CALL THE PRESIDENT 1-202-456-1444  OR 1-202-456-1111

Why are the republicans worrying over our primary more than theirs?  I am really puzzled.  they should be going after each other and fighting for the nomination in their party.  but, everyday, you see at least one going after one or more of the dem candidates.  
someone please tell them that is the general election part. duh.

If I'm Clinton's campaign, I'm thanking my lucky stars and laughing all the way to the bank with way more than the 800k plus they lost in the Hsu scandal. It gives her more street cred with the MO and Kos people, won't cost her a VOTE in NYC, (Though maybe some elsewhere in the state, maybe not.) while attracting even more of the anti-war vote. It is a total win for her. The question is, why? Why would Rudy latch on to this almost non-issue, to take a hard stand?

He needs her HELP! He needs her as a foil he can attack to try to recapture the the supporters he's hemorrhaging to Fred, strengthen his street cred with the republican base, (and they hate Hillary even more than the people here) and taint her with the military, if he winds up running against her.
It's a bold,and in other ways a panic move, an attempt at a big lie that is like going for broke, as if he knows that the way Fred is trending, he could soon be third or FOURTH in the polls. Rudy is a front-runner, in more ways than one; If he falls behind Thompson (and it looks like he will) and feels that he isn't going to win, he could surprise everyone and drop out FAST. This could be his , "let it all hang out", round and if he doesn't score the knockout, he may quit on his stool.
He has to know that in the short run, he is much more certain of helping Hillary with this ad than he is himself, so this is in many ways also a tactical, long-range move. If the national publicity the ad is sure to garner helps him regain and maintain his lead and go on to win the republican nomination, he has set himself up for how he wants to run against ANY democrat, that he is strong and will protect you and the democrat won't.
My guy Edwards and Obama are both seen as easy to campaign against on the security issue (It's the only issue the republicans are still trusted on) for Rudy, but Clinton has been able to stake out some gravitas, in part because of being on the Armed Services  Committee , so the ad sets him up to, "define", her as being anti-military.
If it works, he wins the nomination and has a perceived soft-spot to attack (If Clinton is his opponent). If it helps her, but he continues to deflate, he'll be like Wile E. Coyote, falling into the canyon with a bomb in his hand as the Road-Runner zips past, unharmed, "Beep-Beep", Rudy.

Nude Judy Nathan photos are soon to be released. Buh bye Dame Rudy.

You write as though the dems are obviously correct, you are suppose to be journalists.  You are not suppose to draw ANY conclusions for me.  You stated "but Clinton knows it's not working" as if she is privy to or knows more than our military.  You people discount the military as if they are the presidents puppets; you are mistaken.  Tis is why I rarely come to your site or your channel.

The Move On ad was gentle with Petraeus compared to what his boss, Admiral fallon called him: an a**-kissing chickens**t sycophant. And Fallon has more shiny medals and ribbons on his chest than Betrayus does.

Interesting that Rudy is not advocating we listen to him.

Does Rudy Giuliani support General Petraeus in the same manner in which he supported the first responders, i.e., by ignoring their recommendation not to place the command center in the WTC?  As a conservative Catholic, Rudy Giuliani will never get my vote.

Rebublicans in Congress: Just having heard the president speech, and after carefully reading between the lines of the honorable Gen.'s testimony, I implore you to represent 70% of the Americans who know all to well (as well as you all) that to continue any longer in Iraq will not accomplish anything more than the status quo and to once again show all Americans that you are the party of the American people. Our military is at it's breaking point and will not last much longer without significant rebuilding of morale or additional forces. Please join your fellow democrats in Congress insisting on full military redeployment and serious full withdrawal of our troops before the next adminstration takes office. If you, at this critical juncture of our nations history, fail to act independently of this current administration, you will probably not be representing the republican party in office (or Americans) for a long time to come as well. 70% of Americans who disagree with this current failed strategy are both Republicans and Democrats, but most importantly patriotic Americans first. Our family members in the Armed Forces from both sides of the isle deserve a better way forward to secure our nation. I'm sure this administration and some of you maybe thinking of a draft to help reinforce this already stretced too thin military of ours,however that strategy is way to late to have any positive effect in the near or distant future on the current outcome destined to befall us all. Please allow our military to regroup, retrain, and rebuild to give this great nation the strength and ablity to fight another day and with clearer objectives to combat our current threats. Do not squander your last chance to represent the majority and to protect this nation.


