phillips: "[vapid, puerile nonsense]"

Right,I'm glad you admit it, so why are still making arguments with worthlessly self delusional liberal talking points?

Thanks, we can never have too much of that.

bit: "they're [the Iraqi people] asking us to stay"

I cited multiple credible polls demonstrating otherwise. Those polls were done by our State Dept. and by the UK Ministry of Defence. Nice job doing what you do: invent your own facts. Of course you're not going to present anything remotely resembling proof of your claim. And of course you are so completely devoid of intellectual honesty you're not even going to acknowledge the proof I cited.

"how would we be their subsequent to the new government being installed, unless that new government has asked us to remain"

Of course Maliki wants us to stay for a while. He knows that his life expectancy is currently measured in nanoseconds, without US troops risking their lives to keep him upright.

By the way, I didn't say Maliki's government wants us to leave. I said the Iraqi people want us to leave, and I proved it. Maybe your theory is that Maliki is doing a great job of following the will of his people. That's pretty ironic, since Bush is ignoring his people just like Maliki is.

"they're asking us to stay until the job's done"

Maliki has his own self-serving concept of how to define "until the job's done." This mostly means giving him all time he needs to crush his various internal enemies, both Sunni and Shiite. The moment he doesn't need us anymore, he'll go back to being the same Hezbollah-supporting terrorist he's been his whole life.

"the … comments of Dr. Ali Aldabbagh, of the Iraqi government"

What a big surprise: the government Bush props up is willing to regurgitate Bush's talking points. There's a word for this: puppetry.

"I suppose you won't take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously."

True. I'm not impressed by a puppet government. Neither are most Iraqis.

By the way, did you notice that your "member of Iraqi government" explicitly called for a "withdrawal timetable?" Why aren't we respecting his wishes? Is it because "you won't take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously?"

"Are you sure you want to expose the remainder of your statements to similar scrutiny?"

Your idea of "scrutiny" is quite a joke. It consists of inventing your own facts and ignoring all facts that you don't like.

"all you offer is opinion"

I realize you have no idea how to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. Surveys done by US and UK government agencies are not my "opinion." They're fact.

"Prove to us Iraq had nothing to do with AQ"

That conclusion was reached by a committee controlled by Republican senators. Nice job proving that no proof is good enough for you, except when you present assertions backed by no proof at all.

"The senate intelligence committee also was rendering opinions, not facts"

They applied the following label to their conclusions: "conclusions." Not opinion. "Conclusions." If you don't like that, take it up with them.

"a nd has been widely disputed, by even the anti-war left on this point"

Yes, we know that people like you have "disputed" the conclusion reached by Republican senators, that Saddam and AQ had no relationship. Please let us know who in "the anti-war left" disputes them "on this point." Maybe you're about to argue that Power Line is part of "the anti-war left." That makes about as much sense as your other claims.

"What about the difference between facts and opinions is so difficult for you to grasp?"

Nothing.

By the way, you're still ducking all sorts of questions. Why did Snow call it an "occupation?" Why is it OK with you that he mocked our troops?

The media is just so over the top protective of Democrats, it is no wonder the first link that mentions his party affiliation is suspicious that a Democrat has been punished.
LOL

Indeed. Nothing new here.

I turned nothing around. I don't know why you're confused. Both of the following are facts, and the facts do not contradict each other:

And yet all you offer is opinion.
I demand from you the same level of proof you demand of me. Prove to us Iraq had nothing to do with AQ. And here's a clue; The senate intelligence committee also was rendering opinions, not facts,a nd has been widely disputed, by even the anti-war left on this point.

What about the difference between facts and opinions is so difficult for you to grasp?

I'll wait.

"That occupation ended the moment that the new Iraqi government was voted into place"

Then why did Snow call it an "occupation," when he was spoke on 12/19/06? What do you know that he doesn't?

I know precisely what I said; they're asking us to stay. First of all how would we be their subsequent to the new government being installed, unless that new government has asked us to remain? (Otherwise, you know as well as I that the democrats to be all over us for remaining past the time we were legally requested, and that would be the focus of your argument.)

As it is, they're asking us to stay until the job's done. As an example, consider the (I think under-reprted) comments of Dr. Ali Aldabbagh, of the Iraqi government.

Iraqis fear a power vacuum in Iraq. Many do want a timetable for withdrawal. Iraqi security forces are in need of coalition troops. Iraqi forces not capable of being alone. Parliament wants a withdrawal timetable [as a motivation] for training Iraqi security forces. Remember, terrorist groups in Iraq are threatening the entire region, not just Iraq. If the terrorists could reach New York and Los Angeles if not fought here. It will affect the whole world [if the U.S. leaves]. It is the international community’s repsonsiblity to defeat these groups here in Iraq … in order to get rid of these devil enemies.

I suppose you won't take the comments of a member of Iraqi government seriously. But there they are.

Are you sure you want to expose the remainder of your statements to similar scrutiny?

