Opinion Talk

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Hello:

I’m in a classroom at the Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, with 17 majors, most of whom have served tours in Iraq, and all of whom expect to be rotated into Iraq at the end of their year-long, mid-career study program here.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

I’ve been asked two questions so far:

Am I a liberal or conservative? Liberal, I said, at least in the context of Georgia.

Do you believe that general officers can be trusted, another asked.

Yes, I said. I have no question that Petraeus, for example, will tell the truth as he sees it.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Ike Skelton, speaking now, is a conservative Democratic congressman from nearby Missouri, well-respected in the military and a longtime supporter of defense. He is scheduled to speak here at the command college later this week, and his concern about military preparedness and the impact of this extended commitment is real.

By backfromiraq

September 10, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman, you already told us your response in your column yesterday. You sir are one of those intrepid journalists who sits in his Air conditioned offices espousing untruths and falsehoods based on unsubstantiated sources from like minded liberal anti-military media members who are a disgrace to America.

Remember what Theodore Roosevelt said because you certainly fit that bill: It is not the critic that counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worse if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall NEVER be with those cold and Timid souls who know neither victory of defeat”

By DwayneL

September 10, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Here’ my background:

• I voted for Bush in both elections (lesser of the evils in my opinon) -I supported the reason for going into Iraq and removing Sadaam.

That being said, I think we need to work on strategy to get out of Iraq. However, it needs to be planned and executed by the generals in the field, not by politicians.

By geekboy

September 10, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction.”—Blaise Pascal

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

The issue of Petraeus credibility is getting a lot of attention here. I think the Moveon ad labeling Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us was out of line, although I’ll also note that the nickname is longstanding and was initiated by some of the general’s Army subordinates as he rose through the ranks. But like any good military commander, Petraeus always thinks he can get the job done. He’s wired that way. It was inevitable that his report would focus on the positive in Iraq, because the “git ‘er done” attitude is in his DNA.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

With the technical delay and the failure of the microphone to work, there’s a lot of joking in the room about some Signal Corps officers getting fired as we speak.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this

I have always admired your essays, Mr. Bookman. And kudos to you for ignoring the personal attacks from the pro war/I love Bush crowd.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

“Notice how all the POLITICIANS’ mikes worked,” one guy notes….

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

I met Petraeus here at Fort Leavenworth a year ago, and had about an hour with him back then. That was before he was named commander in Iraq, and we’ve emailed a few times in the year since, usually in response to a piece I had written. He has from the beginning stressed his intention to be honest with Congress and the American people about what is happening in Iraq. I don’t doubt the sincerity of that promise. I just think that he’s been told to take that hill, so to speak, and he’s never going to admit it can’t be done with the forces and time he has at his disposal.

By JB

September 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this

Bookman told us what uniform he wore last. I believe that he like many liberals would want to talk to the enemy as he was storming the beach on one of our coast. I am a veteran,as Patton said “war is hell”. If you cannot be as ruthless as your enemy, you will surley lose this type of war,which we will because we as a country do not have the stomach for this type of conflict. They enemy is taking the same apporach as Somolia,its just taking longer.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Petraeus is repeatedly stressing the reportedly greater role played by Iran in the violence in Iraq. A few of the officers exchange meaningful glances at that point.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

To JB:

I suspect that Petraeus and the people in this room would very much disagree with your claim that we have to be as ruthless as our enemy here. The ruthlessness of al Qaida in Anbar Province is the principal reason that the Sunnis in that area rebelled against them. The key to success in counterinsurgency is to be as gentle as possible while still accomplishing military goals. This ain’t WWII.

By Observer

September 10, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman - Your comments thus far betray your bias. You’ve stated that Petraeus will tell the truth “as he sees it” and further suggested that his opinions will be skewed by some mythical command to “Take that hill.”

How about the possibility that General Petraeus’ comments will be skewed by the TRUTH since he’s the one who’s actually been to Iraq and that your comments will be skewed (as they usually are) by your liberal predisposition.

For months the left has been suggesting that President Bush needs to listen to his generals. Now that he is doing exactly that, they are suggesting that this general’s testimony is somehow flawed. Of course it’s flawed in their eyes because his opinions differ from theirs.

The politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle need to leave the military leadership alone and let them do their jobs. I dare say General Petraeus would be more effective today if he was leading hsi troops rather than speaking to congress.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Jay - what do you make of the Iran comments? I hestitate to ask this, but are we further positioning ourselves towards justifying future conflict with Iran?

