http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/

How can Bush sleep at night knowing that he made such a huge blunder that has caused the deaths of 4000 brave US troops?

Because not doing what he did, would have probably caused many more US civilian deaths.

How many did Kennedy and Johnson cause blundering into Vietnam?

You know, that IS something to keep in mind; Vietnam.

Thanks - I had forgotten all about that.

I don't know the answer. What is it? I'll guess 14.

"Because not doing what he did, would have probably caused many more US civilian deaths."

Quoting YOU, "Do you have any proof?" No, you don't. It's pure conjecture on your part. I propose that had the shrub done the right thing and continued the pursuit in Afghanistan, the real al Queda problem might have been truncated and many lives, American and otherwise, saved.

How many did Kennedy and Johnson cause blundering into Vietnam?"

So you're saying, Deane, that it's OK to parallel the two wars, i.e. the one in Vietnam and the one in Iraq? Because if that is the case you have just opened up the flood gates of comparison. Isn't this response the exact type of attitude you keep complaining about where you perceive us all to change a thread by dragging Bush (the fundamental screw up in most all of this nations problems AT THIS TIME) into the equation?

The OP drug Bush into it, not me.

Everything with military operations is suposition.

Maybe Custer should have waited for Terry, of course then, its possible terrys and Custer's commands would have been wiped out, instead of 1/3 of Custers.

Maybe Kimmel should have received his war warning 12 hours earlier, and driven off the Japanese at Pearl, then instead of building a bunch of carriers, we would have tried to fight a battleship war, who knows what would have happened.

"The OP drug Bush into it, not me."

Hardly. Last time I did a fact check, Bush was president when we invaded Iraq AND as Commander in Chief, it was HIS decision to invade. Bush drug himself into it, not me.

Yes it was President Bush's decision, based on the info, and recommendation of the various military and intelligence leaders. And it was a decision approved by congress.

And it was wrong. Let's not forget that.

I imagine, tht if President Roosevelt had launched a preemptry strike on the japanese carrier forces on Nov 7, 1941, people would have yelled for his head, that he should have focused on Germany.

"And it was wrong. Let's not forget that."

Was it really? Do you have the depth of knowledge to consider every ramification? Do you really know what would have happened if we hadn't taken Saddam out? Or are you just letting the simple minded liberals drag you along with their line of thinking? Have you ever considered actually becoming an in depth and fully knowledgeable expert and then seeing what the answer is?

Most experts agree that "it was wrong".

Which experts? Most demo party leaders, because their trying to use it for an election issue.

Most military leaders, except the ones that have been relieved, seem to support President Bush.

"Most military leaders, except the ones that have been relieved, seem to support President Bush."

Of course they support Bush, THEY HAVE TO.

And as far as the experts, well, they will render their decision this fall.

Which experts? Most demo party leaders, because their trying to use it for an election issue.

Most military leaders, except the ones that have been relieved, seem to support President Bush."

Preposterous. The list of honored individuals and respected organizations that have said the war was a wrong decision is so long it wouldn't fit in one post. Don't be absurd, Nw. And the reason those military leaders were relieved of duty is because they were smart enough and brave enough to speak out against Bush's folly in Iraq.

I've heard of blind allegiance but you can't possibly post something like that without ignoring the majority of published works on the topic.

This isn't about spin or even opinion. Here's just a few of the individuals:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter

Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003

Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq?s spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees

Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War

Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee

Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council

Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA

Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA?s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris

Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Thomas Franck, Director of the Center for International Studies at NYU Law School

Martti Koskenniemi, Director of the Erik Castren Institute of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Helsinki in Finland

Michael Byers, Associate Professor at Duke University School of Law

Eyal Benvenisti, Director of the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Which of those are not Democrats?

I don't know. Why don't you look it up and report back.

Here's some more that all ARE Republicans. Just for you Deane.

Republicans questioning the Iraq war
"Republican support for the president is draining rapidly," said a Republican strategist. "It is almost unheard of for Republicans to criticize a Republican president at war so soon after he has made an appeal for support." —Financial Times, 1/11/07


Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06 "I think we have to separate ourselves from the civil war. ... at some early point an international conference should be called that involves neighbours ... I believe America has to be in some dialogue with Iran. BBC

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) 1/11/07 "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) (Ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee) "Young men and women in uniform should not be caught in the crossfire of a civil war started with who should have succeeded Muhammad in 650 A.D."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 1/11/07 "Why is it just the United States that is shouldering this? Why is Great Britain withdrawing? Why are we the only ones that are moving forward with this new plan?"

