McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Amazed, Atlanta — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:11:31 GMT

He reminds you of your crazy old conservative uncle at the Thanksgiving Dinner Table who goes on and on with republican philosophy, and you tolerate, because he's old and you have some degree of respect, but when the chips are down, he's WAY out of touch.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Patrick, Huntington Station, NY — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:18:26 GMT

McCain needs to take a chill pill and realize that the Dems were voted into the majority because Americans are angry too, angry that we were duped into this needless war, angry that we are being lied to by republicans as to what's going on there, angry that it's been so mismanaged by the repukes, angry that there's no end in sight to our presence there, angry that we aren't even getting to reap the spoils of war as gas has more than doubled since we've invaded Iraq, angry that our military is being stretched thin and can barely protect our own shores, and yes, Mr. McCain, angry at people like you who make stupid comments like we're winning so don't take our troops out! If we're winning, then why can't we take our troops out? Isn't the surge, put in place to get the Iraqis to take care of themselves, supposedly working? If so, more reason to get our troops out.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Houston — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:22:09 GMT

McCain sez "Today as we speak in the halls of Congress, Democrats are attempting again to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,"

That's just the usual Pub smear tactic. McCain could have just said that the Democrats's reasoning or judgment is faulty about Iraq. But oh, no, he has to brand them as traitors who _want_ to see America defeated.

Maybe what McCain _wants_ is to let war profiteers make even more obscene profits off of the misery and death this war has caused for both Iraqis and American soldiers.

And if he's looking for real traitors, he need look no further than the White House, where a nest of traitors blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

What we don't need is yet another president like the one we have now that views dissent as treason. That pretty much rules out all the Pub candidates with the exception of Ron Paul.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:28:04 GMT

Can someone please tell me what exactly is being fought for in Iraq anymore? We've gone from preemptively defending ourselves, to spreading democracy, to fighting terrorists, to success being "not no violence". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQn3oVblHs if you insist on saying that the C+ Augustus never said that).

I'm all for supplying troops with the funding to complete a worthwhile mission. But it seems to me that the mission, as it were, is currently to stand in the middle of an Iraqi civil war and get shot at. That's not a mission that is worthy of our armed forces in this citizen's opinion. And any politician who insists on throwing live and money down the bottomless pit that is Iraq has no business leading the free world.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Ron NPR FL — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:28:21 GMT

Keep up the fight John all the way to the White House

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Bruce, NV — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:28:34 GMT

Bravo, Sen. McCain.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:28:51 GMT

pssssst, hey John; in case you haven't noticed the Iraq war is going into it's 6th year....and we're still there refereeing sectarian violence.
Surge or nor surge....our involvement in WWII, which was fought on at least 4 continents world wide, took only 3.5 years.
Iraq is only the size of The State of California, and after some 5 odd years, we haven't secured it. We can't even hand off responsibility for security to The Iraqi's without fear of an insurgency.
What is this "victory" you speak of? How is being stuck in a quagmire, a "victory?"
John, I'm sorry but your years are showing and I'm afraid this is why we can't afford to put another septaugenarian back in The White House.
You are dismissed Senator McCain. Go home to Arizona and enjoy your retirement.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Christian, Mt. Athos, WA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:35:17 GMT

Give me a break. What exactly are we winning? Why doesn't someone ask him what we are winning. I don't think he would be able to tell you. He is so full of Republican one liners, it's disgusting. So, if our troops leave Iraq, what will we be losing? Most of us non-neocons can think outside the box and don't go along with the stupid party line (we are winning). I ask, what are we winning? What defines winning and when will we have won?

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Travis, Louisville, Ky — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:39:07 GMT

As opposed to actually winning the war. Mccain, your statistics are pathetic. The surge is not working. So violence is down for the past 2 months... this is still the most violent year of the campaign. Great, our "surge" got us back to where we were in 2005... nowhere fast. Mccain your ideas about torture, and manifest destiny are great, and your public tongue lashing of hate mongering christians... you're a smart(ish) man, but you've clearly shown you're completely out of touch with what Americans' want.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

xoxo — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:41:48 GMT

McCain sounds more and more like Bush everyday, and let's not forget he supports amnesty and higher taxes.

