Make Bush veto the bill, the withdrawl from Iraq measure needs to stay. Missouri still has one senator who continues to blindly back the failed policies of Mr. Bush, I hope he knows people in his state are following his vote choices very closely.

The Republican Guard will keep Troops in Iraq until the Profiteers signal them the Coffers are full enough. Unless, of course, they can't resist the profits that will come their way with an invasion of Iran. Damn the Public, full speed ahead.

Once again, proof that the average American has the attention span of a common house fly when it comes to important issues. No matter which side of the fence you are on in regards to the war in Iraq, and the overall war against Islamic extremism, it should be the number one issue on eveyone's mind. The bill passed in the house was a waste of time and taxpayer money. It will never get out of the Senate, and if by some slim chance it does, it faces a certain veto, and rightfully so. You simply cannot set timetables for withdrawal. You cannot tell your enemy that if we can't defeat you by this date, we will surrender and you can have Iraq. Talk of exit strategies in the midst of a war is ludicrous. You come up with an exit strategy only after the war has ended. Name one other war where any nation had an exit strategy going into, or in the middle of the conflict. Just one. Can't think of one? That's because it is absolutely ridiculous. This bill is just another political ploy by Democrats seeking more headlines with empty gestures. Do nothing of consequence and gain popularity seems to be their strategy of late. Amazingly, thanks to the new American mindset, it is working. This is scary. If we the people don't force our leaders to stop with the party first, America next BS we are all going to be in a world of ****.

I have just finished reading Fareek Zakaia's commentary that appears in the 4-02-07 edition of Newsweek. Historically, he has proven to be both a prophet and has credibility. He writes "This is a nation that is now devastated, where 2 million people have fled, another 2 million are internal refugees, militias run large parts of the country and the government sanctions religious repression, ethnic cleansing and vigilante violence. What does "victory" mean in such circumstances?" Is he describing Iraq under Sadaam or under Bush? He goes on to write that the Senate resolution only puts into law the promises President Bush made in January when he was selling the surge. I think the resolution will pass, but under intense pressure from his Neocon supporters, President Bush will veto the resolution.

mk - Kit Bond has to be one of the worst offenders of the Republican rubber-stamp types who blindly supports everything this administration does. I don't recall one time in the past 6 years that he has publicly disagreed with anything the Bushies have done.

Let's see. Failed policies. OK, Sadaam, out of power, captured, convicted, hanged. All failures. Al-Zarqawi, dead. Failed policy. Al-Sadr, on the run, his army with him. Dismal failure. Attacks on US soldiers, and Iraqi civilians, down recently, the "surge" is showing signs of success. Shhh. Don't let that get out. Bin-Laden, in hiding, no attacks on US soil since 9/11. Think he doesn't want to attack us, or has he been thwarted? Failure? Yes, there have been failures. There have been blunders. There have been miscalculations of the highest order. As in every war ever fought. But when mistakes are made you don't raise the white flag and hand your enemy a victory. You press on. If we don't defeat our Islamo-facist enemy you had better believe they will defeat us. Who's camp are you in?

Our fearless leaders (from both parties) are playing politics with the lives of our troops on the line. The White House, by their admission, made military moves based on political agenda. Dubya's troop surge was nothing but a dirty trick (vote for it - you won't be able to complain; vote against it - you're not supporting the troops). Now this bill which is a catch 22 for the President. SHAME ON OUR POLITICIANS (I cannot use the word leaders anymore), for playing with the lives of our men and women.

A message to Senate Democrats; STAND YOUR GROUND, LOBBY FOR THE THREE VOTES, and PASS THIS BILL AS IT IS WRITTEN! Do NOT pass this measure without the withdrawel language! We voted the Republicans OUT and YOU IN to get us out of Iraq! America is watching.

Steve, the Iranians are attacking US soldiers. They have captured and are holding hostage 15 British marines. Are you suggesting Bush is in league with the Iranians for profit? That's a strectch for even the most fervent anti-Busher. It is my humble opinion that we should've invaded Iran long before now, and probably would have except for public sentiment that seems to lean towards the idea that everything is lollipops and rainbows and if we just make nice the Islamo-facists will too. Whew. I can see I'm gonna be busy today. Next 3, que up.

