40% Want Congress to Cut Off Funds Unless President Commits to Troop Withdrawals

[Janett_Reno]

40% Want Congress to Cut Off Funds Unless President Commits to Troop Withdrawals

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...op_withdrawals

Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters say they want U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008. However, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 40% want Congress to cut off funding if the President won’t go along with the plan. Fifty percent (50%) are opposed to Congress using the purse strings in this manner while 10% are not sure.

[Janett_Reno]

Update

Iraq Troop Withdrawal
63% Want Troops Home From Iraq Within Year

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...oop_withdrawal

[FishForLunch]

Why didn't you say 60 % of congress do not want to cut off funds to troops.

[dude1394]

That would mean that 60% want to win against al queda and not surrender to them. Good, we won't, no matter how hard the democrats try to cut and run, again.

[Janett_Reno]

I wouldn't count Hagel, Richard Lugar, George Voinovich, John Warner Democrats. Where did you hear those words cut and run? Is that like stay the course or mission accomplished?

[dude1394]

Then they are just stupid... They are losers in this discussion. Hopefully they will stand up and admit it before they look as STUPID as the democrats do right now.

And anyone else who wants to declare defeat in Iraq right now. If the democrats were not so invested with us losing there they would (should) be happy about this.

Janet...are you HAPPY about what is going on in Iraq? Or have you just suspended reality so you don't have to think about it?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4678

And note this news as well, this is the picture of Iraq today and for the foreseeable future.

This is not a bad thing! These are not problems. Success is not something to run away from! What in the world are you folks thinking? Why risk all we have gained in blood and treasure now?

Petraeus was right the Surge worked. Everyone can see it. Those out to “betray us” are the fanatics on the far left who want to REVERSE things in Iraq. The record is clear. There is no Vietnam coming (just like there are no Nixons running the NSA - duh!). There is no quagmire. Success is at hand. And anyone who messes with that success will get the blame! Surrendercrats are so blinded by their frustration at their own impotence they don’t even realize they face the same dilemma as al-Qaeda.

Any actions which destroy the path to success - including delusional babble about pending defeat which can now only be seen as aiding the enemy and giving them hope - will stick to those opposing Bush! He has the success. If he fails it is will not be his fault but the fault of those who stopped him. This is over. Stop digging your political graves deeper liberals. I would usually cheer you on except in this case the hope you give al-Qaeda in still trying to lose Iraq is only resulting in continuing the bombings and the deaths. Every time you come out and try and stick it to Bush your efforts are rewarded by bombs and blood in Iraq as your political allies in al-Qaeda try an reinforce your message.

We all see the pattern now. You whine and posture and people die in Iraq. The deaths in Iraq are now being laid at the feet of the real culprits: al-Qaeda and its allies in the liberal far left. Stop now before the damage and deaths get out of hand.

[Janett_Reno]

Ex-Iraq commander says bring troops home

Retired Iraq Commander Sanchez Backs Democratic Proposal to Bring Troops Home

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila..._11212007.html

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.

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

When will the neocons support our troops?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Soldie...ning_1121.html

Soldier ordered to pay back signing bonus after being injured in Iraq

Clinton vowed, "If the Administration does not reverse this misguided policy, Congress should pass legislation to set this right."

((((Great going Hillary, support our country and our troops, as the neocons beg for people to join the army, giving them a bonus to try to lure them in and then take their money away from them, after being injured. Trust me dude, the American public will see weekly who supports the troops and who is a true patriot and it is not neocons that take deferments, lie to the public leading us into war on falsehoods, then try to take money back from our soldiers who puts their life on the line. The troops better watch their backs if a neocon is around them or making decisions. Our vets can not even get propper medical attention at home or from the va as the neocons try to take everything away from them. At election time, the vets will stand with who stands with them and again, the neocons will suffer that vote as well)))).

GI Bill no longer supports the cost of college for returning soldiers.

Soldiers putting there life on the line as Cheney and Bush line their pockets with Haliburton black gold and pinching pennies from our troops.

Stealing the taxpayers’ money to fund a war on false pretenses and put our troops in harms way.

Paying private contractors salaries, like blackwater while penny pinching our troops. Keep on supporting private bid companies while undermining our troops. Oh trust me the public sees what is happening.

They cut their education benefits. They cut their medical benefits. Now they cut their signing bonuses - so sorry you lost your arm, or leg, or sight, but since you can’t finish the terms of your contract, pay back the bonus.

More of “compassionate conservatism".

$60 MILLION dollah inaugural that bush threw himself. Can we demand a refund for lack of fulfillment of service for the bush administration? Hell, it’s almost worth it if George agrees to go home early…

$1.5 Trillion back they spent on this imperial adventure of oil thievery and neo-liberalism.

If we can pay Blackwater mercenaries ten times what our soldiers make in salary, we can damn well afford to give our veterans absolutely “Everything” they need!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No spin here dude. Just more facts. A republican and a Democrat as well as an Independent can see what is happening and your one liners won't make a ripple in the next election. Come on with the faith and values, come at me with morals. The American public sees who has it and it sure isn't the neocon party. Now Fair and Balanced tells the fans to go to the games with signs saying support our troops, what about going with signs and him telling the neocons to support our troops? Just more hypocrites. Why do republicans hate our veterans?

I won't vote for a neocon who doesn't support our troops. Hillary will be in soon and thank god for this blessing. She will help our troops.

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

You want more games the neocons play, read a little of this. A soldiers life is not for the neocons to play games with, as it is a disgrace. Reid and congress must not cave in to a bully and stand their ground. Him and Cheney are back to one liners and playing games. It won't work with the American public anymore and Reid and Congress better hold their ground.

The Bush administration is threatening that it will issue furlough notices to up to 150,000 civilian workers at military bases in mid-December if Congress does not approve unrestricted Iraq funding immediately. As part of this campaign, the Pentagon is distributing a document warning that the Army may cease to function if it does not receive the funds now.

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

[dude1394]

What exactly is happening Janett? Do me a favor and give me a synopsis of what you see happening there. I cannot help that Sanchez is wrong, as the other democrats and republicans who wanted to quit and give Al Queda a victory were wrong.

Don't try to mix up traditional funding of benefits with winning a war. It's clearly not the same thing. Only if you are making politics does it come close. As you are.

