Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > November > 26 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USObama gets a break in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Michael Yon, the conservatives’ favorite war blogger and a guy who deserves a lot of credit for his work in Iraq, has a piece in the New York Post headlined “Iraq’s New Dawn: Victory Across the Board.”
That’s a little broad and premature by my reading. Nonetheless, Yon’s overall assessment seems accurate. By his and other first-hand accounts, Iraq has turned an important corner.
Veteran NY Times reporter Dexter Filkins, for example, said the following back in September in an email interview with Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic.
“The progress here is remarkable. I came back to Iraq after being away for nearly two years, and honestly, parts of it are difficult for me to recognize. The park out in front of the house where I live — on the Tigris River — was a dead, dying, spooky place. It’s now filled with people — families with children, women walking alone, even at night. That was inconceivable in 2006. The Iraqis who are out there walking in the parks were making their own judgments Âthat it is safe enough for them to go out for a walk. They’re voting with their feet. It’s a wonderful thing to see.”
But as Yon and Filkins both note in various ways, the future is uncertain. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis still have very different ideas for the future of Iraq, as do individuals within those groups, and their buy-in to democracy as a way of resolving those conflicting ideas is shallow. They also have a lot of guns and a tendency to use them.
“It’s pretty clear that the calm is very fragile,” says Filkins. “The calm is built on a series of arrangements that are not self-sustaining; indeed, some of which, like the Sunni Awakening, are showing signs of coming apart. So the genie is back in the bottle, but I’m not sure for how long.”
Personally, I will be very pleasantly shocked if the democratic structure we see in place in Iraq is still there five years from now. But for the moment, let’s accept the progress for what it is. A lot has been written about the immense challenges facing Barack Obama as he assumes the presidency, and it’s justified. But on Iraq, he’s gotten a break. Events there have broken in such a way as to allow him to pursue the withdrawal he has long advocated under conditions more positive than most people thought likely.
He’s also putting together a defense/foreign policy team as pragmatic, experienced and sober as his economics team. Clinton at State, Gates at Defense, Marine Gen. Jim Jones (ret.) as national security adviser. This is not the wild-eyed, Marxist/socialist administration that the Republicans depicted in the campaign — quite the opposite. But nobody who paid honest attention to Obama’s statements should be surprised by the fact that the GOP’s caricature was so inaccurate.
On Iraq, Obama’s Cabinet picks would be quite comfortable carrying out the policies laid out by the president-elect in the campaign, and it’s unlikely to be controversial. In effect, the fate of Iraq can increasingly be left in the hands of the Iraqis, where it belonged in the first place. We’ve got other things to worry about.
UPDATE:
I just got off the phone with Michael Yon, who’s embedded with a unit in southern Afghanistan. He wanted to explain that he too thought the headline in his New York Post piece was a little too broad and premature. He is indeed optimistic about the direction things are headed in Iraq, he said, but “Victory Across the Board” is far too sweeping a statement.
He wished me a Happy Thanksgiving, and I couldn’t help thinking that mine will be a lot more comfortable than his will.
Services »
Comments
By DB, Gwinnettian
November 26, 2008 7:27 AM | Link to this
“That’s a little broad and premature by my reading.”
Well, as you know, it’s the Murdoch Post. They’re all about the broad and the premature.
Speaking of dead-tree papers, it was a little weird to read your bit about the interregnum in today’s opinion pages. I could’ve sworn you’d posted it online at least a week ago. (Of course it was just this past Monday.)
By leni
November 26, 2008 7:31 AM | Link to this
Since US and coalition forces have been and are in Iraq under a UN mandate, and since that mandate expires in about a week, the Big O can just send some limos over there and bring the boys home.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 7:55 AM | Link to this
That’s a little broad and premature by my reading.
If it does turn into a failure, it will be hung around Oblahma’s neck.
Until “then,” y’all go ahead a pimp Bush’s victory, the victory that you fought against every step of the way.
Most decent people would say, at this point in the game, I was wrong and I am glad no one listened to me, because if we had withdrawn, Iraq would have become another national disgrace with millions more dead, like the democrat treason of Vietnam.
But no, not a power mongering lying liberal, they just keep right on acting like they know what they’re talking about.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Obama: Economic rescue trumps fight to trim deficit-Urinal/DNC
Or better known as “more of the same failed policies of George Bushie.”
Thank you very much for the concurrence.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
Liberals never get tired of lying-
Fueled by rising unemployment and food prices, the number of Americans on food stamps is poised to exceed 30 million for the first time this month, surpassing the historic high set in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.-Urinal/DNC
No credit for Bushie, eh?:
As of Oct. 1, 2008, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the new name for the federal Food Stamp Program.
