Iraq

ex-marine,vietvet — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:30:53 GMT

When Warner asked petraus if the iraq war was making America safe, petraus said he did not know. If the top military commander in iraq does not know if the war is making america safe then why are we there, as that is suppossidly the reason we attacked iraq. the bush political hacks obviously forgot to give petraus his talking points. In watching petraus he did not know much about iran either, he said he was focused solely on the surge, sounds like tunnel vision to me, see only what is directly in front of you but not the BIG picture, a piss poor way to do things.

Iraq

Taylor Mader, Charleston, WV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:31:19 GMT

Talk is cheap Obama.

Tell us exactly, what have you ever accomplished in your political life?

Iraq

Blue state baby — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:40:27 GMT

President Hillary Clinton. 2008 - 2016

President John Edwards. 2016 - 2024

Iraq

Tom, DC — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:40:49 GMT

I see its snide remark on Obama day..Ok, but you forgot to mention something else Milbank mentioned in his article of note:

Clinton, herself a member of the Armed Services Committee, at first entered the hearing room largely unnoticed; she then left and reentered moments later as part of Petraeus's entourage -- basking in the clicks of hundreds of camera shutters.

I wonder why she did this?

Iraq

nuanced — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:46:42 GMT

I don't hear discussion of the facts on the most important question on the Iraq war. Will more Iraqis die if we stay or go? Isn't helping the Iraqis the latest neocon justification for continuing war (#17 I believe)? I believe the record shows that many more have died because we invaded and occupied Iraq than if we had stayed the course with UN containment. Any reason to believe that equation will change as we stay longer?

Iraq

Susan, Miami — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:47:40 GMT

And we still can't get enough votes from the rotten, stinken repubs to end this horror of a war. Discusting!

Iraq

PJ — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:50:54 GMT

Obama is a brilliant man. Intelligent and so well spoken. What a stark contrast to the pathetic little man currently displacing the atmosphere in the White House. Iraq is a collossal mess thanks to GW and his enablers. It wll not get better until he's gone.

Iraq

John B, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:52:05 GMT

What, exactly has GWB ever accomplished in his political life?

Iraq

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:54:16 GMT

Taylor Mader, Charleston, WV--What he has accomplished, what the entire Democratic field has accomplished for me is the restoration of hope for leadership after years of hopelessly inept leadership.

Iraq

RAH — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:54:53 GMT

Taylor Mader...clearly you haven't been listening to Obama, cause he's been telling us and showing us what he has accomplished in his political life. If you want to find some information on your own, you might try doing some reading yourself. Here are a couple website you might try.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

And then here's his Senate website with lots more information about what he's currently doing in the US senate.
http://obama.senate.gov

I hope these help. Then you'll be better informed and wont make such an ignorant statement.

Iraq

PJ — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:04:09 GMT

Taylor: Given the chance Obama would accomplish more to put our country on the right path, in 1 year, than GW has in two full terms. Obama---intelligence + integrity = success. George W---lies + incompetence = failure.

Iraq

Mike K, Denver — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:12:49 GMT

Tell us, Hillary, what have -YOU- accomplished in your political life?

It's nice to see one of the Presidential candidates give a detailed explanation of how they will end the war instead of the endless amounts of rhetoric we've been hearing out of people like Hillary. Then again, we've heard absolutely nothing concrete about what she'd do, just that she'd "change" the current direction. Change it how? Change it when? Where will these changes come? It's so sad watching all the people that support her and picture lemmings falling off a cliff.

On another note, if Dubya's speech is going to be 20 minutes, does that mean his staff only needs to write a 7-14 minute speech given his near impossible to watch delivery?

Iraq

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:20:42 GMT

ex-. You've got it right. There is no light at the end of THIS tunnel, but maybe Petraeus has been looking at Dubya's Colonoscopy Video. They send a light in with the camera, which has probably fooled him. Taylor. As compared to what? Dubya's mess?

Iraq

JIrby, Colorado — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:21:29 GMT

When Bush addresses the nation, he will mainly be targeting those who are still silly enough to believe his crazy BS. It has been quite a while since he has had the attention of anyone but fools. Obama makes good sense, but I don't see that it should require rocket science to arrive at his position. The main problem with Obama's stance is that it isn't what heads of corporations can get behind, not because it doesn't make sense. So, you're not going to get the kind of government Obama stands for by anything short of an Americanized version of the Chinese cultural revolution, and that won't happen until liberals start buying guns. Liberals, then, are telling them they have nothing to fear. Therefore, no problems ahead for the upper upper classes. That spells Hillary for our next president. And I notice that Domenico is telling us that the principal can be more than just your pal.

Iraq

Bee — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:22:00 GMT

I am sick and tired of politician who doesn't have the gut to speak the truth to the American people. Obama is right on this issue of iraq. What is the strategy for getting out? All we've seen so far is tactical measure.