That's why we need change, vote for Ron Paul!
-he voted against the Iraq war
-he has never voted to raise taxes
-he voted against the Patriot Act
-he opposes amnesty for illegals
-he opposes entering war with Iran
-he voted against Bush's amendment banning gay marriages
-he is for reducing the national debt by cutting government spending instead of placing the burden on taxpayers
-he is for fair trade
-he is for limited government
-he is for handling global situations with diplomacy
-his voting record is consistent
-he isn't backed by corporations, lobbyists and special interest groups

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

John B, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:42:47 GMT

Would these be the same Democrats who have caved in and provided the President with every single thing he's asked for? Proof positive there's nothing to be gained by compromising with warmongers.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

--NSMSNBC — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:43:52 GMT

[Displaying a sense of urgency, he said, "I may sound angry, and that's because I am."]
--Dear Senator McCain, I feel the exact same thing, only for the completely opposite reason.

["I’m not going to let them get away with this," he said. "I’m not going to let them set a date for surrender. I’m not going to let them lose this war.”]
--THIS IS NOT A WIN/LOSE WAR. The Republicans try to make this a black and white issue, I don't understand why the Democrats go along with this.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Mikey, NY — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:45:53 GMT

What's this numbskull talking about? Winning in Iraq? The U.S. army isn't even close to winning. The extremists are simply hiding underground till we leave. You can't beat a group that constantly grows like a disease and warps the mind of simple minded religious extermists. We won't win in Iraq, we never will win in Iraq. You can't beat a group of people willing to blow themselves up for something they believe in. Stupid republican needs to get off his high horse and see the facts. I don't care how much violence has gone down, we need to fix diplomacy and get the hell out of this war.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Mike K, Denver — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:51:33 GMT

Is it just me or does anyone really care what McCain has to say anymore? He has attached himself so closely to Bush when it comes to the war, he's about to marginalize himself much the same way tancredo has done on the issue of immigration. As much good as he has done for the country as a member of the armed forces and his continued stand against torture as a US Senator, perhaps it is time for him to drop out, return to the Senate, and let those who have a broader measure of support from the people run for President.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:16:27 GMT

Senator McCain, we reached a sad day in America long before today. The day you kissed the man whose people soiled your good name for his political benefit. The day that, for your own political benefit, you groveled before the very "agents of intolerance" that you had so eloquently identified and properly dismissed. And now, today when you spit and sputter about "losing" a War that should never have been started. Today when you bluster and fuss and promise to make sure that our "stats" aren't negatively impacted by common sense. You appear to demand Victory for Victories sake. You appear not to care about the reason for the war. You appear to demand that we as citizens back any military adventure initiated by any President without question and without hesitation. I remind you Sir, as if I have to, of your heroic service to this nation in an unnecessary and costly undeclared war initiated and conducted over the course of three Presidencies and prolonged unnecessarily through a forth. A total waste of billions of dollars, millions of Vietnamese and 50,000 American Lives. And now, today we find their products on the shelves of Walmart and the Dominoes did not fall. I say no more! No more undeclared wars! No more nation building! No more unnecessary pissing away of good lives and treasure!
Enough!

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Amy B Portland, ME — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:23:44 GMT

McCain also thinks it wasn't enough we lost 58,000 American lives in Vietnam, we should have stayed there until we "won." That's what he said in the last debate. I think, in the Bush plan, Iraq was supposed to be an American colony, not simply a Saddam-free state. They ain't leaving till there is an American base in Iraq. I just heard Biden call these guys Nixon without the competence. These old geezers never learn.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Andrew, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:25 GMT

McCain bought his own bullshit, and forgot that the surge was there to achieve political goals, not military ones. So that fact that Iraqis can't get their shit together even with no violence, is evidence that we should wash our hands of them

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Felix Littleton CO — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:26:37 GMT

The Dems passed funding. Bush vetoed it. He's the one who will not compromise. He's the one who said " my way or the highway". He's the one who cares more about his delusions than he does about the troops. If McCain wants to get mad at somebody, let him get mad at Bush.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Treena, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:30:57 GMT

I hope McCain wins the Republican nomination. He'll definitely lose the general. There is no way such a warmonger will be voted in as president now a days. Sorry, your time has past. We are all onto Bush and the Repubs.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Treena, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:47:39 GMT

I agree Felix. Bush is the one that McCain should be angry at. He is angry at the Democrats, why? Because they are trying to represent the will of the American people. Who do you represent McCain, aside from Bush? Please win the Republican nomination. That would be great, you would lose the general and we can all get rid of the warmongers.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Johnny, Timbuktu — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:51:06 GMT

Angry? A lot of Americans are angry at the Republicans who backed and continue to back this senseless war. Does anyone care that you are angry at the democrats, I don't think so. Keep being angry at them, that will really help you and your party.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Steve A Jonesboro IN — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:53:06 GMT

I hope the American public can realize how dangerous this old fool is. Exactly what is it we are "winning"? The sooner this idiot drops out the better for the country and the entire world. BTW-some one tell this old fool I'm pissed off too-at idiots like him!