[Janett_Reno]

Al Queda was not in Iraq untill we went in. Other Republicans in this forum has told you this.

Even the neocons has said we are going to start reducing down soon. Let's hope all goes well and the Iraqi army, police and gov do a good job on running the country and protecting the country from outsiders. Our military went in and did the job.

[dude1394]

They have attacked us and our Iraqi allie. So the question is do you want to let them defeat the US or not?

Your democrat allies do. After all of the fighting and dying they now want to quit. The folks who want to withdraw (especially now) want to surrender. Is that what you want?

[Janett_Reno]

Al Queda did come in after we went in. Here is the problem dude, if we do not stay forever and keep alot of troops over there forever, then it will always be attacks by radical groups like Al Queda.

This is the mess we got in. The majority of the public want's us out. Now Republicans and Democrats want us to start bringing some troups home.

Again dude here leads to many problems. No nato, no allies helping us, no Saudi's, then the adm says they will not talk to Syria or Iran. Maybe lately they changed their mind on this, not sure.

It is a no clear cut policy on how to keep the country safe of fear, terror and bad, unless we stay forever. Now you, i and i would hope everyone hopes the Iraqi army, gov, police and all stand together and can protect themself. Can they? Not sure and again it is the unknown we do not know.

You have brought up a good point do we let them attack our allie? In Iraq. It is not defeat as the mission dude was to remove Sadam from power and free the people. This has happened. O'Reilly or you can not defend the point Al Queda was in there before we attacked.

That point, the neocons must push and try to make where Al Queda was in there. They must push on the terrorist are comming. We do not know how this will turn out and how Iraq will be or turn out but not always when you remove a dictator, does a nice person move into office. Maybe this time it will be.

That is a hot bed in the middle east. The question dude is this, how will Iraq be defended and by whom, for how long and i would think to talk to all around them and politely tell them, do not give us reason to attack you or interfer with Iraq and we will be nice to you as well. I do not think you will see a country come in to invade Iraq but some will try to undermine the gov, in many ways and try to deceive or make the army, police, gov more radical as they will try to win the hearts and minds of them, then they can move in as they will almost be invited.

This is what i hope doesn't happen. If military started to invade, we can see and quickly go back in. So it might be hard for us to keep peace in that country and people from interfering, unless we stay and fund the war forever or you might even call it guarding the country. These people must defend their country and step up now. This is where alot of the generals are having probs as they do not seem to be progressing alot.

As we start to move troops out, or reduce, how do you see it all playing out? Can they defend the country without us? I sure hope they can. We are not going to pull all troops out at once but reduce down i think but "it very well can be" a hot bed if we stay or if we leave.

[dude1394]

Quite talking around it.

If we leave Iraq now Al Queda (and the world) will see it as a defeat of the US by Al Queda. Just like it was against russia in Afghanistan.

Now decide what you want.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Ex-Iraq commander says bring troops home

Retired Iraq Commander Sanchez Backs Democratic Proposal to Bring Troops Home

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila..._11212007.html

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.

Some aren't that impressed with Sanchez..
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4682

You know the general in charge can really make a difference in a war. Just look at General McClellan and General Grant in the civil war. General McClellan was unimaginative and risk adverse, and therefore let the civil rage for two bloody years to basically a stalemate. The North had the people and resources to take out the South, but McCellan’s tactics allowed General Lee to make advances despite the odds. When Ulysses S. Grant took over the civil war turned from stalemate to victory for the North.

Now we can see a parallel to that war 150 years ago and the Iraq war. Is it just coincidence that the change in military leadership brought in new tactics and new successes? Now that the original military leader has clearly joined forces with the Surrendercrats it seems obvious that our early efforts in Iraq were being led by a man who did not believe we could succeed, and planned accordingly:

[Janett_Reno]

Here is the problem dude. All the neocons want to tie all problems to Iran, Syria and Al Queda. That it is just a small group herded like cattle in one place. Now i am going to open a big bag of worms up for you and now you want to get all the terrorist? Now listen to this, as much as you are in love with Bush, he will never touch or invade Saudi Arabia and neither will any Democrat or Republican. We are told to let things fly with them because we are in bed with them. We are tied to them at the hip and they are tied to us. Now spin this anyway you want it dude and you or Bill O'Reilly will not be reporting this because you or him doesn't want the American public knowing it. You want them to know one liners. Cut and Run, Mission accomplished, the Republicans are the christians, we are getting Al Queda, only Al Queda lives in Iraq, Sadam was Al Queda, but as you can see dude the real truth is it is more than just Al Queda comming in to create havoc. Read the article and see and then try to spin it. Nope, we are not going to invade Saudi or Libya and dude you or the neocons won't spin it enough where we will invade Iran or Syria before the cowboy is out. These religious fanatics that hate westerners over in the middle east, christians, jews, are going to run to safe havens dude. Understand that? Let me say that again, these fanatics and suicide bombers are going to stay in a safe havens untill they come over and do what they do. The 9/11 bombers was from Saudi Arabia. Alot and the majority of the suicide bombers are comming from Saudi. Understand that? So cowboy politics and cowboy shoot em up isn't going to work to rid them when they live with our allies, that we are in bed with. So when you get down to the root of the problem and you start on your soap box, Sadam was mean, Sadam was bad, free the people, go get Al Queda in Iran and Syria, but leave all our precious allies alone. In Vietnam, we couldn't cross certain lines either and neither can we in the middle east dude. One good thing, it sounds as if our adn has put some pressure on Saudi and the attacks are not as bad or as many are comming. You will not win their hearts and minds by going into ever middle easy country and blowing them off the map. Because you would have to go into our allies also. This kind of war dude can't be won by a gun. Now read this...

Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

Saudi Arabia and Libya, both considered allies by the United States in its fight against terrorism, were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq in the past year to serve as suicide bombers or to facilitate other attacks, according to senior American military officials.

The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006.

The records also underscore how the insurgency in Iraq remains both overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni. American officials now estimate that the flow of foreign fighters was 80 to 110 per month during the first half of this year and about 60 per month during the summer. The numbers fell sharply in October to no more than 40, partly as a result of the Sinjar raid, the American officials say.