Democrats in Congress: I hope you get the votes in Congress from your fellow Republicans that you need to affect change in this current administration's policy and begin full redeployment and withdrawal of our troops before the next administration takes office. However,if they don't, you must do the hard task of cutting off funding, as harsh as that may seem. Having family members in Iraq, it is a request I even have a hard time with, but I know in my heart it is the only thing left to do. The right thing to do. 70% of Americans know its the right thing to do. NOW!, not when someone else takes office, but NOW! Do not bank that you will be the next one's to occupy the White House. Here is your chance, your only chance as well to show us Americans you represent the majority and are a party of the American people as well and are willing to put your jobs on the line to protect this great nation.

In closing, I as many Americans feel we no longer have any say in our country's affairs and how are sons and daughters,fathers and mothers, in the armed forces are used to defend this nation. If both parties in Congress fail to act on this failed policy NOW!, not in 6 months, not on one year or more, but NOW! there will be a major divide in our country and it won't be between the two parties, it will be between the majority of Americans and both parties.We have had enough of this failed policy and will stand no more of it. Republicans and Democrats, it' time to represent us NOW!

Your remark..."(Note that the Giuliani campaign is trying to raise money with it.)"...and Hillary isn't
trying to raise money via moveon.com by her remarks
and refusal to denounce their ad?

Hillary Clinton voted to send the troops to Iraq.  Now she claims to honor them by bringing them home.

She is truely turning in to the John Kerry of the 2008 election.

Rudy has no "ideer" what the hell is happening. Like many republicans he is dwelling in a fantasy world. This war is immoral. It is criminal to keep our soldiers there.

Why do you defend a traitor like Hillary Clinton?
She and the democrats are the traitors not General Petraeus, who puts his life on the line to defend us and his country. Even to defend you and Hillary Clinton and all the Democrats that hate him, just because he agrees with Bush.

Rudy is right in what he says. Clinton spoke out against Saddam and voted for the war. Now, she wants to stab our own soldiers in the back to please the far leftists at MoveOn.org.

I am not a general nor am I in the military nor is Mrs. Clinton.  I wouldn't ask my mechanic to operate on my brain either.  The experts (generals)are the ones to make the decisions not the wannbes (sentors or people wanting to be president)

I don't think Rudy's ad is necessarily referring to Hillary's response to the MoveOn ad, it's her obviously broader commitment, evidenced in part by her non-response, that he's contrasting with Petraeus.

I normally never Blog but it seems that when people try to wrong a person and discount their expert opinion because they have other political motives I try to speak up.  I am a Historian and a Soldier on his second tour in the war and it burns me up when someone of Clinton's character (either one of them) tries to impinge the character of a proven, honorable, and sacrifing Soldier.  I would defend Clinton's life because that is my job.  I would give my life for General Petraeus because it would be my honor.  If people believe that there are no evil people that wake up every day that all they want to do anywhere in the world is kill Americans for a extremist religious ideology.  Most of the critics are too afraid to put there lives on the line for what they believe in.  At least the terrorists do that.  The Roman Empire fell because the Romans ceased to be willing to fight for their way of life.  As long as I can still bear arms for my country I will not let a liberal agenda destroy the ideals that made this country great.  I look forward to future with hope because that is what the United States is.  We can bring water to the desert and amaze all the coalition forces on what we can do over here.  Nothing big in the world can happen if the United States is not involved.  If any of the people want to go back to the Wilsonian isolationist views of America can go to Canada because the United States is the only superpower that can project anything well beyond its borders.  There is no going back, only forward with hope and determination.  