The new name reflects our focus on nutrition and putting healthy food within reach for low income households. Changes have been made to make the Program more accessible.-USDA
By TW
November 26, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
In much the same way as the supplement checks this summer put off the inevitable with our economy (maybe Bush should have held them back until Sept?), the allowance we were paying the Sunni was a fundamental figure in the ‘surge.’ With that gone, we are fools to make any assessment on Iraq until those Sunni have found ‘legitimate’ employment elsewhere.
Reports on their assimilation into the Shiite dominated government would be nice.
Did we build a strong foundation last year – or is it a sand castle? To think that one buckled down year of American effort can supplant the history between these rivals groups seems to ring a little ignorant.
‘We will be granted as liberators’??????????????????????????
By Taxpayer
November 26, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Andy,
You’re getting even more desperate than usual this morning, aren’t you. Are you not getting enough attention at home? work? the local bars?
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
TW: Not “desperate” enough to stalk a fellow blogger, like you are.
By Ray
November 26, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
One visible aspect of the war centers around soccer moms who didn’t have to stand in line once during the last five years that the American military has been preserving their lust for gasoline to fill those GMC Yukons. If you think that we give a hot damn about the Iraqis and their problems, think again. The first Gulf war, being in bed with the Saudis, this latest five years….. all preserving our fossil fuel supply. The Annointed One, despite his high flying claims to “stabilize” the Middle East, will continue to preserve this precious commodity or he will be a one term president.
By TW
November 26, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
TW: Not “desperate” enough to stalk a fellow blogger, like you are.
Paranoid, arrogant, or both?
But since you mentioned it, aren’t you the same poster who said McSame was gonna win?
Yeah, that was you. Trust you now post with a brown sack on your head?
By mm
November 26, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Pulled as a personal attack.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
How far we have come as a nation-
….And for the season it was winter, and they know that the winters of that country [are] sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men—and what multitudes there might be of them they know not….If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world….What could now sustain them but the spirit of God and his grace? -William Bradford, December 16th, 1620
If they only had the federal government to whine to, eh?
God not only gave them safety, shelter and prosperity, he gave them the greatest nation on Earth, bar none.
And all they had to do was ask.
And have Faith.
Such quaint notions.
By Taxpayer
November 26, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Andy,
It was I, Taxpayer, that inquired about your desperation — not TW. Now, apologize to TW for your unwarranted assault and attack me instead.
By Ray
November 26, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Bookman,.
Do I see a hint of a budding journalist in your words this morning? Nah…… just dreaming.
By Mike
November 26, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
“”President Bush and others are proposing to escalate our effort in Iraq…It is a futile gesture, a vain attempt to salvage what is already lost…” - Jay Bookman
Gee, Jay. Can’t you just admit you were wrong? You and the rest of the left hammer Bush for supposedly never doing so. You might even go nuts and admit that Bush was right about the Surge, but I wouldn’t expect to kernels of intellectual honesty to come from you in the same month, let alone the same day.
Also, Obama didn’t get a “break”. He and the rest of us are just beneficiaries of a strategy that he opposed.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
TW, Taxpayer and all the other libs whining about me on this blog-
I can’t help it if y’all look the same, so sue me if you don’t like it.
By Leni
November 26, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Check the on-line Reason gif of Hitler juggling a watermelon.
By Bruce becker
November 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Murdoch’s writer missed a key point. Bush/Condi still dont have a Kurdish solution, including a negotiated sharing agreement for oil among the three groups. The oil and Kurds will plague Obamba, and I think its intentional. Bush never wanted to leave Iraq, as you could see from the mid-campaign sloganeering from McCain who was still peddling the Germany/Japan look of occupation until the Iraqi’s said no thanks. So no, Virginia, there’s no Santy Claus for us in Iraq. They are just sweeping the oil/Kurds under the rug for now.
By Joey
November 26, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Jay posted 9 paragraphs, about 500 words about a peaceful Iraq. Guess what words never appeared in the posting.
Surge, President Bush, General Petreus, relocate the troops to Afganistan.
Jay closes with this: “The fate of Iraq increasingly can be left in the hands of Iraqis, where it belonged in the first place.” Would Jay write or agree with any of the following?
The fate of South Korea should be left in the hands of South (and therefore North) Koreans.
The fate of Israel should be left in the hands of Israelis? (Meaning the U.S. should not protect or restrain Israel.)
The fate of the Middle-East should be left in the hands of Middle-Easterners.
The fate of Europe should be left in the hands of Europeans. (Meaning we should withdraw all troops and equipment.)
The fate of Darfur should be left in the hands of Darfurians.
