Jeanne wrote.

William and anyone else that is Anti-America...do us all a favor and go stand next to a suicide bomber!

Well if the US leave Irak there will not be anyone to stand next to a suicide bomber, and there would be no need of a suicide bomber any longer in Irak.

The US fundemental faith in militarism is the problem in this world

William and anyone else that is Anti-America...do us all a favor and go stand next to a suicide bomber!

USA likes big cars
Texans like bigger cars
Bigger cars need more oil
USA elects Texan president
Texan President invades Iraq to get more oil
Middle east turns more violent
Price of oil goes up
Texans and Arab friends get richer
Texans and Arabs get bigger cars

I cant wait till we attack iran, GOD BLESS BUSH if he does. You bunch of losers, the american empire will not die, it will live on forever. America is #1 and all you anti war, pro terrorist lovers can protest all you want, i will spit in your face.

American people reelected Bush. Americans are idiots. What are you complaining about now?

American people reelected Bush. Americans are idiots. What are you complaining about now?

Tp 'Aisha,'

The bigotry isn't in pointing out events of the Prophet's life that would be shocking today. It is in attempting to deligitmate Muslims based on their religious traditon.

Don't believe me? Imagine if one were to discuss, for example, Lot having sex with his 2 daughters or the various events of...what we would call today ethnic cleansing...that are described in the Old Testament, and imply based on this, that there is clearly something very wrong with the Judeaic traditon.

So sorry, I inadvertently posted here instead of at the Achenblog. My apologies.

Sorry, Joel, but Cordesman is brilliant in his analysis and beats Arkin hands down. I remember when, recently, WaPo staff would stay up all night after presidential debates and deconstuct, or fact-check, the preidential aspirants' debate statements. This is what Cordesman has done after Bush's address t the nation on Wednesday, why not the WaPo in this instance?

Cordesman's deft critique of Bush's speech is titled, "Bush's Iraq Plan, Between the Lines." It could just as easily be titled, "Bush's Iraq Plan, Between the Lies."

The Prophet Mohammed married me when I was six and had sex with me when I was nine years old. There is nothing racist about pointing this out.

'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064

BY THE WAY DID YOU PEOPLE HEAR THAT AN EXPLSION WENT OFF AT THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN ATHENS,GREECE.I FOR ONE AM NOT SHEDING TEARS.IT IS NOT SUPRISING THAT AMERICA IS BEING ATTACKED,BUT OTHER NATIONS LIKE FINLAND,CZECH REPUBLIC,OR NEW ZEALAND.BUT BUSH WILL HAVE YOU THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE "FREE". AMERICA DECLARED WAR ON IRAN YESTERDAY,THRASHING THE CONSULATE IN IRBIL,KURDISTAN,IRAQ.I AM ALL FOR IRAN! VIVA LA IRAN!

michael,you are ignorant and just rant crap that you hear on the news.you say iran declared war on us when they took over our embassy.well u.s declared war on iran in 1953 when it overthrew iran's democracy and placed the tyrant shah to control oil.and by the way give me prrof that the "insurgent" who shot your brother was supported by iran.i love to hear it.you no clue and you repeat all crap on foxnews,cnn,and rupert murdoch.

to archmedes,
israel has not successfully fought islamic terrorism,because they are still struggling after almost sixty years.the palestinians are going to fight and resist until they are free,how come israelis terrorized and bombed like yitzhak shamir and mechachem begin killing the palestinians and british and today say arabs are terrorists.the arab countries are telling the u.s to solve the palestinians issues,but u.s says its attacked because of freedom but really because of screwing around with muslim nations alot.wonder why sweden is not attacked,it is free more free than u.s.also i saw how israel dealt with hezbollah.u.s has a terrorist problem because of its one sided policy of support of israel.get to reality.

to hassan,
i agree islamphobia is major problem today.people masked their hatred of muslims by talking about terrorism.funny how you can be anti-semite if you criticize israel,but its okay to bash muhammed as a terrorist and it is declered "free speech". SCREW ISLAMPHOBES,ISLAM WILL BE HERE FOREVER AND THRIVE!

I think presidents's speech is nothing more but attempt to boost domestic public morale. Iraqi freedom fighters didn't hear it and they don't care about it. War will continue and I think it will go more or less like a Nam.

Another victory for the neo-cons against the American majority. In my opinion, the neo-cons who sold us this war have brought us MORE death and destruction and enormous loss of wealth and international standing than the horrible acts of terrorists on 9/11. Why is the media silent about the religious beliefs and affiliations of this most dangerous group among us? Is it because none of them are Muslims?
After all the media has successfully created the mass hysteria against Muslims and the entire country is saturated with Islamophobia.
Has anyone have details of Islamic fascist armies marching across the countries around the world, their air force bombing countries into submission, their navy creating havoc in high seas? You cannot win a myth with your fear. Those who control the media, control your opinion.
Our operational headquarters is 'Qatar', Our troops get the food, water, oil and the supplies and logistics mostly from 'Kuwait', Our naval fleet and ships are serviced in Dubai! Without support of several Muslim countries, the war would be impossible. If there is one religious group that has been completed scrutinized and monitored for the last 5 years in our country, it is the Muslims. Considering the fact that the number of Muslims indicted for terrorist activities are in single digits among 5 or 6 million Muslims living in US, I would suggest 'please stop being islamophobic'. If you identify the religion of the perpetrators of "crimes against humanity" in the last few centuries, Islam would be no where near the top.
For all those who are in denial about the oil connection of this war, there are already reports in the media about the oil contracts between the US oil giants and Iraqis rushed through their parliament binding for next 30 years. It would be a guarantee of the profits for the US oil companies for decades to come.
None of these neo-cons first choice is America. In the name of exporting democracy we are importing dictatorship and are willingly sacrificing the rights which majority of the world is fighting to gain.

Dear Eric [Jette]:....................................
The probability that a comment will be read [by anyone but its author] is inversely proportional to its length.

Posted by: ndpwp | January 10, 2007 11:14 PM

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

(Chuckle)...this whole thread has been "inversed" , the first posts last, as it were....but apparently you read it...LOL!...and if all you have in the way of criticism of it is the length, then I would suggest that the content and reasoning stands uncontested here in this debate.

(for the curious, you'll find it at the bottom of page, next to "last" post...)

-EJ

I think we need to form an anti-empirialism/ anti-Bush coalition similar to the Geneva accords. We could probably get a billion signers to oppose the actions taking place and agree on a compromise for all people. What would they do if we had a billion Republican/Democrat/Sunni/Shia/ Pakistani/Isreali/Palestinian/ Chinese/ Russian/ Britian/etc...signers to a global pact. A peoples WTO/ globalization plan. Of course we wouldn't get much money from corperations, but we definetly need to get organized...seriously. We could call it the "Council of Foriegn Peaceful Relations", or the "Peace Department"

Funny, I thought Iran declared war on us in 1979 when they siezed our embassy. Then, I thought they double-declared war on us when Iranian Quds shot my brother in Iraq.

I am rather annoyed at the majority of the posters on this board who will do everything in their power to ensure America loses, Iran gets a nuclear program and Bush is impeached. No wonder you are on the same side as the terrorists!

"For Archimedes":

I agree entirely that, if Iraq becomes well established, they will desire to become independent of Iranian influence. That, however, is not the case at the moment or in the forseeable future. Also, I was commenting on the situation now, not what may happen in 10-20 years if and when Iraq stabilizes. As the many civil conflicts in Africa should tell us, stability is not guaranteed, even if the US were to pull out now. What US policy toward Israel has to do with Syria's goals regarding that country I don't know, but since the topic has been breached, I will opine. Certainly, Israel is as self-sufficient as any modern country today, but that is not why the US supports Israel in many of its endeavors and keeps its disagreements quiet. We support Israel because it is in our interest to do so, since Israel is today, on the front lines of the war against radical Islamist militants and has been so for decades. They have years of experience and expertise in combating radical Islamists and as such are a critical ally now that these maniacs have turned their hatred on America. If that requires silent disagreements and "unequal" support then so be it, especially when the Arab states have been less than helpful in controlling their own militant populations. Crying about "unfair" treatment from America rings hollow when these are the countries where Islamist militancy flourishes. If they want fair treatment, they should do much more about their militant problems, like Israel does.

