Iraq Study Group

[Secretariat]

This will make for some interesting discussion.

Panel: U.S. underreported Iraq violence

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.

A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered

………..

"For 40 years, we talked to the Soviet Union, during a time when they were committed to wiping us off the face of the Earth. So you talk to your enemies, not just your friends." – James Baker

Members of Iraq Study Group – no real big libs here, in fact leans strongly conservative.

Jim Baker
Lawrence Eagleburger
Edwin Meese
Alan Simpson
Sandra Day O’Connor
Leon Panetta
Lee Hamilton
Vernon Jordan
William Perry
Charles Robb

[46zilzal]

hardly a surprising finding....

[Secretariat]

hardly a surprising finding....

I actually do find it surprising. This group was a pretty conservative group to come to that kind of a finding. There's no Michael Moore or Barbara Boxer on this committee yet pretty strong language depicting what is happening there.

[Tom]

Are you talking about the Iraq Surrender Group?
Negotioate with Iran????

There goes their credibility. You do not negotioate with the enemy, Ever.

Funny, their report was in Borders tonight in book form - just in time for holiday shopping.

Props to Bush for flat out stating NO ONE ON ONE with Iran.

BTW, they threatened our very existence again today. Where should that fit into the negotiations the demlibs are drooling over?

[Ponyplayr]

I actually do find it surprising. This group was a pretty conservative group to come to that kind of a finding. There's no Michael Moore or Barbara Boxer on this committee yet pretty strong language depicting what is happening there. Conservatives do not give away American Land to Communists!! Baker did...And now I have to wonder what that Prick will give Iran.. Israel ??
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/5/7/153932

[JPinMaryland]

That's quite a group they collected, the only thing they have in common is the majority of them are awfully scary.

James Baker. Scary, iron fisted consigliere of Bush family. Natural choice to lead this attempt to give Bush political cover. Fiunny, the first time I heard mention of the Baker panel was on the eve of the off year election debacle; I guess this was Rove's plan B in case they lost the House/Senate.

Lawrence Eagleburger. Odd, scary fellow known for Dayton accords, I guess. Democratic answer to Jean Kirkpatrck. Very strange character to choose for this; did they know he'd be pliable?

Edwin Meese. Very scary yes man, who can blather on about nothing for hours. Used to run Reagen's conservative agenda and explore the dangers of porn. Was a yes man in his glory days at his age, he'd probably agree to anything.

Alan Simpson. Comedy relief, they probably insisted that someone with a little character be on the panel. Probably wasnt doing anything in Wyo. anyhow.

Sandra Day O’Connor. Excellent choice, she knows nothing about foreign politics, or military affairs, or domestic politics. Ask her about late term abortions. Bizarre choice; question is why? Another rubber stamp?

Leon Panetta. Weird little congressman from Calif. Helped in Clinton admin. Always shows up at dem. shin digs. Hasnt worked since Clinton left office, a bone for the dems?

Lee Hamilton. ANother scary, reptilian character from the democratic side of the hill. They could not have found a more dire, unemotional boob than him. Mainstay of Intelligence Committee back in the day.

Vernon Jordan. Golfing buddy of Bill's, hasnt done anthing of note in 3 decades other than offering to get a job for Lewinsky. Not so much scary as simply another empty suit, perfect uncle Tom.

William Perry. I think he was a defensive lineman for the Bears.

Charles Robb. Wow! Just when you thought the entire list of scary dems. was on this panel there's another one. Has the personality of a reptile, he's like Bill Frist w/ a libido.

Youngest member of this panel: 67 years old. I dont know what to make of that.

More telling stat: Not one military person is on this panel. Do you think that if they got a military man on this that there would have been any consensus? Can you imagine if the late Col. Hackworth was on this? Or a veteran of Desert Storm?

[highnote]

Did the Iran Study Group tell us anything we didn't already know?

[kenwoodallpromos]

The most interesting thing about this report is the the Lib AND the Con news BSers are already going crazy lying and spinning about the report.
Of course, I expected as much as soon as I learned the report was not slanted intentionally to benefit 1 party OR the other! It is a long enough report for the candidates to argue about for 2 more years instead of getting much done like they have on most issues since 2003!LOL!!

[lsbets]

Before Rumsefeld resigned, the cry was "listen to the generals." But, it seems that the generals don't recommend what the partisans want to hear, so I wonder if now that this report is out the new mantra will be "listen to the over the hill washed up politicians!"

[JPinMaryland]

You wonder why they didnt have say a sub-committee of the panel to be just military people?

One panel recommendation is that they bring back large US forces and leave small amounts within Iraqi units in order to train them, provide intel, etc. This sounds like a very risky way to expose troops to kidnappings, etc. when quick response units are no longer in the area.

Another example of a horse made by committee?

[Ponyplayr]

You wonder why they didnt have say a sub-committee of the panel to be just military people?

One panel recommendation is that they bring back large US forces and leave small amounts within Iraqi units in order to train them, provide intel, etc. This sounds like a very risky way to expose troops to kidnappings, etc. when quick response units are no longer in the area.

Another example of a horse made by committee?
JP..They did have a Sub-Panel of military experts..here is a link with info

http://www.usip.org/isg/working_groups.html#advisor

[JustRalph]

The NY Post has it right

[Secretariat]

We've already heard from Generals such as Eaton and Batiste among others. The problem is not all the Generals agree, and haven't for awhile. The current commander in cheif has never been in combat so he has no idea.

This group headed by Bush friend James Baker has pretty much tried to give GW a way out without looking like a fool. Instead he will "stay the course". I imagine we'll have two more years of this with those so called liberals like Baker.

I figured even with a conservative leaning Iraq Study Group recommendations; a loss of Congress by the voters primarily based around the current administation's Iraq War strategy; the testimony to the Senate intellgience Committee by Generals Eaton and Batiste, and the right on this board would still defend good ole' GW and his neocon policy which is working so, so well in Iraq.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

[highnote]

Not sure a withdrawal is a surrender. Seems more like a stalemate at the moment -- like Vietnam.