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf--George Orwell

Mark, you do a really poor job of hiding whose side you're on.  Is anyone really supposed to believe the comments above are objective news reporting?  You say, "Clinton, however, didn't necessarily defend MoveOn; she just didn't denounce the group's ad."  Give me a break.  If you can't IMMEDIATELY come out and denounce the disgraceful MoveOn ad, you're doing nothing but endorsing it!  It seems pretty easy to distance oneself from the ad but Hillary makes no attempt at doing so.  No one in the Democratic party can denounce the extreme left wackos anymore, because that fringe has been pulled so dangerously close to the mainstream of their party.  Not only does Hillary not denounce the ad, her shameful comments (and those of her Democratic counterparts) impuning Petraeus amount to piling on further.  His report has been slammed more than the MoveOn ad, which is sad.  Your attempt to discredit the Rudy ad by saying, "Note that the Giuliani campaign is trying to raise money with it," is also quite humorous - MoveOn's ad was a fundraising attempt as well!  With MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. etc., etc. being nothing more than shills for the Democratic Party, someone has to be able to fight to get the Republican side a fair shake.  It clearly can't be given a fair shake in the overwhelming majority of the media anymore.  No matter the facts on the ground, the media has decided where they stand, and that is against the success of Iraq, and against our military.

Good Morning Vietnam.
Good Morning Betray Us.
Good Morning "LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL."
NO GOOD morning, just another Bad Day in Iraq!

No Rudy they should listen to the swift boat thugs for
Bush who slandered both John Kerry. it seemed to work for Bush.

Rootie has three wives too,does that make him an expert on marriage.Who cares what he says he wont be the republican choice.Fred or Newtie now there is a pair,or maybe macain he knows how to fight a war ,oh thats right he spent his time in a pow camp that makes you an expert too.The only expert is George Bush,the decider he has decided to give up and rotate the troops out ,talk about a SURRENDER MONKEY,WHY NOT ADD MORE TROOPS AND CRUSH THEM NOW.Why start drawing down just as things start to go our way,quitting I thought wasnt an option,it is now.Thanks to petraus and his plan we are surrendering and announcing when we are going to leave,dont you all feel betrayed didnt you think we were going to win,how can winning be running out of there.30000 troops hes bringing home shouldnt they send more to keep the pressure on the al Qaeada and defeat them and kick the iranians out who will take over when we draw down.THE PRESIDENT HAS A PLAN<SURRENDER>.

Rudy is a joke, he even looks funny, talks funny and
is not the sharpest knife in the drawer!!

I'm a moderate who is disgusted at the way both parties pander to the fringes of each of their parties.  The Gen. Petraeus ad was stupid and ridiculous, but so was the "swift boating" of a decorated war veteran in John Kerry.  Republicans didn't seem to mind bashing Kerry?  And, now they are screaming about the General.  As a guy who sells for a living...I'm tired of what both parties are trying to push on us...crap with a bow on it!

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the whole bunch embarrassed themselves acting as lapdogs to Moveon.  You cannot call our General a liar and then say "Of course I support the troops."  The military is a trained fighting force yet all I hear is "bring them home".  They are fighting to keep us safe.  Our elected officials are only looking our for themselves.  

I'll expect an ad from Rudy and all the other major Repubs repudiating the Swift Boat ads.  If it is wrong for Move on. it is wrong for the Repubs too.  You can't have this both ways.

And would someone puhlllllleeeeeze teach that moron Bush how to give a speech?  

I'm curious about why the war lovers blow a fuse over the MoveOn ad, but they just ignore Admiral Fallon's criticism, which was even more scathing than MoveOn's. The war lovers seem to think that we're all supposed to click our heels and Sieg Heil when a general with lots of shiny medals utters his words of alleged wisdom. Trying to deal honestly with the fact that a higher-ranking military man calls their hero Betrayus an a**-kissing sycophant would probably make their heads explode.