Trust Always in Reason

Archimedes

A good point, WB. It is going to be interesting to see how many of the ISG Report's recommendations (or supported strategies) President Bush follows while modifying the recommendations to fit his own military approach/agenda. Have a good one...

===Iran sees a US withdrawal as a chance to add Iraq to its list of client states and Syria, as one of those states, sees American failure in Iraq as a strengthening of its anti-Israel cause, since Israel's biggest ally will be gone from the region and will (they think) have a bad taste in its mouth in regards to ME intervention.===

Poster "Archimedes" made the above argument. It is a valid argument, but unfortunately shortsighted.

1) Regarding Iran - Let's assume Iraq temporarily align itself with Iran (its neighbor) after U.S. departs. This doesn't mean that the alignment is permanent. Iraq may need to align with Iran temporarily out of necessity, but as Iraq finds its footing in the region again, it'll want to seek out it's own path. Hopefully, the seeds of democracy would have been well planted that Iraq will see its interests more aligned with that of the United States. U.S. can decide to reach out that helping hand to Iraq at that time rather than now where the helping hand is not welcomed.

2) Regarding Israel - Back when the state of Israel was first established, Israel needed U.S. to support her. Now Israel can well stand on her own and defend her own interest. U.S. should choose a more neutral role rather than just automatically align with Israel which generates wrong impression among the Arab nations.

The American culture has adopted a short term attention span, but unfortunately, our political leaders are caught up in short term thinking too. The problem is when our political leaders become shortsighted, the consequences for America are real, and they are disastrous.

We're in the 21st century, instead of leading us into the future, Bush seems to want to dig us deeper into the past. He's already got us involved in an ethnic conflict (Sunni-Shiite) that's centuries old. Now he is threatened to bring us into another conflict that's thousands of years old with his escalation plan.

Let's look towards the future where there is hope.

IRAN Has Already been Attacked.US Troops INVADED and TOOK hostage Employees of The IRAN Consulate in Northern IRAQ taking Computers and Papers Just Like ISRAEl Aressting Palestinans.This is another USA BULLY Tactic and You Still Wonder WHY YOU'RE Dispised.The USA and Israel are the TERRORISTS.Don't Expect any Tears being Shed by the REST of the World if Ever another 911 occurs.America has LOST ALL Moral Standing and bush Just Keeps Compounding the the HATE.Oh We KNOW that a Majority of America are GOOD People But being GOOD and SITTING on Your Arses while Bush Drags You through the SEWERS isn't WINNING any Respect.Oh and it would Serve you Well to STOP Listening to the Propaganda from the Corporate OWNED AIPAC Backed MSM for they are More GUILTY than BUSH for you Haven't an ETHICAL journalist Left in the MSM.Read the blogs and International "FREE" Press for Your "FREE" Press is Brought and PAID for By the JEWISH LOBBY Just Like Your Congress they are All AIPAC OWNED. GOD Help America.

I agree that the President's remarks seem to indicate the willingness on his part to order strikes inside Syria and possibly Iran. I disagree however with the analysis that this equates to war with either country, at least open war. While open war with one or the other is certainly possible, the much more likely option is precision strikes against specific targets and no more, as open war is, at this point in time, unecessary. However, I think that Arkin and others are jumping the gun just a bit by presupposing any action, as Bush's words may have been just that. It is well known that neither Iran nor Syria has been at all willing to engage constructively with the US on issues pertaining to Iraq. In all fairness, the Bush Administration has not made the most herculean of efforts in this regard, but almost all of the attempts that have been made have been rebuffed. Iran sees a US withdrawal as a chance to add Iraq to its list of client states and Syria, as one of those states, sees American failure in Iraq as a strengthening of its anti-Israel cause, since Israel's biggest ally will be gone from the region and will (they think) have a bad taste in its mouth in regards to ME intervention. Whether they are reading the tea leaves correctly or not remains to be seen, I for one think they are overestimating their hand as well as the level of violence the will occur in Iraq if the US simply up and leaves. The Democrats are correct in their "analysis" that the problems in Iraq are now political. However, forcing the Iraqi government to maintain a security it can't even establish seems ludicrous and the worst possible strategy for "victory", if that, as they say, is what they are truly interested in. I am skeptical in this regard and think their impossible demands of the Iraqi government are simply a cover so they can throw up their hands and give up and go home without looking any more cowardly or weak on defense when the Iraqis inevitably fail. Fighting wars is expensive and it prevents them from enacting their Robin Hood economic policies and other such things that are normally prohibitively expensive.

Trust always in Reason

Archimedes

Matthew, I agree that the ISG makes the statement you cite. But, there's a subtle yet important difference being being able to support a shortterm surge and actually recommending the surge. Moreover, it's not clear that the surge proposed by Pres. Bush is consistent with the sort of surge the ISG could support. The ISG wants to see major withdrawals by 1Q 2008. The slow staging Pres. Bush proposes is difficult to fairly term a "surge," despite his use of that term. To be gracious, I will concede that it might barely be possible to slowly "surge," as Bush proposes, and still begin major withdrawal by 1Q 2008. Nevertheless, I strongly doubt that this will occur.

I'd also raise the new point that press reports are consistent in citing the opposition of Iraqi leaders to a U.S. buildup or surge. If Iraq's freely elected government does not want more US troops on its soil, we should comply with the government's wishes.

Live long and prosper,

Bush is in a time warp... the light at the end lof the tunnel... attack the bases in Cambodia and not tell the public....Great idea lets do Syria and Iran.... Oh I need to go work for a Senator instead of completing my "Arictocratic Obligation"..

Cheney in Roman Senatorial Toga masterminding the change from democracy to empire...Oh who needs the moral principals in the Constitution... He is one step from being a GOD.

Please find me a time machine January 20th 2010 cannot come fast enough.

Congress find your stones. Stop this madness and remove the troops this "FUBAR" piliticians "Global War on WHom?"

There seems to be universal acceptance of this idea that if we leave Iraq in its present state certain "disaster" looms for America. I don't understand this thinking. In what way will that create a greater potential for disaster then what already exists? Various factions will be upset no matter what we do. Our best bet is to partition the country, arm the Kurds and the Shias, and leave the Sunni controlled territory in the middle, in a perpetual war zone in which Sunnis and fanatical Shiites kill each other. The Kurdish country will become relatively stable and pro-American, and since that's where the oil is the capacity to buy off the Turks via transhipment fees exists. The Shiites will eventually recognize that the US liberated them from Saddam and that won't hurt our standing in their eyes. Iran will become the regional power broker which is fine (we can't stop them anyway). Maybe that will keep them busy for a few years. And the Sunnis? Who cares - you live by the sword, and you die by the sword.

==If Iran or Syria is supporting violence against American troops, who are in Iraq with the blessing of the legitimately elected government of Iraq, then those countries are legitimate military targets. Through their actions they have effectively declared war on America, and America has every right to fight back against them.==

Then why are the new troops being dispatched to Baghdad and Anbar, and not to Diahla and the north, to counteract supposed Syrian and Iranian infiltration?

Jono writes :"Imagine a foreign country invaded the US without any kind of legal authority "
well, sooner or latter someone was going to quote some leftist drival, what or whom gives "legal authority"?
If you can define that, then we can talk turkey, I'm hoping you dont mean those pathetic beings on 1st ave and 42nd.

==I think we did the right thing, the hard part is doing the right thing the right way.==

This was said by the true communist believers after the Kruschev's speech.

--- well, correction, every human being says this , the debateble issue is what is "right"

You poor stupid ignorant completely propagandised people ... this whole system is being pushed and run by Israeli and Jewish interests which incidentally includes the largest percentage of the Media.. Please collectively develop some individual reasoning and don't just assume that just because your told something it is necessarily true - As a minister for propaganda in Germany once said " If you repeat a lie often enough it become accepted as the truth" Never was it more true than in the states today..
The bottom line is that the US should never have got involved in Iraq - no connection to 9/11 whatsoever. Imagine a foreign country invaded the US without any kind of legal authority - would you stand up and fight? You bet you would !! The resistance in Iraq are no different. The only groups to have benefited from the invasion are Israel, big business, arms contractors, and the people who make body bags, - while the common American kids in service pay the price. Maiming and wrecking another two counties is only going to benefit the same groups and kill a lot of everyday people who are no different than you or me .. WAKE UP AMERICA AND START TO LOOK BEYOND THE LIES; YOUR A GREAT PEOPLE, BUT YOUR BEING DUPED !!!