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) 1/11/07 "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam" “dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost.” "To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong."

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) 1/11/07 "I do not believe that a surge in troops is going to solve the fundamental problem we have." "My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirms that an increase of troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred."

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) 1/11/07 “We are extending an ineffective tactic to further the status quo. Iraqis must be the ones to settle their own peace.”

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) 1/11/07 (Foreign Relations Committee) "At this point I am skeptical that a surge in troops alone will bring an end to sectarian violence and the insurgency that is fomenting instability in Iraq." "The generals who have served there do not believe additional troops alone will help."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) "Based on the trip I took to Iraq last month, I concluded it would be a mistake to increase the overall level of troops in Iraq."

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) "There are too many casualties there. If we have a better course, we ought to adopt it sooner rather than later."
-- New York Daily News, October 23, 2006.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working."
-- Associated Press Interview, By DEB RIECHMANN, October 23, 2006.

Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said "I would hope that members of the administration are willing to learn from past mistakes . . . and choose a different path that would allow us to meet our objectives."
-- Washington Post, Friday, October 20, 2006.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R–ME). "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence. I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections.
-- Washington Post, Friday, October 20, 2006.

Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official. "More of the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to support." He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come."
-- Washington Post, Friday, October 20, 2006.

Hutchison (R)U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) suggests partitioning Iraq
She says option for distinct regions with shared oil revenues should be put on the table, and more consideration should be given to dividing the country into semi-autonomous regions.
"We have to step back and stop trying to put our American ideas onto this problem and start trying to get an understanding of their views, and strong-held prejudices and biases and ethic preferences," said Hutchison, who serves on the defense appropriations subcommittee.
In subtle criticism of the Bush administration, however, Hutchison acknowledged the need for a "course correction" in Iraq, saying it "should have come earlier than this, perhaps." (Oct. 17, 2006, Houston Chronicle)

The other side of this issue for me is the soldiers coming home. If not physically wounded for sure mentally.

We spent Easter Sunday with my dad a WWII vet. When he got back home from the war there was no debriefing, no psychological assistance you were just expected to pick up where you left off. When my dad’s mother would ask my dad why he was so quiet all the time after getting back home, he didn’t know how to respond. Eventually he was able to compartmentalize that part of his life, but even yesterday he said he wish he had had some counseling to get through that experience.

We can learn something from the Native American culture. When Indian warriors returned from battle they were set aside from the rest of the population to deal with the matter of taking another human beings life. They were given time to acclimate back into society with some help from their own people.

War changes you. You are taught to be killers. And then you go out and you kill. That has to mess with your mind even as much as you try to suppress it.

Five years into this mess, 4,000 US soldiers killed, 30,000 soldiers injured, 80,000 Iraqi’s killed. Plus $600 plus billion dollars down the drain – and counting. Remember Paul Wolfowitz shopping the idea of war around Washington. According to Wolfowitz, the Iraq War would last a year, generate minimal US casualties and cost a few billion dollars.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and the rest of the neo conservative cabal should be on trial for murder and treason.

Actually WWII, and Korean vets had it better, they returned on troopships, usually, where they had time to wind down, and be with others that went through the same experience.

In Vietnam you returned individually, and one day you turned in your equip, the next you were on a freedom bird to the states, where you outprocessed in less than a day, and were on your way.

In Iraq, most troops return with their units.

And lets not forget the protestors outside the bases, calling the soldiers, baby killers, etc.

Andy, I notice your list is liberally sprinkled with Republicans who, for political posturing, said they didn't think the surge would work. You forgot to include that they turned out to be wrong. Attacks on our troops are down 90% and the enemy is in disarray. The surge did indeed work.

I can't figure out if you liberals really believe the BS and hate you spread, or if you're just repeating what other lost individuals are saying.

This is the most apolitical source I could find about the "surge" and whether it is working:

Is The 'Surge' Working? Some New Facts, by Michael Greenstone, MIT

"There is a paucity of facts about the effects of the recent military Surge on conditions in Iraq and whether it is paving the way for a stable Iraq. Selective, anecdotal and incomplete analyses abound. Policy makers and defense planners must decide which measures of success or failure are most important, but until now few, if any, systematic analyses were available on which to base those decisions. This paper applies modern statistical techniques to a new data file derived from more than a dozen of the most reliable and widely-cited sources to assess the Surge's impact on three key dimensions: the functioning of the Iraqi state (including civilian casualties); military casualties; and financial markets' assessment of Iraq's future. The new and unusually rigorous findings presented here should help inform current evaluations of the Surge and provide a basis for better decision making about future strategy.