I think if we really wanted to win, we would have had to crush them -- like Ghengis Khan would have done. I don't think we ever went in there looking to crush them.

Are we really withdrawing? I thought they just set a timetable for when the Iraqis can handle their own security -- 2008?

I still don't see us abandoning anytime soon that huge fortified Embassy we built in the middle of Baghdad.

Can anyone articulate exactly why we invaded Iraq in the first place and what our goal was once we occupied the country?

I'll take a stab...

1. Remove Hussein because our military intelligence felt he was developing weapons of mass destruction.

2. Build a new nation that has a democratically elected government that can govern themselves and provide their own security.
a. They must have a security force otherwise they would be vulnerable to attacks from neighboring countries.


Thoughts?

[skate]

seems like we found ourselves a bunch of "bitters" here, with all that education it be tuff to find any fault


looking as if they feel that since lives are being lost "NOW", that they should wait till the 20th moon. way to go...

iraq study gropup:
50 pages "docs", reCommondations (should cover) includes turbin wraps.
50 pages of maps, but hey they didn't get away from the green zone, so careful.
thank god , they included Full-length Bios of the Commissioners.

probably they will sell this stuff in order to lower the budget

[Bala]

James Baker. Scary, iron fisted consigliere of Bush family. Is Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker) objective? Can Baker be trusted???


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/klein/2
"Mr. Baker is far too tangled in a matrix of lucrative private business relationships that leave him looking like a potentially interested party.........


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558886,00.html
After Baker left government, he was on the first plane to the Gulf to cash in on his contacts. He was a major player in the Carlyle Group, an Arab-friendly company that solicits Gulf money......

James Bakers' law firm is a lobbyist on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16187517.htm
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

[Indulto]

… Can anyone articulate exactly why we invaded Iraq in the first place and what our goal was once we occupied the country?

I'll take a stab...

1. Remove Hussein because our military intelligence felt he was developing weapons of mass destruction.

2. Build a new nation that has a democratically elected government that can govern themselves and provide their own security.
a. They must have a security force otherwise they would be vulnerable to attacks from neighboring countries.

Thoughts? SJ,
There were stated reasons for going into Iraq, secret reasons, and now you have provided us with sanitized reasons. There are also variations on the motivations for each set, respectively.

I’m not accusing you of being a revisionist historian, and I agree that we need to be more forward-looking to achieve post-election unity, but in the light of Bush’s stubborn stance in the face of the Baker group recommendations, we need to be precise about each, and recognize that which should not be repeated.

Somebody needs to convince the President that we can’t go forward until we do look backward, and then convince the world – and especially Muslim countries and societies – that we are on a clear path to being able to get along, and that our military strength is not a threat to anyone unless they PROVE they are a threat to us.

IMO our policy should be to promote non-proliferation of preemption; not nuclear technology. We need to augment our focus on preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by increasing efforts to develop detection tools as well as new techniques for neutralizing them and their effects. We're having problems dealing with those we already know are trying to get them. What are we going to do with those we know nothing about?… I think if we really wanted to win, we would have had to crush them -- like Ghengis Khan would have done. I don't think we ever went in there looking to crush them.Saddam had already crushed the Iraqi people. We then crushed the Iraqi infrastructure. Now Iraqis crush their political and religious opposition.

The President should have had a celebrity crush on OBL rather than Saddam.;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does anyhone here believe ANY Arab or Persian is not after personal power, wealth, and/or fame?

[Indulto]

Does anyhone here believe ANY Arab or Persian is not after personal power, wealth, and/or fame?Does anyone here believe ANY Caucasian, African-American, Latino, or Oriental is not after personal power, wealth, and/or fame?

Green is the favorite color of every ethnic group whether they are white, yellow, brown, black, or red. Ever been to a Native American casino? ;)

[Tom]

Iran has called for Israel wo be wiped off the face of the earth. Yesterday, they threatened the US with destruciton.
What would be a kick off point for negotiations with them?

Surrender monkeys? TRAITORS.
Bipartisan idiocy. Got the book? Read point #19. I found it intersting, and so did I.

[Lefty]

Have any of these guys even been to Iraq?
My guess, Bush will tell them good job then he and Gates will do what THEY think should be done.

[46zilzal]

Have any of these guys even been to Iraq?
My guess, Bush will tell them good job then he and Gates will do what THEY think should be done.
doing THAT is what got folks into this quagmire in the first palce

[PaceAdvantage]

doing THAT is what got folks into this quagmire in the first palce

Please, use the word quagmire 100 more times. It's so original.

[Suff]

I'm completely confused about the trouble in Iraq...:confused:


Isn't this what the President wanted?

He did say "Bring it on" did'nt he?

[highnote]

I'm completely confused about the trouble in Iraq...:confused:


Isn't this what the President wanted?

He did say "Bring it on" did'nt he?


Good point. You know the old saying... "Be careful what you ask for."

[Ponyplayr]

doing THAT is what got folks into this quagmire in the first palce
Actually it was planes crashing into the towers that started it.

Maybe Canadians don't consider this as reason enough to fight.
What will it take? Baby Seals being butchered by Muslims???

[Ponyplayr]

I'm completely confused about the trouble in Iraq...:confused:


Isn't this what the President wanted?

He did say "Bring it on" didn't he?
No..That was De Valera..Or was it Wolftone?

[Lefty]

doing THAT is what got folks into this quagmire in the first palce
place: P-L-A-C-E

[betchatoo]

Actually it was planes crashing into the towers that started it.

Maybe Canadians don't consider this as reason enough to fight.
What will it take? Baby Seals being butchered by Muslims???

Planes crash into the towers, flown by Saudis. That started the war in Iraq? You could work for the Bush administration.

[Suff]

No..That was De Valera..Or was it Wolftone?

Probably Wolftone because he was also a protestant.:eek: History has'nt been kind to De Valera. On the other hand, if Michael Collins said it, then this thing would of been over ....long ago.