Saudis accounted for the largest number of fighters listed on the records by far — 305, or 41 percent — American intelligence officers found as they combed through documents and computers in the weeks after the raid. The data show that despite increased efforts by Saudi Arabia to clamp down on would-be terrorists since Sept. 11, 2001, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, some Saudi fighters are still getting through.

Libyans accounted for 137 foreign fighters, or 18 percent of the total, the senior American military officials said. They discussed the raid with the stipulation that they not be named because of the delicate nature of the issue.

United States officials have previously offered only rough estimates of the breakdown of foreign fighters inside Iraq. But the trove found in Sinjar is so vast and detailed that American officials believe that the patterns and percentages revealed by it offer for the first time a far more precise account of the personal circumstances of foreign fighters throughout the country.

In contrast to the comparatively small number of foreigners, more than 25,000 inmates are in American detention centers in Iraq. Of those, only about 290, or some 1.2 percent, are foreigners, military officials say.

They contend that all of the detainees either are suspected of insurgent activity or are an “imperative threat” to security. Some American officials also believe that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown insurgent group that claims a loose allegiance to Osama bin Laden, may by itself have as many as 10,000 members in Iraq.

About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population. All of the foreign fighters listed on the materials found near Sinjar, excluding two from France, also came from countries that are predominantly Sunni.

Over the years, the Syrian border has been the principal entry point into Iraq for foreign insurgents, officials say. Many had come through Anbar Province, in west-central Iraq. But with the Sunni tribal revolt against extremist militants that began last year in Anbar, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other jihadists concentrated their smuggling efforts on the area north of the Euphrates River along the Syrian border, the officials said.

The officials added that, based on the captured documents and other intelligence, they believe that the Sinjar cell that was raided in September was responsible for the smuggling of foreign fighters along a stretch of the border from Qaim, in Anbar, almost to the border with Turkey, a length of nearly 200 miles. They said that was why they were confident that the cell was responsible for such a large portion of the incoming foreign fighters.

American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said.

Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. “They don’t want to see the Shias come to dominate in Iraq,” one American official said.

The Sinjar materials showed that 291 fighters, or about 39 percent, came from North African nations during the period beginning in August 2006. That is far higher than previous military estimates of 10 to 13 percent from North Africa. The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters.

For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight.

Also striking among the Sinjar materials were the smaller numbers from other countries that had been thought to be major suppliers of foreign fighters. As recently as the summer, American officials estimated that 20 percent came from Syria and Lebanon. But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total.

American officials have accused Iran, the largest Shiite nation in the Middle East, of sending powerful bombs to Iraq and of supporting and financing Shiite militias that attack American troops. They also contend that top Iranian leaders support efforts to arm Shiite fighters.

But whatever aid Iran provides to militias inside Iraq does not seem to extend to supplying actual combatants: Only 11 Iranians are in American detention, United States officials say.

After the raid on the Sinjar cell, the number of suicide bombings in Iraq fell to 16 in October — half the number seen during the summer months and down sharply from a peak of 59 in March. American military officials believe that perhaps 90 percent of such bombings are carried out by foreign fighters. They also believe that about half of the foreign fighters who come to Iraq become suicide bombers.

“We cut the head off, but the tail is still left,” warned one of the senior American military officials, discussing the aftermath of the Sinjar raid. “Regeneration is completely within the realm of possibility.”

The documents indicate that each foreigner brought about $1,000 with him, used mostly to finance operations of the smuggling cell. Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said.

Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina.

American officials publicly expressed anger over the summer at Saudi policies that were destabilizing Iraq. Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics.

“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview.

One senior American diplomat said the Saudi government had “taken important steps to interdict individuals, particularly military-aged males with one-way tickets.” He said those efforts had helped cause an “appreciable decrease in the flow of foreign terrorists and suicide bombers.” But he added that still more work remained “to cut off malign financing from private sources within the kingdom.”

American officials cite a government program on Saudi television in which a would-be suicide bomber who survived his attack urges others not to travel to Iraq. The officials were also encouraged in October when the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”

Armed with information from the raid, American officials say they have used military, law enforcement and diplomatic channels to put pressure on the countries named as homes to large numbers of fighters. They have also shared information with these countries on 300 more men who the records showed were being recruited to fight in Iraq.

Surrounded by desolate prairie and desert, Sinjar has long been a way station for foreign fighters. The insurgent cell raided by American troops was believed to have been smuggling up to 90 percent of all foreign fighters into Iraq, military officials say.

The raid happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border. A fierce firefight killed six men outside, and two more were killed when one of them detonated a suicide vest inside a tent, military officials said. All were leaders of the insurgent smuggling cell, including one prominent Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia commander known as Muthanna, they said.

In addition to $18,000 in cash and assorted weapons, troops found five terabytes of data that included detailed questionnaires filled out by incoming fighters. Background information on more than 900 fighters was found, or about 750 after eliminating duplicates and questionnaires that were mostly incomplete.

According to the rosters found in the raid, the third-largest source of foreign fighters was Yemen, with 68. There were 64 from Algeria, 50 from Morocco, 38 from Tunisia, 14 from Jordan, 6 from Turkey and 2 from Egypt.

Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.

In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”

[dude1394]

Well...duh....What's the point of this with respect to whether you agree or disagree with leaving iraq NOW instead of cosolidating our gains there in defeating Al Queda.

If we do what the dems want we will be giving it right back to Al Queda and they will be back.

Do you agree with the dems that the surge isn't working so we need to quit?

[Janett_Reno]

The article clearly states, the majority of the violence is not Al Queda. It is not best to play with peoples lifes as a Democrat/Republican thing. This is more than a game. It is serious.

So what our politicians need to figure out is how do we stop the violence from our allies? No matter what you say or do dude, no Democrat or no Republican or no neocon will ever attack Saudi Arabia, never.

People in this forum has said, the USA needs to get off big oil someway. That is why it is bad when you are a slave. A slave to China or a slave to Saudi Arabia. You must eat a bunch of cow pies and enjoy it because when you are a slave, you can't do anything about it.

You know why Saudi loves us and why we love them. It is a reason why that woman was rapped and people around the world wanted the USA to cry out and say or do something as the Saudi gov said she deserved it and we said no comment. When it comes to Saudi, that is a no comment, that is off limits.