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

carlos morales, fort myers, fl — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:56:51 GMT

Hey J Merle................It took only 3.5 years because we dropped two atom bombs to end it, After
countless thousands of american deaths. John Mcain is the only candidate that truly puts his country before politics or himself. Shame on you.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

J. Rayburn, Chicago IL — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:02:44 GMT

Don't waste your time Senator. If the liberals that post here are any indication, the Democrats will never figure it out.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Treena, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:11:40 GMT

John McCain puts his country before politics and himself? How do you figure that? How is supporting this war putting our country first? How exactly is staying in Iraq while our soldiers die helping our country? I think that McCain is putting politics first- pandering to the stupid neocons who worship at Bush's feet (after all God sent him and the war was started by divine intervention). Well, news flash, Mr. McCain, the neocons alone won't win you the presidency. Keep pandering. The rest of us Americans have seen the light and will not vote for warmongers.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Treena, NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:15:15 GMT

J. Rayburn. What exactly have the democrats not figured out? You mean that are soldiers are needlessly dying? We were lied to about this war? We need to stay so that Bush will be vindicated for his stupid choice? Just exactly what do "Americans" have to figure out- last time I checked the democratic stance on the war is that of the majority of Americans. Oh wait, we have to believe whatever Bush and the republicans tell us because they are all religious.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

J. Rayburn, Chicago IL — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:41:06 GMT

Treena, NJ :<Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah>

And so goes your proof.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

HMT-MI — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:27:30 GMT

The religous right and the Bushies made him out to be crazy,against breast cancer research and said his black adopted daughter was concieved in his adultery----Yeah,puke ,the kiss.And the campaigning for Bush and he is still going along with Bush,except for the torture----bomb bomb bomb bomb bombIran------just so hilarious to your fans----go home and retire with your wife---you have dragged your family into too much crap---you did not win in 2000 and you will not win in 2008

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

HMT-MI — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:27:49 GMT

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

ex-marine,vietvet — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:30:38 GMT

mccains not angry he's insane..

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Rick, WS, NC — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:18:27 GMT

We're winning in Iraq? Clue me in again, what was the latest bush definition of winning in Iraq?

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Lee Holmes — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:58:41 GMT

Merle: And got three million civilians killed[estimate of US airraids,gunfire,naval and artillary strikes upon these],along with over 400 thousand dead Americans. For,as one can readily see,American participation in the Second World War was not fought with one hand tied behind our backs. No ''rules of engagement''. No Abu Gharibs to be hectored unto death[although torture and summary execution of prisoners by American soldiers was routine]. No leftwing to scream about vastly inflated civilian deaths. Total war,without the halfshell. Those muttering over ''well it only took less than four years to win WWII''would do well to be reminded that more Americans fell in less than 48 hours in one area of one campaign [Italy in this case],than have been lost in the last nearly five years in Iraq. In the most literal sense,the US would have to stay and fight in Iraq for over 125 years to reach WWII casualty rates,at its present,now vastly declining[The 5th of the 1st Marines in Fallujah has not had a single death in months]scale. US commanders now cite the Anbar silence as ''permanent''. Baghdad continues to get back on its feet,while ,in an unsurpising development,it becomes Bill Clinton and Wesley Clarks Balkans ''miracle''that is falling apart,with REAL civil war this time,in the same place..Kosovo. Where Russians have threatened to back the Serbs,[and create a new cold war with the West],while a frantic EU/UN does nothing,and both sides,Muslim and Serb, are arming themselves to the teeth. It remains to be seen how ''useless''our participation in Iraq is or will become.