Rudy is another facsist pig just like George W Bush. Where does he get off telling me or Hillary or anyone else that we have no right to question the integrity of Petraeus? Its not JUST our right its our DUTY to do exactly that! Rudy & George & all those facsists at the Faux news channel want you to shut your mouth, stop thinking & let them tell you what to think. And if you dare to disagree with THEM, they will label you UNpatriotic, you don't love God, you don't love America. Its the same tactics used by Nazi Germany! I LOVE AMERICA, I LOVE THE CONSTITUTION but I despise what these criminals are doing to it.

Travis,

While I greatly appreciate your sacrifice, and the sacrifice of all the troops, I wouldn't be so quick to say that this disaster in Iraq is representative of American ideals. Do the troops represent our ideals? Yes. But this illegitimate war? No. Did Iraq attack us in 2001? No. Were they a threat to us in 2003? No. Was al Qaeda EVER there before we invaded? No. Yet we still invaded. That is the immoral part of the whole thing. And now we have to stay there indefinitely. Saying we want less troops there is in no way a discredit to those troops. It is a response to the failed strategy by the administration.

You say you look to the future with hope, and yet you attribute the destruction of our ideals to the "liberal agenda". Blaming other Americans for the destruction of our ideals is hardly hopeful. After all, it was the "conservative agenda" that put our troops in Iraq in the first place.

If the United States is the only place that can project anything well beyond its borders, then how were we attacked on our own soil on 9/11? How does toy manufacturing in China cause such a stir here in the States? This is not 1950, and we are not the only source of influence in this world anymore. That is why we have to work WITH other countries, instead of alienating them with illegal wars and cowboy diplomacy.

I will respond to your quote with another: "Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies." - W.L. George

There will be no miraculous peace at the indeterminable end of this war. And whatever the outcome finally is, our nation will likely be fractured beyond repair because of the struggle to achieve that outcome. Is it worth it?

Yes you can have it both ways ,you attack my military men and I attack yours what a united country BUSH has given us,DIVIDED YOU STAND

MOVE ON OWNS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.

They are on self destruct -AGAIN!

SWEET TO SEE LIB TRAITORS RANT AND RAVE ... by election day --- all they will have is as they did with Wally Mondale - extreme left-wing fanatics.

Remember what happened to Wally?

The bottom line is everybody believed Sadaam had WMD's, Sadaam said he had them, Hillary said he had them, Gore said he had them, Bush said he had them and they allsaid he was providing a safe haven for terrorists as well. Gore said this while he was the VP so his info did not come from a Bush administration with an agenda, it came from Clinton. Should we have gone in and left when we couldn't find WMD's? No! If we did that everybody would have said, why didn't we finish the job while we were in there. Just like they all said about George H.W. Bush after the Gulf war.
When Iraq gets a true taste of a democracy they will never turn back. This will over time effect that entire region in a positive way just like Europe. That took a long time but the last time I checked Germany and all of the other eastern block countries are no longer a threat to the US. A lot of brave soldiers gave there lives on those battlefields during WWII, even though Germany had absolutely nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. We just happened to believe they were not just a threat to the eastern side of the world but also a long term threat to the west. Just because Sadaam was smart enough not to declare to the world that he was not an ally of al queda doesn't me we should be foolish enough to think he wasn't. The man was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers that were blowing them selves up on city busses in Isreal. If you really look deep, you will see that this is a very just war. If Iraq wasn't important to the terrorists, they would not be there! Do you think?

I sure hope the Rep's keep attacking Mrs. Clinton.  That's going to help her right into the White House.  The more the Rep's show their hatred for American's the more they are going to vote for the Dem's in 2008.