Matter of fact dude, Laden said he was going to create havoc in Saudi Arabia for being in bed with the USA. That means Al Queda. That word you use alot. Go look where Laden is from, go look where the 9/11 bombers was from, go look where the suicide bombers are comming from and going into Iraq. They are also going thru Syria and then thru another allie dude, Turkey and crossing over.

This is the real question, how do you stop terror comming from your allies? Not Sadam, he is gone and was no threat anyway. So dude, we have no allies helping us guard borders, the Republicans and Democrats are going to start soom bringing some troops back home, these suicide bombers and fantatics do not have signs on them saying, "we are fanatics". The problem is they can slip in the country when they want, blend in and then do bad things.

It takes 24 hours a day, a big huge force, guarding borders, and doing all they can from now to the end of time to guard that place. The answer won't be to invade Iran and Syria, those people are in Lybia, Afganastan, Pakistan and others. So cowboy politics and shoot em up cowboy won't work on this type of war. You must win the peoples heart and minds over. We must win people we are in bed with over, like the Saudi gov and others.

I think we have made headways and busting up this huge ring was great and helped alot. I think the surge has helped some but for how long? The problem is, you want the usa troops to stay forever or to take the country for our own and it won't happen dude. We are not having many people signing up for the military now and it is wearing down thin the people that have stayed and stayed over there.

I am guessing on this but they probably want it to be like a SK border line where we keep a small group there forever guarding lines or certain places. The problem is it is to many lines, to much oil, to many fanatics from many countries. They want Iraq for themself or for what they believe in. Alot do not like us there but that is not all the reason. I believe the surge has helped but for how long and when the generals now say we need to start bring some troops back home.

[dude1394]

the suicide bombers you are highlighting here ARE Al queda. The sectarian violence was the mahdi army protecting themselves from Al Queda's suicide bombers.

[Janett_Reno]

I agree on the suicide bombers were Al Queda and they was from Saudi Arabia. I am stating that all the violence is not comming just from Al Queda in Iraq now. Here is a run down where they found out where the bombers are from now comming into Iraq. Confirmed cases so far.

Morocco-50
France-2
Algeria-64
Libya-137
Egypt-2
Tunisia-38
Turkey-6
Syria-56
Jordan-14
Yemen-68
Saudi Arabia-305
Iran-0
These are the forign fighters that are documented comming in. Alot is sectarian, alot probably ties to hate groups like Al Queda and no telling what else but they do not wear a sign telling what they are, where they are from and why they are doing it.

So see dude, if you invade Iran or Syria then it will still be those same type fanatics comming in from those same countries and more. This is a big problem that we can't clean up, let the people live again and us come on home.

I do not know the answer as i am not that smart enough but it will have to be with talks or alot with talks and dealing with many govs and that is something this adm does not want to do, is foreign policy. These govs need to weed out the fanatics and stop preaching hatered about the usa.

As far as sectarian violence, cant a shei and a suni or a Kurd go to the same happy hunting ground(heaven), without blowing each other up? If i am baptist, you methodist, Rudy and John catholic, someone else a church of christ like Fred, we do not blow each other up because we are not the same faith. To me, that is insane and crazy. The religious gov and people with influence need to help teach those things over there.

If all these countries do not stop sending waves of violence over or if it isn't govs and just individuals, at some point it will push the kurds to the north and the sunis and shei to a certain area. It would be like three seperate countries and any of the three would fight over a drop of a hat and sort of what you saw with the Kurds and Turkey. So it is problems.

The sectarian violence is a huge problem but they don't live like us and i am not an expert on how to get it stopped and then you mix in all the other fantatics comming in, it is bad but yes i feel the surge has helped some and i am not sure for how long. We must hope that all the sects will ban together and fight as one as Iraqi's.

[dude1394]

the majority if not all suicide bombers are al queda, no matter where they are coming from.

Secondlly who's talking about invading Iran/Syria?? As other threads have talked about Iran would be a bombing back to the stone age if done at all.

But you DO know the answer, you are about to vote to put into power a political party that has told you what they are going to do, also your candidates are saying what they are going to do.

You get to make the decision, gotta get off the pot.

[wmbwinn]

The only reason this poll exists is because the limp wrist Dems could not force the issue of troop withdrawal. The Congress would not vote to insist on an end to the war. Congress gave the approval for war (Hillary and almost all the reps and senators voted for before they began to complain against it, sounds like Kerry) in the first place and has the Constitutional power to withdraw that authorization. But, the Dems could not make that happen. So, to save face, the Dems started this shananigan of balking on war funding. They pushed hard with strategy and Bush vetoed the spending bill that had a withdrawal date on the war. The Dems could not force their will and after all of their complaining, they funded the war in full. This is just another repeat. The Dems still can't force the issue over the veto of Bush. The Dems will still talk a lot of smack to assure their weak kneed constituents that they are "fighting hard" against Bush. Then, they will kiss his backside and approve the funding just like last time.

[Janett_Reno]

The American people voted for Democrats to stop the Iraq war. They funded Bush and gave him what he wanted and now they told Bush no, we won't give you 150 million more but 50 million more. Bush said no and we will start hounding the troops about cutting off funds, asking for money back, if they get hurt and say it is because congress won't give us the 150 million.

So either Reid turns into a mouse and gives Weasel the blank checks or he sticks by his word, 50 million or nothing. Democrats and some Republicans have been saying it was time to pull some troops out. Now the neocons says the generals are saying things look pretty good and we need to start looking into troop with drawal(some troops). Same thing some Republicans and Democrats have been telling Weasel for some time now.

Dude has in his mind we are in a terror war against the world. We want to go and engage them and i think he feels what better place than to pick Iraq for the battle field. I think he feels all terrorist will come to us and engage us. The problem of this is, it cost money and lifes to fund war. What i am trying to point out to dude, these extremeist live where they are protected with our allies. Alot of them. You can look at the list of countries.

We will never invade Saudi Arabia, never. If you think by staying in Iraq and waiting on meanness to come and engage us from all the countries listed above and then the terror war is over, that won't happen because it is more and more waves of them being taught in schools to hate us and our ways. We need to know how to stop this teaching that we are evil. We need help from Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries to not teach the people and kids to hate us.