Also see: National Public Radio ''Morning Edition''Dec. 11,2007 ''Tensions Mount in Kosovo''.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Blame America For EVERYTHING Democrats — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:14:18 GMT

WE SURRENDER MR OSAMA BIN LADEN
You have the full support of the American Defeatist Party as you fly the Muslium flag of victory over the white house. Your friends in America, Nancy and Harry

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Opa2 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 06:25:10 GMT

Johnny Mac has been blowing that trumpet and rattling those sabres here in Arizona since the early 80s when he first got to Congress. There never was a Republican war he did not support never mind how stupid it was. Remember Reagans great triumph in Granada where he fought a bunch of guys building a road? Great victory that was! And John was all for it. Now it's Iraq and if you guys elect that senile old bugger President we will be at war in Iraq for at least another five years and probably in Iran too and maybe who knows Pakistan?. They do not always do what we want them to do! That man is hell bent for another major war that he can fight from the White House rather than some prison cell. The latter of which he did with distinction and with honor to his country but times have changed Johnny boy. It's time to hang up the old sabre and stop rattling it. Come home to Sedona, you are entitled to a rich and rewarding retirement!

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

David Powell, Ocean City NJ — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:54:49 GMT

AMericans dissatisfied with the war included those who wanted to win but didn't like how the war was being managed. Now the tide is swinging and some of those people like it better, and the majority still want to win - which is going a lot better now! Also, fnny how McCain is called "The crazy old Conservative." Remember when the Liberals called him a "brave Maverick?" Oh yeah that was when he voted with them on Campaign Finance Reform. Looks like he's a buddy one minute and slagged by the lefties the next. Because Lefties demand "compromise" where it means they get their way but don't have the tendency to pay back by giving some lee way back the other direction. Now they're bagging on McCain after all he did for that. I guess it is in their nature. Iraq is going better, 90 percent chance it is won in a couple years if the US sticks it out (I doubt Hillary would leave, and have that taint her presidency, so she'd probably stick it out too) and years from now people will marvel at how vehement the haters were when millions of Iraqis live free and the US is much safer and democracy has another stronghold in the Mideast.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

team john alabama — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:19:35 GMT

You tell'em john, those crazy demos have no sense, we're the greatest country in the world, we'll do what we want to. We'll torture, have secret prisions and put you in jail too if you don't get over there and fight for us. I think like you, if you don't want to support our troops and have a personnal opion then you shoud be put in jail. As far as waterboarding is concerned.. Let quit doing that and just start tazzering them like we do our own people.. that will teach them

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Johnny, TImbuktu — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:39:23 GMT

What I find funny about this whole thread is that no one, not one person, has defined "winning". Any one care to tell me what "winning" will be and when we know we have "won".

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

John B, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:12:23 GMT

"Those muttering over ''well it only took less than four years to win WWII''would do well to be reminded that more Americans fell in less than 48 hours in one area of one campaign [Italy in this case],than have been lost in the last nearly five years in Iraq." OK, so we're not killing enough Americans to win a giant sandbox. Thanks for showing us your priorities. "WE SURRENDER MR OSAMA BIN LADEN" OBL isn't in Iraq and had no influence there until we opened Pandora's Box. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still a regional organization dedicated to fighting an occupying force (us) as opposed to bin Laden's international terrorist organization. You have to find the ball before you can keep your eye on it. Iraq was a mistake in the first place, continuing to pour American blood on the sand won't fix that.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

team john org alabama — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:16:33 GMT

You tell'em john,, Congress has no say, all they should do is sit back and keep their mouths shut. They need not do anything, our prez will sent them all the bills that need passing (a dollar too much and it's the old veto) You demos don't have anything, you'll be suprized what our intellence have dug up on you, all of its legal (we'll just claim presidental... whatamacallit?). So just suck it up john, we'll take back the senate and house,
Don't you just love having the only opion around john
just sign what the prez sends you and we'll be happy

Team john org

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

John Alexander,Edinboro,PA — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:25:25 GMT

I just wish the repub candidates were as angry with that 'little democracy' in Iraq, oh yeah, can't blame those people in charge over there, might look defeatist.
"DANG' why ain't things workin da way we was promised."
What are we winning?
We are winning a chance to stay bogged down in the middle east, picking our favorite tribe de jour or our best religious sect that wants our money and weapons to kill the other.
Democracy, more like 'May the best man win', we'll wait forever.
Do we still believe in the reverse domino effect!
I like scrabble, words are more fun and last longer.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Lee Holmes — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:07:33 GMT

John B: Attempting to distance Iraqs al Qaeda from that run by bin Laden is labour lost. They are one and the same animal. [an animal,we will observe,that is being destroyed in Iraq]. Your idea of al Qaeda being a mere ''regional''organization is belied by its responsibility for bombings in North Africa,and the positions it is now taking up in the Balkans. al Qaeda thus remains a global threat,to be confronted wherever it rears its head. In Iraq in one place at least,this confrontation is resulting in its dismemberment in that country.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

look it up, alabama — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:32:09 GMT

Hey let's get our figures right???