Then why did Snow call it an "occupation," when he was spoke on 12/19/06? What do you know that he doesn't? And why are you pretending I didn't already mention this? I know the answer: you're determined to remind us that you regularly ignore any and all facts that you don't like.

"it's the height of crass, in other words tentacle democrat, to you the event as a fundraising tool for your own political power"

There's that witty dictation program again. Here's what you and that program have in common: you're both inadvertently funny.

I've seen evidence that Edwards talks about his son, and I've seen evidence that he raises money for a foundation he created to honor his son. I haven't seen evidence that he uses his son "as a fundraising tool for [his] own political power." Where's your proof?

Speaking of proof, I need to remind you again that your posts are full of false claims, which you should either withdraw or substantiate. Why did you claim the Iraqis want us there? I proved that was false. Why did you claim that the troops believe in the mission? I proved that was false, too. Those are just two prominent examples.

I turned nothing around. I don't know why you're confused. Both of the following are facts, and the facts do not contradict each other:

A) Before we invaded, "Iraq didn't have anything to do with al-Qaida"
B) Today, as a result of the occupation, many Iraqis have decided to identify with, support, and join AQ, and, therefore, "al-Qaida fighters [in Iraq] are mostly Iraqis"

Let's go through this slowly. First of all, it's not me that says "Iraq didn't have anything to do with al-Qaida." It's the Senate Intelligence Committee, when it was still controlled by Republicans (pdf):

Conclusion 1: ... Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. ... Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al-Qa’ida in particular. ... bin Ladin attempted to exploit the former Iraqi regime by making requests for operational and material assistance, while Saddam Hussein refused all such requests. ... Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.

Get it? Before we invaded, AQ was not in Iraq. And Dubya told us so (3/13/02):

He [OBL] has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.

Later, when it was time to sell the war, Bush sang a different tune, and told us that OBL and Saddam were buddies. But that's not because the underlying reality changed; it's because Bush's propaganda needs changed. He often relies on the fact that there are lots of people like you who have an exceedingly short memory.

"and then at need, you turn that around and tell us that al-Qaida fighters are mostly Iraqis."

What about this do you find so hard to grasp? AQ wasn't there before, but they're there now, thanks to us. And, for the most part, this does not mean that AQ fighters came from elsewhere. It means that, thanks to us, many Iraqis have decided to join AQ and become AQ fighters.

Here's something you might not understand: AQ is not an organization with strict membership requirements. It's more of a movement, or a philosophy. An AQ fighter is anyone who decides to identify with AQ and fight for AQ goals. Thanks to us, lots of Iraqis have decided to jump on that bandwagon.

One more time: before we invaded, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq. Thanks to us, now there is. And AQ in Iraq consists mostly of Iraqis. I've cited a number of credible sources to demonstrate that.

"this level of twisting is nothing short of amazing"

I've twisted nothing. The "twisting" is all yours.

I thought that was because Bush was doing such a good job of keeping tabs on the terrorists with warrantless wiretaps. He's claimed that he's stopped all sorts of plots this way. But how is it that they have time for plots, since we're trapping them so effectively with flypaper in Iraq?

Anyway, there have never been any major attacks here, except when there are. If I remember correctly, that would be 1993 and 2001. Since you're claiming that what has kept us safe for the last several years is Bush's occupying Iraq, then you need to explain how it is that Clinton kept us safe from 1994-2000. He somehow managed to accomplish that without occupying Iraq, and without suffering 30,000 US killed and wounded. How did he do that?

The flypaper theory simply makes no sense. People who want to kill Americans are not going to forget that there are lots of killable Americans in America, simply because we are currently obliging their needs by delivering a bunch of killable Americans right into their hometown, or country, or region. I'm sure they appreciate the way our efforts boost their recruiting and training activities, but they're not going to express their gratitude by forever refraining from attacking us here.

And if the premise is that we need to fight them there in order to avoid fighting them here, when does that end? Isn't that just another way of promoting the idea of a permanent occupation? Isn't that really what you're calling for? This is one of many questions you insist on ducking.

"If anybody ought to be taken to task here it's John Edwards for doing it to his dead son."

As usual, you're dodging the question. Are you claiming he should never talk about his son?

No I'm saying it's the height of crass, in other words tentacle democrat, to you the event as a fundraising tool for your own political power. Then to complain when somebody else come inside, is having your cake and eating it too.

That's fascinating. The first thing I notice is that you put "occupiers" in quotes, as if I or someone else has used that word in this thread. That's not the case. Why did you do that?

Aside from that, what's your point? Are you claiming that we're not conducting an occupation?

Correct. That occupation ended the moment that the new Iraqi government was voted into place, and in turn asked us to stay on to help with security concerns.

by definition, that is not an occupation that as an aide to an internationally recognized government. Are you tell us now that you don't recognize the new government of Iraq?

"it's factually wrong people these are insurgents. People coming in from other countries to store on rest within Iraq. People coming from places like Pakistan and Iran for example."