The analysis reveals mixed evidence on the Surge's effect on key trends in Iraq. The security situation has improved insofar as civilian fatalities have declined without any concurrent increase in casualties among coalition and Iraqi troops. However, other areas, such as oil production and the number of trained Iraqi Security Forces have shown no improvement or declined. Evaluating such conflicting indicators is challenging.

There is, however, another way to assess the Surge. This paper shows how data from world financial markets can be used to shed light on the central question of whether the Surge has increased or diminished the prospect of today's Iraq surviving into the future. In particular, I examine the price of Iraqi state bonds, which the Iraqi government is currently servicing, on world financial markets. After the Surge, there is a sharp decline in the price of those bonds, relative to alternative bonds. The decline signaled a 40% increase in the market's expectation that Iraq will default. This finding suggests that to date the Surge is failing to pave the way toward a stable Iraq and may in fact be undermining it."

For the deanes and nwokies of a world that can live with going to war on a lie, may you have dreams of open coffins of American kids killed in the invasion-to-rid-WMDs-in-Iraq mess. May the dreams be vivid and return to haunt you time and time again.

Believe the BS if you wish, but quit dumping BS in this forum. Its not a potty.

I think our general experience with Professors is that they are slightly to the left of Chavez.

Question: "Who here would have the intestinal fortitude to actually shoot someone?" - Deane (from another thread)

Answer: You, if that person is the messenger of facts you do not like.

The FACT that they changed their minds 3 different times WHY we went into Iraq is in itself ridiculous. The BEST intelligence in the world and you have to change your story 3 times?

I might shoot down their verbal position, but I'll always let them live for another round.

Thanks Sean...

DJ, I can't figure out if you neocons really believe the BS and hate you spread, or if you're just repeating what other lost individuals are saying.

BTW, what in the SUBSTANCE of the MIT analysis do you disagree with? (I know, it requires that you actually read it...)

And where's your source that says the surge is "working", what does "working" mean, and what makes your source a reliable one?

The surge is a joke, Deane. Bush bought off as many local insurgents as money he can have printed up. Up until this week, there was as a result, less violence.

You wanted a list of Republicans that are against Bush policy in Iraq and I produced it. Quit your whining. Rarely have I seen you provide any support for your minority positions. You have a right to have them, but you aren't fooling anyone about their substantive quality because they have none. Zero. All you are capable of doing is dissing the school of opinion you don't agree with. I don't see anything analytical or factual in your posts. All you seem to want to do is try and get under the skin of the posters that feel like 80% of America does. Well, it doesn't work.
I can sit here and show the defects in the Bush policies all day long and not even either break a sweat or increase my blood pressure one point. Dealing with the right wing school of no thought is easier than walking. The Bush presidency is a failure by all known measures. Civilized human beings are happy to see this administration come to an end. McCain and the Republicans are going to be further embarrassed come November.

Ed, I have heard so many individuals say the surge is working, from politicians to military on the ground, that I find it quite acceptable. I heard a military commander just today say that attacks on American troops were down by 90% thanks to the surge. Libs don't want it to work, that's the difference.

Now, contrast that quantity of knowledgeable individuals with a left wing professor at MIT who has not only never been to Iraq, but may not be able to find it on a map.

We're going to be there for a long time. Best to get used to it. McCain says so, Hillary says so. Obama just hopes for something good, he's not sure what. Oops, correct the Hillary thing. She's so back and forth, it depends on which day we're talking about as to what her position is. It depends on the latest poll drifting on the wind.

Deane sez: "Libs don't want it to work,"

A big fat lie, Deane.

Attacks are down, but the purpose of the surge has not been advanced. You are stretching the facts to suit the premise. The Iraqi government has failed to advance significantly. The administration will just keep moving the target until the election takes them out of power.

If you think McCain will be elected, I suggest you READ this:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14193.html

Although written before he was the presumptive nominee, the facts about why he can't win in the article remain the same, basically the GOP base is not behind him.
Note that the people in the article are all conservative Republicans.
Note that embracing Bushenomics really shot himself in the foot. I'll be focusing on that in the months ahead, since the economy will become an even more crucial issue as the next months go by.

Sorry you're such a bad loser Deane, and you haven't even lost yet.

The surge is a bandaid on a bullet wound.