USSR: 10.0M Germany: 3.5M China: 2.05M Japan: 1.5M USA: 0.4M Romania: 0.3M Yugoslavia: 0.3M UK: 0.28M Italy: 0.23M France: 0.21M Hungary: 0.14M Poland: 0.125M (from wiki.com)

You notice the USA was .4 million or 400,000 thousand
of app. 16,500,000 that served in world war 2 that equals 2.4%.. Let see abt. 3900 of 140,000 equals about 2.8%, Our boys are takeing it bad, lets' get them out.. Lets let them have the oil.. who needs it. We're a strong enough nation to come up with something to replace oil.. Then they will need us..
I can't figure out why we train of nations to fight or why we sell them tanks, missles and other things

we will survive john alexander..

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

John B, Des Moines, IA — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:06:41 GMT

Lee Holmes; No disagreement that al Qaeda remains a threat. If we're to see the threat properly, however, it is important to keep in mind that al Qaeda in Iraq is a regional organization that was allowed to adopt the AQI moniker because it made a handy recruiting tool. OBL's al Qaeda is almost entirely independent of AQI, same is true of the North African organization. By pulling back from the hunt for bin Laden to attack Iraq we have made al Qaeda and radical Islam in general stronger rather than weaker. As Donald Rumsfeld wondered, "are we killing terrorists faster than we're creating new ones?"

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Houston — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:38:56 GMT

Lee Holmes [[And got three million civilians killed[estimate of US airraids,gunfire,naval and artillary strikes upon these],along with over 400 thousand dead Americans. For,as one can readily see,American participation in the Second World War was not fought with one hand tied behind our backs. No ''rules of engagement''. No Abu Gharibs to be hectored unto death]]

Comparing World War II to Bush's Iraq fiasco is total hogwash. FDR had to fight with the REAL Axis of Evil, not the phony one that Dubbie made up. And the conduct of Democrat Roosevelt's war effort was under the intense scrutiny of a _Democratic_ Congress during the whole war. Roosevelt didn't get a free pass to screw up like Dubbie got from a rubber-stamp Robo-Republican Congress followed by a gutless Democratic Congress scared to death that they'll be labeled "soft on terror" for not backing a war which, as all good Robo-Republicans know, started with Saddam Hussein plotting with Al Qaeda to attack the World Trade Center on 9/11.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Houston — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:18:51 GMT

Lee Holmes [[Attempting to distance Iraqs al Qaeda from that run by bin Laden is labour lost. They are one and the same animal. [an animal,we will observe,that is being destroyed in Iraq]. Your idea of al Qaeda being a mere ''regional''organization is belied by its responsibility for bombings in North Africa,and the positions it is now taking up in the Balkans. al Qaeda thus remains a global threat,to be confronted wherever it rears its head. In Iraq in one place at least,this confrontation is resulting in its dismemberment in that country.]]

What you fail to understand is that "Al Qaeda" is not a copyright protected brand name like Coca Cola. It's just a name that any bunch of loonies can use if they want to. Had Bin Laden been killed or ignominiously captured at the beginning of the US invasion of Afghanistan, he wouldn't be around to inspire the loonies to take up his "cause" all over the world -- with Bush's help, of course by his occupation and destruction of muslim countries.

I'll have to give Petraeus credit though, for his strategy, which has little to do with the "surge." What he did was adopt the philosophy that "if you can't beat 'em, pay 'em." He's bought the temporary cooperation of what he comically calls "concerned citizens," who are in reality the very same Sunni insurgents that had previously been killing US soldiers and who used to be called "terrorists" and "Baathist dead-enders," and "anti-Iraqi forces."