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

To Observer:

You speak of the generals as if they are all of one mind. They are anything but. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly opposed the surge before it was launched and still want it cut as short as possible. Admiral Fallon, head of Central Command and Petraeus’ immediate superior, is also reportedly opposed to the surge’s extension. President Bush has found a general willing to pursue Bush’s approach to the war. That is his right as commander in chief. But the idea that all the generals or even an overwhelming majority of them back this approach simply isn’t so, as some of the comments from retired generals confirm.

To Steve:

I think there is cause to worry that the Bush administration may be preparing to expand the war to Iran, yes.

By Joe

September 10, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

This is truely hillarious Jay. You being surrounded by military men is like Mike Vick attending the Westminster Dog Show. Jay you have repeatedly shown your bias towards our great men and women in the military and our great President. I’m sure most of them don’t know you or your ideology. You, like most libs have already made up your mind. It really dosen’t matter what General Petraeus has to say. Your part of the cut and run crowd that only magnifies the negatives and never reports the positives. As time goes on I just hope that the majority of people in this country that can think for themselves realize this. That the only reason dems are against this war is solely for political reasons. Not for the betterment of our great country….

By Steve

September 10, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Joe- instead of immature personal attacks, why not contribute intelligently to the conversation. From what I can see, Mr. Bookman has thorough knowledge of this topic along with first hand experience with the generals. You can only resort to childish rantings.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Joe - How is making a situation in Iraq worse than it was before Saddam, costing thousands of Iraqi and American lives, and costing tax payers nearly a trillion dollars a “betterment of our great country?”

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

Amb. Crocker is giving an impassioned warning about the consequences of failure in Iraq. I think those fears are valid. The challenge is to find a level of U.S. activity, cost and bloodshed in Iraq that can be sustained over time, especially given the strain on our military. I do not think that we can sustain anything close to this level of activity for the 10 or more years it would take. And I fear that without changes in policy, U.S. public frustration may at some point force a quick withdrawal that really would drive disaster.

By Scooter

September 10, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this

Gosh I wonder who has the most control over the public’s perceptions.

US public sentiment has turned against every conflict sense the advent of the televised media, coincidence?

By Dennis

September 10, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

I think part of the problem of pointing to retired generals is just that, that they are retired, and don’t have the first hand information. Further, generals can be wrong, as evidenced by those who opposed this avenue, and by the fact that it is working. As with the episode where our guys had the opportunity to take Bin Laden and it was squashed by Rumsfeld after 1/2 hr of debate, we need to get out of the military’s way, i.e., de-politicize the process and have the proper controls in place.

Jay, I appreciate your honesty in admitting to being a liberal. As noted by another, this does skew your view, as might one who is a conservative have their view skewed. I am a conservative, raised in Massachusetts. If we stick to the facts and do not inject our particular views, we’ll be a whole lot better. Point to note, your job is to help sell papers, which is in part why you are a liberal writing for the AJC. I have read your column and agreed with some points, disagreed with most. If we keep motivation in perspective, that helps to understand where one is coming from.

Thanks for reporting.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

The majors are now discussing the testimony. You guys have any questions you’d like me to ask?

By Observer

September 10, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question to ask - Which would be the more effective military strategy from this point forward: A) Cut & run or declare a future date certain for military withdrawal or B) Stay the course which has so far proven effective and continue to aid the Iraqis in development of national security and infrastructure?

By The Bald Monk

September 10, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Mr Bookman can you ask the majors: How can the U.S. Military improve it’s relationship with the media to win the battle in the information space and what role do bloggers play in that space

By Steve

September 10, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

If you can, please ask:

Petraeus today before Congress:

When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months.

What Petraeus said 6 months ago at his confirmation hearing :

“You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now, there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheiks are stepping up, and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhaps six months ago, or certainly before that.”

By Joe

September 10, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Steve-It’s easy to personnally attack someone as you do when you say the pro-war/I love Bush crowd. I guess you don’t consider that an ignorant attack on your part. You, I’m sure are a frequent visitor to Daily Cos which traffics hate for anyone with an oppinion which differs from their’s. You libs love to be hipocrites.

By Jeffrey

September 10, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Can you think of a hearing like this ever in our nation’s history?

By Bob

September 10, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

Jay - how about asking the majors that have been to Iraq their opinion on how the “cut and run” members of Congress (Democrat & any Republican)affects the Insurgent attitude? Not the morale of the US Serviceman but the morale of the Insurgent.