Thank you Kal. We are are at least somewhat in agreement. I am not a Bush supporter, but I do support the war. Playing politics in this time in our history is inexcusable by members of either party, or their supporters. It is exactly what our enemy predicted, and is an integral part of their strategy to eventually bring down the US. Don't think it's possible. Keep playing politics as usual and within a generation you'll see.

The Rubberneck (To look about or survey with unsophisticated wonderment or curiosity.) Congress

Not for one split second have many of us abandoned the idea of removing our Troops from the 1000+ year old Iraq Civil War, kept in check by the despot Saddam, allowed to flourish under the despot Bush. The continuing US Troop deaths, brain injuries, maimings, pyschological damage, endless tours of duty are not forgotten. Bush and regime may have thrown the Troops to the wolves...many many of us have not. It is hard to stay focused with almost a Bush administration scandal a day, but we will, until our Troops are removed from this insanity, and the focus is returned to fighting those who are responsible for 9/11/01....Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not. I would suggest all voters very carefully watch how the Republicans in the Senate vote...either they are against our Troops and support Bushs failed, for years now, stay the course and escalate "strategy" if you can call it that, or they have put partisan politics aside and want to protect our men and women from dying in this hopeless Civil War that our presence is not going to make one iota worth of difference in...except to kill, maim and destroy more Americans. Republican Senators, who hate our Troops should be punished severely at the polls.

Victory means we fight on until every nation who advocates Islamic extremism, or harbors those who practice it, realizes that the world will no longer tolerate this ideology. Until our enemy capitulates. Until the entire free world is safe from Islamo-facism.

I agree with Darren completly, what did some of you people expect? A war without mistakes? NO collateral damage? I agree, whos camp are you in?

Darren Pope, MB, SC: Sir, while many times I tend to agree with things you post, recently you seem to have gone off the deep end. Under what authority do you conceive of the idea that "we can't" this and "we can't" that on any idea of suggestion that runs counter to your thoughts? I really think your last post shows your true alignment with the administration when you go to the old tired statement that infers you are either with us or against us! Sorry to tell you this sir, while you have every right to hold those viewpoints, we who do not agree with you also have the right to not agree with your ideas. You keep saying that we must defeat the enemy, and win this war, now how about spending a moment and define what winning this war is and tell us how we will know it when we do win?

Darren - It seems to me that failing to plan for all aspects of a military conflict, including how to exit said conflict when the time is right, is the real foolishness. To blindly continue occupying a nation that is in the midst of a civil war is the real foolishness. There is no proper measurement of success in Iraq. We overthrew Saddam's regime, and later oversaw his capture and execution, and in the process established a more democratic system of government. And still we cannot leave. Not because our troops have failed to do what they set out to do, but because the Iraqi insurgents and religious factions have prevented the progress that should have come with the structural changes brought about through the U.S. invasion. You can't make another nation want democracy or freedom - or even peace. Until they want it enough to fight for it themselves, we have no business being there.

blacksheep: Where did I say you couldn't believe what you want to believe? It is my belief, and simple logic, that you can't tell your enemy when you will leave. This also seems simple: We are in a war. If you are calling for surrender, you are calling for a US defeat. If you are calling for a US defeat, you are calling for a terrorist victory. If you are calling for a terrorist victory....

