesman Brad Blakeman claimed Warner's drawdown "hurts the cause of freedom." Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said of Warner's call: "I don't think that's based on serious military analysis."
[/quote]

source: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/13/bush-warner-iraq/

"A successful Iraq is not leaving it so Iran can take it over or Al Qaeda can take it over."

Posted by: John D | September 15, 2007 12:32 PM

But who put Iraq in that precarious position? GW and his immoral war.

There was no AlQaeda in Iraq while Sadaam was there. And Iran and Iraq are mortal enemies, so they would have kept each other at bay.

Iraq would not have the mess they are in now if Pres. Bush didn't put it there.