Time for Republicans and Democrats alike to stand up and Impeach this delusional moron, before he starts WW III.

In case you are the last person on earth who does not know go to :
video.google.com and search "911"
There is various videos there anyone will do, pick the first one and watch. do it please.

Shorter Bush: "To my friends in Iran and Syria, I give you Tonkin II."

America has to see stability in Iraq before it pulls its troops out. If it pulls its troops out because of mounting casualties then it will be viewed by the world, and especially by America's enemies, as having been defeated militarily and having been forced to flee. Such an outcome would be disasterous and may lead to increasing violence against America and its interests. If Iran or Syria is supporting violence against American troops, who are in Iraq with the blessing of the legitimately elected government of Iraq, then those countries are legitimate military targets. Through their actions they have effectively declared war on America, and America has every right to fight back against them.

America has to see stability in Iraq before it pulls its troops out. If it pulls its troops out because of mounting casualties then it will be viewed by the world, and especially by America's enemies, as having been defeated militarily and having been forced to flee. Such an outcome would be disasterous and may lead to increasing violence against America and its interests. If Iran or Syria is supporting violence against American troops, who are in Iraq with the blessing of the legitimately elected government of Iraq, then those countries are legitimate military targets. Through their actions they have effectively declared war on America, and America has every right to fight back against them.

America has to see stability in Iraq before it pulls its troops out. If it pulls its troops out because of mounting casualties then it will be viewed by the world, and especially by America's enemies, as having been defeated militarily and having been forced to flee. Such an outcome would be disasterous and may lead to increasing violence against America and its interests. If Iran or Syria is supporting violence against American troops, who are in Iraq with the blessing of the legitimately elected government of Iraq, then those countries are legitimate military targets. Through their actions they have effectively declared war on America, and America has every right to fight back against them.

Sorry A Hern,

As I read further along, I found that you were not aligned with Alex after all. I agree with much of what you said for yourself!

Poor Alex, he keeps looking for someone to buy into and stand with some of his distorted ideas. I trust that he will grow in time and come to understand more than America's form of prairie/sand justice.

Alex must come to understand that Saddam was very cozy with American President's, and Rumsfeld, because we were engaged and encouraging the same kind of behavior that he was involved in. He invaded Kuwait, we invaded Iraq; two peas from the same pod.

Sadly, and in the end, the United States showed no mercy to the monster that we helped to create!

==I think we did the right thing, the hard part is doing the right thing the right way.==

This was said by the true communist believers after the Kruschev's speech. As the neocons share their philosophy and in many ways their political roots with the communists, this does make certain amount sense. Ideology trumps history. Consciousness defines reality. It is a very old Marxist paradigm.

I can write more on the subject, but it is boring for great majority of Americans.

Alex and Ahern,

I just hope that we are not in any danger of either of you ever 'sitting on the bench', for the world does not any more need one-sided executioner court judges like either of you.

I have never read anywhere on this blog at any time where any person has sancitified the actions of Saddam Hussein (whose actions were supported politically and militarily by the U.S.A. and for quite a while).

There have been issues raised about America's morally equivalent behavior on the blog, which seems to fly right past both of your illogic. It is sad when people judge the behaviors of certain individuals or groups of peoplem at home and abroad, while overlooking similar behavior by their significant others, in this instance the U.S.of A.

Ah, but we have had judges like you in America for years, haven't we? Those judges and American lynch mobs would order the hanging and electrocution of one group of American citizens, and overlook the behaviors of other favored-citizens who were engaging in similar or worse behaviors. I guess it's just in the American blood to overlook the behavior of the central group, while pointing out the faults of everyone else, at home or abroad!

My question to both of you is, who will hang for America's injustices in Iraq, when we supported Iraq, when we invaded and destroyed a nation and when we turned Saddam over to the lynch mob? I am anxious to hear what you two cavalier butchers and executioners of others have to say!

Finally, if we do not work to fix the problem of injustice on both sides of the ocean, we will never realize a just and sustaining peace in the world.

All we will end up with is the United States working to keep other nations weak and disarmed, so that American can force its will upon them and keep them under American control. And when that fails, we will attack the unarmed and the weak!

You folks seem like you like it that way, but keep in mind that 'the world is not America's to order around'! The reason that the U.S.A. remains so factionalized and divided itself, is because it has never faced up to and dealt with its own internal injustices, inequities and double-standards.

In response to WB,

I am citing the text version of the ISG Report, which I'm sure varies from the online source. In the section of the report that I am identifying, the ISG specifically distinguishes between the "long-term" versus "short-term" military options. A surge is recommended as a short-term military operation that could possibly be beneficial to the aiding our situation in Iraq. This quote can be found on page 50 of the online ISG Report found at http://www.usip.org/isg/:
"Adding more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term "occupation." We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." I appreciate, WB, that you think of me as knowledgable for a 16 year old (and yes that is my real age).

In response to WB,

I am citing the text version of the ISG Report, which I'm sure varies from the online source. In the section of the report that I am identifying, the ISG specifically distinguishes between the "long-term" versus "short-term" military options. A surge is recommended as a short-term military operation that could possibly be beneficial to the aiding our situation in Iraq. This quote can be found on page 50 of the online ISG Report found at http://www.usip.org/isg/:
"Adding more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term "occupation." We could, however, support a shortterm redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." I appreciate, WB, that you think of me as knowledgable for a 16 year old (and yes that is my real age).

CONTROL.............

That is what this whole matter has been out about from start to finish. Previous Cabinet-members, have revealed over the course of the past 5-years that Bush and the warhawks came into office with a Middle-East agenda.

The last two king-pins that stand in their way, are Syria and Iran; rolling into Baghdad was only a piece of the puzzle. One way or another they will be neutralized. And whether it will be done politically (with a secret trade-off or payoff), economically (with the U.S.A. making concessions), mililitary (based upon some false pretense) or otherwise, these two nations are going to be dealt with soon!

I am getting the feeling that the world will witness a nuclear conflagration in the not too distant future, if the U.S.A. does not cease from its imperialist agenda!

Ahern,

Yr basically approaching sadam as the devil we know. Tend to agree with that. This is diff then most leftist drivel that seems to look past his brutality. I woudnt trust Iran with a nuke, no they have no history of adventurism but these days one misadventure with a nuke is more dangerous then a dozen conventional wars. How does one expect a brutalized minority to suddenly accept there oppressors ? that is a hard one. The Kurds have set up there own shop, the rest are engaged in gang warfare. Is all lost ?, maybe , maybe not. If we pick up and leave , I think all is lost. We need to try to fix it because we did unleash it . I dont think exporting democracy is a mistake. I think we did the right thing, the hard part is doing the right thing the right way.

Disaster in the U.S.? We're close to it now. But if we get fully there, perhaps we'll have little time and fewer resources with which to murder people we don't know or understand in far-away countries. 9/11 was preventable. Al Qaeda has told us clearly and rationally what they want. They don't hate our freedom as Bush would have us believe; they hate our polices towards their countries. And they fight us the _only_ way they can.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake and the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bombing any other countries back to the stone age, which Bush appears ready to do, will win us no friends. I have a shortwave radio and I can tell you that the world is _almost_ universally opposed to our actions.

Do you have any idea what our AC130 gunships are doing to the people of these countries? All this military technology and it's squandered on killing people we could probably easily make peace with. Well it actually may be too late to make peace--Bush has seen to that.

In the meantime, the sun is setting on U.S. automakers as well as other industries. American workers are paid less and less. We are doomed.

==at a minimum,all deaths are not equal.==

That's becoming more and more difficult to tell, no?

After all, we appear to do a very good job tallying up Saddam's crimes, but seem uninterested to do the body count during our "watch".

What's more, the president's "new" plan appears designed to increase casualties on the way to "victory" or defeat, so by the time we are "done", we may have created as much or more mayhem than existed when we went to "fix" it.

I guess, the Iraqis who are ripped apart by our munitions, shredded by insurgents IEDs or having their bodies drilled out by death squads are really better off than they were when they were killed in Saddam's wars or by Saddam's secret police or poison gas. They die free.

Anarcissie:

I believe Bush will not be held accountable for his actions - at least in the short term - there is too much money around him and money buys the power to sway those in power.