Obama said it in a debate, we picked the wrong battlefield. It was no Al Queda and no Laden in Iraq when we went in and now it is Al Queda and the question is, how can Iraq be iraq again? How can those people have a country and protect themself when we leave? Let's hope they can do well on defending themself but when we leave, that doesn't mean hate groups, Al Queda, and extremist are gone. It shows above where some are comming from.

One good thing that has happened, the article says they have talked to Saudi on stopping this and for them to do something and as of now, it seems to be helping. Will it stop completely and get back to normal over there? Dude has talked like this is a battle of Al Queda, when it was no Al Queda when we went in. You ask him and he says we went in because of wmd's and because we was after Al Queda. We chased alot of Al Queda back into Pakistan.

[wmbwinn]

The Dems will keep talking and they will send Bush a spending bill that insists on troop reductions on a timeline. Bush will veto it. The Congress won't over-ride him. Then, Congress will pass another war time spending bill that gives GW what he wants. It happened last time and it will happen this time.

The Dems are playing this game to gain political points to assure all those who voted for them that they are trying to do what they said they would do.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to smear this in the Dems faces in the general elections. The Dems will, once again, be shown to be pansies when it comes to the military. The suburban and rural America will once again vote for the candidate that supports the military.

This a losing issue for the Dems. But, the Dems painted themselves into their own little corner by making the last election all about stopping the war. Now, the Dems are stuck with it.

As to the miltary effort- the surge worked. The violence is way down. There were more murders in Detroit last month than there were US military deaths in Iraq last month.

If I was on the wrong side of this war (Al Qaeda), I'd stop fighting and wait for Hillary to become President and watch her sign bills to state exactly when the troops will leave. As the troops leave, Al Qaeda will take what it wanted in a re-emergence. Iran will do the same thing and claim a lot of power in Iraq. Turkey will do the same thing in North Iraq. Jordan/Syria will do the same thing in Sunni Iraq.

That is why I thought a long time ago that the US should have just created a Federalist government there. Give the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis there own autonomous regions. The only central government issues that would have been important was just oil profit sharing and cooperative military union to have one army (or at least to have separate militias that are loosely united under central authority). Then, Iran can support the Shias, Syria/Jordan/Saudi Arabia/Turkey can support the Sunnis, and the Kurds can count on our continued war plane no fly protection. No one else will support the Kurds. That is why the Kurds are our best allies in Iraq. Without the US, Saddam would have eliminated the Kurds and invited Turkey to help eradicate them. Without the US, the Kurds will still get slaughtered.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

As to the miltary effort- the surge worked. The violence is way down. There were more murders in Detroit last month than there were US military deaths in Iraq last month..

Fine post. The surge is working and Al Queda is being beaten, but the democrats are willing to sabotague that effort to win political points. It is inexcusable for a political party to put their election over the good of the country.

[wmbwinn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071123/...democrats_iraq

The above is a great article. The Dems are not even going to try to pursue strict language and they aren't even going to make recommendations or timelines binding. They aren't going to define the number of troops that are needed for the vague goals. But, they get to sound like they are tough. What wimps these Dems are.

Of course, since Queen Hillary is pending coronation and as she is in support of continued warfare, then the Dems need to start back pedaling anyway.

I love the last line or paragraph of this article:

"Indeed, the legislation is more of a signal to the White House that Congress' patience with the war is gone, than any mandate on how to run operations. That could explain why entities like the Government Accountability Office have not examined the ramifications of the bill.

Or as Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, put it: "As long as you're discussing a bill that is designed for political purposes, you don't have to get down to the issue of whether it would work or not." "

Who needs comedy when you have real life to laugh at?

[Janett_Reno]

The generals was asked the number of troops needed and they did not know. The generals have also stated it is the Iraqi's to step up to the plate or not. Why they did not know the answer is because it changes day to day and week to week.

In the end, we will see if Laden is killed in Iraq. We will also see if Iraq turns into a vacation spot in the middle east.

[Janett_Reno]

Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...3generals.html

The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.

When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.

It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.

But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.

“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”

Eaton has two sons serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; his father, an Air Force pilot, was shot down and killed over Laos in 1969. He said his frustration began festering in 2003, when he was assigned to build the Iraqi army from scratch. His internal requests for more equipment and properly trained instructors went unheeded, he said.

While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses – almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that. But he was candid in media interviews. Building an Iraqi army, he warned, would take years, and the effort might never succeed.

In 2004, he was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus – now the military commander in Iraq – and reassigned stateside. Sensing his once-promising Army career had foundered, Eaton retired Jan. 1, 2006.

Two months later, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion, Eaton criticized the administration in an opinion piece in The New York Times.


“I didn't think my op-ed would be a big deal,” he said. “It certainly turned out to be otherwise.”
Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:

The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.

“As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis,” Eaton said in a recent interview.

Some of Eaton's colleagues, both active and retired, endorsed his decision to speak out. Others thought he had stepped out of bounds. He became persona non grata with ethics instructors at the U.S. Military Academy, his alma mater.

Eaton said he has no regrets.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.

Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.

The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the “gut-wrenching” decision to end his 31-year military career in order to “speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families.”

“I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so,” Batiste wrote. “I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.”

Code of silence

It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation's civilian leaders.

That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.

Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said several generals who served in Vietnam now regret they didn't go public when it might have done the nation some good.

“That has encouraged generals today to voice their unhappiness,” Bacevich said.

Retired Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson said he was surprised that so many retired generals have spoken out against the Iraq war. "They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that," said Richardson, 93, who lives in North Park.
The once-sacred line between private and public opinion began to blur during the 1991 Gulf War, Bacevich said, when retired generals appeared for the first time as TV network analysts.
“But that war was brief, it seemed to go very well and the generals' comments were almost uniformly positive,” he said. “This war is very long, it has not gone well and that's a main reason we're hearing the voices we're hearing.”

For retired Brig. Gen. John Johns, the decision to finally stand up against the administration was a deeply personal one.

“My wife lost her first husband in Vietnam,” said Johns, who taught leadership and ethics at West Point.

“To learn later that President Lyndon Johnson and (then-Secretary of Defense) Robert McNamara knew as early as 1965 that we could not win there, that hurts her deeply to this day.”

Six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Johns, who retired in 1978, agonized over whether to go public with a paper calling the impending war “one of the great blunders of history.”