Iraq

VRWC, WA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:26:12 GMT

I find it quite hilarious that "White Flag Treasonous Democrats" are going to lecture us on foreign policy or military operations? Their disdain for our four star general in harms way should be the tell tell sign of their military loathing not to mention Dennis Kucinich coming to you live from Syria stating that Iraq was an "Illegal War". And let's talk about cherry picking! These misfits cherry pick the NIE all the time and at other times they discredit it, as was the case with the Iraq WMD, and all for political expediency and POWER . Fortunately for them they get the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, where they're right 100% of the time. Bravo...they are such forward thinking giants.

Iraq

Independent, Texas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:34:14 GMT

In the interest of full disclosure I must confess that the following makes me CRAZY!!

"Every investigation has shown that Iraq did not, in fact, have anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. But the ad, part of a new $15 million media blitz launched by an advocacy group allied with the White House, may be the most overt attempt during the current debate in Congress over the war to link the attacks with Iraq."

Regardless of my impending lunacy, here are my thoughts:

1) I absolutely detest the attitude of the Bush Administration in its apparent conviction that the American populace is stupid. To wit:

"After some critics assailed Bush for overstating the connection between bin Laden's group and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the White House quickly arranged a presidential speech to defend and reinforce its assertions.

The reason to emphasize al-Qaeda, aides said, is simple. "People know what that means," said one senior official who spoke about internal strategy on the condition of anonymity. "The average person doesn't understand why the Sunnis and Shia don't like each other. They don't know where the Kurds live. . . . And al-Qaeda is something they know. They're the enemy of the United States.""

2) I absolutely detest the way that the Bush Administration evidently believes that a PR campaign is the way to influence the American populace rather than by demonstrated effectiveness of policy and government. To wit"

""Nine-one-one absolutely is a bona fide, legitimate reason to remind people what's at stake," he (Former Bush White House press secretary and founder of the advocacy group behind the ad in question Ari Fleischer) said. "The point is not that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They're not. But 9/11 should be a vivid reminder to everyone about how vulnerable our country is and that's why we need to win in Iraq."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20733211/

Iraq

Independent, Texas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:35:22 GMT

Here we are with the "official" position now - Shows that the Patreaus report was preplanned, IMO.

This is one of the few articles that seems even tempered. Also, it seems as though the Republican Leadership is finally starting to more forcefully "talk the talk". Whether they will eventually "walk the talk" is another story. I have great respect for Sens Warner and Hagel. (Sure am sorry to see them decide not to run again in 2008).

The article starts with the points that Bush is expected to make in his address to the nation planned for tomorrow. Some statements of interest to me in this report are:

- "The address will stake out a conciliatory tone toward Congress, BUT (emphasis mine) Bush will place more conditions on the pace of reductions to the pre-buildup level of 130,000 than Petraeus did."

- "At the White House, Bush met Tuesday afternoon with House and Senate lawmakers of both parties, and he publicly pledged to consider their views. “It’s very important before I make up my mind that I consult with leaders of the House and the Senate,” he said." (Big of him but a little late if you ask me.)

- "As Petraeus and Crocker have, Bush will acknowledge difficulties, and the fact that few of the benchmarks set by Congress to measure progress of the buildup have been met, the official said. Yet, he will stress that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would be a catastrophe for Iraq and U.S. interests." (Again, big of him to "acknowledge difficulties". Another point, I keep hearing this phrase "precipitous withdrawal" in the WH statements but have never seen or heard any elected official actually call for such a withdrawal. I could be mistaken but what I've heard called for is a definite PLAN for withdrawal. In any event, it would take many months if not a year or more to get our troops and equipment out of Iraq. If we wanted to evacuate and leave the equipment it would go faster, of course, but, again, I've not heard anyone say that.)

- "Crocker was particularly keen on detailing diplomatic developments, including Saudi Arabia’s move to open an embassy in Baghdad and a third conference of Iraqi neighbors to be hosted by Turkey in Istanbul at the end of October." (This is some good news. Crocker is the only one I really think is working toward the real goals (or what should be the real goals) of getting Iraq into a position of self-government. I don't believe that Bush, et al, really care about this aspect.)

- "Warner said he hoped the general (Patreaus) kept in mind the casualties that might result from his recommendation. He also said he did not think the U.S. strategy should rely on Baghdad’s political progress because it might not happen."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20719860/

Iraq

Independent, Texas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:37:12 GMT

An article today discusses the Sunni and Shiite reactions to Petraeus' talk. Here are the two primary statements:

- "The way Askari (Shiite parliamentarian) sees it, U.S. troops will stay in Iraq bolstering his government, despite its unmet benchmarks, because the country is too important to let slip into what he predicts would be a regional war and an Al Qaeda resurgence. Any attempt to engineer the ouster of a government with the support of the Shiite masses would be such an open abandonment of democratic principles that U.S. officials could not condone it, he figures. And it would likely touch off all-out civil war. Meanwhile, Askari is confident those grassroots Shiites will support this government despite its shortcomings, because they know that internal division could end up leaving them again a persecuted, second-class majority, as they were under Saddam.