At the same time, I believe that more and more evidence will come to light over time that will present an extremely damning picture - to say the least.

I belive that there is already a 'full extent' of deception that has yet to see the light of day that precedes the Iraq situation, but will be reinforced by the Iraq situation and events occurring afterwards. Die hard Bush supporters will lose their faith in him during this time. Those right wing Christians that brought his religious rhetoric will be appalled by how he manipulated them.

His re-election was truly a tradgedy for America. That said, I also believe that American people will bounce back from this experience into a better place.

In searching for a silver lining, the transperancy of Bush may well wake many of us up in the Western world to re-evaluate how we conduct our lives and stimulated a shift in how we think about our lives and the world we live in. I hope a healthy balance will come out of this, that is more respectful to our planet, those we share it with and the generations who will inhabit it after we are gone.

dimitry writes: "And the slaughter that our actions unleashed appears to be on the same scale."

at a minimum,all deaths are not equal.

Sully:

Oh this, you can be sure, I have learned :)

---However, it seems that rather than Bush going the diplomatic route he has decided to just 'stem the flow' without trying to engage with them.---

Haven't you learned yet? That is Bush diplomacy.

I agree that Cheney, and then Bush, should be impeached and removed from office. However, I would also like to see them and their coterie prosecuted under Article 6 of the charter of the Nuremberg Trials. Read the charter, and then review the history of the last several years, and you will see that such trials would follow logically.

True, at present this is impossible politically. But as the U.S. sinks deeper into the morass and its economy begins to founder, many things which are not possible politically now will become possible.

Ps. I do take note that a short term surge was recommended by the Iraq Study Group - with a focus on them being embedded within Iraqi troops. Bush has clearly taken these recommendations on board.

However, there is quite a departure in terms of Iran. The ISG called for diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to:

'stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq'.

Considering that this will include both Sunni and Shia, that pretty much says 'stay out of it completely'. However, it seems that rather than Bush going the diplomatic route he has decided to just 'stem the flow' without trying to engage with them.

President Bush is right about one thing: defeat in Iraq will be a disaster for America. As can be seen by the recent meetings between Chavez and other left leaning South Anmerican leaders and Iran's leader, there is a growing sense amongst America's enemies that America is a wounded animal. If America is driven out of Iraq in defeat America's ability to influence events in the world will be diminished.

I am sick...sick and tired of the mindless pronouncement of Islam being the enemy of Western civilization. Islam is no more the enemy of our culture than Southern Baptists...it is the radicalized MINORITIES of both religions that are threats to our way of life. Get a grip and recognize the root of the problem is US interefence in the ME, and its support of despotic rulers of certain Arab counties. THEY DO NOT HATE OUR WAY OF LIFE LIKE THE MORON BUSH PREACHES...THEY HATE OUR GOVERNMENT"S INTERENCE IN THEIR AFFIARS.

President Bush is right about one thing: defeat in Iraq will be a disaster for America. As can be seen by the recent meetings between Chavez and other left leaning South Anmerican leaders and Iran's leader, there is a growing sense amongst America's enemies that America is a wounded animal. If America is driven out of Iraq in defeat America's ability to influence events in the world will be diminished.

Alex:

Saddam put the smackdown on the Shias and Kurds in a brutual way - there is no denying that. He put the smackdown on the Kurds because of their militants who were terrorizing Iraq in order to get a Kurd state - not just Iraq either, but the other countries they bordered on. He put the smackdown on Shia not least because they had put up assasination attempts against him but also because he knew that Shia getting the upper hand would give Iran the 'in' on Iraq - due to Iran being predominantely Shia, as was Iraq (about 60%).

The situation of the boundary tensions in Iraq was initially stimulated by Brits divvying up the country into Kurds, Shia and Sunni after it had done it's business there.

Although Saddam was raised in a Sunni village, and naturally supported by the Sunni, he was a leader who preferred not to mix religion with politics - he belonged to the Baathist party - aimed at Arab socialism. I believe his primary drive for siding with the sunni was that the shia may have given Iraq over too heavily to Iranian influence.

His methods were undoubtedly brutual, but they effectively squashed uprisings and brought about some modicum of stability in Iraq. I think that the US forces will find they will end up walking a similar line, particularly with regards to the Shia, because of the basic structure of the country.

You might note that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are both deeply disturbed about the prospect of a Shia stronghold in Iraq and what role Iran may play in this. As you think you deal with one issue, you create another. On the positive side, Iran has no overt history as a war starter. Provocative? No doubt - particulary with their plans to start an oil bourse that includes both US dollars and the Euro. Before now it has only been US dollars for trade - they represent a threat to the status quo.

Saddam, devil as he may have been, was the devil that was known. With him gone so is the stability and so the cycle of death and destruction is reinvigorated.

My strongest argument against Iran having nuclear energy is more general - I think nuclear energy of any kind should be phased out. It is one thing to have a cleaner burning fuel, but it is quite another to have radioactive by-products/waste of that fuel that cannot be disposed of and needs to be stored, with the hope that it will never find release to contaminate the people. In the long term that is a vain hope, as the waste has a half life of 2 1/2 billion years and there is sure to be issues with the storage of this ever growing amount of waste over time.

The US military seems to have found some solution for dealing with some of this waste - they use depleted uranium in their bunker busting bombs. Upon final impact the depleted uranium is then pulverized into dust. This dust then sweeps into the Iraqi sands. Depleted uranium is not a health concern unless it is breathed into the lungs. However, dust makes it easy to be breathed in. Depleted uranium was used in the first gulf war, as it has been used in this war, and many claim that it is behind the 'gulf war syndrome' of soldiers returning from the war. Iraqi children (as well as adults) also play or exist in this sand and take it into their bodies. The amount of in-utero deaths have risen dramatically in Iraq as well as birth defects and the mortality rate of young children from a variety of depleted uranium associated side effects. Whats more, similar trends are being seen in the children of gulf war veterans, a number of whom are showing elevated levels of depleted uranium in their urine even 10 years after the gulf war, a number of whom have died from being riddled by numerous cancers. This is not localised to Iraq either as dust can and does travel on the trade winds, affecting other countries.

We think about short term military solutions and weapons that will work best to achieve those short term military aims, in order to support a trillion dollar war machine - however, how well are we thinking about the long term consequences and what it means for tommorrows children? There is a bigger picture to consider in all of this.

The only thing that neede done in Iraq to stop the violence if : Have Al-Saddar shot. We have the snipers there, just do it and get it over with. Then Maliki wouldn*t have any boots to lick, and start running the country. That would negate the need for a troop *SURGE*, or build up, or whatever the heck you choose to call it.

One cannot declare a war "over" unless both sides come to terms. I would like to see all our forces home tomorrow but that is completely unrealistic. The fallout would be devastating for the entire middle east, the Iraqi people, and the U.S. No matter the reasons we are there at this time and in this "situation" (Pelosi's word), we cannot just disengage because the results do not meet our expectations or we just don't want to do this anymore. The enemy has not decided to redeploy. This is a very big picture and if people think that if we go home that Iran, Syria,and others will not widen this conflict are being quite naive. We have to deal with the facts on the ground instead of continually going over the plowed ground of "what if" we had done it differently. It really doesn't matter at this point. The American people and the congress need to support the President in this action and hope and pray that it works. Then if the Iraqi people and government demonstrate that they would rather kill each other,have Iran over run their oil fields, and/or suffer a humanitarian crisis than live in peace with rule of law, then let them have at it. There is no good way out of this.

We trust in the Bush Administration and we get an open-ended escalation. We trust in the Democrats and we get resolutions on non-smoking in the Capitol. Ichabod had it right in his post. We are placing our trust in the things and people of this world. We, and they, think they are in control. We are being carried along by events and circumstances and no one is in charge of them. Except God Almighty.

---Bush sees his actions in Iraq through the eyes of a distant future, 25, 50, or even 100 years from the present---

Good thing he wasn't around as president after WW2, or Korea, where some visionaries thought nuking the Soviets and Chinese would bring world peace. Thankfully better heads were in place.

And as for devine revelations, when was the last time a christian God spoke to a world leader and told him to go kill people? Sounds very old testament to me.

If Bush didn't alienate the house and senate republicans with the election defeat he has certainly alienated them now. Look for republicans to be running scared with the smart ones joining the democrats in legislating against this war. I also expect to see at least one republican switch sides before the end of the month.