Only the simple-minded Republican base and the severely misinformed will buy the childish belief that this is a "war" of the "good guys" against the "bad guys." It's not a war. It's a bloody occupation. And there ARE no good guys.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:10:12 GMT

Lee Holmes- al qaeda is being destroyed? You are foolish at best or a disingenuous Neocon apologist at worst. They come and go as they please. We are the primary recruiting tool and provide Basic training and live fire exercises paid for in the blood of our troops. They die on the battlefield and ten take their place. They slip across boarders when they want to and when they get horny they fight to the death to get their 40 virgins. You spew your crap as though there were a finite amount of bad guys that we can defeat in a war of attrition that will allow us to island hop until we reach the secret lair of Dr. Evil. For the 500th time lee, we do not have them surrounded. They have us tied down in a quagmire to which they can come and bleed us as it pleases them.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Lee Holmes — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:03:10 GMT

Houston: ''Intense scrutiny''my foot. There was no ''scrutiny''whatever when the US blundered in North Africa,nor was there ''scrutiny''when tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were locked up without Habeas Corpus protections,nor was there ''scrutiny''when the US lamely loaded 40,000 pounds of mustard gas on a liberty ship only to see it sunk by Luftwaffe airraids on an Adriatic Italian port where this gas was to be offloaded,killing thousands of civilians,British and American personnel who were covered in the substance.[this information was locked up for decades,until 1987].Indeed,for the Second World War ''it is a wonder we are winning it''Remarks,Journalist Ernie Pyle,November,1943,for the Americans passed and blundered from one major fiasco to another,with few held accountable for their wretched mistakes. You will be reminded that ex-Nazis and ex-Imperialists were hired[and paid] for jobs all over Germany and Japan by the Americans. Indeed,our very Space Age relied upon ex-Nazis.

Gary: If al Qaeda in Iraq is not being destroyed,then what the hell else is it? It is nowhere to be found in most of Iraq,now forced to commence operations OUTSIDE of this country. They are trapped in a steel vice and they know it,at least as far as this theater of war is concerned. Even Zawahiri and no less a personage than Osama bin Laden in their most recently
released letters and videos,are worried about Iraq.Then too,the question,always unanswered by the likes of yourself,begs.To wit:

If Iraq is a ''training and recruiting tool''for al Qaeda,how is Afghanistan,NOT?

Some ''quagmire''eh Gary? In Fallujah,which was supposed to be our ''Alamo''there has not been a single American or civilian death since September. Today,the AP observes that a record amount of oil revenues,over 30 billion dollars collected by the Iraqi government,is being sent back out among the Iraqi people. If this be ''occupation'',then we are doing a lousy job of it.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Houston — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:01:43 GMT

Lee Holmes [[There was no ''scrutiny''whatever when the US blundered in North Africa,nor was there ''scrutiny''when tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were locked up without Habeas Corpus ]]

You can always count on Holmes to change the subject when he says something silly. All of the things Roosevelt did, as bad as some of them were, were done out in the ope with the knowledge of Congress and the courts, not in secret like Bush does, as with his torture orders. Roosevelt made some terrible mistakes, but at least he learned from his mistakes unlike Bush, who doesn't seem to learn from anything.

[[Today,the AP observes that a record amount of oil revenues,over 30 billion dollars collected by the Iraqi government,is being sent back out among the Iraqi people. ]]

Funny how the "Iraqi people" that the money usually ends up with are the war lords and the corrupt government officials.

Why don't you just admit it? THe US "victory" in Iraq will be when a dictator is installed who will keep the people in line with brutality and terror, but who will be a client of the United States who does its bidding. Kind of like Saddam Hussein was before he became inconvenient to Bush the First.

McCain 'angry' with Dems on Iraq

Lee Holmes — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:13:53 GMT

Houston: Nonsense. MANHATTAN was kept so secret by FDR,Hoover[FBI] and Donovan[OSS],that NOBODY in Congress or ''the courts''was let in on it.''I knew about as much as anyone,I suppose, about the Manhattan Project,which was nothing at all'':Remarks. Harry S.Truman upon being sworn in as president,April,1945. Indeed,this war for the US,was the most secretive in American history.[most of these accounts which tallied against the democratic nature of the United States,remaining classified for decades after the war and the deaths of all principals involved].

Pass to the Iraqi people,and it is in actuality,these and not the ''warlords''where the money is headed.[or,money is flowing to both]. To date,for one instance,over 20 million has been spent on returning refugees alone,with hundreds of millions more going into infrastructure which is allowing Baghdad to actually exceed prewar electricity usage.[Office of Iraq Reconstruction,Findings,November,2007]. A trackrecord of minute success,yet success nonetheless.

Also see: www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com-Iraq The Model. Perspectives from Iraqi citizens living largely in Baghdad.