...

"And Askari notes that in its alliance with the Kurds, the Shiite coalition could push through that benchmark legislation wanted by the U.S. policymakers. But American diplomats, he says, keep urging them to find consensus with the Sunnis. That, he says, just emboldens the Sunnis to hold out for more."

...

"He notes that Sunnis opposed and boycotted the first Iraqi elections but later joined the political process when they saw themselves marginalized. If the Americans would just adopt the so-called “80 percent option,” backing the Shiite and Kurdish blocks who claim that share of the population, the Sunnis would capitulate again. “If we go on without them,” he says calmly, “they will join [later].”"

- "Parliamentarian Ahmed Suleiman al-Awani is a (Sunni) tribal leader from Ramadi in Anbar province, which U.S. commanders showcase when trying to show progress in Iraq. He focuses on what the hearings did not cover. Why wasn’t more time spent dealing with Iranian-backed Shiite militias with government connections that terrorize the Sunnis? What about the attempts to marginalize and ignore the Sunni members of the government? And in addition to what he sees as the sparse mention of the failings of the Shiite-led government, a favorite Sunni topic, the Americans were taking credit for the indigenous Anbar province offensive against Al Qaeda, for which Sunnis paid a heavy price in blood. “The problems of Anbar were not solved by the [Iraqi] government or the Americans. They were solved by the Sunni tribes,” Awani grouses."

If we are waiting on the Iraqi government to peacefully settle differences, we will wait forever. It appears to me, based on this report, that neither side particularly cares if the USA stays or not - they care who will get the most munitions.

IMHO, no matter how long we stay, the day after we leave this rivalry will play out in blood on both sides. Our only question is whether or not we shed anymore of our own blood before it happens.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/checkpointb...eus-report.aspx

Iraq

TheRealist nyc — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:47:09 GMT

"I opposed this war from the beginning," Obama says, according to the excerpts. "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005 (But I voted to FUND it.). I opposed it in 2006(But I voted to FUND it.). I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."

He DOES know that his votes to FUND the war are on record, doesn't he?
It's the beginning of the end all right, for his credibility and candidacy.

By this time next month, it'll be all about Fred and Hillary, and Obama will have a lot of cash, but not much else.

Iraq

CitizenJ — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:56:09 GMT

Taylor,

Is it Obama's talk that is cheap, or everyone's? Surely your comment is not due to any bias.

You would know what he, or anyone else for that matter, has accomplished if you listened to his speeches, read his books, or did any research.

Iraq

HMT-MI — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:56:16 GMT

I'm sure Bush will remind Patraeus of his booboo----An absolute waste of time---D.C. is dancing while The bloodshed continues and Iraq is burning down.Afghanastan is run by the Taliban and still Bush and his flock of sheep strut around like they have a plan for everything---the plan?Just repeat the same old lies until his term runs out.Bush has never accomplished anything in his life except screwing up everything his brain narrows in on.Impeachment now---

Iraq

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:58:55 GMT

Yes, Taylor, talk is cheap. Obama is a black man, plain and simple. He has been elected to the US Senate after serving in the Illinois legislature. You can name the nymber of black men who have achieved the distinction of serving in the Senate on one hand. ON ONE HAND. In this country, that is a phenomenal accomplishment even 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights act.

As for Petreus and Crocker, nothing they said, that I heard, yesterday sounded very optimistic. When even the President's yes-men can't give a glowing report on the situation there, it tells me the situation is even worse than we are being told it is. The General stuck to his military knowledge and seemed rather short-sighted about the whole situation. However, to his credit he didn't say "if we don't fight them there, we will fight them here." I guess he wanted to avoid falling on his sword like Colin Powell did.

Iraq

Dave, Tn — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:12:51 GMT

"So, you're not going to get the kind of government Obama stands for by anything short of an Americanized version of the Chinese cultural revolution"

It's what your handlers have been directing you towards for years. Don't worry though they'll be safe It'll only be the slaves that die.

Iraq

malarson2, Beaverton, OR — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:15:04 GMT

John Edwards is lacking necessary buzz. Hilary Clinton is flat-out not electable in the general. If we (the Dems) want to take back the White House then voting for Barack Obama in the primaries is the only way. I want someone who is smart and has good judgement running my country. Period.

Iraq

Jessica, WI — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:18:10 GMT

VRWC,

I guess all you can do now is attack the Democrats. You certainly can no longer defend the current Administration or it's policies. That speaks for itself!