chickenhawks are flapping their beaks again and again and again

Darren..........please tell us at what point the war in Iraq is "won?" Define "victory" for us, would you please? Because, Saddam Huessein and his two sons are dead. There were NO W.M.D., there was NO yellowcake, and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911. I'm not saying Saddam Huessein was a "nice guy." I'm not even saying he resembled anything close a human being. But, there certainly wasn't a terrorist insurgency into Iraq BEFORE Bush invaded. There were no car bombings, no violence in the streets and there was'nt any sectarian violence until AFTER U.S. Forces entered the country. In short, the situation did'nt get better, it got worse, and it has now evolved into a full scale civil war. The initial mission of removing Huessein and the Bath Party from power, and nuetralizing the threat of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack has been accomplished. (Not that these so called threats ever existed. It was all a lie from the beginning. It's just that now they can't say those threats exist because they have been PROVEN to be false.) So, we are in essence wasting our people over there for no good reason other than "bragging rights." As far as "partisanship" goes you need'nt look any further than what congressional Republicans did, (or should I say DID'NT do) for the first six (6) years that Bush was in office. They provided NO legislative oversight whatsoever, and let him run a-muck with illegal wiretapping programs, outing CIA agents and then stonewalling the investigation afterwards, letting $250.00 an hour gay male prostitutes who engage in web pornography into the West Wing of The White House, and attempting to fire U.S. Attorneys who refused to file false charges against political opponants. (Just to name a few specific things.) I guess all that's "okay" as long as it's being done by someone on whatever political side of the aisle YOU support. This war in Iraq is NOT keeping terrorists from coming to this country. If they wanted to they could simply stop what they are doing over there, go home, and plan an attack on U.S. soil. Remember that 911 was very basic, very grass roots, and very much a "no frills" operation. If you think that spilling American blood in Iraq is keeping that from happening again, you're dilusional. There are OTHER things that can and should be done within our intelligence community which can and do prevent such things from happening. But what's going on in Iraq does not. Finally, the American Voting Public OUSTED The Republican Party from power in congress, specifically because of The War in Iraq. We want OUT of it, and we want our people home where they belong. The whole thing was a damned LIE from the very beginning. Trying to justify it now by allowing more of our people to die is absolutely senseless.

Darren, in re your 10:06, about no other war having an exit strategy. Bush started this war. America has never started a war. This war was started on phony charges and was pre-emptive. So you can't compare this war to previous ones. That, I believe, places the burden on the nation who drew first blood to have an exit strategy, especially now that we know that our contractors are stealing us blind over there. Bush no doubt thought it would be like Desert Storm, where Gen. Swartzkopf had the enemy running toward U.S. troops waving white flags. So I think the no exit strategy part was due to Bush thinking it would all be over in two weeks, just as soon as the troops got all the flowers and rose petals cleaned off their equiptment and all the lipstick rubbed off their faces that the women had put there. Yeah, Darren, that was Bush's exit strategy -- clean all the flowers off the tanks and come home to a heroes welcome. Great exit strategy in need of a plan B.

You two chicken hawks are unreal. Kill every extremist? That's how extremists are BORN! Try treating them (the third world in general) like human beings with a stake in their futures and not just pawns for our corporate greed, then THEY'LL stop the terrorism. "For us or against us" is pablum for the weak minded. "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is also pretty stupid. You two are as foamy as any "islamo-fascist."

Please note the reason we attacked Iraq was to remove saddam and help set up some sort of goverment for the people, we have accomplished that. If you want to fight islamic extremism your in the wrong country, I do not think we should be fighting Iraq's civil war and will continue to vote for candidates that agree with that, we are getting American kids killed so you good republicans can try to save face, hope you're proud of yourselfs. Tell me how you would define a victory in Iraq? If you think those religous factions over there are ever going to get along you need to turn the damper down on your crack pipe.

Darren--You should look up the word 'fascism.' And you have way too much time on your hands, buddy.

Darren Pope "It is my humble opinion that we should've invaded Iran long before now" can you tell me where we will get the soldiers to do this? We can barely maintain the necessary troops in Iraq.

Post-IT NOTE:Teams assigned to make sure foreigners leave after being ordered out of the United States are dealing with a backlog of more than 600,000 cases and cannot accurately account for the for those classified as "fugitive aliens". A report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general said the effectiveness of teams assigned to find the fugitives had been hampered by "insufficient detention capacity, limitations of an immigration database and inadequate working space".Sounds like a very familiar story. the hijackers got "lost" in that same database. Invading a country by choice did not seem to stop the lack of imagination the government has in finding people. 600,000 is a huge number.

"Same Old Song and Dance"-(Aerosmith)

Darren, you write that "it is my humble opinion" we should invade Iran...??? Where the hell is the humbleness of that?

We would have enough soldiers and equipment to fight this, or any other conflict the Us may face had Bill Clinton not torn down our military. He made deep cuts in personnel and equipment and our armed services have yet to recover from his foolishness. Yet, he ordered more military action than any other US president in history.

Darren Pope you sound a lot like hitler talking about the Jewish people. Just because some people do not agree with our culture does not give us the right to exterminate them. The islamic extremists need to be kept at bay but fighting Iraq's civil war for them is not going to accomplish that is it? Please explain

US carriers and planes reported doing maneuvers off Iranian coast. Can you say Bay of Tonkin? Prepare for draft and military take over of USA. POTUS declared ruler until further notice. The Area 51 morons have taken control.