By TOPDOG

September 10, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

I GOT ONE THING TO SAY ABOUT WHEN PEOPLE SAY WE OUGHT TO LET THE GENERALS IN THE FIELD DECIDE THIS WAR…… WELL, THE GENERALS DID NOT DECIDE TO TAKE US TO WAR WHY SHOULD THEY TELL US TO GET OUT!

By Joe

September 10, 2007 3:19 PM | Link to this

I got a question Jay. Ask the Majors if they feel as if some politicians have turned their back on our men and women in uniform by wanting to cut funding for the war.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

When is it no longer “cut and run”? In 2010? In 2012? In 2020?

By lovelyliz

September 10, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

4 star generals don’t say or produce anything publically without prior vetting by the Pentagon.

That’s not to say they are bad soldiers, but that’s the reality.

By James

September 10, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this

Jay, As a fellow citizen I must say you are probably taking orders from your bosses in Atl on visiting Ft Leavenworth. So , I concur with your choice to visit but not your platform. Hangin in the ATL. More of the same ……

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

In response to Bald Monk:

The majors had earlier been talking about U.S. inadequacies in the “information sphere,” not using cyberspace as well as the jihadists. They acknowledge the need to improve there. Blogging by soldiers has also been a problem, with operational security compromised at times by what has appeared there. “The Army’s not anti-blogging, but it has caused problems for us,” one officer said. “Kids are proud of what they’re doing and want to sound tough to their friends,” another pointed out. “We can brief them on it forever, but they’re still 24 years old and they get carried away.” As to media, they stressed the importance of being honest and forthright, and for letting people like me come to events such as this.”

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

In response to Joe’s question:

Yes, there is some feeling to that effect. “It was eye-opening how different the Republicans and Democrats were in their opening remarks,” one officer said. “Stay the course vs. run away.” Another expressed dismay that Iraq had become, in his words, “the Democrats’ primary issue in the next election.”

By Traditionaldog

September 10, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Once we complete our mission of providing a free, stable democracy for the good people of Iraq, where would you suggest we move next? North Korea, Iran, Syria, ? Or once we provide a free stable democracy in Irag, is that it?

We went to war in Irag over the belief there were weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a murderous despot and/or to provide freedom for an oppressed people. We did not go to war with Iran North Korea where there is no doubt that a murderous despot controls weapons of mass destruction and where the good people of Iran or North Korea will never smell the scent of freedom.

How do we choose which countries in the world deserve our help in establishing democracy? Where does it end?

I urge you to support our President in pretending that victory is at hand in Irag. The quicker we can declare victory, the quicker we can get our brave patriots home from this truly tragic mistake.

By Road Scholar

September 10, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

When Colin Powell testified at the UN concerning us getting into Iraq, I watch the whole speech and it appeared that he didn’t have his heart in it. Shortly thereafter he resigned. Was Petraeous sincere or covering his tail? I couldn’t watch his testimony. Also, while they dub all who support getting out of Iraq as “cut and run”, what is the condition of our armed forces going to be in a few months, a year, or longer? The reports are that suicides are way up, we have over deployed units time and again, the recruiting of service men are down, etc How will we pay for the endless strategy which has been modified with questionable results? Are Repubs ready for a war tax, say on capital gains? Oh yeah, the economy/market is in the tank. Finally when are the audit reports going to be completed on the costs, spending, and results of where our money has gone? The out sourcing of the war should have had more oversight. Hasn’t Haliburton made enough by now?

By master

September 10, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this

Bring the troops home they are tired and and fustrated. When the troops come home we will send the Chicken Hawks to Iraq.We are begining to see a large number of divorce filing at court houses close to most military bases.Please when you at you little pub some where in the evening after work sipping on you Foster beer.Remember these havent had a oppertunity to even have thier first drink.For God sake plase bring them home.

By The Bald Monk

September 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Mr. Bookman thanks for the answer.

Monk

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

To Steve’s question about how long we stay:

That issue has drawn the widest range of discussion here. I asked what effect it would have on them personally and the military in general if they had to continually redeploy to Iraq in the next 10 years. “It beats the alternative. We don’t run away from hardship because it’s hard. That’s not what we do in this country,” one officer said. “My wife might think differently though.”

Another officer pointed out that sustaining a presence of 100,000 troops in Iraq longterm would require an army of roughly 500,000, much larger than we have today.

Another pointed out that we’ve been in Korea since 1950 “But there’s a difference between the last 40 years in Korea and another 10 years in Iraq in combat,” another rejoined.