[46zilzal]

Please, use the word quagmire 100 more times. It's so original.
If the shoe fits: difficult, precarious, or entrapping position

Panel: Bush's Iraq policies have failed


By Anne Plummer Flaherty and David Espo / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday, and it warned of dwindling chances to change course before crisis turns to chaos with dire implications for terrorism, war in the Middle East and higher oil prices around the world.

Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great, the high-level panel of five Republicans and five Democrats said in a bleak accounting of U.S. and Iraqi shortcomings.

It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. should also begin a "diplomatic offensive" by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said

[skate]

Actually it was planes crashing into the towers that started it.

Maybe Canadians don't consider this as reason enough to fight.
What will it take? Baby Seals being butchered by Muslims???


good point! loving and laughing

[Bala]

The Pres. is between a rock and a hard place of his own making.

Should we have gone on to completely annihilate Iraq after the initial shock and awe – today Bush would be seen as a monster. Instead, this pull your punches, surgical strike war is long and drawn out.

Bush is seen as a punk by the right and an incompetent baboon by the left.

We are not fighting Iraq. We are also fighting Syria, Iran and the people of Saudi Arabia.
http://www.localnewsleader.com/kindred/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=32835

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.366039662&par=0

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061205/23877.htm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-12/03/content_5425636.htm

Keep this in perspective: a once minority party {Nazi} became the majority in very little time. This simplistic notion that 5% of Islam are radical and most others are peaceful is based on pure ignorance. Sure there are liberals in Islam but that is not what Muhammad teaches.

The followers of Muhammad are commanded to convert the globe or die trying. When Iran get the bomb {not if} we {the USA} will be impotent on the world stage because of the Bush doctrine. Not to mention the fact that Halliburton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton) under the leadership of Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), has sold centrifugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge) technology to Iran.

Damned if you do – damned if you don't.


_________________
Character is destiny.

[skate]

ISG (is so gobbledegook)


Lieberman, was the only Person i recall,that tried to heal the partisan division. and the bastards kick him out, cold.

i never paid any attention to the quote from the 50s(?)
"Politics stops at the waters edge".

now comes Pee Pee Panetta saying "country cannot be at war and divided as it is today", wooo weee, thats really good Pee Pee.

and since we elected Uncle George to head the USA , do ya think we could have given a little help, by "Stoppping at the Water Line".

[Lefty]

The panel is nothing more than Monday Morning Quarterbacking and of course 46 rushes in to gleefully glom on to any negative news he can find about this admin.
Does anyone know if anyone on the panel has even been to Iraq? Why is the panel only politicians and no generals?

[JPinMaryland]

I believe most of them went to Iraq but they did not leave the Green Zone. Dont quote me on that, but I've been listening to a bit of analysis from NPR and that is what I think they said.

Why no generals? This is question I had and another fella pointed out that they had a sub committee of military people. However one thing I would ask is did they consult any current military people who served there? or was it all made up of retired guys? Not sure from the link that he posted ( good digging on that though).

It (the committee) really looks like a curiously constructed thing. Getting total unanimity on anything in Washington seems almost impossible. But total unanimity on Iraq! That would be billions to one.

The conventional wisdom is that this is some sort of political cover for Bush. I have another idea: perhaps this is some sort of bi partisan compromise done by the leadership of dems and repubs, with the surrender monkeys as some sort of proxies for this great compromise between parties?

I dont know how else to think about it. Bush doesnt seem to accept it so he doesnt seem to be using as cover like he's supposed to, the only other explanation is that the GOP leadership is trying to distance themselves from Bush and the administration. This committee report is really the leadership trying to distance itself from him.

I dunno. They actually had some serious talk on NPR tonight with oh whos that guy from Brookings, Haas? I think it was Haas, and that arab guy who's pretty on the ball, Walid something.

THey said Hamas is having trouble in domestic politics have painted themselves in a corner and a civil war in Lebanon might be there only way to get out of it. They could not agree on whether civil war is likely. They also said that if Saudi A.; Syria and Iran send troops into Iraq it would be like Armageddon.

Should try to google that discussion it seemed most intelligent.

[highnote]

Whatever anyone does regarding Iraq has to be done very carefully. If there was an all out war in Iraq -- it would be living hell for the inhabitants. It seems bad enough now, but could you imagine if armies from the surrounding countries started invading Iraq. It would be like armageddon.

[JPinMaryland]

Not that anybody can recall what Armageddon was like...

[JPinMaryland]

Here is link to the discussion I referenced above, the transcript is not available yet but will be in a day or two. It's pretty worthwhile:


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6599934

[PaceAdvantage]

Planes crash into the towers, flown by Saudis. That started the war in Iraq? You could work for the Bush administration.

Hey, why not take it a step forward. Those were UAL and AA planes that slammed into the WTC. Why not have the US Marines storm DFW and Chicago while we're at it.....

This enemy has no borders and wears no common uniform. Your view of the Iraq invasion would have been met with an equally incredulous view by many had we invaded Saudi Arabia instead.

[Secretariat]

Whether it was General Zinni, Batiste, Eaton, Clark or General Michael Rose there have been strong reservations about going into Iraq which never really fully got the debate they should have by the conservative media.

The conservative Army War College barely got a blip when it refelcted in the war in 01/04.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0112-01.htm

War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'
Institute's report warns anti-terror campaign may launch 'open-ended and gratuitous conflict.'

by Chuck Neubauer and Ken Silverstein

WASHINGTON — A report published by the Army War College criticizes the Bush administration's global war on terrorism as "unfocused" and contends that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

....

By the most accurate article was pre-war by General Michael Rose, No Monday morning quarterbacking from this guy as this post is from BEFORE the war. Fascinating read.

http://vredessite.nl/andernieuws/2002/week22/05-25_error.html

Iraq invasion would be error to rival Hitler's attack on Russia
The Times
May 25, 2002
Analysis by General Michael Rose

THE defeat of the Taleban and al-Qaeda armies in Afghanistan, which presented an old-fashioned, conventional opposition to the US-led forces, was quick and without undue casualties.