All of my Libaral friends were saying for months, wait until the September report from the General. Now the report doen't mean anything. They also keep saying we need more troops, bring the troops home, we need more troops, bring the troops home, we need more troops, bring the troops home. Come on! Which one do you want? More or less or none. Make a decision and stick by it, just once, please? It's like they're bouncing off all the walls. More, less, none, ping, pong, ding, dong, boom. Please just stick by something? Thank you!

Tony Hammett, Surprise, Arizona [[The bottom line is everybody believed Sadaam had WMD's, Sadaam said he had them, Hillary said he had them, Gore said he had them, Bush said he had them and they allsaid he was providing a safe haven for terrorists as well. ]]

You're spouting revisionist history. The weapons inspectors sent to Iraq said that Saddam did NOT have them, but Bush lied and claimed that Saddam threw the inspectors out of Iraq before they could complete their mission. The truth is that the inspectors were forced to leave in order to avoid being killed in Bush's war of agression.

Tony,

I don't even know where to begin. First, can you provide the source of your information regarding who said what about the WMDs?

Second, we looked for evidence of WMDs BEFORE we invaded and didn't find anything. So we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

Third, the people of Iraq will never turn back after they get "a true taste of democracy"? Really? Just like we were greeted as liberators? You don't get a real, stable democracy where there are three groups with fundamental disagreements.

Fourth, the Middle East is nothing like Europe, and comparing this war to WWII is not only factually wrong, it is distasteful. You can't compare a tangible enemy with the capabilities of Germany or Japan with the abstract ideologies and tactics of terrorist groups. I don't have enough time or room to list all the reasons your analogy is wrong.

Fifth, Saddam WAS NOT associated with al Qaeda, no matter what Bush says. Repetition does not turn a lie into a truth. Saddam actually denied bin Ladin safe haven in Iraq. I have no doubt that Saddam funded a terrorist group or two, but it was not al Qaeda. There are thousands of terrorist groups, of which al Qaeda is simply one.

You say, "If Iraq wasn't important to the terrorists, they would not be there! Do you think?" The terrorists wouldn't be there if we weren't there. That is the whole point. Saddam may have been ruthless, but he damn sure kept his country under his own control, and not under the control of "al Qaeda in Iraq".

I almost feel sorry for you that Bush & Co. has been so successful at fooling you so completely.

Almost.

"You write as though the dems are obviously correct, you are suppose to be journalists.  You are not suppose to draw ANY conclusions for me.  You stated "but Clinton knows it's not working" as if she is privy to or knows more than our military."

Thank you Jim Scott, I agree.  The left-wing bias of most major media outlets is palpable.    There is little if any concern among them or the Democratic Party for our security or defense from Global Islamic Crusaders.  Capitulation will always be their mantra.  All that matters to them is how much money they can rob from low and middle income workers.  

Neal Sears [[SWEET TO SEE LIB TRAITORS RANT AND RAVE ... by election day --- all they will have is as they did with Wally Mondale - extreme left-wing fanatics.]]

Ya think Admiral Fallon is a "lib traitor"? He happens to be Petraeus' boss and said that Petraeus is an a**-kissing chickens*** sycophant. How do you explain that? Hmmm????

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

Joe Houston, TX:
Congressional representatives don't represent the United States at large, they each represent the constituents of their district or state and that is to whom they are accountable, not the alleged 70% who allegedly want us to fail in our war against Islamic domination.

Citizen J
"This is not 1950, and we are not the only source of influence in this world anymore. That is why we have to work WITH other countries, instead of alienating them with illegal wars and cowboy diplomacy."

Islamic Crusaders do not want to work with anyone.  They want a world submissive to Islamic law and they will not stop until we either capitulate, die, or destroy them.