He sent it to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and to Pete McCloskey, the moderate-Republican former congressman from California who had opposed the Vietnam War.

“At that time, they did not want to go public,” Johns said.

Zinni has since become one of the most war's most vociferous critics, and McClosky now calls for bringing the troops home.

“And I was not convinced that the invasion would not be stopped internally,” Johns said. “Zinni was close to (then-Secretary of State) Colin Powell; I believed sane heads would prevail.”

But Powell's notoriously inaccurate speech to the United Nations in February 2003 “sealed the deal,” Johns said, and he knew the war was unstoppable. “I was very disappointed he did that. Powell was used.”

Many sleepless nights, long talks with his wife and solitary walks followed, said the veteran combat officer.

But Johns didn't reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.

“Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise,” Johns said. “The time was right.”

The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats' call to get the United States out of Iraq.

“I appreciate those who hold to the old school of not speaking out,” said Johns, 79. “I hope they will appreciate my deeply held feelings that led to my decision to do so.”

Reaction mixed

One of those who falls into that old-school camp is Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson.

A one-time adviser to Pentagon chiefs, Richardson, who retired in 1972, said that while retired generals are “entirely within their rights under the First Amendment,” he was quite surprised to see so many speaking out against the Iraq war.

“They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that,” said Richardson, 93, who served in World War II, Korea, and commanded an aircraft-carrier task force during the Vietnam War. He now lives in North Park and remains active in military circles.

“When we are at war, voices that may give aid and comfort to the enemy can cost American blood,” Richardson said. “I would not want what I said to in any way affect our troops' morale and effectiveness.”

Gard, who retired from the military in 1981, displayed a stoicism typical of old soldiers when asked about his decision to publicly criticize the conduct of an ongoing war.

“I did some serious soul-searching,” Gard said simply.

A West Point graduate with a doctorate in politics and government from Harvard, Gard saw combat in Korea and Vietnam.

Gard's introspection ultimately led him to conclude that patriotism means more than following orders and keeping complaints inside the military.

“When you feel the country – to its extreme detriment – is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out,” he said.

It may not have been that way during the Vietnam era, Gard added. “But times have changed.”
----------------------------------------------------------------

Just like Hagel is wrong, Alan Greenspan, Richard Lugar, and many more. Republicans you think are wrong but then again you feel the neocons are right and anyone that speaks out against the neocons, send them off on a swiftboat. People like Greenspan, Lugar and Hagel and many more know more than all the neocons put together. Those are smart and good men.

[Janett_Reno]

Here are some things Gen Sanchez says about the Iraq war.

In October, the three-star general told a group of reporters that the U.S. mission in Iraq was a "nightmare with no end in sight." He also called Bush's decision to deploy 30,000 extra forces to Iraq earlier this year a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of misguided policies in Iraq.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.

"The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country," Sanchez said in remarks to be aired Saturday for the weekly Democratic radio address.

"There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result," he said.

Sanchez added that the House bill "makes the proper preparation of our deploying troops a priority and requires the type of shift in their mission that will allow their numbers to be reduced substantially."


Critical assessments on the war from former Pentagon brass are nothing new. But Sanchez's newfound alliance with Democrats is particularly noteworthy because he was directly in charge of combat operations in Iraq, from 2003 to 2004.

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

DESPITE THE DROP IN ATTACKS, VIOLENCE CONTINUES TO RAGE

Car bombs and shootings kill many across Iraq while a half dozen bodies show up on Baghdad's streets. A car bomb in the Bayaa neighborhood of southwest Baghdad killed one person and injured six. In the west Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour, armed men opened fire, killing two computer engineers at a mosque. Mousa Jaafar, the director-general of geologic surveying, was killed by gunmen while driving in central Baghdad, police said. One of his bodyguards was killed and another wounded. Additionally, six unidentified homicide victims were found in the capital and a roadside bomb exploded in a village southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, killing one Iraqi soldier and injuring five others. In Ramadi, a city in 70 miles west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, was hit by a suicide car bomb that exploded at a police checkpoint guarding a courthouse, killing at least six people in the largest attack on Anbar province's capital in months. Another 13 people were wounded.

This was on the 11/21/07.

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

Are you sure Sanchez and all the generals W sent in are Democrats or the ones speaking out? You better do your research. Are you sure Hagel, Greenspan and Richard Lugar are Democrats? In my thinking, John Warner is not even a Democrat.

[wmbwinn]

Janet, I have said in prior posts elsewhere that I agree that there were a great many mistakes in the execution of our war time efforts. I am not a General but you would have to have your head in the ground to not realize that there were several gross errors in judgement and planning in this war effort. McCain is probably the most hawkish man running for president and he has said the same thing. McCain favored the surge and McCain was right. That is the only reason McCain is still on the list of candidates right now. Most other aspects of McCain's candidacy have failed miserably. Even GW fired Rumsfield. Colin Powell walked off the job. Eaton was a political casualty and was replaced but it was not Eaton's fault. So, anyone who thinks that the war effort was well planned and carried out doesn't pay any attention. I have no problem with these Generals speaking out. John Johns is in a bit of a minority position in that he complained before the war started. Most of the Generals complaining are saying that the war was poorly planned and carried out. Most are not saying that we should not have launched war.

It is easy for Hillary and others to look back and say the war launch was a mistake. I disagree. But, who cares what I think.

What is revealing is that Hillary and even Obama are on record as saying that the war must go on and failure to succeed is not an option.

So, we may debate the past. But, it is only the future that can be planned.

[dude1394]

Less than TWO WEEKS AGO!

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

[dude1394]

NYC Murders Drop, Democrats Call for Cop Pull Out
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace · 2 Comments

(2007-11-24) — As the number of murders in New York City reached a 40-year low, Democrats in Congress introduced a measure calling for an immediate and total pull-out of law enforcement personnel citing the high cost of fighting crime, the risk to those in uniform and “lack of political progress” in the city.

In a typical Congressional maneuver, Democrats attached the redeployment measure as an amendment to an unrelated bill, sponsored by Republicans, which would provide senior citizens with a taxpayer-funded MediCare prescription golf benefit.

Official statistics show the Big Apple’s murder rate is now less than a quarter of what it was in 1990, but Democrats in Congress say the reduction has nothing to do with the actions of the New York City Police Department or the policies of the last two Republican mayors.