By CJ

September 10, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Honestly, I’m not entirely clear why Petraeus’ testimony is relevant since the GAO reported that we only met three of the eighteen benchmarks established to objectively measure the effectiveness of the surge…unless Petraeus disputes the GAO on this matter.

I’d be curious to know how the Majors feel about the the GAO assessment.

By Dennis

September 10, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Road Scholar,

Where are your facts, and not just your innuendos?

We went there because of WMD’s, which by the way both Dem’s & Rep’s both concluded were there when we went to war, having read (or should have read) the same intel. Even Bill Clinton, back when he was in office, said they were there. I believe they were, but even if not, I’ve heard someone say the mind of Saddam was a WMD, and based on what he did, you can take that to the bank.

Jay, don’t know how you could ask this, but my question would be how much spin, if any, General P can put on this? In other words, does his political view come into play? Is he under oath? And the prior comment made about vetting, have his comments been vetted just for classified info, or for political purposes as well?

By Steve

September 10, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this

Well, I ask this: Where in our Constitution does it talk about us as nation builders or ‘civil war managers’ for foreign nations?

Jay, thank you for response about the length of stay in Iraq.

By Jay Bookman

September 10, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

They’re now discussing what happens when a political leadership loses its ability to inspire pro-war passion in the people. Does that become part of the military’s obligation then?

Yes, as long as the military tells the truth, says one.

No, say others, that would violate the military’s role as subservient to the civilian govt.

They’re breaking up, gotta go….

By Dennis

September 10, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this

Hey Steve,

Look under the part where it says “protect and defend this nation.”

FYI, see Japan and Germany, post-WWII.

Hope this helps.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this

Opening Iraq’s borders to allow Al Qaeda to have the perfect recruiting ground to expand and have a greater ability to attack us is “protecting and defending this nation?”

Destabilizing a country run by a weak despot is “protecting and defending this nation?”

Funny, that’s not in our Constitution.

By Scooter

September 10, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Does forcing Al Qaieda (sp) to fight on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, not serve as a distraction for them? Or is it strictly a distraction for our massive military?

Now that we know Saddam expended the resources necessary to corrupt the UN’s Oil for Food Program, should we have left Saddam under the watchful eye of the UN?

By Disgusted USAF Vet

September 10, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

Funny, I have the same questions now that I did 37 years ago about Vietnam.

How do we know when we’ve won?

And what exactly DO we win?

Finally, why are American kids dying when Vietnamese, excuse me, Iraqi troops are doing little more than serving as window dressing?

Pardon my cynicsm, but I’ve seen this movie before.

By Steve

September 10, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Vet, that’s not cynicism, that’s common sense. You, apparently, can think for yourself and are not sucked into the political bumpersticker propoganda of this “war.”

By RB from Gwinnett

September 10, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this

Have you all considered what might happen in the middle east if we actually succeeded in our effort to create a stable democracy there, where people have the freedoms you and I have to post on this web site? Have you thought for a moment about the people of Iraq (they are people, you know), who would have not only had their heads cut off for posting what you have posted today about your government leaders, but also the heads of their families? All while you sit comfortably in front of your big screen TV over stuffing your face. Go ask the Kurds if Saddam has WMD’s. Oh wait, they’re all dead.

What’s going to happen in Iran, Pakistan, and the other dictator lead middle eastern countries when they see their neighbors enjoying the same freedoms we enjoy? If you had a choice of living in freedom or under some lunatic like Saddam or the nut case in Iran, what would you choose?

Take just a moment and think about someone other than yourself and try to think beyond your next paycheck for a while and maybe you’ll see a different picture of what’s at stake in Iraq.

Road Scholar: The economy is in the tank??? Put the bong down long enough to check the facts man! The stock market is at record levels, unemployment is a record lows. What are you talking about?

By Jeff

September 10, 2007 6:50 PM | Link to this

Reading this blog is sad.

Obviously people listen to AM radio in their cars stuck in traffic, come home, and type what they heard here, as if the ideas are their own.

Watching CSpan 3, it makes me equally as sad. Such a waste of life and resources, for nothing more than oil. If you think this is for anything besides oil, perhaps you should go to Iraq. There’s a lot more sand to keep your head hidden in over there.