Please tell us Jay. Which countries are you and P-E Obama willing to protect and defend?
By Bruce becker
November 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
cleaning up a typo: Bush/Condi still dont have a Kurdish solution, including a negotiated sharing agreement for oil among the three groups. The oil and Kurds will plague Obama, and I think its intentional. The Kurds are the next-big thing, waiting to happen. Bush never wanted to leave Iraq, as you could see from the mid-campaign sloganeering from McCain who was still peddling the Germany/Japan look of occupation until the Iraqi’s said no thanks. So no, Virginia, there’s no Santa Claus for us in Iraq. Bush and Condi are just sweeping the oil/Kurds under the rug for now.
By TW
November 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Also, Obama didn’t get a “break”. He and the rest of us are just beneficiaries of a strategy that he opposed.
Beneficiaries? Like the guy who shoots you deciding to call 911 before he bolts? We’d be the beneficiary of that call? Gee…thanks.
We’ve lost 4000+, are out hundreds of billions, and the guy who pulled the trigger still breathes?
Hmmm, let me see…I think I’ll go with Obama and catch bin laden - but no war in Iraq for a hundred, Regis…
By Taxpayer
November 26, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Whining. An interesting choice of word for Andy to pick as a descriptor of another blogger. Further, TW and Taxpayer look the same to you! I’d be willing to bet that this is not the only time or place that you’ve used a similar line when describing others that you perceive to be undesirably different from yourself. Finally, I see that you still cannot find it in your hardened heart to even admit your error without framing it within more hatred.
By the way, let me know if you would like to explore this notion of Internet stalking some more. After all, I would truly like to hear more of your fascination with the AJC and Cynthia Tucker.
Later. I’m off for now.
By DB, Gwinnettian
November 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Isn’t it time that we started focusing our attention on the original terrorists?
By Mike
November 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
“By TW November 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this Also, Obama didn’t get a “break”. He and the rest of us are just beneficiaries of a strategy that he opposed.
Beneficiaries? Like the guy who shoots you deciding to call 911 before he bolts? We’d be the beneficiary of that call? Gee…thanks.”
Well, let’s extrapolate your “logic”:
If we continue your analogy, Bookman and Obama were vocally opposed to 911. Is that what you are saying?
We understand that folks like yourself really hate Bush, Super. That doesn’t change the fact that the Surge was successful, Bush was for it and Bookman and Obama were against it.
I was not arguing that the war was a good idea, I was arguing that the Surge was a good idea. All of you partisan “intellectuals” seem to conflate all issues into one “Bush am bad” narrative, which is silly in in simplicity. Bookman knows better, but I doubt that you do.
By VietnamEraVet
November 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
The fact that anyone in this country can support this war for reasons long proven false is proof positive of the dumbing down of America. Now that no WMDs were found and no connection to Al Quida made, the reason given now is some bs about freedom for the Iraqis. Thats fine except for the fact that you have no assurance that they will not use that freedom to vote to ally themselves with their fellow Sheites in Iran.
Its just amazing how so many people are lead to support with less thought than they put into buying a used car! Like lambs to the slaughter they go believing everything they are told by people who sit on their asses while others fight and who will not even pay for this war themselves preferring to pile more debt on our kids! But hate and fear are powerful things and Bush Co has done a masterful job of creating and exploiting both!
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
By Taxpayer November 25, 2008 2:10 PM Andy
By Taxpayer November 25, 2008 12:37 PM Andy
By Taxpayer November 23, 2008 8:40 AM Andy
By Taxpayer November 22, 2008 8:27 PM Andy
By Taxpayer November 20, 2008 4:30 PM Andy
By Taxpayer November 20, 2008 8:29 AM Andy’s
Alright, here’s your challenge, if you can find where I “stalked” Queen Pinko in one week’s worth of commenting as much as Taxpayer stalked me, you will win…………………something.
Good luck!
By getalife
November 26, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Iran should thank us for getting rid of their enemy and the Shiites are very happy. Sunnis want more say in government and Kurds want no part in government. They have a divided country too and the Shiites and Iran rule. Iran won the Iraq war.
Our troops should get home earlier than expected and that is a relief for their families.
I do not thank we can afford any more wars for a long time so there will be peace.
By AmVet
November 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
VietnamEraVet, well said.
READY! FIRE! AIM!
We should not have lost one American life in the shiitehole.
NOT ONE.
Not just duplicitous, Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Tenet//Rice/ Feith/Perle/ Wolfowitz/Chambliss ad nauseum are EASILY some of the most gutless “decision” makers in our nation’s long history.