The United States' first priority is to its own citizens whether other countries agree or not.  Put the blame for this conflict where it belongs.  None of this would be happening if bin Laden and his Islamic murderers had not spent years murdering Americans at will.  Now that someone has finally put their foot down after years of Democratic Party appeasement and apologetics, they and their supporters cry Foul!  Illegal!"  What's legal about Americans being killed at the random whim of Islamic murderers?  What's legal about Presidential administrations who fail to hold those murderers accountable?  What's legal about a Presidential administration draining our defense and security to the breaking point, making us a target for enemies who believe we'll just take it and go on.  You cannot reason with someone whose motto is "Convert or Die" and who are willing to blow themselves up just to kill you.  The only acceptable compromise for them will be America's submission to Islamic rule.


I will respond to your quote with another: "Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies." - W.L. George

There will be no miraculous peace at the indeterminable end of this war. And whatever the outcome finally is, our nation will likely be fractured beyond repair because of the struggle to achieve that outcome. Is it worth it?

Barbara,

If you read my post with any level of attention, you will see that I said we should work with other COUNTRIES, not other "Islamic Crusaders" or terrorist groups. Bush has shown that he doesn't give a sh** about what anyone thinks, and because this war was fought on a false premise, we have lost the support of many allies. If, as I suggested, we work WITH other COUNTRIES instead of ignoring them, we might be able to fight "Islamic Crusaders" more efficiently.

And how exactly has Bush put his foot down on bin Ladin and al Qaeda? He basically ignored going after the REAL al Qaeda, and instead went after Saddam Hussein and his big bad non-existent WMDs, creating space for al Qaeda to occupy space they were unable to occupy previously?

And so I ask you your own question: "What is legal about Presidential administrations who fail to hold those murderers accountable?"

Citizen-

That is correct, the terrorists would not be in Iraq if we were not there. That tells me it is very important to them. If we don't clean up these Islamic dictators 1 at a time, in there will be a WMD in one of our cities. It we be given to the terrorists at a discount from Saddam, no not Saddam, he's dead thank god. 1 of these other  scum bags will give it to them for the sole purpose of killing as many of our children as they possibly can. I am not being fooled by Bush, I was just born with common sense. It's just like adding 2+2 for me, it really is easy for me to see what's going on. If our country just sits there like we did from 1992 to 2000, the terrorists will grow and grow and grow. I don't want my kids growing up like that. Also you say Saddam had his country under control. Tell that to the people of Iraq that said the wrong thing at the wrong time and had to watch one of there loved ones be beaten, raped, murdered or had there head chopped off. That is really sad that that is OK with you. Our soldiers should not be disgraced like this. Fighting for a safer world.
Dig a little bit and you will find quotes from Sandy Berger, Madelane Albright, John Edwards, Bill and Hill Clinton, Al Gore all saying the same things about how Saddam will either use WMD's or put them in the hands of terrorists. Quit being fooled. How can these people say the things they are saying and continue to look in the mirror. It is just very sad to me. The glass is have empty all the time with people like you "citizen". Would it kill you to say good job soldiers or thank you soldiers.

No one gives a damn what Admiral Fallon thinks of Petraeus. It's irrelevant. It's typical of the slimy tactics the left uses to attempt to discredit an honorable person by quoting an adversary with an  axe to grind. Maybe Petraeus thinks FALLON is a chickenshit. However, he has the professionalism not to say it publicly. In fact, I think Fallon IS a chickenshit for doing that. Are you gonna quote me, you phonies? The last time I looked there were 4 stars on Petraeus'shoulder, which is 4 more than the blowhards who blabber their anti-American sentiments have. It's  amazing how the anti-war cowards know far more about warfare than a 4-star general. They HATE war, but are EXPERTS in waging it. Only it's a different war they wage. Modeled after their Marxist heroes, they fight from WITHIN, in a subversive attempt to transform the US into their socialist nirvana. The Hollywood leftists would have you believe that McCarthyism was a witchhunt. I guess that's why the 50's communists in Hollywood pleaded the 5th when asked if they had ever been a member of the Communist party. The leftists are still undermining their own country and then have the nerve to insist they're patriots. They act as though the US is so militaristic, but if they pulled this subversive crap in most countries, they'd be shot.
Marxists please respond.