And remember - it's not just he Democrats that are outraged with the current policy.

Iraq

PJ — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:25:19 GMT

VRWC: Its not loathing for the military, its disgust with being LIED to. And its not treasonous to call out those lies, its quite patriotic actually. Anyone who still supports this corrupt administration is EITHER too ignorant to see what they've been doing OR is complicit in their crimes against humanity.

Iraq

Independent, Texas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:26:03 GMT

ex-marine,vietvet (Sent Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:30 AM)

ex-marine (thank you for your service)

God knows I don't want to EVER sound as if I am defending the Bush administration in any effort but most particularly in his misbegotten war in Iraq.

However, as your own service history will no doubt confirm, the military is not supposed to set or defend policy. They are to go forth and accomplish MILITARY objectives. Perhaps the only time I could feel that Patreaus said not only the whole truth but replied appropriately was in his answer to those questions. Of course if anyone would ever tell me what the military objectives actually ARE in Iraq, then we can talk. There are plenty of "tactics" but I don't see "objectives" and I sure as hell don't see anyone saying what "success" would look like. We just hear "benefits". Sigh.

The military is the implementation arm of war - not its moral arbiter. They do what we tell them to do.

The Commander-in-Chief, howevever, should be hauled before a tribunal to answer those very questions.

Thank you,

Iraq

Wally — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:35:27 GMT

Point #1: The Democrats are traitors and are disgusting. They totally beleive the bilge on a BinLaden tape, but question the integrity of a US 4-star General.

Point #2: Why do the Democrats always have to come back to Vietnam. Remember it was Johnson that elevated troop levels in Vietnam to over 500K and then did not have the guts to run for President in 1968, thus dumping the problem on Nixon. Why is Johnson's name never included with problems of the Vietnam War. Also remember westmoreland was appointed to CINC Vietnam by Johnson.

Point #3: Why are no Democrats concerned about the latest Clinton Fund raising scandel. For a women that is so smart she really does know that much or recall anything. With such a weak mind how could she even function as a cash register operator. Just another point on the trend line beginning in 1996.

Point #4: When we leave Iraq in totality, what is the Democrat plan to stabilize Iraq? Again they talk big about the children and peoples of other countries, but lack the balls to do anything about it while drinking Starbucks and living in Million Dollar mansions. Get real.....Look around and you will see the real world is mean and hard!

Like John Wayne once said: "Life is tough and it is even tougher if you are stupid!"

Wally

Iraq

tuck,realityville, kansas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:35:52 GMT

obama, when are YOU returning Hsu's money?

oh, never?

Iraq

HMT-MI — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:38:06 GMT

who would bother listening to this crackpot?He probably does not know where he is.And his repeated freedom,light at the end of the tunnel,we will win are worn out phrases that even mean nothing to him.Making time to excape his whitehouse prison.Even he knows he is fried.

Iraq

Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:40:14 GMT

We get attacked by Saudi terrorists (9/11) and then immediatly blame it on the Teliban and then attack and occupy Afganistan. We then accuse Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction so we attack and occupy Iraq and kill one million of their people at a cost of four thousand of out best and brightest not to mention the treasure of our country. I don't care what kind of spin is put on this pathetic history, it is wrong and nasty. We have lost the class we one posessed by defending the world (W.W.II) against the Fascist empires. Now we prepair to attack Iran. What is it with people who have to try and control the world.

Iraq

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:50:46 GMT

Biden is such a child, first reading the paper during Obama's questions, then cutting him off right when he asked a brilliant question of the two that had them more up against the wall than anytime in the entire hearing. I didn't have a particularly high opinion of Biden before, but even I didn't think he was petty enough to stall the entire Iraq debate in this country just to not let an opponent one-up him and somehow derail his hopeless Presidential run I guess.

I suppose the bright side is at least when he was reading the paper, he didn't have the time to insult any Sago mine widows.

Iraq

Lee Holmes — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:52:59 GMT

Nuanced: Not according to the leftwing and liberals anyway,circa 1999,who claimed that the UN ''containment''was starving ''millions''of Iraqis to death. As with the now-discredited LANCET study of Iraqi civilian deaths[which was quoted as recently as two weeks ago by far-leftwinged activist and actor Tim Robbins while on Bill Maher],human rights NGOs including Amnesty International,Human Rights Watch,and the International Red Cross were citing figures in the ''hundreds of thousands''of Iraqi children and elderly who were dying of starvation due in main course to the UN containment of Iraq during the 1990s-2002.

Iraq

Stephen Cassidy, CA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:53:36 GMT

This is just manufactured news by Obama. Look at what Obama is saying: he'll keep US combat forces in Iraq for the next 15 months. If he became President we would be fighting in Iraq through 2009 and into 2010.