But as Wellington said after the British Army had occupied Kabul in 1839, virtually without opposition, "the difficulties begin where the military successes have ended`". Eight months after US forces entered Afghanistan there is little sign that the allies' strategy has sufficiently acknowledged that the nature of the conflict has radically changed and that kinetic energy weapon systems - however smart - cannot defeat guerrillas or suppress terrorism.

[Tom]

Once again, I point out to you TOS - Do not post full articles. Post a link and one paragraph.

What the HELL is your major malfunction in this reguard?
Do you have trouble comprehending rules? Do you have no repsect for your own word, which you gave when you agreed to the very terms you violate on a regular basis? Or is that just the way libs do things?
There is a reason PA asks us not to doi this, and yet you just totally rake him for granted and put him at personal risk. Why do you have so little repsect for not only yourself but others, especially ones who do nice things for you, like PA does by proving this place for us all to enjoy.

If I were in charge, you would be gone for cause.

[Tom]

Have any of these guys even been to Iraq?
My guess, Bush will tell them good job then he and Gates will do what THEY think should be done.

Thier report miight have been much better had they lived in Baghdad while they wrote it. As it is, would you take sex advice from anyone of these geezers? They are as far from reality in Iraq as they are from having had some.

[highnote]

I basically agree with the general's analysis. Intuitively, this was my feeling all along. He expressed it far better than I could have.

I just don't think you change the will of the people through military victory alone. To date, it doesn't seem like we've achieved military victory in Iraq or Afganistan.

How many years did the Russians fight in Afg? They'd probably still be there if we hadn't have bankrupted them. Maybe we shouldn't have supported the proxy war against Russia so much. Maybe we should have offered only enough support so that the war would not have ended and tried to keep them fighting as long as possible.

Now it's our turn to throw billions at Afg and Iraq and in the meantime Russia is recovering and maneuvering and building a new position.

Think about it -- if some country invaded us, occupied our country and tried to install a new government do you really think we'd lay down and follow their rules. Hell NO! We'd fight with every fiber of our being to expel the bastards. That's exactly what the Muslims (the ones who oppose us) are doing. We've strengthened their resolve.

Even if going into Iraq is the right thing to do, is it worth the cost? Is it achievable? Isn't there a better, less expensive, more effective way of achieving our goals?

Seems to me we could have done it covertly. We could have done it with intelligence, spies, etc. Think of all the informants we could have bought with the money we spent on the invasion. We could have kept them off guard and constantly guessing -- kept them on the move.

On the other hand, now that we're there, we have to deal with the situation at hand. I think the best option at this time is to get the security forces adequately trained and outfitted as soon as possible and then begin a slow withdrawal.

Same with Afg. We need to get out of there, but we also need to monitor the country and try to break up terrorist training camps as they arise. I think that could be done covertly. I'm not certain that a big military campaign is need to do that.

The other big problem is that there are a lot disenfranchised Arab youth who now have a purpose in life -- destroying America. There will always be a never ending supply of these young men. We need a strategy to deal with that issue.

Well, this ought to keep us all busy for the next 50 years.

[Tom]

If we fought WWII like the libs want us to fight this one, we would eating sushi and schnitle for dinner tonight.
This panel of old men was a farce, and thire report a sham.
You can get it free on the internet, but it will undoubtedly cost American lives. Just more encouragement for the enemy. Traitors, all.

[Tom]

Here's my Iraq Study Report, also free.

1. Find the enemy
2. Kill the enemy
3. Do not ever hold back.
4. All buildings are a target - ALL buildings.
5. Do whatever it takes to gain information from enemy combatants.
6. Never negotiate with those who have sworn your destruction.
7. Follow the enemy wherever he goes.

[highnote]

Here's my Iraq Study Report, also free.

1. Find the enemy
2. Kill the enemy
3. Do not ever hold back.
4. All buildings are a target - ALL buildings.
5. Do whatever it takes to gain information from enemy combatants.
6. Never negotiate with those who have sworn your destruction.
7. Follow the enemy wherever he goes.


I think that is a relevant strategy. The question is, what is the best way to carry it out? Should a large army attack one country, or should small covert units operating around the world employing various means of intelligence carry out the tasks?

I think the second option is better. That's what the terrorists did. It seemed pretty effective. Shock and Awe did not deliver the promised results -- and it's f---ing expensive.

Did you read the quote I pasted in another thread about how much the Bush admin has borrowed compared to every prez from Washington to Clinton?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Here's my Iraq Study Report, also free.

1. Find the enemy
2. Kill the enemy
3. Do not ever hold back.
4. All buildings are a target - ALL buildings.
5. Do whatever it takes to gain information from enemy combatants.
6. Never negotiate with those who have sworn your destruction.
7. Follow the enemy wherever he goes.
________________
1) Let the Iraqis and Muslims kill each other;
2) Let Allah sort them out, assign the virgins, and allow the dead chid perverts to party in Hades.

[Tom]

I disagree - shack and awe WAS effective.
The war to overthrow SH was over FFFFFAST (sorry, fffast!)

We know where the insurgents are, we are not willing to take out a mosque ( funny, Christians won't take out a mosque, but muslems have no problems, nor taking out hindu shirnes...more of that peaceful religion, eh?)

Whena shot comes out a neighborhood at one our tropps, 45 secnodns later, that neighborhoos should no loneger exist.
I am saying we need to go all out, 110%, and be prepared to have Iraqi body counts in the hudreds of thousands. Iran, Syria, as needed.
We need to show the mulsem world we will not hesitate and we will not allow their nosense no matter what happens.
Dresden II...this time, it's personal.

We need to target the leaders, no matter where they hide.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom
Here's my Iraq Study Report, also free.

1. Find the enemy
2. Kill the enemy
3. Do not ever hold back.
4. All buildings are a target - ALL buildings.
5. Do whatever it takes to gain information from enemy combatants.
6. Never negotiate with those who have sworn your destruction.
7. Follow the enemy wherever he goes.