I suggest since Darren and his ilk are so gung-ho about the war, they put on a uniform and get over there and defeat the religious fanatics. Don't forget to take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc with you. Then maybe the real soldiers can concentrate on Afghanistan, the real terrorist strong hold.

Darren Pope, MB, SC: Quote>You simply cannot set timetables for withdrawal. You cannot tell your enemy that if we can't defeat you by this date, we will surrender and you can have Iraq<< Darren, go back to your post and read your words, the way you make your statements indicate that you feel that your words and thoughts are supreme! I have read many of your posts in the past, and while some have been somewhat pushy, most have been quite civil, but recently for some reason, you seem to be getting quite hostile towards those who you do not agree with. You state that I am calling for a surrender, however, I simply am not, I am calling for a withdrawal of our troops from a failed nation building attempt! If we were going to surrender, to whom would we surrender? Who are we fighting this week? Which one of the previously stated enemies are we to surrender to? Let's get out of Iraq, and resume the war on terror that we got side tracked from, if you support that effort then feel free to call for that to happen!

Scott, should we let Iran attack and kill US soldiers at will, arm and supply our enemies, threaten our allies with extermination, and intimidate the world with the prospect of using nuclear weapons? If so, my opinion would be wrong. If not, I humbly submit that I am right. By humble I am saying that it is my opinion, open to discussion, and that I am not declaring it to be the end-all solution. Does that clarify my stance?

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"-Mahatma Ghandi (Darren-he's not the one they named rice after)

OK, I'm throwing the BS flag at MK,MO. I sound like Hitler? Our enemy sounds like Hitler, my friend. It is they who have called for "Death to America", and the destruction of Israel. It is they who call for the death of any who will not convert to their murderous way of thinking. Yes, we do have a right to defend ourselves against those who would destroy us. We have every right to bomb them back into the stone age if they persist in killing Americans and others who love freedom. The alternative would be to give into their way of thinking, declare they have the right to push their fundamentalist madness on us all, establish a one-world government in which they are in charge, one which would allow them to place us all under sharia law, which is their stated goal. In case you missed it, they want the world converted to radical Islam, and for all who oppose them to die. They intend to bring about the return of the 12th Imam by unleashing murder and mayhem on a world-wide scale. Sure, you can laugh. You can say it's not an attainable goal. You can say whatever you want, but if we don't stop them, they won't stop. Let's hear your plan. Maybe we could all hold hands and sing Kum-Ba-Yah?

Darren, I disagree with blacksheep...your posts are more civil now than before. However, you stated you are not a bush supporter? How soon you forget your prior blogs. but that is not the important since many Repubs are abandoning W. I do, however, think blaming Clinton for lack of military is ridiculous on many counts. 1) No more cold war; pull back to balance the budget. 2) If you are going to war, you prepare. Why didn't bushCo increase the military before going into Iraq? 3) "...ordered more military action than any other US president in history"????? more than FDR? more than LBJ? more than Lincoln? Your partisanship is showing through by your lack of knowledge of history? Your posts were getting to more issues, however, that comment is not close to being a fact. Invade Iran? Carter should have done that, if anything. But now, you can't have it both ways...you accuse the military as unprepared due to Clinton; yet, you call for more military action against Iran? You make Clinton sound like a peace-nik! Flat-earther, hope you're wrong...I feared that before the last election.

Uh, the Earth is round, but it has a fever.

Finally! We get to the truth! It's former PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON's fault! I sort of suspected it all along. When will he release us from his merciless grip. Why was his mis-leadership allowed to put us in a situtation where a mere 6 years after his term ended, our valiant galatic warrior prince and defender of space and time, EL PRESIDENT Jorge, would be unable to support an endless conflict? Damn you, former PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON!

"It's the same old song....with a different feeling, until you came along...."--KC and the Sunshine Band and others (Still Crazy....do you recall who recorded this song back in the 60's? I've heard the 60's version--I just don't remember who it's by.)

