Do the democrats on this site agree with this guy?

[dude1394]

I can understand someone just wanting to get out and quit. But do you agree with what this guy is saying that they are fighting violence that cannot be resolved?

I'm just astonished that someone would stand up and say this in public. It's as close to Baghdad Bob as I've seen here.

“A Democratic senator on Saturday accused President Bush and congressional Republicans of hindering his party’s attempts to chart a new course in Iraq even though U.S. troops are fighting violence “they cannot possibly resolve.”

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said increased troop levels ordered earlier this year to give Iraqi politicians breathing space to meet political and diplomatic goals have not had the intended result.

“That means our troops are fighting for a peace that we seem more interested in achieving than the Iraqi politicians do themselves,” Casey said while delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address.”

[Janett_Reno]

What do you not understand about it? The Iraqi police must want to do right, not in the name of money or religion but for there country. The same with the Iraqi army. Blackwater is out, we are going to start with drawing troops(draw down), the iraqi's must defend the country and if they don't, then countries around them will influence policy, religion, the country and decisions.

How can we stop violence between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Iran? You tell me dude, why is it violence in the middle east in the first place? This did not start yesterday or today. You blink your eyes in the middle east dude and a fight breaks out. Two of our allies, Kurds and Turkey and just maybe that is getting resolved. The majoriy of the American public has spoke, after 3,000 lifes and after 1 trillion tax paying dollars that amounts to just over 20 thousand to each American individual, they have said that is enough.

That means politics is over. Ever few months W ask for 150 billion or more and Reid has caved in giving him blank checks. Now Reid is saying no more and said 50 billion or nothing. The American public majority has said nothing dude and let's get out. Reid better stick with what he says and even get tougher.

So dude the bottom line is this, we did what we did and we will see in the next 5 to 10 years if Iraq is better off or better with Sadam and if the cost was worth it. I know many think the neocons will attack Syria and Iran but the neocons has had a big break down and the American public found out what they was and stood for and i do not believe Chains, Ramsfield and W can't get enough Republicans, Democrats, or the American people to give money and support more wars the neocons want. Even if they start the war drums up again on weapons of mass destruction, i do not think it will sell this time dude.

The neocons know dude the job they went in to do is not over and that was to take Iran over. He has one year to do it. I have told you, Iraq is not going to be a nice vacation spot and 99% of the middle east will never be. It is a threat of war and fighting over a drop of a hat. How do you give someone freedom if they do not want it? Go look how many Iraqi's are asking for American citizenship. A big majority of them dude is comming here.

You need to read about the middle east and see what it is about and why. Go look why the uk gave Israel that strip of land and gladly wanted out of that turmoil. If you want to learn even more, go read your bible. Lastly, you are not going to change the majority of muslim peoples religion and you are not going to change the majority of the jewish religion in the middle east. You can go over and try but all i can say, is good luck.

----------------------------------------------------

I'll add this also and this is why religion is key. You take a muslim and tell Israel, this muslim is going to run your country or help you change your policy. You take a christian or jewish person and send him or her to Iran or a muslim country and tell the people they will help change your policy. It won't work dude. The person could be a fair and good person but by faith alone, the people will reject it. It is many countries in the middle east saying why has christians taken over Iraq? For oil, for religion, for Israel but you and i can tell them we did this for your freedom or we did this because of weapons of mass destruction but the majority won't believe us.

In the middle east, things can get done better when allied with muslims, jewish faith, chriatians or all types of people. I know you will tell me religion has nothing to do with it or the middle east but you go tell people in the middle east that. So we have done all we can do, we got rid of a tyrant and we have give the country to the people. Will it be better or worse in the future? We do not know now but again dude, you or no one will change the middle east but all you can do as an indivual is try to be a diplomat on foreign policy and try to be a go between. You are not going to change the people.

That is why it is going to be hard for us to police the middle east on our beliefs.

[dude1394]

Do you have add or something. Who said anything about syria. This is a straight question about whether you agree or disagree with what this dude says. Try to focus here.

“A Democratic senator on Saturday accused President Bush and congressional Republicans of hindering his party’s attempts to chart a new course in Iraq even though U.S. troops are fighting violence “they cannot possibly resolve.”