Here's my Tom Study Report, also free

1. Slowly remove your foot from your mouth.
2. Then remove your brain from your rear
3. Feel around behind you for a conscience
4. Understand and accept blame, for bush's monumental blunder.

S
T
F
U
It's about time you canned the wanton call for murder
SHUT THE F**K UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We already have the murder count approaching 700,000.
STFU
STFU
STFU
etc

[lsbets]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Despite being shown in very simple to understand terms that his dream of 700,000 casualties is nothing but a fish tale, Hcap still holds up the hope that that many have died. Don't worry Hcap, if you have your way many more will and then you can really celebrate.

[hcap]

Your war is a monumental fish tale.
You obviously still haven't read the articles about the Lancet report and are still accusing me of wishing innocent deaths, as your primate buddy above is creaming about.

Your simplistic dismissal of the report shows your afraid to go there.
Or maybe you are still in as the primate says the "shack and awe WAS effective." mode.

[Tom]

The pearch, ls, she is a fighting fish, no? :lol:

[lsbets]

LOL - you crack me up Hcap, you really do. I think its obvious to everyone that the worse things get the happier you are because it suits your agenda, and it drives you nuts that you've been called out on it. Hey, maybe you'll get lucky and there will be 4 or 5 big car bombings tomorrow!

[46zilzal]

How can one get inside another's head? I think many believe that war was a monumental mistake that's all. The sooner it's over the more lives will be OUT of harm's way period.

The differences abound as to the necessity for invading a soverign country that NEVER attacked us. Bad guys, yes. On the othe side of the earth with an outdated army that never returned from the destruction of the first war there. Danger? doubtful no matter how many "fictional" stories were made up.

Don't think folks against the war are happy when it goes bad, they just held that IT WOULD a long time back.

RATS from the sinking ship
GOP Senator Joins Call for Pullout -- Says Situation in Iraq is 'Absurd,' Perhaps Even 'Criminal'


By E&P Staff / Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK As the national debate over Iraq, in the media and in Washington, continues in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, a Republican U.S. Senator from Oregon has joined the fray in an unexpected way.

In a major speech in Congress on Thursday night, Sen. Gordon Smith called the current U.S. war effort "absurd," perhaps even "criminal" and called for rapid pullouts. He added that he would have never voted for the conflict if he had reason to believe the intelligence the president gave the American people was inaccurate.

[Secretariat]

The saddest thing is there are still posters here who are still stuck in GW's 2002 predictions and illogic.

[46zilzal]

The saddest thing is there are still posters here who are still stuck in GW's 2002 predictions and illogic.
the same ones who belive in INTELLIGENT design too?

[Tom]

What is really sad is that there are so many surrender monkeys here.
But I see wehre you would be impresses with the ISGR - it was so "high-schoolish" and a total waste of time and paper.
The whole think can be summed up in two words: WE SURRENDER!

Or, perhaps more appropraite would be: " Nous nous rendons!"

Should we now all bend over and grab our national ankles?

[Secretariat]

Tom,

Wake up and smell the coffee. Don't be the last one waiting for the train.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/gop-senator-criticizes-iraq-war-in.html

Friday, December 08, 2006
GOP senator criticizes Iraq war in emotional speech

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen Gordon Smith, a moderate Republican from Oregon who has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, said the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore."

[Tom]

Agian, you violate TOS by printing the whole article.
What is the matter with you, boy? You thick or what?

BTW, I don't give ca-rap what that guy says...I smell the coffee alright - we cannot afford to lost this war. No matter what you and your fellow surrender monkeys say.
I have said right along we are not fighting it the right way, but fighting it we must.
Negotiations Iran would be a waster of time. Did you know Chamberlin had a letter from Hitler agreeing to live and play nice with Europe? Just before he lauched blitzkrieg.

Never negotiate with an enemy. Destroy him, then dictate terms.

[hcap]

You violate humanitarian principles that seperate humans from primates.
Your buddy Ls thinks he knows how others feel.

Calling me out? :lol: If there are 4 or 5 car bombings tommorow, it will every ones' fault who tricked us into Iraq. Unfortunately 4 or 5 car bombings is on the low end of the chaos spectrum, that you created and according to youse wonderful foreign policy experts, is not enough. More "shack and awe"

Your both full of it, and your hero da cowboy is the one with fish stories. Or duck stories, as in lame

Oh I forgot he didn't live up to full neocon specifications

[hcap]

Paul Krugman

http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/2006/12/they-told-you-so.html

Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” Among those the article mocked was a “war novelist” named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.

The article’s title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true. And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored.

.....At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism and/or their sanity questioned.

[Lefty]

h'cap, it's always fine to be skeptical and no one questioned anyone's patriotism for being skeptical about the war. It was the personal attacks on this pres and the constant comparisons to Hitler and Nazis and even Saddam himself that got us wondering about the libdems patriotism. I still think Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid care more about power than this country.

[46zilzal]

It was the personal attacks on this pres
how can one NOT make fun of a clown who has cornered the market on being an imbecile??

[Lefty]

how can one NOT make fun of a clown who has cornered the market on being an imbecile??
This is what I mean. I count zilly as a traitor. Nuts like you, zilly, albeit, created by a liberal media, is why we lost in Vietnam and if we blow this one, the clown shoe is your collective foots. Evidently, your ilk wasn't around in WW11 when there was a stretch we were losing 8,000 a month. We could never have won that war with the current media and people that seem dispossessed of a backbone. Losing this war, will have devastating effects on the world. We don't lose battles but we are losing the PR. I hope Bush goes full steam ahead. We need to get tougher with Iran and Syria; tougher not weaker!

[46zilzal]

Dream world, chapter 599.....

[Show Me the Wire]

h I still think Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid care more about power than this country.

Amen.

[46zilzal]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi President Jalal Talabani rejected the Iraq Study Group's report Sunday, calling it "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution.

"We can smell in it the attitude of James Baker," Talabani said, referring to the report's co-chair who served as secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Iraq war.

Talabani blamed Baker for leaving then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in power after that conflict, which ousted Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal
how can one NOT make fun of a clown who has cornered the market on being an imbecile??