“The dip in the murder rate is certainly temporary,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, “and it presents us with a window of opportunity to safely extract our brave men and women in uniform before the slaughter returns to normal levels.”

[dude1394]

Lucee''''' you got some 'splainin to do. What now Pelosi and Dingy Harry?

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) acknowledged that the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is “working” after returning from a brief trip to Iraq last week, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The comments, coming from a harsh critic of President Bush’s Iraq war policy, suggest there may be a shift in Democratic rhetoric on Iraq in light of recent reductions in violence in Iraq over the last several months.

Murtha made the comments today at his district office in Johnstown, Pa.

He added that the Iraqi government needed to better “take care of themselves” and achieve greater progress with political reconciliation, according to the Post-Gazette.

The statement is a marked shift from this July, when Murtha told CNN that he “dismissed” an op-ed by Brookings Institution analysts Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon that the surge was beginning to make progress, declaring their comments were “an illusion.”

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

What is revealing is that Hillary and even Obama are on record as saying that the war must go on and failure to succeed is not an option.

perhaps you should first spend some time learning about a candidate's position before you attempt to restate it...

from obama's website:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.

The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.

As the nation debates how to move forward in Iraq, Obama laid out his plan to end the war, as well as his vision for what America can achieve once we turn the page in Iraq.

obama's iraq policy page

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

perhaps you should first spend some time learning about a candidate's position before you attempt to restate it...

from obama's website:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.

This looks like a recipe for disaster. First I don't understand why they need a new constitution and what would be the internal driving factor of getting one? Would the US just draft it, hand it to them and then leave?

IMO we've seen what happens when the UN gets involved in trying to nation-build, kosovo which is still in a state of flux after a decade.
And this isn't kosovo where no outside influences are so prevalent.

To be honest, this points up his lack of experience to me.

[mcsluggo]

well dude... if someone didn't have the context of the rest of this tread they'd assume your criticizm was aimed at the current administration's exploits, rather than those of a theoretical future one.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This looks like a recipe for disaster. First I don't understand why they need a new constitution and what would be the internal driving factor of getting one? Would the US just draft it, hand it to them and then leave?

IMO we've seen what happens when the UN gets involved in trying to nation-build, kosovo which is still in a state of flux after a decade.
And this isn't kosovo where no outside influences are so prevalent.

To be honest, this points up his lack of experience to me.

the iraqis have been attempting to amend their constitution for over a year, they need to deternmine how they will "federalize" the responsiblities of governing and, most important and perhaps most elusive, how to share their resources (oil).

they haven't agreed so far on how to amend the constitution to address these issues.

the iraqis need to decide this themselves, imho it would be a mistake to just "hand it to them". we shouldn't be deciding the issue, they should.

to me the concept behind the mentioning of un involvment is to allow a hand off by the us. to merely skidaddle out of there would produce a vacuum of authority, so that would be the role of the un.

I'm not sure this points to a lack of experience on obama's part, the idea of pulling out of iraq without the un or similar international org to help iraqi security would reveal that lack of understanding to me.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.

Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.

The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the “gut-wrenching” decision to end his 31-year military career in order to “speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families.”

“I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so,” Batiste wrote. “I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.”

Code of silence

It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation's civilian leaders.

That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.

At least Gen. Batiste is man enough to admit when he was wrong, unlike the Democrat Leadership and Party.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblog...PView.asp#3431

Batiste, you will remember, is the formerly "antiwar" general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group).

Today he joins Hegseth to write:

First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.

Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country.

There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom.

The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices today, and it will be interesting to see whether they turn on one of their own, or come around to the view, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the surge is working.

[Janett_Reno]

UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2228690,00.html

The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.
As British forces finally handed over security in Basra province, marking the end of 4½ years of control in southern Iraq, Major General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV.

Khalaf painted a very different picture from that of British officials who, while acknowledging problems in southern Iraq, said yesterday's handover at Basra airbase was timely and appropriate.

Major General Graham Binns, who led British troops into the city in 2003, said the province had "begun to regain its strength". He added: "I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."

But in the film, to be broadcast on the Guardian Unlimited website and ITV News, Khalaf lists a catalogue of failings, saying:

· Basra has become so lawless that in the last three months 45 women have been killed for being "immoral" because they were not fully covered or because they may have given birth outside wedlock;

· The British unintentionally rearmed Shia militias by failing to recognise that Iraqi troops were loyal to more than one authority;

· Shia militia are better armed than his men and control Iraq's main port.

In the interview he said the main problem the Iraqi security forces now faced was the struggle to wrest control back from the militia. He appealed for the British to help him do that: "We need the British to help us to watch our borders - both sea and land and we need their intelligence and air support and to keep training the Iraqi police."

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, who attended the handover ceremony, acknowledged that the territory was not "a land of milk and honey" and promised Britain would remain a "committed friend" of Iraq.

But he insisted it was the right time to hand back control. "The key conditions for the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces are whether they are up to it: do they have the numbers? Do they have the leadership and training to provide leadership for this province? And the answer to those three questions is yes," he said.

After the handover Des Browne, the defence secretary, praised British forces - 174 of whom have died since the start of the war in March 2003. "Their contribution has been outstanding and their courage inspiring," he said. A scaled-down UK force will remain in a single base at Basra airport, with a small training mission and a rapid reaction team on "overwatch".

Britain now has 4,500 troops in Iraq. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has said numbers would shrink to 2,500 by mid-2008 though those released may be redeployed to Afghanistan.

Khalaf, who has survived 20 assassination attempts since he became police chief six months ago, said Britain's intentions had been good but misguided. "I don't think the British meant for this mess to happen. When they disbanded the Iraqi police and military after Saddam fell the people they put in their place were not loyal to the Iraqi government. The British trained and armed these people in the extremist groups and now we are faced with a situation where these police are loyal to their parties not their country."

He said the most shocking aspect of the breakdown of law and order in Basra was the murder of women for being unIslamic. "They are being killed because they are accused of behaving in an immoral way. When they kill them they put underwear and indecent clothes on them."

In his office Khalaf showed the Guardian a computer holding the files of 48 unidentified women. "Some of them have even been killed with their children because their killer says that they come out of an adulterous relationship," he said.