Ideas of pulling funding, once thought unable to be passed, are now possible. Look for the democrats to finally get a spine with much republican support. Leave it to Bush to drive the republicans to the democrats. And the fear both republicans and democrats are feeling is not a fear of losing some future election, its the fear that our country itself is now at stake. I predict Bush will be shutdown by congress in the next month. Bush has lawyered up so he knows what's coming. The war to take back America has begun, the lines drawn, the first shot fired last night. Watch for the democratic carpet bombing in the next few weeks. Also, keep an eye on low level white house resignations. I think we'll see the rats jumping ths sinking ship soon.

Alex wrote:
---"removed a force that stabilized" ? thats a pretty generous comment. I thought we removed a murderous thug who killed thousands of his own people.---

Saddam never considered those he killed to be "his own people". They were Kurds and Shia who opposed his autocratic rule and just happened to live in a country he was in firm control of.

Bush sees his actions in Iraq through the eyes of a distant future, 25, 50, or even 100 years from the present - he feels certain in his heart that in that later time, all important people will look back with gratitude upon the politically difficult but ultimately deeply wise decisions he has made to resist the forces of fanaticism that in his words are dedicated to "destroying our way of life." The problem is: how did he gain access to the viewpoint of people living so far into the future, what is the source of his certainty? It appears to have come to him as a divine revelation. He is, in his own mind, playing out a destiny inspired by God. Who is the fanatic in this situation? Or maybe the question should be: Who is not the fanatic?

This appears to be the "death throes" of the Bush administration's Iraq adventure. That is, right up until they attack Iran (or have Israel do it for us). Imagine the aftermath of a nuclear device (low-yield as it may be) used against Iran by Israel as rumored, technology they likely got from us... we'd be blamed for using nukes (again) in the Middle East. That should really set aflame the entire region and bust out all nuclear constraints, in which case our Iraq problems would look quaint.

This appears to be the "death throes" of the Bush administration's Iraq adventure. That is, right up until they attack Iran (or have Israel do it for us). Imagine the aftermath of a nuclear device (low-yield as it may be) used against Iran by Israel as rumored, technology they likely got from us... we'd be blamed for using nukes (again) in the Middle East. That should really set aflame the entire region and bust out all nuclear constraints, in which case our Iraq problems would look quaint.

==I thought we removed a murderous thug who killed thousands of his own people.==

And the slaughter that our actions unleashed appears to be on the same scale.

a hern writes:"Those Shia and Sunnis are killing each other because a foreign force came in and removed the force that stabilised them."

"removed a force that stabilized" ? thats a pretty generous comment. I thought we removed a murderous thug who killed thousands of his own people.

Can't think of any more dangerous man that Bush , who folow him and say good about his ideas , is of a mad man.

To Roger Dodger.

Those Shia and Sunnis are killing each other because a foreign force came in and removed the force that stabilised them. That's what happens when you go into someone elses country thinking you know better.

The Brits should know something of this, you can look to their actions and decisions about how to divvy up the lands of other peoples for the root of what is happening in Iraq, Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan.

Fact is, when outsiders come in to serve their own interests, they leave mayhem behind. Same would happen to the States if it was done to you.

Great Britian is bringing their troops home whilst Mr. Bush is filling the potholes of what was called a coalition. confidentialsources want this AEI neo-con waste over. www confidentialsources com

President George W. Bush has killed more civilians than Osama Bin Laden.

Overt wars started by Iran = 0

Overt wars started by the States?

This so called 'war on terror' has as its underbelly the reality of the Bush Admin terrorizing multiple other countries, whether it is the 'you are with us or against us' comment to the whole world for the non-UN sanctioned war on Iraq, or the complicity with Israel in its disproportionate strikes on Lebanon that displaced 1/4 of the Lebanese population and sent them back decades in terms of economic development, or the ravaging of Afghanistan. And so now Iran and Syria are next on the agenda. But these are countries of 'people', not a homogenous group of 'terrorists'.

All of this unrest serves to keep oil prices high, no doubt adding to a nice little kickback that Bush will pocket once his term ends. In the meantime young Americans with hopes of a better future, better education through the military, etc, are dying and the economy of the United States will be left in tatters, leaving many problems in the future, much local unrest due to loss of jobs and people turning to crime to sustain themselves and their family, returning troops mentally traumatized but forgotten by their Government.

Or maybe it isn't because of some future kickback - maybe it's just because George doesn't want to lose face. In times past, those who didn't want to lose face met their opponent for a duel, the faster man surviving. In modern times Bush sends young Americans to die for his face and cripples the rest of America through destroying the economy.

Hey, here's the real solution: withdraw our troops to the Kurdish area of Iraq and let the Sunnis and Shiites go at it. If this ignites a wider Sunni/Shiite war to the death throughout the region so much the better. Islam is the enemy of the West, and if the murderous idoits are occupied slaughtering each other hooray!

Sorry - correction to my prior post - I mean ways forward in Iraq - not Iran.

AND THE OSCAR GOES TO........

During the General Election in the year 2000, Mr. Bush said that the Democratic Party was out of touch with the American people. Now who's out of touch, and does not seem to care what the American people are saying? That honor goes to George W. Bush

And here's how I got through the President's speech last night, halfway through it, I began to imagine that it was Academy Awards night. And guess who won most of the Awards, and in almost every category? I will summarize. And the Oscar goes to George W. Bush for the following:

• Best Actor in the dramatic-fictional series, 'The Pretender'. In it George Bush has pretended to be a 'Commander-in-Chief'. .for about 6 years now

• Best impersonator of a President who knows what's going on in America and the world
• Best purveyor of fear (to the American people)

• Best reader of a propaganda screen-play
• Best rendition of a poignant and caring leader

• Best make-up and makeover (made-up & re-fabricated fables) by an American leader
• Best fictionalized account of a factual crisis

• Best animation in reading a short story
• Best musical score, as the President droned on

• Best stage(d) direction, this was all prescripted
• Best dancer (over and over he did the soft-shoe)

• Best overture (To Joe Lieberman) who ran against the President in the 2000 General Election, by the way, why was their no mention of Zel Miller, he lead about 8m Reagan Democrat cross-over voters, and helped you to get elected Mr. Bush?
``````````````````````````````````````````````

The President lost in the following categories

Best President
Best Trilogy - we have heard all of this before
Best musical score (although I thought that I occasionally heard violin music)
And a special award called 'Courage', the President lacks courage...

```````````````````````````````````````````

Quotes of the evening:

America must learn that we can no longer go around the world and knock out 'weapons systems' in those countries, where we don't like their 'weapons systems'...!
Tim Russert