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said increased troop levels ordered earlier this year to give Iraqi politicians breathing space to meet political and diplomatic goals have not had the intended result.

“That means our troops are fighting for a peace that we seem more interested in achieving than the Iraqi politicians do themselves,” Casey said while delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address.”

[dude1394]

Even the WaPo calls the dems to task for their fantasy land.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_opinions

And they rightfully take Dubya to task for wasting time with the Israeli/Palestinian issues. Although I would expect that Dubya isn't exactly doing nothing to help Crocker with the Iraqi politicians.

THE EVIDENCE is now overwhelming that the "surge" of U.S. military forces in Iraq this year has been, in purely military terms, a remarkable success. By every metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been an enormous improvement since January. U.S. commanders report that al-Qaeda has been cleared from large areas it once controlled and that its remaining forces in Iraq are reeling. Markets in Baghdad are reopening, and the curfew is being eased; the huge refugee flow out of the country has begun to reverse itself. Credit for these achievements belongs in large part to U.S. soldiers in Iraq, who took on a tremendously challenging new counterterrorism strategy and made it work; to Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of that strategy; and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite......

Iraq's politicians aren't the only ones suffering from inertia. On Wednesday, House Democrats passed an Iraq spending bill that would have required Gen. Petraeus to abort his successful strategy, limit operations to counterterrorism and training, and withdraw all troops by the end of next year. Democratic leaders acted as if nothing has changed in Iraq since January. Perhaps the most charitable interpretation of their initiative is that they knew it would never survive scrutiny by the Senate, which promptly killed it.

[dude1394]

More Baghdad Bob from the Leader of the Senate.

But Reid, in a Monday press conference, ceded no ground.

"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."

Wow...an intractable civil war. Wonder if Reid believes in the tooth fairy as well. You democrats really believe that someone like this should be leading the senate?

[dude1394]

The good news just continues to flow from our effort in Iraq. Flow, get it?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p..._jg&refer=home

A 46 percent increase this year in the price of crude oil, Iraq's biggest export, has also boosted demand for the debt. Production rose to 2.5 million barrels a day from 2 million in September, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said last month. Crude reached a record $99.29 a barrel on Nov. 21.

2.5million barrels a day is what it was pre-war. I expect it'll only go up from there, very good news for iraqis.

[dude1394]

It's good to see the media stop having these type of "statesmens" backs. Hope they enjoy it back home.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...f-bdfabbc3533f

GEN. David Petraeus, commander of Multi National Forces in Iraq, was a runner-up for Time magazine's person of the year. His remarkable transformation of the military and cultural situation in Iraq will be studied and dissected for decades to come. And yet New Hampshire's two members of Congress don't see him. To them, he and his accomplishments don't exist.

Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes voted against the federal budget bill last week for one reason only. It funded the war in Iraq without a timetable for surrender.

"I have not been fooled by the President's rhetoric about Iraq," Shea-Porter said in a statement. "Iraq is a sinkhole, the Iraqi government has been unwilling to reconcile, and I do not believe in making our soldiers and the American people pay for President Bush's war any longer."

Last year Shea-Porter called Rep. Jack Murtha a "profile in courage" for opposing the Iraq war. Last month Murtha said "I think the 'surge' is working." Shea-Porter still clings to her original position, despite the evidence on the ground. Isn't that exactly what she criticized President Bush for doing?

Paul Hodes said of Bush's proposed troop surge last January, "There is no reason to believe this will accomplish anything productive. Instead of escalation, we need a responsible exit strategy to get our troops out of harm's way. We can't afford another dose of President Bush's catastrophic Iraq policy."

Now that the policy he opposed is working, has he changed his view? Of course not. He said last week that more Iraq war funding would be just a blank check for Bush's endless war. That rhetoric was effective last winter. This winter, with Anbar Province pacified, violence dramatically reduced and shops and markets open, it rings hollow.

On Sept. 18, Hodes accused President Bush of "a failure to face reality" on Iraq. But it's Hodes who refuses to face the fact that, in the words of Jack Murtha, "the surge is working."

Hodes and Shea-Porter have proven that they have no interest in victory in Iraq. They have no interest in even attempting victory there. They want surrender. They want failure. They want to be proven right, even if it means turning a potential victory into certain defeat by defunding our troops before they've had the chance to get the job done.