By mountain man

September 10, 2007 7:07 PM | Link to this

RB, the only problem with your thinking is that the people of the mid east DO NOT WANT our kind of democracy or our kind of freedoms. They live in societies in which the majority of folks are fervently desirous of an Islamic society whose laws are either Sharia or at least shaped by Islamic law. If they were to choose to live in either an Islamic republic or a western style democracy, they would choose the Islamic option every time.

Sorry RB, these folks don’t live in our society and they don’t want to live in a society like ours. That’s the cold, hard facts, bud.

By Charles

September 10, 2007 10:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

On most of these AJC blogs I get a very different perception. All too often I see the mistruths spewed by MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell and other Far Left people and organizations repeated over and over again. It’s something the Clintons practiced over and over again while in the White House - if you consistently and repeatedly make a false statement it’s eventually taken as a fact by the mainstream press. It’s the reason FoxNews is so hated by the Democraps - they can’t take having facts thrown at them over and over again.

What is really sad is some weakminded people will believe anything the Liberal press will tell them. It’s no wonder they attacked General Petraeus before he even made his report today. It’s always the same thing - if you don’t like the message, attack the messenger.

By lovelyliz

September 11, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Charles, are they any worse than the neo-cons who get all their “news” from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? The same people who still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and that there were WMD’s in Iraq? The same people who believe that if you are killed in a car bomb or shot in the front of your head it’s not sectarian violence but if you are shot in the back it is?

By Political Foreskin

September 11, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Good blog! Petraeus can tell the truth. Iraq will be exactly what he describes. He speaks, and the desert transforms itself into an oasis.

We can never abandon Iraq to the Iraqis. They’ve been at war for 10K years. They’ll be at war for another 10K years. Now, however, it’s our debt, and we’ll pay to babysit Iraqis.

We’ll end up with about 500K troops there. (coalition).

A withdrawal? Yes. A photo-op number of troops will go home for a while, then come back.

We aint nevah gonna git outta iraq. Accept it, believe it, and live it.

I challenge anyone to describe the scenario where the US can leave Iraq.

anyone

By RB from Gwinnett

September 11, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Jeff, how is it you think anyone who listens to am radio and agrees with the opinions of the people on it can’t think for themselves, yet you, who likely reads the AJC and watches Katie Couric and Rosie and agrees with them is some bastion of intellectual thinking?

Mountain Man, are you serious? Do you really think anyone would choose to live under the reign of Saddam vs. a free society? I’ll concede they have a different view of how thier religion governs their society and would likely never have a “separation of church and state”, but nobody would choose to live under oppression. If you think the Iraqi people wish for the return of Saddam, you’re sadly mistaken.

Question for you MM… When was the last time NBC, ABC, CNN, or CBS did a “man on the street” segment in Iraq and asked the average person their thoughts about what we’re doing there? They haven’t, and they won’t. Ask yourself why? They don’t want you to see ANYTHING good about the situation over there. They, like the democratic party, are committed to failure. Their glass is half full no matter what story they cover. You’re also not hearing about too many soldiers not wanting to return to Iraq. Yes, it’s an inconvenience to their families, but nearly all of them believe in what we’re doing over there. Perhaps contact with the people over there has affected their views?? Have you been there, Jeff?

Another interesting note from recent news reports… I heard this morning 60% of Americans were unhappy with the situation in Iraq. The inference was they all want us out of Iraq NOW. What they’re missing is many Republicans are not happy with it either, but not for the same reason the left is. Personally, I want the politicians out of the military operations. You can’t fight a war without bloodshed and if the option is the enemy’s blood or ours, that’s an easy choice for me. This “don’t shoot until shot at” garbage is what’s getting our guys killed. Once we’ve been shot at, there’s another statistic for the libs to flash all over the paper. We’ve put our fighing men in a position of “Shoot first and be court marshalled or shoot second and lose your squad mate”. Not good options. Let them finish the job and then get out!

By Political Foreskin

September 11, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

That’s a fine bit of thinking, Jeff, but cliche’s are a dime a dozen.

Please define, “finish the job.”

WTF are U talkin’ bout?

You dont know. You have nothing to say except, “Wave the flag and support the troops, yeehaw”.

Uncle Sam gets more patriotism from a monkey waving a flag than all your hacked phrases.

Try being specific for once in your life, and leave other bloggers alone. you dont even comprehend what they blog, much less your own words.

Define “finish the job”, (your cliche, sir) , and then maybe we’ll respect you. Fair enough?

By Scooter

September 11, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

Does forcing Al Qaieda (sp) to fight on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, not serve as a distraction for them? Or is it strictly a distraction for our massive military?