The age of the America Empire is over...!
Patrick Buchannan

````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The Rev has been saying this all the time! This whole matter is so serious, the President would be wise to focus more on what the American people (who elected him) are saying, as opposed to being so wrapped up in what he perceives are the needs of the puppet-government that he set up in Iraq.

Mr. Bush has not only destroyed Iraq, he is more and more destroying America's image in the world, and putting America more and more at risk of attack!

Instead of being smart enough to say, "I'm not going to get bogged down in the Middle East abyss," GW jumps right into a no win situation and hundreds of thousands of people are now dead because of it.

Now he wants more to die.

I'm sorry, that's not a decider, that's an idiot.

Is there any possibility of congress enacting something that allows an envoy of USA diplomats to engage in talks with Syria and Iran and to see what might come out of them in terms of ways forward with Iran? I find it hard to believe that the elected representatives of the people of the United States would have to completely defer to the Bush admin on the question of whether or not to talk to Iran/Syria. Surely there must be some way to engage in talks and bring the results back to the USA for consideration?

Looks like the time for diplomacy has been cemented into oblivion. USA just seized control of the Iranian embassy in Iraq. Such actions were a prelude to war between Iraq and Iran in the 80's. Taking over someone's embassy is a declaration of war. My bet is that actions against Iran will happen so swiftly from here that the world will have little time to question it until after the act is done - then we will see a series of lame excuses that don't add up, as we did for the invasion of Iraq.

Such actions are unlikely to run with favour by the Iraqi Government or its people. The Iraqi Government had been engaging with Iran over solutions for quelling the unrest in Iraq - despite the Bush Admin refusal to engage in talks with them.

To me, the taking over of the Iranian embassy suggests a desperate search for pre-text in a pre-planned strike against Iran.

Just say NO to Bush and Bushs War!!! And say God help us all to the ideologues, functional illiterates, and naive ignoramuses mostly in the South who voted twice for this overgrown, corrupt bully-fratboy-self-absorbed-unaccomplished-Texas-cowboy whos daddy bought him time to play in the White House. And during that time, he has managed singlehandedly, with Cheney and crowds* help, to lay the groundwork for World War III. Impeach him. Try him for war crimes. Then send him to Iraq for his hanging.

The Iraq issue and the so-called "War on Terror" is an example of the maturity or lack of maturity of the United States collectively. We no longer want to resolve conflicts we want perpetual war--that has been our collective decision represented by Mr. Bush. Let's not blame him--he's reflecting American values as they are today. As someone noted above "whack 'em". The Iraq Study Group tried to find a way towards using the principles of conflict resolution and diplomacy to end a difficult conflict. In personal lives we resolve conflicts by listening mainly and then speaking in way that doesn't always make us right. Mr. Bush reflects the tendency we all have to always have to be right and the "other" is always wrong. Perpetual war is perfect for the some of the immature males who write comments here--I imagine that if their children or wives disagree they "whack 'em".

Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that they will provide support to the Sunni insurgents in case the US withdraws. Iran meanwhile recently gave the democratically elected government of Iraq a $1 Billion loan.

And Iran is the one that is fanning the violence?

This is horsesht propaganda.

O America, America, if only you did know the things which belong unto thy peace ! But you have committed National Apostasy and given the right hand of fellowship to the Devil and his Vicar and are rapidly decending into National Ruin, and do not know that the time of your final judgment is very near ! You will not win the war on terror but will "come to your end, and no one will help you " !

Read it Friends ; Daniel 11: 40 - 45 KJV

If Iran is attacked, the situation in Iraq will get 1000X worse. But Bush doesn't care about that and the corporate media might actually continue peddling his lies.

How about the commercial partners of Iran & Syria, do you believe they will not respond to an unilateral act by us ?
It strikes me as a case of psych ops and not a plan that is hardwired . But my fingers are crossed '

World War I spelled the end of the British Empire. A Syria-Iraq-Iran-Afganistan War will spell the end of the American Empire. And the beneficiaris? First of all the ordinary working class American and then ... the rest of the globe.

And Mr. Bush says that and going to do that (going to war) as usual? without presenting
a single evidence that Iran or Syria are really helping US enemies in Iraq? Where did
the justice and the truth go in US? Where did "not guilty until proven guilty" go in the land of the free? It seems to me that Mr. Bushes not presenting any plan to end this war is exactly
what he and the rest of the neoconservative extremists have been planning in years. All this seems to be a plan to start one war after another.

You people watch way too much television and you tube.

"It is only a threat. But it is a far cry from the diplomatic proposals floated just last month for making Syria and Iran part of the solution. Can the president really be saying that we are willing to risk war with the two countries, and even attack elements inside them, to achieve peace in Iraq?"
I don't listen to Bush. Reading his transcript is an exercise in air nausea, as I consider him to be a complete jerk.
Yes, I suspect the President is more than willing to go to war with Syria and Iran to bring "peace" to Iraq.
When we are talking about (2) TWO battalions of the U.S. Marine Corps annd (5) FIVE Brigades of the Army being scraped up ... scraped up ... and knowing those seven units all have men and women who have not been back from Iraq long enough ... and when changes in laws must be made to bring up National Guard and Reserve units which are also under equipped and certainly, "rusty" in their Iraq proficiency ... well, that sounds to me like the German Wehrmacht in the last two years of WW II.
If we are going to strike and seek out targets of those who interfere ... that's gonna be Iran and Syria.
I do not believe either Syrians or Iranians, at this point, would just roll over and stop sending in "volunteers" to Iraq if they're attacked.
Syria and Iran have a mutual defense treaty. I guess Bush doesn't care about that.
He also doesn't care about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Not at all.
Bush will, if given the chance, attack Iran now. He believes he's a great War Time President, and undoubtedly, relishes the role of being "out there, alone," misunderstood, but genius in his boldness, willing to go for broke at the last stage ... Bush loves it.
He is, in fact, out there ... in a world all his own.
Attacking Iran and Syria ... no problem. Genius will win out!
I think that kind of psychology was held by someone else during WW II, wasn't it?
An entire generation was left burned out and worn down by war because someone else thought they were a genius,, too.

Is there any doubt left that Bush is nuts? It seems clear to me that he is about to attack Iran and use the resulting chaos to justify staying in Iraq. Why else would he threaten Iran in a speech designed to ease the concerns of the American public? If Bush can justify sending more troops into Iraq because it would be a "disaster" to pull up stakes now, think of the weight of his argument when Iran and Iraq are both on fire. It's an argument straight out of Catch-22.

Yes, the war will come to an end in 2 years. Clinton and Obama will talk platitudes and retoric while never presenting a platform. They will split the votes of ignorant Democrats who listen to what they are told by the coorperate media. Meanwhile, a small but dedicated following of Congressman Kucinich will have just enough of the Ned Lamont primary voters to take Ohio.
Then, ordinary Americans will awaken to see what has been happening. Corrupt politicians that have turned the U.S. into a country that produces nothing and who's major export is weapons (like f-16's to Turkey, and Nukes to Isreal). Where there is a war that lines the pockets of contracters, bankers,weapons dealers and chronees and has nothing to do with security or democracy. These same people talk of the "trickle-down theory" while passing the money between themselves in the stock market and patting themselves on the back saying the ecconomy is good. Then these same politicians sign free trade deals that export American jobs, exploit off shore tax shelters, use cheap labor, violate koyoto, and then sell the products to 7 dollar an hour service job workers here in the U.S. who have no health insurance and can't afford an education. These smart hard working Americans are fed up and pissed off. They remember that the generation before them could afford to feed a family on one salary and now they can't make it with 2 people working. They understand how the markets worked this feet by keeping salaries stagnent and inflating prices of the products we buy. They know that they are now threatened to loose their Social Security and could be homeless at 70 even though they busted their butts their whole life. Yes, these are the people who are voting this time....2 more years....2 more....

MILE HYLAND:

I appreciate your thoughts but I really doubt your thought process. Knowing numerous Mulsim compratiots and having lived in the middle east, I wonder how you feel about the USA being forefront in providing XXX movies, degragating women, corproate fraud, Crime, etc.

Invading other countries because we feel we are threatened when we are not. Killing foreign citizens that are not involved, by the hundreds if not thousands.

But we want their reseves, we want to blcok China, we want it all.

We could be such a great country if we kept to ourselves and kept to our values. Everyone would want to be here.

Not anymore.

The president yelled FIRE again last night but war weary Americans set stunned on their couchs instead of running up the aisles. We the people have had enough. Our stubborn president wants permanent military bases in the Middle East to protect oil company interests at taxpayer expense because 65 percent of the worlds oil is located there. When Big Oil speaks this administration listens and follows orders so private companies can reap the profits. You see death and injury is not calculated into the price per barrel of oil.