"and you haven't even lost yet."

A long post and you don't get things right until the last 6 words.


"The surge is a bandaid on a bullet wound."

I'm amazed how libs hiding in the trees in Oregon have this so well figured out. Or do they?

If anyone is getting things wrong, it's you, Deane. You're wit doesn't impress me. For an old hard line Republican that hasn't kept up with the facts, you whine a lot and avoid serious debate, most likely because you don't have the chops. I expect no less from right wing conservatives who don't have a clue.

And you don't have a clue. Clearly I will be avoiding your sewage in the future as best as possible. Your fear of information is so evident, as is your veiled racism and just plain ignorance about the truth. Stay in the midwest. That's where you belong. Good luck facing the future, you will be very out of place.

"And you [deane] don't have a clue."

Exactly. If the "surge" and other "progress in Iraq" were truly working, we'd know it. We don't want to rely on you or Dick Cheney's say so. So, STFU. I've enough of frightened warmongers these days, and Deane, you are one. Buy a handgun and hide in your closet. Imaginary TERRORISTS are nearby ready to make you crap your pants.

"I heard a military commander just today say that attacks on American troops were down by 90% thanks to the surge. Libs don't want it to work, that's the difference."

I'll accept that as true, and that's great. But "surge" means that those surged in (20-30,000 IIRC) will eventually leave. Will attacks then just pick up again? That to me will be the true test of the 'surge'.

"Now, contrast that quantity of knowledgeable individuals with a left wing professor at MIT who has not only never been to Iraq, but may not be able to find it on a map."

Is an MIT professor too smart to be trusted, or too dumb to be trusted? Please make up your mind.

"We're going to be there for a long time. Best to get used to it."

Well, now even you are admitting the surge is not working, based on the original goals of the surge. From the Brookings Institute:

"There are good reasons to give the war effort, now almost four years old, another six to nine months before concluding that the current strategy (the surge) should be discarded and a much different one -- involving far fewer (if any) foreign forces -- adopted. ... Some of them (Iraqi political leaders) may be shocked into a greater sense of urgency now that they realize the American commitment to their country is finite and waning.

The surge was implemented to end a protracted occupation of Iraq. If you admit that we will be there for "for a long time" then you admit it hasn't worked.

By any objective standard how can anyone call this misadventure into Iraq a success? Bush and his cronies lied about nearly every major detail which brought the United States to war against Iraq. From the weapons of mass destruction claim to the non-existent relationship Iraq had with global terrorists, the claims made by Bush/Cheney were untrue. Then we have the invasion itself. The US military rolled through Iraq rather quickly, but the occupation has proven to be nothing short of horrendous.

If you recall, George Bush proclaimed on May 1, 2003 the Iraq War was “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”. To me, this meant the invasion was complete and the subsequent occupation would end relatively soon. Fast forward five years and look at where we stand today; 4,000 dead US soldiers, 30,000 wounded and 80,000 Iraqis dead. Then comes the price tag; $600 plus billion dollars and counting. By the time this mess is over, the US taxpayers will have spent over a trillion dollars on Iraq. But much more tragically, more soldiers will die and even more will be injured.

What about conditions in Iraq today? The county is in shambles. The infrastructure is a mess. The petrochemical industry, Iraq’s bread and butter, is a shell of its former self. The US leadership in Iraq decimated the ranks of its governing class by firing most of it because of its political affiliation. This has left the ministries of government in Iraq to operate in chaos.

The surge is nothing more than a band-aid; and how long can it be sustained? According to John McCain, it could be another hundred years? I certainly hope not. But one thing is clear – we’ve made a real mess of things over there. Hussein may have been a monster, but the current situation over there can’t be considered significantly better. Iraq may have democracy, but tens of thousands have been killed in the process. Plus it’s going to take the Iraqi people decades to clean up this mess – and taxpayers here in the US will pay a large chunk of it.

Lastly, it seems reprehensive to me that the Bush Administration gets off without having to do any of the heavy lifting – which in my mind is cleaning up the mess over there. It’s likely that the surge will continue through the end of Bush’s term. What happens after Bush? What happens after the surge? It took Nixon his first term and into his second to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. Can you imagine another five years of this?

And here's another one for you Deane:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/24/this-week-chuck-hagel-says-the-surge-is nt-working/

Now...what did you say your "surge is working" sources were again?

Hang on...be patient...I know it's coming...should arrive any minute now....just around the corner...