But that's not all - the "combat troops" distinction is highly misleading. Under Obama's plan as well as HRC's and Edwards, we will have "non-combat" forces in Iraq for years to come - up to 80,000. These "non-combat" troops will be training Iraqis, operate as strike forces to engage extremists and terrorists, provide security in the green zone and operate our military bases. In fact, our air force could remain fully deployed in Iraq. They are not "combat brigades."

The bottom line is Obama, HRC and Edwards don't have confidence in their own judgment and trust the will of the American public in standing up to the Washington and military establishment on Iraq. They pay heed to the voices in the establishment saying a complete withdrawal will result in chaos in Iraq - as if we don't already have chaos.

The Iraqi government has become dangerously dependent on the US for security. By keeping tens of thousands of "non-combat troops" in Iraq for years to come this dependency will not be broken. Moreover, the propaganda advantage the terrorists gain in the Middle East and worldwide from the US occupation of Iraq will continue.

We need to bring every single US soldier out of Iraq - starting now. Only Richardson understands this. He has made the case for bringing home all US forces repeatedly, including in a recent Op Ed in the Washington Post. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063.html

Iraq

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:05:44 GMT

Mike K, Hillary changed party affiliations from repub to dem in the 60s. Thats all I need to know.

Iraq

Houston — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:12:30 GMT

VRWC [[I find it quite hilarious that "White Flag Treasonous Democrats" are going to lecture us on foreign policy or military operations?]]

You should be careful who you call "treasonous" after the Bushite traitors Rove and Libby committed treason by blowing the cover of a CIA agent.

Bush has lost the war in Iraq because he is an incompetent leader, but that doesn't mean the US has to "surrender." There's not even anybody to surrender _to_ in Iraq, just countless splinter groups that are at each others' throats as much as they're after US troops. Pulling out of the endless quagmire that Bush got us into is NOT surrender.

Iraq

Mark Thieme — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:15:50 GMT

JIrby:

"When Bush addresses the nation, he will mainly be targeting those who are still silly enough to believe his crazy BS. It has been quite a while since he has had the attention of anyone but fools. Obama makes good sense, but I don't see that it should require rocket science to arrive at his position. The main problem with Obama's stance is that it isn't what heads of corporations can get behind, not because it doesn't make sense. So, you're not going to get the kind of government Obama stands for by anything short of an Americanized version of the Chinese cultural revolution, and that won't happen until liberals start buying guns. Liberals, then, are telling them they have nothing to fear. Therefore, no problems ahead for the upper upper classes. That spells Hillary for our next president. And I notice that Domenico is telling us that the principal can be more than just your pal."

Dig it.

Iraq

bc Indiana — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:21:26 GMT

I don't think a specific timeline will assist US troops in any way. In fact it will jeopardize them.

Additionally some sort of stability in Iraq is required prior to withdrawal or this really was for nothing.

Ultimately the focus on Iraq distracts from the conflict in Afghanistan/Pakistan where the real war on terror is being fought.

Do what it takes to get Iraq stable however long that takes and re focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan where al-Qaeda has once again re established itself.

Iraq

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:34:45 GMT

Wally, John Wayne was right- YOU are stupid!

Iraq

Flat-earther, Georgia — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:35:27 GMT

GWB is right. We need to stay in Iraq. This is an oil rich country, strategically located.

We need to secure our energy future. We need to influence Middle Eastern politics. These are the main ways we can maintain our security. Also, the profiteers feed well.

Iraq

Mark Thieme — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:40:13 GMT

HMT, Robert Catalano: kudos!

HMT, forget impeachment, though. The deal has been done.

Robert, as always you have something well worth the reading and succinctly put.

To you folks, and to JIrby, thank you for making this thread a thoughtful first read this morning.

People like you keep me encouraged that there are yet a few literate, intelligent folk left on our desolate planet.

Rock on...

Iraq

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:41:21 GMT

VRWC, WA--Squawk and name call all you want if it makes you feel better. This is a failed policy by an inept administration based on an intellectually bankrupt Neocon fantasy. The only bright spot was the incredibly heroic performance of our military including David Petraeus. Only fools criticize these men. They have the unenviable task of the tactical execution of the Strategic policy of elected civilian administrations. They must do so without criticism or complaint while in Uniform. They must have the discipline to support the President and his policies with a straight face even when the truth is apparent. The very existence of our Republic depends on the militaries subservient relationship to the civilian authority. He is indeed an honorable man with a strong heart and a strong stomach.
General David Petraeus did his duty in front of Congress with honor and was even able to testify to his personal feelings without intimating disloyalty.

John Warner "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"

Gen. Petraeus "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."

Thats good enough for me.