I say we all take a vacation down in Crawford and clear some brush.

History will show GWB as a great War Time President unwilling like his VietNam counterparts to accept the slaughter of millions as the price of peace. Any Idiot knows GWB has just one mission since 9/11. DISARM ISLAM. I hope he succeeds and every world news article since 9/11 cries out at us that this is humanities only solution.

Whack the Jehadis in Afghanistan, Pakiland, Iraq, Lebanon, Somelia,Syria, Iran,Sudan, or anywhere they gather with arms & bombs to murder innocents to glorify Allah.

President Bush has every right to warn any adversary who is arming terrorists to target American troops. Right or wrong, America is at war and his comments on destroying those who provide material support to terrorists should be considered a natural reaction by the Commander in Chief. However when he added that he would vigorously engage Arab states, it sounded like a sigh of relief for Baathists and Al-Ghaeda operatives to garner material support needed to inflame further chaos in Iraq. The fact is President Bush has compromised his alleged war on terrorirsm to weaken those who fully support the elected government of Iraq.

Recycling the same old tactics, repackaging them in a new sales pitch by combining them with hope that this time will be different. I guess you can fool all of the American people some of the time, and most of the American people all the time.

Wake up-Bush is lying when he says we don't have an open ended committment to Iraq. He and his cabal want permanent bases in Iraq. Frankly, if that means killing every Iraqi that stands in our way, so be it.

By the way, when this current plan doesn't work (and it won't), and we don't draw down troops (and we won't), expect the reserves to be involuntarily deployed a second and third time (contrary to promises made). When Bush talks about "sacrifice" he means the military families, not all Americans, and especially not his rich supporters, because we are paying for this debacle on credit.

Bush is alive in Texas.
I hate to say this but being a native Canadian and having lived in San Francisco for 12 years I have been here in Houston, Texas for almost 8 years. I am in the shipping business and having performed work for Bechtel, Halliburton,Flour Daniel and the likes I can honestly say that the Bush Administration is completely connected to these entities, if not commercially or political.

Although the work we perform is honest and dilegent, and most, if not all the people I have dealt with are honest, forthcoming, and straight forward, I question, those few comapanies I have visited that clearly have posted within their offices donation boxes to the Republican Party but none other.

Texas in this regard is totally wierd and from my perspective, politcally incorrect. It should be mandated that any "cash" collections requested by office management be allocaed to which ever party the doner is willing to allocate. Not simply Republican or Democratic or otherwise.

When I saw those "Repulblican" drop boxes in those offices I became an official "Anti Bush" person, even though I consider myself conservative.

The oil and gas industry is alive and well in Texas. Many people in the industry travel the world and it make me wonder why travelled people have such a short-sighted view of world events and politics.

It took me 20 minutes to explain to a veteran "SHELL" empoloyee of Houston that we did not get 50% of our oil from the mid-east but mostly from Canada and Venezuela.
This veteran was 22 years with Shell.

Now do you know where I am going with this?

This will only delay the inevitable. The day we pull out is the day Iraq descends into total anarchy (practically there now). It's not worth any more lives or dollars to delay the upcoming ethnic cleansing. That is what the Iraqis' want, apparently. Let em have it, may the best muslim win...

Holy cow, it sure looks like we are going to go after Iran next.

Mathew O'Sullivan writes that the ISG Report recommends troop increases, citing p. 73 of the report as his source. The pagination he cites does not correspond to that of the ISR Report available at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_president_giveth_and_he_ta.html?nav=rss_blog.

Moreover, his understanding of the report appears to be in error. In the section of the report titled "More Troops for Iraq," the report states:

"Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world."

Since Matthew's fundamental premise fails, his argument collapses. Still, his work is good for that of a sixteen-year-old youth. However, given the factual errors I have identified, I cannot help but wonder if he correctly stated his age.

It's a scary thought, but I guess we have to hope that this forces a Constitutional crisis, which ultimately results in the removal of Bush and Cheney. Two more years of these criminal incompetents is too dangerous.

A wider war is coming, that's for sure..

Moving more Patriot missile batteries and aircraft carrier battle groups into the region..

I used to think we would leave it up to Israel to knock out Iran's nuclear program, but now it looks as if the U.S. is going to do it as part of its campaign against Iran and Syria.

The fact of the matter is, the U.S. would be smart to militarily engage Iran. We could eliminate their nuclear program, and the USAF could make quick work of any standing armies the Iranians or Syrians want to throw into the mix.. and Hell, we're already fighting their special forces in Iraq, so no change there.

The Syrians will not risk sending their army against the U.S. Iran will fight alone in this one. And lose badly.

There's not much they can throw at us. They can block oil shipments, but that will only hurt themselves, and you can bet Saudi Arabia will gladly make up for the lost production, if it hurts Iran to do so.

The end result will be that we will no longer put up with any BS from Iran or Syria, and Iraq will finally become more stable without foreign influence and Iran eliminated as a serious threat.

To those calling for the impeachment of President Bush,

Get a hold of yourselves. First off, look at how much oil we have pulled out of Iraq--no considerable amount at all. Infact, the conflict in Iraq has most likely been detrimental to our country's situation regarding oil. And President Bush is no raging psychotic killer. He may not be a good president, and he may not necessarily grasp concepts of foreign policy, but to claim that he is a murderer is ridiculous.

Consequences be damned, America cannot win in Iraq. America has already lost... unless perhaps she bases 150,000 combat troops in the country for a generation.

And that's not what America will do.

America will pull out in the next few years, leaving a shaky central government. When the last U.S. soliders leave, that government will totally disintegrate in a civil war; after the ensuing bloodbath and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Iraq will separate into three states: Kurdish, Shia, Sunni.

Turkey will likely begin a war on the Kurdish state, whose brothers in Turkey will escalate attacks against Turkish citizens.

Al Qaeda will seek a foothold among Iraqi Sunnis, who are bound to remain aggrieved due to living in a region lacking oil reserves, and still ruing their loss of sway over the nation. Iraqi Sunnis might link with any number of unpleasant groups willing to help them play spoiler and continue to destabilize the region.

And Iran will rule the neighborhood.

Thanks for all your "hard work," President Bush.

Actually, my bipartisan commission most strongly recommended the "surge" option as Mr. Bush puts it, and we are thankful he is wisely heeding our advice.

Bush must be impeached. He will do anything to keep the war machine rolling along, and getting his cheap, sick thrills from death --- and stealing Iraq's Oil. PLEASE Democrats introduce articles of impeachment tomorrow.

the military industrial complex is in full swing. it will be hard to stop, but the american people can stop it, because the leaders do listen to the people, or else they wouldnt waste time going on television to tell them anything. bush is doing what all his corporate buddies are telling him to do. spend americas money in the middle east, waging war, so as to secure/steal iraq's oil for our corporations. and then hand the rebuilding contracts to haliburton and bechtel, as we all already know. i cant believe so many americans fall for his lies.

Actually, upon reading the Iraq Study Group Report, you will read that a "surge" is the military recommendation most greatly supported by Baker, Hamilton, and their co-workers (page 73 of the Report), therefore Bush is actually accepting their advice in regards to that matter--of course seeing whether or not he carries it out in the suggested fashion is still up for debate. His approach to Syria and Iran is all wrong; interaction with Iraq's neighbors is a crucial element of success for the outcome of this conflict. Iran is a powerful nation militarily and will not be submissive in response to blantant threats. The Syrian Arab Republic not only supports Iran but also once maintained a legacy of a strong willed military under President Assad's father; if Syria was to back-down, Bashar al-Assad would recieve widened domestic criticism. I suggest you all read the Iraq Study Group Report too before blasting out ignorant comments. I have, and I'm sixteen.

I'll be damned! It looks like the Dems are going to do it! No sooner do I say - in my earlier post - that they don't have the guts to do it than they do it. Stand up to Bush. Stop fundiing for his escalation. That's what the WP front page article "Dems Seek to Block Funds for (Bush's escalation) Plan" seems to say. Let's hope they're right.

I see alot of attention paid to Iran and it's medling in Iraq. I did not see one comment about the influence of Saudi Arabia, our supposed freinds. Egypt is seeing a continuous exodus of Christians due to the influence of Saudi sectarian beleifs in that country. Officially the Saudi Royal Family is on the side of America. But where is the mindset of the average Saudi citizen. Their economy is wonderful, with oil revenue coming in by the bucket load. Yet, many Saudi's refuse to work, leaving many of their sub-standard work posts attended by foreign nationals such as Indians and Pakistani's.
The Iranians definately have their ideas as how the region should evolve. But I beleive the Saudi's do as well. The Iranians at least are clear about their foreign stratagies. The Saudi's seem to be sitting on a fence post. Considered as dependable allies towards U.S. intersts I would like to see more engagement with the Saudi's to open up their society and be more open about their intentions within the region. Lest we forget, Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, a majority of the HiJackers were Saudi nationals, and much of the funding towards religious Islamic schools outside Saudi Arabia including Afghanistan and Pakistan originate in some form from the Kingdom in form of private or national funds.