You are being too hard on yourself, 46.

[JPinMaryland]

We could never have won that war with the current media and people that seem dispossessed of a backbone.

Then I have news for you: We did win the war with the current media. Or at least much of it: CBS, NBC, AP, NY Times, Washington Post.


Losing this war, will have devastating effects on the world.

See? It's conservatives like you that wish bad things on the american people. Go ahead and cheer while western civilization goes down the drain.

Effin, traitor.

[Lefty]

Then I have news for you: We did win the war with the current media. Or at least much of it: CBS, NBC, AP, NY Times, Washington Post.




See? It's conservatives like you that wish bad things on the american people. Go ahead and cheer while western civilization goes down the drain.

Effin, traitor.
Ok, JP, same media names, a whole lot different atttitude. Reporters that actually wanted us to win; reporters that actually recognized the danger the world was in. Quite unlike the current crop of fools.

[Lefty]

JP, please elaborate on that statement where you call me a traitor. I'm not the one that keeps making absurd statements about the pres during wartime. I'm not the one that keeps blaming the pres while giving the terrorists a pass.
You're just about as silly as zilly.

[luv_america]

We used to all want to win wars our country fought. We trusted our elected leaders to make decisions for us. After Vietnam, that all got pissed away. For you long-haired, draft card burning, pot smoking idiots from 1968, you made the whole world a worse place, and in 2006, you are older and supposed to be wiser, and you are doing it again.

Americans won't tolerate cut and run. Trust me, this report went into the garbage can where it belongs. The only thing we're going to talk to Iran with is a B-52 and a Tomahawk (pls. replace with modern armaments).

[46zilzal]

We used to all want to win wars our country fought. We trusted our elected leaders to make decisions for us.

People woke up to the bull shit we were being fed and questioned things. Hopefully, SOME still do.

Anyone who wants OTHERS to make all their decsions for them should go to prison or the army.

[Show Me the Wire]

People woke up to the bull shit we were being fed and questioned things. Hopefully, SOME still do.

Anyone who wants OTHERS to make all their decsions for them should go to prison or the army.

You are one conflicted person. Dem libs do not question their leaders and dem libs want others to make all their decisions for them.

[46zilzal]

you are making the misguided assumption that I adhere to any organized political party.

[PaceAdvantage]

Agian, you violate TOS by printing the whole article.
What is the matter with you, boy? You thick or what?

I guess he doesn't read your posts Tom....only when you are advocating dropping some more bombs, does he respond.

Sec --> What Tom said....stop reprinting FULL TEXT articles....


Thanks (for the 100th time).

[Show Me the Wire]

you are making the misguided assumption that I adhere to any organized political party.

46zilzal, you are a prolific off topic poster and all one has to do is read your posts to understand your political belief system. I make no assumptions, I read your posts which reflect your thought process.

[PaceAdvantage]

S
T
F
U
It's about time you canned the wanton call for murder
SHUT THE F**K UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We already have the murder count approaching 700,000.
STFU
STFU
STFU
etc


Wow....are you close to dropping to the floor and doing your best impression of Curly from the Three Stooges -- spinning around like a top as you babble "STFU" endlessly until the men in the white coats come a knockin'?

700,000 murder count.....and you accuse the RIGHT of believing in FAIRY TALES!!!!!

That number has been debunked in quite an effective manner, and yet you have NO RESPONSE other than to REPEAT the fairy tale number.

[JustRalph]

anybody else find something wrong with the paragraph below?

"According to the new NEWSWEEK poll, Americans back the ISG’s recommendations by a two-to-one margin. In interviews with 1,000 adults done Dec. 6 and Dec. 7,
39 percent of Americans said they generally agree with the group’s 79 recommendations, while 20 percent said they disagree. (Twenty-six percent said, in effect: “Report, what report?"

This kind of crap cracks me up..........

[Ponyplayr]

I just heard that the Iranian leadership is going to shorten the term of the President by 18 months.. Why? I can't find any info on Google.

Has anyone else heard this?

[Lefty]

We used to all want to win wars our country fought. We trusted our elected leaders to make decisions for us. After Vietnam, that all got pissed away. For you long-haired, draft card burning, pot smoking idiots from 1968, you made the whole world a worse place, and in 2006, you are older and supposed to be wiser, and you are doing it again.

Americans won't tolerate cut and run. Trust me, this report went into the garbage can where it belongs. The only thing we're going to talk to Iran with is a B-52 and a Tomahawk (pls. replace with modern armaments).
During WW11 just about every american realized to lose the war would be the end of our lives as we knew them. We were all involved. There was gas rationing and rationing of foodstuffs, meat, butter, sugar, etc. Almost everybody had a victory garden and a lot of us on the outskirts of town even raised chickens. The women went to work in the factories; my mom was a "rosie the riveter" and later, a welder.
Even us kids were constantly involved in paper drives and tin foil drives. We made many sacrifices.
Today, our volunteer services are fighting mightily for our freedoms while little is asked of us except patriotism. Too many of us can't even put aside political differences, to do that much.
If we have lost our will to fight for our freedoms, or our ability to recognize the true evil in the world,then surely we will be in serious trouble.

[JPinMaryland]

During WW11 just about every american realized to lose the war would be the end of our lives as we knew them..

Yup it really makes you wonder how stupid most americans are today to not see the analogy.

[Indulto]

We used to all want to win wars our country fought. We trusted our elected leaders to make decisions for us. After Vietnam, that all got pissed away. For you long-haired, draft card burning, pot smoking idiots from 1968, you made the whole world a worse place, and in 2006, you are older and supposed to be wiser, and you are doing it again.

Americans won't tolerate cut and run. Trust me, this report went into the garbage can where it belongs. The only thing we're going to talk to Iran with is a B-52 and a Tomahawk (pls. replace with modern armaments).Hey, JA
Did Congress declare war on either Viet Nam or Iraq? Just thought I'd check with an expert.

[Show Me the Wire]

Congress only authorized the military action becuase it was populated by gullabe easily fooled individuals, such as the self admittedly easily bamboozled Sen. H. Clinton and Sen. Kerry.