Wow, darren, blood pressure UP again, is it? They have med's for that. Don't blow a fuse with your 30% backing of this continued Debacle, trying to get the 70% ( Majority) to go back beleiving GWB, actually know's what he was doing the whole time. Clinton this, clinton that, clinton, clinton,clinton, grow up, get past it, William Jefferson Clinton is NO longer President, The United States of America yearn's for Clinton.

Darren, understood...even though I disagree. I am exasperated that there is a willingness, an attempt to justify, invading Iran. Iran does not threaten to unleash mass destruction through a buildup, or creation of a nuclear arsenal. If we go into Iran and then some people from Pakistan help the Iranians, then what? We need to work with others through diplomacy, and if necessary, sanctions. It is not the perfect solution, but it is better than war. And yet this administration seems to believe it has the right (God's task for Bush), to continue this path, and it is wrong.

Of course, it's Clinton's fault!

Darren, if you stayed awake in Western Civ class you would know tha the last successful invasion of Iran was by Alexander the Great over 2300 hundred years ago. I have studied Alexander the Great in Western Civ and in depth in Hellenic history as a hstory major (something that Dubya puports to have a degree in) and believe me when I say that Dubya is no Alexander the Great.

Darren - We sort of lost the moral high ground when we invaded a country who, as it turns out, posed no real threat to us without provocation. Unless you consider disagreeing with our politics and our culture to be adequate provocation for war?

and Dave, you are no Sampson.

Uh...Dave...Dave? If you had stayed awake in elementary math, you would know that "2300 hundred" years is 230,000 years...good thing you were stuck in "hstory"...you also might wish to take another shot at spelling "puports"...

Darren Pope, you stated: "Victory means we fight on until every nation who advocates Islamic extremism, or harbors those who practice it, realizes that the world will no longer tolerate this ideology. Until our enemy capitulates. Until the entire free world is safe from Islamo-facism." -- Wow. I believe there are Islamic extremists tolerated in MANY countries around the world, including the US (Freedom of Religion dictates that they can believe whatever they like unless they actually commit or show real intention of committing a crime). By your definition, we'd have to take over the world. Even if you limited it to countries who had at least a significant minority who were Islamic extremists, you'd still have to fight many other countries besides Iran, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc. But if you are fighting an ideology, then exactly whom (exact names please) do you expect to capitulate? We didn't invade Iraq nor Afghanistan over an ideology. We attacked Afghanistan because their government at the time, the Taliban, allied themselves with the group who actually commited an act of war by attacking us, Al-Qaeda. We attacked Iraq on the lie that Saddam had or was soon to gain WMD. The crusades were part of a war of ideology. I'd like to think we've progressed beyond those dark times. Oh, and by the way, I'd argue that if we actually did wipe out Islamo-facism by force, thereby banning certain types of thought and certain flavors of religion, regardless of whether there was even intent to carry out a crime, then the "free world" would cease to be free.

Well, judging from Darren Pope's post at 10:31, it looks like he's pretty much saying (quite sarcastically, I might add) all worthy goals have been accomplished! Even many that were never in the list of reasons to invade in the beginning. What a grreat sucess. OK- then it must be time to leave, right? (and by the way, Darren- what if it's not by '08, or even 09 when we finally leave? what if it's another 15 years? Whenever it is, the bad elements will back-fill the country on us then, so why prolong the pain and suffering?

Darren, Have you considered that Iraq is merely one (failed) front in the war on terror? In World War II we didn't obstinantly sit in Holland after Market Garden failed. We withdrew our forces, regrouped and pushed on. That is what an Iraq withdrawl would mean in my opinion. No one is advocating that we let up in the fight against terrorism. However, I would say, that we should get out of Iraq seeing as it is a quagmire that is slowly but surely destroying the US military on pretty much every level, is wasting untold billions of dollars, and is only benefiting the terrorists at this point. Just because someone doesn't like the war in Iraq should not and does not equate to wanting to give up the fight. Also, you were asked several hours ago for a definition of victory in the war on terror. I really don't think you will answer the question, but I'd like to raise it to you one more time. Call me an optimist, I geuss.

So we're agreed? It's former PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON and Dave's fault we can't or shouldn't invade Iran? One let the troop strength fall below 2,000,000 combatants, and the other had a typo. I think we should impeach Clinton, again. Make a real spectacle out of it, this time. Dave has to type the transcript.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):