Now that we know Saddam expended the resources necessary to corrupt the UN’s Oil for Food Program, should we have left Saddam under the watchful eye of the UN?

By RB from Gwinnett

September 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

PF, The mission is to establish a government and a security force in Iraq capable of taking care of itself without our forces being present. I suspect, however, if you haven’t figured that out yet, me telling you that now isn’t going to help.

And I won’t leave other bloggers alone. I’m sick and tired of the cheap shots from the left going unanswered. I’m tired of our soldiers being called murderers and terrorist by our own congressmen and senators and them not being held accountable for it. I tired of idiots claiming the economy is in the tank when the reality is totally opposite. I’ll leave other bloggers alone when they start presenting sound arguments supported by facts vs. the talking points they heard on Oprah that don’t stand the test of reason or fact. Bring the goods or be prepared to get called on it.

By Paul

September 12, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Of course this is about oil, but not in the way you think. It is not about Bush and his quest to have it. It is about you, me, and every other American. We like a warm house when it’s cold outside. We like the ice box in our kitchen. We like our computers, and our televisions. The list of our likes that require energy is endless. Whether you like it or not, this will not change. The ONLY way to preserve our way of life is to be there. If we leave, we leave the world’s largest supply of energy in the hands of our enemy. If you thought we had chaos after Katrina because a couple of pipe lines were down for a few days, think about the chaos it would cause to not have access to oil from the middle east. Our being in Iraq is about Iran. It always has been. We cannot allow them to control that region. Plain and simple.

By Mark Earhart

September 14, 2007 3:58 AM | Link to this

Well, here it is folks, all the proof anyone should ever need to be convinced that we as a nation have been lied to. That’s right; we have been lied to about the 9/11/01 attacks and the subsequent war on terror. Don’t fear the supposed “terrorists” abroad; fear the ones running your own government!!!

I dare anyone to watch this video and tell me we have not been lied to by the Bush Regime. Don’t let them win. They can only control you if you let them. It is time that we as a nation unite, and stand up in the name of God and DEMAND justice!!! The power is in the people. Will you sit by and do nothing while we are sold into slavery and murdered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Also recommended:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

By Political Foreskin

September 14, 2007 9:16 PM | Link to this

“To establish a government”, can never be a military mission.

Checkmate.

By Political Foreskin

September 14, 2007 9:24 PM | Link to this

All invading Iraq accomplished was legitimizing Al Queda’s war. Now they are the enemy, fighting on two fronts in the field, taking their chances conducting offensive campaigns in a real war. We’ve institutionalized Al Queda. Bush is a total idiot.

All we’ve done is start WW1 all over again for the same reasons and circumstances. Wasnt the French army as legitimate as the German army? Who was the bad guy on the battlefield.

Wars mutate, and this one has a particularly nasty probability curve to morph into something we cant control. We are playing with the destiny of nations and no man can fix that.

If we get out of this only marginally impaired, it will be a miracle. War should be a last resort, not the first idea that popped into Cheney’s fat head.

By Will Jones

September 18, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

Jay - You watched the Petraeus testimony and missed the most important part: Petraeus, by his own admission, is an incompetent boob. Recall Chairman Skelton’s recollection of their chopper ride over the ammo dumps Petraeus acknowledged were unguarded and “might come back to bite us”? Plebe Military Science 101 taught all West Point cadets to deny opponents that which one could not use or protect. Remember Sherman’s March to the Sea?

He was first at Leavenworth because the WPPA condones “cheating.” Any ROTC officers who show up know the Pointers pass old tests down through the years. The guy is a moron and tens of thousands of our troops have been maimed and thousands killed by the IED’s made from the munitions he failed to destroy - disobeying the most fundamental military principle.

Adm Fallon was correct calling him an “ss kissing little chicken**t. Petraeus is Gen Betrayus, as his subordinates have suggested. He is a “political general” who married “The General’s Daughter” and has proven on multiple occasions in training that he is a total screw-up as a soldier…catching a bullet in a “live fire” exercise and breaking both hips on a jump.

Apparently he’s the only “general” who can meet with the homosexual draft-dodger in the White House and make him “feel like a man.” Bush should just stick with Jeff Gannon and maybe try being the “top” instead of the “bottom.”

A real general, obedient to The Oath, would immediately arrest Bush and Cheney for their 9/11 treason and false war for heroin and oil. Our Nation’s Honor is at stake…as well as Our Commonwealth.

Annuit Coeptis G_d is not mocked.