Vince Cable, the acting Lib Dem leader, called for a timetable to bring all British troops home from Iraq, adding: "If we are handing power back to the Iraqis, why are 4,500 British troops needed for what is essentially a training mission?"

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


Let's hope it is not this bad. Like i have said, if we stay it is bad and if we leave it is bad, so what is the answer? So now is southern Iraq going to be a nice place for vacation? See what the British general was saying comparred to the police chief. Does the Iraqi people, Iraqi military and police want to unite and have peace and fight together or like that police chief says, do alot in the Iraqi military and police care more for there parties and not there country.

He want's the British back to guard the borders and patrol again. In the end, the police and military of Iraq will have to care more for there country, than a party they belong to. Let's hope southern Iraq get's better as i doubt those British troops will keep going back and back.

In northern Iraq, Report: 50 Turkish Warplanes Bomb Kurdish Rebel Targets In Northern Iraq. The Kurds, Shia and Shites must unite and do best for the country, not for one people or one party. Our troops and British troops, have gone in and did a good job and all they can do and the question will always be, can these people unite and defend and want to defend the country as one? I hope they can and will.

[dude1394]

Happy janet? Also, I think I'll wait a little before I.

1. Take the Basra's police chief's word.
2. Take ANYTHING from the media at first glance.

And let's think a little about what you are posting here if true. So the british leave and all hell breaks out (supposedly)...are you advocating leaving anyway to let

a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic.

Or just say the hell with 'em let's leave? Your dem friends have picked the beheadings, right?

And you soliloqy at the end would have more weight if I could count on ONE hand the number of your posts about what the US/British are doing good in Iraq.

[Janett_Reno]

This is some good news and let's hope all sects talk and unite.

U.S. general: Iraq at its quietest since 2004

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22287314/

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

I have an open mind dude and i report the good and bad and i give credit where credit is due. The violence being down is good(Iraq). At some point the country will have to defend itself. Here is an interesting article with John Bolton.

Bolton criticizes Bush foreign policy: magazine

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071216/...38kYq6QWWyFz4D

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

I think dude the problem is, is what is the main goal and the final objective? You can say rid the world of terror and go after them but how long do we stay in these countries? How many fronts do we battle in at all times? Can you win the war on terror with a gun and not changing the minds of the young and old? This is why dude, it is important for countries like Pakistan and other's, from Saudi, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and so many more. The ones we are allies with and ones we are not, to not send hate groups out and teach the kids to hate us when they are young. Not to hate certain religions or certain people and teaching them very bad extreme things isn't good.

I also feel dude it is a split on wanting conflicts and wars all across the middle east and staying there. Some want this and some do not. In a nice way, i could say, some feel we should be there and patroling and trying to control the middle east as where alot do not think we need to. It is not a Democrat vs Republican(they are also split) thing and this is where you are wrong because we have young men and women patroling, fighting and needing all politicians to work together and get there heads together and do the right thing for our country and for them.

You be the judge if we leave Iraq and Afganastan, would it be peaceful and good from now on. Where you and i differ, i belive Al Queda was in Afganatsan and i also believe Laden was there and was a bad breeding ground. I feel we should have went there and our guv did good going in there to rid the bad. It seems that many are across the border comming back and forth from Pakistan, one that is suppose to be our allies. As where you feel that Al Queda was in Iraq and maybe you think or thought Laden was there.

So dude i do not like headlines like this...

Allies losing Afghanistan war, Australian minister warns: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071217...eOHgtZsxhvaA8F

Because i feel that was bad breeding ground for Al Queda and Laden as where you feel Al Queda was in Iraq before we went in and that Sadam was a bad threat to the usa. Afganastan needs to be cleaned up and stay that way. We have a right to be there dude. We was attacked and alot of the attack breeding ground, points alot to terror that was from there.

This is from the above article....

Fitzgibbon also told the meeting in Edinburgh, attended by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, that while NATO and its allies had been successfully "stomping on lots of ants, we have not been dealing with the ants' nest".

"We need much more than a military response," he said. "This is largely about winning the hearts and minds of the more moderate of the Taliban and other sections of the Afghan community," he said.

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

Where you want to go invade and ask questions later as you want to do it all by gun and force and that means any country, when you get in these places, you need to win the hearts and minds of the people. To help them want to change the course they are heading in. So we overthrew Sadam and we did that, so you should be happy but i feel we should not take our eyes off where the terrorist breeded and where the breeding grounds was, in Afganatan. That was and is very important and where we will probably be there long term. As far as Iraq and your reasons why we went in and it had to do with 9/11, no don't believe it. I also do not believe the wmd's. I also disagree on Al Queda or Laden in Iraq, while Sadam was there.

One last thing, i am not sure the neocons will get to invade Syria and Iran dude and if not, you need to win the hearts and minds and show people a differ path to go down. To also try to help mean, terror and breeding grounds by talking also, where they will change that bad destructive path and try to get along wth all. As far as Iraq, i hope it keeps getting better where they can patrol and take there country back over and keep terror out.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

UK has left behind murder and chaos, says Basra police chief

No..THIS is what the Dems wanted to leave behind. And they knew it too.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4836

Blood-splotches on walls, chains hanging from a ceiling and swords on the killing floor — the artifacts left a disturbing tale of brutalities inside a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq torture chamber. But there was yet another chilling fact outside the dirt-floor dungeon. Villagers say they knew about the torment but were too intimidated by extremists to tell authorities until now.

Stories such as these — claims of insurgent abuses and the silence of frightened Iraqis — have emerged with increasing frequency and clarity recently as US-led forces push deeper into former extremist fiefdoms and forge alliances with tribes seeking to reclaim their regions.

The reports and tips now pouring in build a harrowing portrait of rule under al Qaeda and its backers: mass graves, ruthless punishments, self-styled Islamic courts ordering summary executions.

Such a lead brought soldiers earlier this month to the hidden room in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, the US military said early Friday. Graffiti on the building proclaimed “Long Live the Islamic State” — a reference to the Islamic governance, or caliphate, sought in Iraq by Sunni extremist groups that include al Qaeda.

Scrawled in white paint above a bed in the torture area was a Quranic phrase in Arabic normally used to welcome a guest. But the context suggested only sadistic mockery: “Come in, you are safe.”