[hcap]

Not as gullible as you think.

WaPo....

"Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence."

------------------------------------

23 Senators voted against the war. By my count 22 were Democrat.
So not quite 50% of Dem senators voted against the war.

Here are the brave ones:

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Richard Durbin (D-IL)
* Russell Feingold (D-WI)
* Robert Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* James Jeffords (I-VT)
* Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The House

Yeas Nays
Republican 215 6
Democratic 81 126
Independent 1

TOTALS 296 133


Close to 65 % of democratic congressman voted against the war !!!!

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

[Indulto]

Not as gullible as you think.

WaPo....

"Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

... 23 Senators voted against the war. By my count 22 were Democrat.
So not quite 50% of Dem senators voted against the war.

... The House

[code] Yeas Nays
Republican 215 6
Democratic 81 126
Independent 1

TOTALS 296 133

Close to 65 % of democratic congressman voted against the war !!!!hcap,
I wouldn't say your two Senators were gullible, but maybe unprincipled. It would have been political suicide for Schumer and Clinton representing Ground Zero and the largest bloc of Israeli support to have voted against a measure that most believed was intended to strengthen the President's hand in putting pressure on Saddam, and only endorsing military action as a last resort.

IMO Rangel's vote represented his constituency as well as his principles.

[46zilzal]

Poll: Iraq Going Badly And Getting Worse

(CBS News) NEW YORK Americans believe the war in Iraq is going badly and getting worse, and think it's time for the U.S. either to change its strategy or start getting out, according to a CBS News poll.

Forty-three percent say the U.S. should keep fighting, but with new tactics, while 50 percent say the U.S. should begin to end its involvement altogether. Only 4 percent say the U.S. should keep fighting as it is doing now.

Just 21 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, the lowest number he's ever received, and an 8-point drop from just a month ago. Most of that drop has been among Republicans and conservatives. Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling Iraq.

hardly a surprise....

[Lefty]

I wonder if you would be publishing these lists if we had not gone to Iraq and Saddam had orchestrated something against us, or if Al Queda not being decimated by this war would have planned and carried out a 9-11? So these idiots just can't say they were right, cause probably, they were not. But what's the sense? We're there, we must win, there's no alternative if we want to continue our lives in relative peace and harmony. Gen Tommy Franks says if we leave Iraq now, the terrorists will follow us.

[Indulto]

I wonder if you would be publishing these lists if we had not gone to Iraq and Saddam had orchestrated something against us, or if Al Queda not being decimated by this war would have planned and carried out a 9-11? So these idiots just can't say they were right, cause probably, they were not. But what's the sense? We're there, we must win, there's no alternative if we want to continue our lives in relative peace and harmony. Gen Tommy Franks says if we leave Iraq now, the terrorists will follow us.Lefty,
The terrorists must already be here. These people are incredibly patient which is how they pulled off 9-11. They are also obviously good planners. They had to have anticipated that the heat would be on after that attack, and that we wouldn't be taken by surprise again so quickly. Do you honestly believe there weren't other operatives in place with alternate assignments? Do you also believe that well-funded non-hispanics didn't get across our borders even after 9-11?

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap,
I wouldn't say your two Senators were gullible, but maybe unprincipled. It would have been political suicide for Schumer and Clinton representing Ground Zero and the largest bloc of Israeli support to have voted against a measure that most believed was intended to strengthen the President's hand in putting pressure on Saddam, and only endorsing military action as a last resort.

IMO Rangel's vote represented his constituency as well as his principles.

Indulto you seem to have made my point about the dems. They will do what is best for their own good and not what is best for their country. If they really believed the war in Iraq was unnecessary how could they in good conscious vote to have young American maimed and killed just to keep their prestigious offices.

Through our accusation it is clear these two have bolstered their political careers on the spilled innocent blood of America's youth and the grieving families. It is more than "unprincipled" it is dispicable and inhumane.

[Indulto]

Indulto you seem to have made my point about the dems. They will do what is best for their own good and not what is best for their country. If they really believed the war in Iraq was unnecessary how could they in good conscious vote to have young American maimed and killed just to keep their prestigious offices.

Through our accusation it is clear these two have bolstered their political careers on the spilled innocent blood of America's youth and the grieving families. It is more than "unprincipled" it is dispicable and inhumane.As Tonto told the Loan Arranger,"What you mean WE, white man." ;)

I would never argue that the actions of most politicians place the security of their country over the security of their tenure in office, but everything you just said is applicable to more Reps than Dems. And if you feel so strongly about spilling blood, why do you want to kill Muslims?

[chickenhead]

This brings up the debate over the proper role of our elected leaders, that of delegate or trustee. It goes right to the root of our democracy, and people have differing views over what the proper role is (and our views change, we are fickle).

Should an elected offical act as your delegate, i.e. their votes should always align with the majority opinion of their constituency, or should they act as trustee -- enabling them to decide the course of action independant of their constituency.

It is worthwhile to think about, as a voter.

[Show Me the Wire]

As Tonto told the Loan Arranger,"What you mean WE, white man." ;)

I would never argue that the actions of most politicians place the security of their country over the security of their tenure in office, but everything you just said is applicable to more Reps than Dems. And if you feel so strongly about spilling blood, why do you want to kill Muslims?

I don't. The jihadist want to kill us westerners. I want to protect my fellow citizens from the lunatics killing in Allah's name.

[chickenhead]

delegate or trustee

I should add that historically at least, we've wanted the Senators to act as trustees and the House to act as delegates. This has a lot to do with the length of their terms, we make it very difficult for House Members to act as anyhting but delegates. I think an unfortunate trend of late has been too many Senators also acting as delegates.

[Indulto]

I should add that historically at least, we've wanted the Senators to act as trustees and the House to act as delegates. This has a lot to do with the length of their terms, we make it very difficult for House Members to act as anyhting but delegates. I think an unfortunate trend of late has been too many Senators also acting as delegates.Excellent point.