Iraq

FL — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:42:29 GMT

The DEMS need to wake up and realize Obama is their only hope of winning a general election in 2008. People want change now and Obama is their only hope. Otherwise the Dems will be crying that they had another election stolen from them when it is they themselves that cost us to lose. Remember Kerry in 04…The Dems could have put BOBO the clown up there and he would have done better then Kerry. Wake up people Clinton can NOT and will NOT will a general election in 08.

OBAMA 08

Iraq

Bruce, NV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:16:39 GMT

SO, Obama wants Mesopotamia to become another Indochina, it seems. US leaves with its tail between its legs, and killing fields engulf the middle east. Will their be benefit concerts and telethons than, as their are for Darfur?

Iraq

Not a BO supporter Anymore — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:16:40 GMT

Obama had an opportunity to question the senior U.S. military commander in the field about events in Iraq and he choose instead to pontificate and make a long boring speech full of platitudes which we've all heard before. When he finally did getting around to a question--too bad time was almost up-- it was one that someone else had already asked. And this is the person who is suppose to bring us together? I thought that required a listening skill.I'm glad Biden choose to read a newspaper. I would have too. Obama supporters are being fooled by a man who is more interested in promoting himself and his rock star image than he is in others. This "exchange" with Petraeus shows just how shallow he is, GQ photo shoots, Hollywood parties, Broadway shows and all.

Iraq

Not a BO supporter Anymore — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:19:09 GMT

Iraq

Not a BO Supporter Anymore — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:20:19 GMT

Iraq

Mark Morris — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:22:34 GMT

Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He has two brilliant best-selling books. He took a penniless job after graduating at the top of his class to help poor rural communities organize. He's spent more time in elected office than Hillary or Edwards. The reason people like Hillary is they think she'll govern like Bill. The reason people voted for George Bush was that they thought he'd govern like his dad. Wake up people! Obama is the real thing!

Iraq

wallywhereisthebeaver — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:33:33 GMT

Wally...how nice of you to describe yourself to all of us so aptly!

"Life is tough and it is even tougher if you are stupid!"

Iraq

Dave, Tn — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:33:58 GMT

I'd like to know how Mark Thieme & JIrby are planning on sorting people out when they go on their killing spree.

Iraq

Roger, Oakland CA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:36:27 GMT

Obama from kos:

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now. We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

"Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite – or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

"There is something unreal about the debate that’s taking place in Washington… The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand. The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."

Too true...

Iraq

Mark Thieme — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:41:36 GMT

The Bush administration has indeed pulled off a coup. What they have accomplished is nothing short of monumental.

They have governed for 8 years with a bumbling, mumbling, three-time loser, brain-dead as a snail, president. A man so arrogant as to actually believe he is worthy of the office, all other indications being contrary.

They have used the Constitution of the United States of America as Strom Thurman used Depends. Poop in it and have someone change it when necessary.

They have made the Congress look like the narcissistic poseurs they are while jamming through war legislation making the case for war about as articulately as Miss Teen South Carolina talking geography.

They have killed tens of thousands of people for a cause that historians will be trying to decrypt for a thousand years, assuming there are any left after this.

All this, and so much more, with abysmally low support from the American people. Aside from the Bible pounding Bubbas in the South and the blood and guts farmers in the Midwest and West, they have had nobody. All the smart folks just sighed and watched American Idol for deniability.

Perhaps only Lincoln and FDR got away with as much. Of course they are already in the Hall of Fame so it's a little late to complain. But Bush? Will he ever be vindicated (except, of course, by the "base")? Not likely.

Therein lies the miracle. Bush (and his "Hole in the Head Gang") have dominated this nation as few Presidents have and yet virtually no one with a basic community college education supports him.

He has lied, manipulated, tortured, and warred and it is hard to find anyone on the street not heavily medicated who will say a good word for him.

Yea, the man is stupid, but he is smarter than us. And we, our children, and our children's children to the 7th generation will curse his name.

Now that is impressive!

Iraq

DC — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:55:03 GMT

Talking talking straight to one another.

Iraq

Taylor Mader, Charleston, WV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:26:25 GMT

MM +++ Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He has two brilliant best-selling books. He took a penniless job after graduating at the top of his class to help poor rural communities organize. He's spent more time in elected office than Hillary or Edwards.

So the grand total of his political accompishments still appears to be . . . . zero.

Iraq

Scott in South Texas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:30:16 GMT

The Middle East has been a killing field for centuries; all our invasion and occupation has accomplished is to have provided 150,000 new targets.

Iraq

Houston — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:31:10 GMT

I noticed that the "news" media have mostly been ignoring REPUBLICAN Senator Warner's telling question to Petraeus about whether or not the Iraq war was making Americans safer. Warner's question was so devastating that he probably won't be getting a Christmas card from Laura and Barney this year.

Chris Matthews, of whom I'm not a big fan, deserves much credit for stressing the importance of Petraeus' failure to answer, except to say "I don't know." There is no purpose for this war except to save George W. Bush's smirking face.