Here I'll save Herb the trouble:

"Millions of Iraqi's have been freed!! A ruthless dictator has been removed and executed...blah blah blah"

Wow Chris - you even got the accent right! Add a ridiculously optimistic Republican election victory and it would be perfect.

Where do I send my invoice?

It'll be claimed that no payment was due because it didn't run in morning drive as promised...

When someone who actually served in Iraq comes in here and complains about the 4000 dead then Ill care.

Until then its just a bunch of liberals doing what they do best. Crying.

Why would anyone who served in Iraq waste their time here?

Good god, that's just BS.

EVERYBODY THAT MATTERS CARES ABOUT THE DEAD SOLDERS.

THE FIRST ONE IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE LAST ONE.

This is not a liberal thing. It's an American thing.

crying in a closet Mc74 sez: "Until then its just a bunch of liberals doing what they do best. Crying."

And on the other side, we've got people like you, a frightened & cowering warmonger, crapping in your pants over imaginary terrorists set to kill you at home. Get a grip and stop crying you big baby! We Americans can handle any terrorist that dare step foot on our soil.

Andy writes:
"And you don't have a clue. Clearly I will be avoiding your sewage in the future as best as possible. Your fear of information is so evident, as is your veiled racism and just plain ignorance about the truth. Stay in the midwest. That's where you belong. Good luck facing the future, you will be very out of place."


When all else fails, start attacking the poster personally.

There is nothing American about you skep, you are one step away from joining the Taliban.

"When all else fails, start attacking the poster personally."

LOL. Deane, look back over your posts and tell me you have never done this.

Mc74: That's just stupid.

So being upset that 4,000 American service-person lives have been needlessly taken away in the last five years due to George W. Bush's power play makes all of us "liberal"? Eh?

I guess I must be some bed-wetter too because I am upset that some 900,000 innocent Iraqi lives have been taken since our invasion and occupation. "Millions are no longer living under tyranny", I know, give your damn argument.

Let me state that again though: 900,000 INNOCENT IRAQI LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST DUE DIRECTLY TO UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT IN THE IRAQ WAR! It is OUR fault!

Does this make it MORE right because WE are the ones responsible instead of Saddam Hussein?

Are you really serious?

"Deane, look back over your posts and tell me you have never done this."

I probably have, but my intention is to challenge their faulty thinking, not them personally.

Not true, that 900,000 number has been totally discredited, and most of the deaths have been caused by the insurgents, not the US.

But why are the insurgents there in the first place?

BECAUSE OF US!

That's like the Chinese government blaming the Dalai Lama for the unrest in Tibet and the outlash around the world.

That's like blaming the Hungarians for Soviet tanks rolling through Budapest to quash protesters, or blaming the students in the Tiannamen (sp) massacre.

If you REALLY think the US policy is faultless in this, you're sadly mistaken.

When all else fails, start attacking the poster personally.

That's the EXTREME'S job! That's what you do!!!!

"That's what you do!!!!"

I hate to point it out, but that sounds like what an 8 year old would say on the playground.

Just like you DJ....
And I HATE to point that out to you as well...

deane sez: "my intention is to challenge their faulty thinking"

Me too. So who is right?

You've got to open your mind and allow for the possibility you may be wrong.

"Because not doing what he did, would have probably caused many more US civilian deaths."

Nwokie, your logic fails me. If we wanted to ensure there were no more future hijackers, we would have attacked Saudia Arabia, where the majority came from.

How does wasting 4,000 in Iraq save any civilians here?

Ok, real slow, a desperate Saddam, and he was getting pressure from his generals, sons etc.
Could very easily thought that with the US distracted elsewhere, he could make another run at the Kuwait oil fields, and this time, having learned from experience, not stopped at the border, If he succeded, he would have controlled world oil prices, if he failed, he would have torched the fields. Which would have driven oil prices double or triple what they are. That would have caused an already shakey economy to totally fail, And that would have caused thousands of deaths. One of the major rules of war, never leave an armed enemy at your back.

Radioblogman, he's all yours.

Nwokie...
EVEN SLOWER....
Your logic fails me. If we wanted to ensure there were no more future hijackers, we would have attacked Saudia Arabia, where the majority came from.
Did you read that SLOWER this time Nwokie???

Nwokie I have been curious about your military background. It's obvious you have spent several if not many years militarily at some point in your life.

What conflicts were you involved in? I know you have been all over the globe so I'm just trying to get the lay of the land of your in-the-field experience.

Thanks ahead of time.