As are their ardent but dwindling Reich-wing apologists and sociopaths…
By "The Corporal"
November 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Please keep a couple of things in mind:
1) Obama was a stealth candidate -meaning what he ran on is not exactly what he is promoting at this time. Disingenous at best - outright false at worst.
2) That means he will be just as we suspected - a stealth president. We still don’t know who he really is.
3) Due to our two term system, Obama is running for President in 2012 right now so he has to continue to try to appeal to everyone. If he is elected a second time, we will see the real Obama.
By Midori
November 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Hey Corporal!! I’ve found something you may or may NOT be interested in:
‘Natural Born’ Baloney
Debunking the urban legend about the Supreme Court and Obama’s citizenship.
No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president.
Normally this would be “Bottom Story of the Day” material, but lots of crazy rumors have been going around, albeit mostly on blogs and other Web sites of the far-right fringe. Last week, however, David Serchuk of Forbes.com rehearsed one of them, giving us an opportunity to set the record straight. Here’s Serchuk:
You’ve got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn’t give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong. Berg filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in late October, asking that the highest court review the decision of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The latter court dismissed Berg’s claims because he lacked standing to bring them. Standing requires plaintiffs to prove they are directly affected by the issue at hand, with evidence of injury that is concrete and particular. In its decision the district court said Berg “does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact.” It also dismissed his claims as frivolous. Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1… .
One of the pillars of Berg’s argument is that Obama doesn’t have a legally-valid U.S. birth certificate because he was born in Kenya …
TRANSLATION: Keep right on grasping at those straws regarding this NON ISSUE
By Copyleft
November 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Joey:
Please tell us Jay. Which countries are you and P-E Obama willing to protect and defend?
I would hope that they’d answer, “Mainly, the United States.” That IS the country we’re committed to. Not Israel. Not Iraq. Not South (or North) Korea.
Anything wrong with that?
By Greg Mendel
November 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
So, Iraqis are walking in parks, unmolested. That’s good, no doubt. Of course, they walked in parks, unmolested, for many years before we invaded their country. In the interim, as many as 600,000 of them were killed, thousands more fled the country.
For the first time since the reign of Saddam, peace and stability came to Baghdad after enough civil warriors killed each other off or relocated, and the US Army and 100,000+ private hired guns finally owned streets.
In that respect, the Surge worked. I was skeptical about the Surge, but I have a lot of confidence in General Petraeus. (Read “Fiasco.” It’ll leave you sick of Bush, but admiring of Petraeus.) The Surge was intended as a “political window.” The pacification part worked. I question the political success. The peace was literally bought from the Sunnis, which was nothing new, considering the Coalition of the Willing.
Iraqi peace and stability — even temporary — is certainly a good thing. But, the adventure of Iraq is a bit like driving your car off the road at 90 mph, climbing out of the wreckage, and telling the cop your survival was a great success.
By mike hussein smith
November 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Oh, management at 8:16, I’m so happy that George Bush has taken the bold step of changing the name of the food stamp program into something ‘snappy’ — so to speak. Call for the Nobel judges: This could be W.’s road to legacy land. This bold step might keep the unemployed haughty from dying of shame, especially if SNAP offices are set up in country clubs. Screw the Dow! We got new word games to play.
By TW
November 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
I was not arguing that the war was a good idea, I was arguing that the Surge was a good idea.
Sheep don’t argue - the reiterate what they’ve been told.
baa…baa…
As I have stated, best hold judgement of the ‘surge,’ as the fundamentals that led to it have yet to be resolved.
As far as the war, well, the jury’s been back on that for a while now…
By AJC/DNC Management
November 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
By Greg Mendel November 26, 2008 11:34 AM So, Iraqis are walking in parks, unmolested. That’s good, no doubt. Of course, they walked in parks, unmolested, for many years before we invaded their country
America the evil!!!
The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official “activity” as the “violation of women’s honor.” (U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
By Joey
November 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Copyleft (11:31): Your “hope” is fine, however it means something only as regards your hope. What does your statement mean???
You do say “mainly the U.S.”, then go on to exclude Israel, Iraq and South Korea. Which countries or areas do we include in Copy’s umbrella of protection? Afganistan, Europe, Middle-East, Somalia, Georgia, Ukraine, others?
By Greg Mendel
November 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Cut & Paste Manglement:
It’s a fact — Saddam was a brutal dictator. It’s also a fact that he turned a backwards, illiterate, religiously-controlled country into a well-educated, highly-productive modern society, with first-class health care and revolutionary freedoms and opportunities for women in a repressive Islamic region. He brought electricity to rural Iraq. He abolished Shia courts, and created a Western-style court system. These are improvements that his evil doesn’t reverse, but our invasion may.