Iraq

I Agree, San Fransciso,CA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:00 GMT

Not OB Supporter Anymore is right. Obama's "brillant" bestselling books are predictably about---HIMSELF! His campaign is all about his biography. It all about him. No wonder Michelle tries to pull him down a peg or two (and gets grief for it) cause I can't imagine living with such an egomanic.Is there nothing this man says that doesn't have an "I", "me" or "my" attached?

Iraq

OBAMA in '08, Pittsburgh PA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:09:31 GMT

These attacks on Barack Obama are disgraceful! We desperately need a leader who is right the first time on the important issues of the day. Obama opposed this unnecessary war in Iraq from the start. He is not afraid to speak his mind and tell the American people THE TRUTH for a change after nearly 8 years of the LIAR-IN-CHIEF George Bush and Darth Cheney. Should the Democrats be WISE enough to nominate him as their standard bearer in 2008, then victory is assured. This is a CHANGE election...a real watershed in American history. Obama represents an opportunity to move in a new, more positive direction. He will work with both parties in the Congress to try to solve this nation's many problems...healthcare, the environment, education. As leader of the Free World, he will develop a sensible and comprehensive foreign policy that does not seek to alienate our friends oversees and opens a dialogue with our enemies. Even Richard Nixon met with Mao and Ronald Reagan did the same with the Soviets. Obama will not be afraid to go after the terrorists including Bin Laden...wherever they may be. This is a man with true integrity and strength of character. He will sweep Washington clear of the lobbyists and special interests who have a stranglehold on our democracy. That TIDAL WAVE is coming in November, 2008. The American people are feed up with business as usual. You can choose to ride that wave or get sucked under!!!

Iraq

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:31:59 GMT

Mark Morris - I'm really hoping you don't think being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review qualifies someone to be president. Even Bush went to Yale, remember.

That being said, I don't question Obama's accomplishments; I never have. I think he is just swell. I just don't think it's his time. Not only does he want us to switch ships in the middle of a war, he wants us to switch from ships to planes. Change is all well and good, but I'm not convinced this is the right time for the sort of sweeping changes his rhetoric indicates that he will be after.

Iraq

Lee Holmes — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:42:49 GMT

Hmm. Apparently Petraeus,or Iraq,or Afghanistan,is getting to be too much for some people.

Associated Press Sept.12,2007:''Disturbed Antiwar Protester Can't Find Soldier,Kills Civilian With Axe Instead''.

Iraq

Big Obama supporter — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:43:36 GMT

Not a BO Supporter anymore...Bye

Iraq

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:43:41 GMT

wallywhere. Wonder if Wally has a "My Life's the Toughest" t-shirt?

Iraq

no longer support HRC — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:45:15 GMT

Tuck,...Hillary will need all the money she can to post bail. HSU is going to talk bank on it.

Iraq

JIrby, Colorado — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:48:51 GMT

Mark Thieme - For some reason I'm not getting posted. Maybe I broke a rule. Anyway, thanks for your input. I hate for people to think they're being ignored. I consider you and three or four others on this board as intelligent enough to keep things real. I also thank Dave, Tn for letting me know what the guys on the low end of the totem pole think. I can always know I've done something right if I rattle the cage of a Dogpatch dweller.

Iraq

Mark Thieme — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:54:45 GMT

Buschco are bad folks. Right now they don't much expect a Republican in the White House in 2008(9). Don't care too much either.

Let the Dems put Humpty back together again. If there is the expected chaos after any significant pull-out, well W and gang can just smirk and say I told you so. Or, if by some miracle the whole detachment from Iraq actually goes well for all concerned, of course, it will be due to the great insights of... Bushco!

Winwinwin! That's how they see victory in Arabia.

Perhaps history and the Constitution will not be so kind... perhaps there will be a price to pay after all. Or not.

Iraq

CitizenJ — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:55:26 GMT

Bruce,

Darfur is in Africa, not Indochina.

Not a BO supporter,

It would appear that you weren't really that much of a supporter anyway if you are so fickle with your support, as you have shown. I don't know if you watched the other senators speak, but if you did, you should have noticed that all of the difficult questions were answered with "Well, uh, that's not really, uh, my area, so, uh, I don't know." They couldn't even say if they thought Pakistan should be a higher priority than Iraq in terms of al Qaeda. What should he have done? He was smart enough to know that he wouldn't get an answer that wouldn't be twisted to support this war. And if he would have asked his question as soon as his time began, there is still no way to get a satisfactory answer in the 5 minutes he was given.

There is no real problem with what he did, only perceived problems in the minds of those who still don't understand that this war is going nowhere no matter what questions are asked of this administration.