Barbara Brownwood, Then explain to me why Congress trys to make decisions like social security for all Americans, defending this nation for all americans, patriot act on all americans, No child left behind for all Americans. My argument on how we defend this nation is for all Americans, not for individul states. However if you were to poll Ga., you'll find most likely 70% of your state disagrees with the handling of this war against Al Queada. What is truly sad about the 30% of you in our nation is you cannot say with any certainty that we are now any safer because of this failed policy in Iraq. Neither could Gen. Patraues. Also by what you say, if the majority in my state disagreed with this failed policy, my two family members would not have to continue to serve in our Armed Services and would'nt have to serve in Iraq. Pease post with some forethought. Such ignorance!

MOVEON.org should move out....Smearing an American General that the Democrats voted to send to war, a general who risks his life doing what the congress asked him to do..and the democratic candidates not denoucing this NYT's ad shows who owns the Democrats..a leftist fascist group....this is dispicable...The Democrats will never get my vote..

All Americans need to ask themselves whether they want a President in 2008 that is committed to defending our country against terrorism or if they want a president with the stated objective of leaving Iraq to the terrorists.  I know for sure that I don't want a President in 2008 that is a puppet of MoveOn.Org

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/admiral_fallon_said_what.asp

Let someone actually ask Fallon if he did indeed insult Petraeus.
The story sounds bogus to me. For one thing its a clear violation of the UCMJ for a superior officer to use such language towards a subordinate.
For another it sounds like a childish remark, as the above article points out those are the words of a twelve year old.
As usual these stories never come even second hand and this one doesn't come from anyone who will identify themself or their supposed source.

I could publish the claim that someone told me that they heard Barack Obama had sex with farm animals on a regular basis. The level of credibility would be the same.

As it is at this point al-Queda has lost Somalia and can not regain a foothold in Afghanistan because they have committed and lost far too many recruits to Iraq.
The drain on al-Queda resources has made Waziristan their final refuge and soon enough it will be their graveyard.
Iraq is but one front in the overall war on terrorism, and al-Queda is not the only enemy out there.

I doubt that the press really knows much about what anyone in the military thinks, Fallon included. Since Waziristan is far from the sea and offers few targets for carrier based air strikes any ground war there will not be decided by sea power.
As in Afghanistan when the time comes it will be Pakistani troops and anti-al-Queda tribesmen who'll bear the brunt of ground combat, with a great deal more support from NATO troops than the Northern Alliance had.

Hey all you right wingers, do you still believe the body counts that McNamara fed the press during  Vietnam?  He cooked the books, to make it look like
we were winning.  It's a very parallel situation.  Why do you believe that Petraus would not do that?

The evidence is he is cooking the books; car bombs are not counted as violence anymore!  Why? Because they are going up!

Joe Houston, TX
"social security for all Americans, defending this nation for all americans, patriot act on all americans, No child left behind for all Americans"

The only items you mentioned that are remotely constitutional are those related to the defense of the states as a union.  A central federal government has no constitutional foundation for involvement in the education or financial support of America at large.  The encroachment of federal government upon the rights and responsibilities of states and localities should not be tolerated.  

"if the majority in my state disagreed with this failed policy, my two family members would not have to continue to serve in our Armed Services and would'nt have to serve in Iraq"

I too have family in the military who have completed tours in Afghanistan, as well as friends in Iraq.  I never suggested that a dissenting state had the right to flout duly enacted federal law, only that a state representative must represent what his constituents support for America as a whole, not his personal perspective.  

I have not polled my state so my consensus based on what I have read, that ousting Hussein was not a mistake in our war against Islamic terrorism, is as valid as your "most likely."

And frankly, I don't believe personal insults are what the drafters of our Constitution had in mind when they spoke of the free exchange of ideas.

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