Still, he was a brutal dictator who ruthlessly crushed opponents. Who were his opponents? The Shia, both in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East. They opposed his secular government and his modernism — the same fundamentalist fanaticism embodied by al queda.
Still, he was a brutal dictator. Not brutal enough, however, to prevent the Reagan administration and Bush I administration from giving him military and financial aid. Saddam was the third largest recipient of US foreign aid. The first Bush administration supported Saddam’s claim that Iran was responsible for gassing the Kurds until the truth became more useful.
The administration was content with Saddam’s brutality until he invaded Kuwait. ALL Iraqis thought, and continue to think, Kuwait is an integral part of Iraq, stolen by British imperial manipulation. Saddam also accused Kuwait of “slant-drilling” oil under Iraqi borders, which it was.
Still, Saddam was a brutal dictator. And even though Reagan and Bush had consistently supported Saddam for years, his invasion of Kuwait threatened to destabilize world oil markets. In Saddam’s view, the Gulf War was a dishonorable betrayal of a long, tacit alliance.
So, the fact that he was a brutal dictator was finally acknowledged. George Bush the 2nd, used it (along with other raisons du jour) to invade Iraq in 2003.
Still, there are other brutal dictators and monarchs. Many of them brutally rule African and Asian nations. We’re good buddies with some of them. And some of them are a little too dangerous for us to invade in a cakewalk.
That’s the problem with sanctimoniously claiming the moral high ground and being the world’s policeman. If we belatedly identify a brutal dictator and liberate his nation, why are we not morally obligated — with our military power, goodness, and godliness — to liberate the rest? North Korea comes to mind, as does Burma, Zimbabwe and several others.
America is not evil. As Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they’ve tried everything else.”
By sunshine and thunder
November 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
VietNameravat
You wrote:
The fact that anyone in this country can support this war for reasons long proven false is proof positive of the dumbing down of America
Oh, I get it. The minute a war goes bad it’s “point-your-blame-finger” time. How is it that so many armchair quarterbacks are so quick to condemn the administration and the President but were so gung ho, let’s get ‘em before the war started.
Should we fight all wars like they were a Saturday matinee’? If the bad guys aren’t dead by the time the popcorn’s finished then just go home? It’s a good thing that adults are in charge of foreign policy.
It makes me sick what people like you (who call themselves vets) do to the morale of troops who are putting their lives on the line.
DemocRATs sent us to war as much as Bush did.
By Greg Mendel
November 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
Sunshine:
I’m glad you posted that link to snopes.com. Maybe you think it proves your point, but I suggest you actually read it. Not the wingnut out-of-context garbage, but what snopes said about it. And read, for example, the WHOLE statement by John Kerry at the bottom.
Nowhere does it indicate that, as you say, “Democrats sent us to war as much as Bush did.” The opposite, in fact.
By Midori
November 26, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Now, now Greg.
Asking a bit much, aren’t you?
You know, that using “basic reading skills” stuff?
P.S. — You’re my new hero :)
By Greg Mendel
November 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this
Midori:
Ain’t nobody’s hero, dear. I’m as opinionated as anyone, and I understand others have their own points of view. But, can’t stand stuff taken completely out of context, regardless of political partisanship.
By Taxpayer
November 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Well,
I see Andy threw a little trash my way while I was gone. Andy, for one thing, you know that Jay would get on to me if I even tried to list all you references to the AJC. To start with, you soil the AJC with every single post by proclaiming yourself to be a part of AJC management. Then, countless numbers of your posts insult the very paper that you proclaim yourself to be associated with via your use of the descriptor Urinal. Pitiful, Andy. Really pitiful. Come on now, you can do better than that, Can’t you.
By sunshine and thunder
November 26, 2008 11:23 PM | Link to this
Greg Mendel
Are you really that blind? What do they put in the water you left nuts drink? In the statement you reference Kerry is saying that UN resolution 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm or face serious consequences.
What in the hell are those “serious consequences”? A lawsuit?
Yeah, all of you neo peaceniks were so unified against the terrorists. Bull!
The minute something went wrong you were drooling over bad press from the MSM. You were calling Bush a criminal and claiming the war was for oil.
What idiocy.
No one aided and abetted the enemy more than the liberal press, liberal academia and liberal, soi disant experts and people like you and that vet guy. I have no use for any of you.
Mothers, fathers, spouses, sisters and brothers of our military men and women should always hold a special hatred for those who so willingly sent them to war and then demanded they come home before the job was finished.
Even the shameless John Kerry admitted he voted against funding the troops.
Yeah, that’s right. Send our children to a gunfight with no ammunition.
Way to go left nuts.