Iraq

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:30:59 GMT

Mr Thieme:

I hate to admit it (I REALLY hate to admit it) but most of my family still supports him. My uncle, who is incredibly intelligent and has run a very successful business since the age of 18, stands behind him and regularly gets on my case for not doing the same. (I am the black sheep liberal, after all.)

That being said, I have never been able to understand what about Bush inspires such loyalty in people. It is baffling. He's a glorified country bumpkin who would be nothing without the family name and fortune.

I just don't get it.

Iraq

JIrby, Colorado — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:41:36 GMT

It sure would be nice if I could get my response to Mark Thieme posted.

Iraq

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:26:35 GMT

Sweeping change has never been more badly needed.
If not now, when?
If not Obama then how about Edwards?
Apparently Hillary is more comfortable with the Status Quo? I certainly hope she has intentions of using a mandate (if she can get one)to Change a whole bunch of badly broken things. A good sweeping will be needed. There has been a dry drunk, autistic chimpanzee with A.D.D. in charge of the show for 8 years. Very messy.

Iraq

Malte Wilson III, Boston MA — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:51:47 GMT

Can someone point out any of Obama's accomplishments outside of politics? None that I can see. Maybe a lemonade stand when he was a kid. Hillary? A little Rose Law Firm work, we all know how that went. Edwards had a few things including working for a hedge fund and suing doctors out of existence,

Career politicans seem not to be the best solution to any problem.

Iraq

nuanced — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:50:06 GMT

Thank you Lee Holmes. Even though you disagree with me you seems to be one of the very few who think Iraqi deaths are even worthy of comment. BTW, what you refer to as the Lancet study is actually a study overseen by John Hopkins University that was published in Lancet. It is a scientifically valid and defensible study that has never been de-bunked. It actually undercounts the Iraqi dead due to our invasion and occupation since it only includes violent deaths and not those due to loss of housing, clean water, food, electricity, medical care, etc.

Iraq

nuanced — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:57:58 GMT

Carrie, I hate to say it but I think the Bush supporters are haters. I haven't met one who didn't immediately go into a tirade about some group they hate. They like Bush because he figurately pokes a stick in the eye of the people they hate. They then cheer and high five the misery he causes.

Iraq

Nick Marrs, CA — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:59:06 GMT

Obama has voted to fund the war because the Dems can't get enough Republicans to vote against funding the war at this point. So voting against the war funding will only prolong it, putting our troops at risk.
And Petraeus is the head commander in IRAQ, so he shouldn't be expected to know anything other than how to achieve our military objectives there. Don't blame him for not knowing if we're safer for doing it. That's Condoleeza Rice's job and those who specialize in broader foreign policy issues. Besides, it's a political issue, not necessarily a military issue.

Iraq

Candyman — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:50:08 GMT

Iraqi Kurds & Hunt Oil Co. (USA)=deal
Iraqi Parliament & Oil companies (USA)=no deal
Iraqi Kurds vs. Iraqi Parliament=Homberto

Iraq

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:49:04 GMT

Nuanced - I can assure you, my family is not composed of "haters" at all. I spent an entire day with approximately 20 of them who support Bush. Not once did they spout off about anything or anyone that they hated...nor do they ever.

Iraq

nuanced — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:28:42 GMT

Sorry Carrie, I didn't mean to insult your family. I was going by my experience of engaging in conversations with Bush supporters. Thinking it over I have met a few Bush supporters who did not spout bigoted reasons but instead said they supported him because he was good for business. There were also some who did not like what he was doing but supported him because they felt he was appointed by God. I don't recall meeting anyone who supported him because he was inspiring, made us proud or brought us together fostering peace, love and understanding.

Iraq

H P Boston — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:37:19 GMT

nuanced, well said, my experience with bush supporters also. I don't get either.

Iraq

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:38:06 GMT

Nuanced - Honestly, I have given up trying to understand my relatives when it comes to politics. All I can surmise is that they are incredibly loyal to the party. Although I dare say, if it was possible for Bush to be elected again, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them jumped ship and supported someone else. Not that it would matter. Bush could not get elected dog catcher anymore.

Iraq

Lee Holmes — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:13:51 GMT

Nuanced: This is false. The LANCET study has in fact been criticized and debunked not once but several times,by both liberals and conservtaives,most recently by the International Red Cross. The extrapolation in the LANCET ''study''was based upon a ''95% margin''of error[''certainty''in the form of the study authors], or ''somewhere between 8000 and 194000 battle deaths of Iraqis''. A wildly varied set of numbers which Iraqi death certificates obtained by The Iraq Body Count [IBC],dependably quoted on leftwinged websites as authoritative, have never matched. LANCET is rarely used as a definitive source due to the objections by statistical experts in America and Europe on the dubious means by which LANCET arrived at their numbers.

Also see:WIKIPEDIA:The LANCET Study Support and Criticism.