But Senators are more effective than House Menbers from the same state in directing pork spending, etc.

[Lefty]

Yeah, the listening in on terrorist phone call have already stopped some attacks.
If dems manage to stop the listening in on terrorists phones we will be attacked again.
If We give up on Iraq they just get braver and braver and won't have to fight our miltary anymore so with Iran's help they take over Iraq and plan bigger more awesome attacks.
Do you think we should leave Iraq to Iran and Al Qaeda?

[Tom]

We have already seen the results of lib politics in Iraq. At first, Syria and IRan were scared that we were ther eto take them out as well, so they stayed out of it. but as it became apparent that half of us had no balls to win it, they got brave, then, like Spain, they influenced an election and now they know we arae nothing to be afraid of. OBL has already claimed the beat Russia - the strong superpower, and now they will beat us, the weak one with no will. He describe libs very accurately. No one is afraid of us anymore - they have seen our weak underbelly - the democrats.
Meantime, get the book by Churchill's son - read it and see how close things today resemble the darkening days in Europe when everyone appeased hitler. Scarey stuff. No one learned.
Eisenhower made a point to document the holocoust evidence and to make sure everyone possible was marhed through to see the horros becase, he reasoned, someday, they will deny this happened.
Today, Iran hosted a panel on disproving the holcoust. Guess who was a guest from the USA? David Duke!

I am really concerned that very few are connecting the dots. This would is changin fast, and not for good. I agree with Israel that in less than a year, our lives will be forever different due to the events unfolding - rather obviously - in front of us today.

[Indulto]

Yeah, the listening in on terrorist phone call have already stopped some attacks.
If dems manage to stop the listening in on terrorists phones we will be attacked again.
If We give up on Iraq they just get braver and braver and won't have to fight our miltary anymore so with Iran's help they take over Iraq and plan bigger more awesome attacks.
Do you think we should leave Iraq to Iran and Al Qaeda?The listening is fine. Just get the warrants first!

I think we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis. IMO we should redeploy our troops to guard the borders and the Kurds, and let the Sunni and Shia do whatever they want. This could be the way to finally separate the terrorists and insurgents from those who want to live in a less violent Iraq.

I'm still against sending more troops for police/combat duty, but I'm all for recruiting and training more Americans who can speak the language to go there for vetting and assisting familes who want to get away from the violence to safe areas. We should try to get UN or other humanitarian support for them ASAP -- funded by us. Does anybody think the militias can't find the bombers?

No more sitting ducks or engagement restrictions on troops assigned to border duty either. Lots of signs, radio, TV, and leaflets warning that we will shoot first and ask questions later. Fire missles at anything moving on wheels or flying except for appropriately escorted groups trying to leave.

[46zilzal]

I can remember what Kennedy said to Cronkite about Vietnam:"Ultimately it's their war and they should fight it."

History is full of re-runs isn't it?

[JPinMaryland]

Tom asked if anyone on the panel had been to Iraq.

Apparently all of the group or most of the group went there. They were in the green zone for four days.

The only one who ventured out of the green zone was Chas. Robb; who was a captain in Vietnam. This according to what I heard on NPR.

[JustRalph]

sure


The listening is fine. Just get the warrants first!

Technology makes this "Get warrants first" no longer practical. Throw away cell phones and re-programmable cells are everywhere now.

I think we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis. IMO we should redeploy our troops to guard the borders and the Kurds, and let the Sunni and Shia do whatever they want. This could be the way to finally separate the terrorists and insurgents from those who want to live in a less violent Iraq.

This is a sure fire way to turn Iraq into the International training center for Terrorists. not to mention kill thousands of innocent iraq citizens. you know, the ones that the left cares so much about? This also alienates the Turks and our troops and such in Turkey are forced out

I'm still against sending more troops for police/combat duty, but I'm all for recruiting and training more Americans who can speak the language to go there for vetting and assisting familes who want to get away from the violence to safe areas.

Without more troops and an aggressive turnaround in tactics..........there wont' be any safe area.

We should try to get UN or other humanitarian support for them ASAP -- funded by us. Does anybody think the militias can't find the bombers?

Leave anything to the U.N. and you piss away more than half the money and the job never gets done. They have proven that. Over and Over.

No more sitting ducks or engagement restrictions on troops assigned to border duty either. Lots of signs, radio, TV, and leaflets warning that we will shoot first and ask questions later. Fire missles at anything moving on wheels or flying except for appropriately escorted groups trying to leave.

Yeah, and watch the American media ramp up the coverage of "innocent deaths in iraq" and you get more and more people brainwashed by the media. And we know who's side they are on. It would be a full blown political machine for the Dems in 08.

[Lefty]

indulto, What Ralph said about the cellphones and also Dick Morris says we are listening to "chatter." When they keep hearing the same words like Brooklyn Bridge they know somethings up. Think Dick said you can't get warrants for chatter.
Also, I get sick of people thinking our constitution that's meant to protect US should also protect terrorists.

[Tom]

It's not like they are listening to any old phone calls. the libs keeping lying about it by calling it domestic easedropping, but in fact, it is not - it is foreign calls. And they are not listening to the conversations - like Lefty says, they are scanning for repeat partterns or hot words, and looking for patterns of calls to and from certain places. The details of the calls are unknown at the time, just after a good lead is found do specifics get investigated. It has worked to stop terrorists and not once has it violated anyone's rights.

[Indulto]

It's not like they are listening to any old phone calls. the libs keeping lying about it by calling it domestic easedropping, but in fact, it is not - it is foreign calls. And they are not listening to the conversations - like Lefty says, they are scanning for repeat partterns or hot words, and looking for patterns of calls to and from certain places. The details of the calls are unknown at the time, just after a good lead is found do specifics get investigated. It has worked to stop terrorists and not once has it violated anyone's rights.My technological slip is showing.

I had always thought listening to cell phone conversations was OK because anyone could over open airwaves. It was tapping private phone lines that I understood always needed warrants.

BTW when they hear a suspicious conversation on a cell whose number they can't trace, how do they find the suspect?