Perhaps they are our allies because they are "quiet".

Everything here fits with Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice. They don't listen. They hate not being able to dictate their thoughts. The idea of negotiating with anyone is unnatural for them. So it was Ms. Rice who rejected Mr. Baker's suggestions out of hand. So it is Mr. Bush who will now try to impose his "solution" once again on the ME without taking into account anyone else.

THE DECIDER = THE DIVIDER

IRAQ = ILLUSION & INCOMPETANCE

BUSH'S LEGACY = A FOOL'S WAR

The President must think the American people are stupid. We will not be duped by the new word "surge." It is the same policy all over again. We've added and subtracted 10-20 thousand troops again and again. We've said before that the Iraqi army and police will take responsibility, but they are still not well trained and they are full of Shiites who will be unable and unwilling to control the Shiite militias of Al Sadr. Attempts at reconstruction have fizzled before and no doubt will again. What we need is a gradual drawdown beginning immediately, coupled with a major diplomatic effort involving all countries in the region, including Iran and Syria. It is immoral to send yet more American troops into this increasingly fatal caldron to support the very same policy that has long since proven to be a disastrous failure.

The Financial Times of London (hardly a branch of the liberal media) recently described the White House as "trapped between delusion and denial." This latest Iraq plan sounds like confirmation of that scathing condemnation. It's hard to imagine how 20,000 more troops in Iraq is going to suddenly stabilize a country that has been sliiping towards anarchy for over a year. If we're really going to "surge," we should double or triple the troop strength with a mult-national peacekeeping force that shows a global commitment to Iraq. The President's current plan is too little, too late; it's just "Stay the Course" repackaged and respun. There's an old saying that doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results is a form of insanity. It would seem that our fearless leader is more than in denial, he's just crazy. And we're crazy to keep following him.

Regardless of what Preznit Fruitcake SAYS, his magic-bullet force of additional troops is going to have to stay there indefinitely - just like the others - if the plan is to hold captured territory. Recent history has shown that as soon as US troops leave, violence spikes and there is a flurry of reprisal killings to weed out those who might have helped them. The presence of US troops becomes the kiss of death as soon as they leave. The obvious solution, if you are a US soldier, is to start browsing the Iraqi real-estate brochures.

George Bush=Antichrist

Pretty obvious, isin't it?

windrider [11:33 pm], you're absolutely right. Bush has lost it. Not only his war but his mind. He,s in the grips of blind panic, flail;ing about wildly, deaf and blind to reason. It,s a frightening thing to see. What can we do about it? Impeach him? And Cheney?
We don,t have time for that. We have to stop him now. How? Simple. Just cut off his money.
Starting with the 100 billion $ supplemental appropriation bill he,s just submitted. If only the Dems in the House had the guts to do it!........................................................

Note to all posters: Comments are being printed in reverse order, i.e., latest are printed first, not last. Go figure.

==The remark on Israel and holocous by the Iran president make me really suprise and I cannot understand why such a irresponsible and careless man beocme a president. Moreover, they try to make iraq for their new coloney.==

I agree. It is unacceptable that Iraq, where 60% of the population is shiite and whose current leaders lived in Iran for decades, become an Iranian colony. It is rightfuly our colony.

Yeah, Ed we will suit you up with all of the hand grenades and magazines and 2 m16's but then it's all you Rambo.

==exterminate the religious madmen who create all this hatred and turmoil==

It has a nice ring to it. Extermination to end hatred is a good strategy.

Even a cursory study of history will reveal a very common tendency of powerful nations to spend money waging wars until they run out of it. Athens, Rome, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, are good examples of this over the years.

It seems the United States of America, with it's burgeoning trade deficits and trillion-dollars war in Iraq may be following down that same well-worn path.

As a veteran from World War II, Korean and
Vietnam,This war is even more of Terror
than of anything that has ever transpired.
We have our troops there, bring in, as many
as it takes,invade whoever provides sanctuary
and support to the terrorists,and exterminate
the religious madmen who create all this
hatred and turmoil.If it is'nt done now,
it will have to be done at a later date.
There is no turning back. Iran and Syria
have to be confronted.

COmpletely off the rails, our president. It's time for Congress to take a page from Nancy Reagan's book and "just say no!"

As a veteran from World War II, Korean and
Vietnam,This war is even more of Terror
than of anything that has ever transpired.
We have our troops there, bring in, as many
as it takes,invade whoever provides sanctuary
and support to the terrorists,and exterminate
the religious madmen who create all this
hatred and turmoil.If it is'nt done now,
it will have to be done at a later date.
There is no turning back. Iran and Syria
have to be confronted.

Wow! We broke it, we own it.

George's shopping list:
1. Screw things up worse than they are in Iraq. (To keep Haliburton in the money)
2. Create justification to overthrow Iran.
3. Sell it to the people.
4. Denounce the opposers as being unpatriotic.
5. Create justification to overthrow Syria.
6. Sell it to the people.
7. Denounce the opposers as being unpatriotic.
8. Continue to justify my actions by abusing the War Powers act.
9. Create justification to overthrow Korea...
10. Blame the Democrats for screwing things up in Iraq if they refuse me the purse funds for my new debacle.
11. Show everyone else how to control their borders like we do.
12. Learn to pronounce newciler.
13. Continue to supress my almost overwhelming urge to yell YEEEE HAAA! at the end of all my speeches.("I'm the decider" is good enough)
14. Try to look more serious while supressing my natural urge to smirk.
15. Continue to replace those who disagree with me with those who agree with me. (for they are evil doooers).
16. Send chocolates and flowers to all my corporate and evangelical backers.

OK..I heard the Prez....I'm really depressed now...I'm going to bed and say my prayers..."Please God, stop this cowboy before 'America' becomes a dirty word like..'democrat'..or..'liberal'..or..'progressive'..please make him a good lameduck with a legacy for making Jon Stewart rich".
Amen

I believe Bush will not need to talk with Iran or Syria because they are some kind of terriosts and war lords and they are also islamic extremists.The remark on Israel and holocous by the Iran president make me really suprise and I cannot understand why such a irresponsible and careless man beocme a president. Moreover, they try to make iraq for their new coloney.

Pullquote:
"There is an ominous element here: When the President pledged to "seek out and destroy the networks supporting our enemies in Iraq," to me, that means the threat of strikes on targets in those two countries."
[...]

According to the UK papers, British commandos have been working the Iranian border for months now, ostensibly looking for gun smugglers.

Apparently they aren't finding any.

The question is: If there is no gun smuggling going on along the Iranian border, won't the presence of British commandos eventually create a situation where the Iranians et al near the border feel the need to *bring* weapons there?

A self-fulfilling prophesy that the Bush administration would love to 'play' against.

But don't worry... Tony 'Poodle' Blair is on point with his commandos... Of course we'll find the weapons... Just like we found the WMDs.

FWIW, AK-47s are MUCH easier to place than fissionable material, and if the serial numbers on those guns are checked when found, perhaps they are the same ones the Pentagon lost track of a few months ago... was it 250,000 of them?

The Bosnian air shipper that 'vanished' them could easily deliver them to a forward air base... I believe the company is still working for the Pentagon in Iraq and in the Bosnian/Chechen theater.

It's a nasty thought, but these people (Our governments) have been lying from the git, and they're too far in to stop *now*

Two things we can all work on right away... today.

1] Bring the troops home NOW. Not next month or next year... NOW!

When your congressman or senator come home for the winter recess... visit them, and if they voted one red cent for the continuation of our illegal war on Iraq, refuse to leave.

It's easy, sociable, and honestly, it's FUN!

Veterans For Peace is organizing it... you'll be supporting our soldiers.

2] Impeach George W. Bush, if only to make him and his administration eligible for civil suits and war crimes prosecution.

When the legislature passed the military commisions act, they removed the only block to international war crimes trials, which was that the victims had recourse in US courts... now they don't, and at least one petition (in Germany if I recall) has been re-filed.

Impeach him, and let the war crimes prosecutions begin!

Leigh
www.leighm.net

"seek out and destroy" I'd like to shake the hand of the poindexter speachalist who wrote that line. Mental patients murmur the same thing as they pace up and down the hallways. The reason the violence is so close to Bagdad is because the American military has made it quite clear that they do not discriminate between "civilian" and "sectarian" in their aerial maneuvers. Which is great one less arab to protect right? Bomb em all and get it over with. Hey, nobodies gotta know about it.

Our mentally deranged President has finally completely lost _all_ sense of reality. How many people does the U.S. have to murder so we may write the history books patting ourselves on the back for freeing Iraq from Saddam, only to take over Iraq for ourselves?

We've installed the puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even they don't like us or trust us, so still need to whip them into shape no matter what it costs in Iraq and Afghanistan lives.. We never intended to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan--we've built military ba