You're suggesting, as Bush has often done, that most of the people we're fighting are not Iraqi. Trouble is, the one who's "factually wrong" is you. Here's the Council on Foreign Relations, discussing al-Qaeda in Iraq (4/6/07):

You're promoting the famous flypaper theory, which is, with all due respect, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The flypaper effect hasn't prevented deadly attacks in London and Madrid, and various attempts in various places. Why isn't it working?

There haven't been any attacks here... did you notice?

and you tell me that I ignnore all the facts I don't like?

You and your horse, pal.

They're wrong. Nothing new, there.

Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI's several thousand fighters

Incidentally, this has been true for years, and we've known this for years (3/12/05):

You know, this level of twisting is nothing short of amazing. You go after Bush, because you claim that Iraq didn't have anything to do with al-Qaida, and then at need, you turn that around and tell us that al-Qaida fighters are mostly Iraqis.

You're suggesting, as Bush has often done, that most of the people we're fighting are not Iraqi. Trouble is, the one who's "factually wrong" is you. Here's the Council on Foreign Relations, discussing al-Qaeda in Iraq (4/6/07):

most of the organization’s fighters are Iraqis

In case you never heard of CFR, you should know that it's a respected bipartisan organization that's currently being run by a Republican.

This is discussed further here:

Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI's several thousand fighters

Incidentally, this has been true for years, and we've known this for years (3/12/05):

US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy

"People, who … would be coming to America to store their run rest here if we weren't in Iraq"

Your dictation program is a pain-in-the-neck, but I can't say it doesn't have a sense of humor.

You're promoting the famous flypaper theory, which is, with all due respect, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The flypaper effect hasn't prevented deadly attacks in London and Madrid, and various attempts in various places. Why isn't it working?

Americans understand this. Polls repeatedly show that most Americans believe the war has not made us safer.

By the way, the flypaper theory essentially asserts that we have decided to turn Iraq into a battlefield in order to prevent our own country from becoming a battlefield. First of all, how is this moral? Where do I get the right to make a huge mess in your back yard because I want to avoid having a mess in my own back yard?

And how does this square with the idea that we're there to liberate the Iraqis? How does turning their country into a battlefield constitute "liberation?"

The shifting rationales used as excuses for the war are incoherent and contradictory.

"The bottom line is the majority of a rocky support the American troops"

There's that witty dictation program again.

You exemplify that charming Bushist quality: completely ignore all facts you don't like. I cited proof that most Iraqis want us out. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why do you insist on making all sorts of claims that are probably false?

"Most Americans, even, understand that."

It is very, very easy to find proof that most Americans want us out. Why do you keep making things up?

A lot of people are wondering how we got into this mess. You're helping to answer the question, by vividly demonstrating that the GOP runs on emotion (hate and fear, in particular), fantasy and denial, rather than reason and fact. That kind of attitude leads to exactly where we find ourselves. I hope you'll continue doing such a fine job of illustrating what the GOP is all about.

Thanks for giving us this nice preview of what Bushists will be saying about Iraq until the end of time: that accountability for the failed war lies with everyone except the people who were in charge of the war.

"I'd say calling our troops "occupiers" qualifies [as 'mockery']"

That's fascinating. The first thing I notice is that you put "occupiers" in quotes, as if I or someone else has used that word in this thread. That's not the case. Why did you do that?

Aside from that, what's your point? Are you claiming that we're not conducting an occupation? Because even Tony Snow has acknowledged that we are, indeed, conducting an occupation (12/19/06):

MR. SNOW: … if you take a look at Saddam rejectionists, they're absolutely resisting the occupation. As a matter of fact, their avowed goal -- it's right here in the 90/10 report -- that says that their avowed goal is to push Americans out. Why? Because they want to reestablish the kind of supremacy they enjoyed during the days of Saddam.

There are many people who want to end the occupation and, in many cases, they want to end the occupation because they, themselves, want to restore or to create their own tyranny over the Iraqi people. They do not want to support the goal of a democracy in which the human rights of all are protected …

(Emphasis added.) It's interesting to note that a while back Dubya himself acknowledged the same thing (5/24/04):

[next month] our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs.

(Emphasis added.) What's really funny is how much trouble you guys are having picking one story and sticking with it. In Dubya's narrative, we were occupiers and then we weren't. But Snow didn't get the memo; in his narrative, we're still occupiers. And you didn't get Snow's memo; in your narrative, we're not occupiers, after all.

Anyway, I think you need to explain why Snow is conducting "mockery" of our troops, since you've claimed that calling our troops occupiers is a form of "mockery."

As usual, you're dodging the question. Are you claiming he should never talk about his son? At least that's an honest, clear answer, if that's your answer. If he's allowed to talk about his son, but only a certain amount, then what's the proper amount? And who appointed you as the judge of that? Who appointed Coulter as the judge of that?

"Your complaint is that she's being provided publicity."

Of course that's not my primary complaint. You're incredibly obtuse. What I've said several times is that the problem is not particularly that she's being "provided publicity." The problem is that she's being "provided publicity" by major organizations that purportedly represent the mainstream of the GOP. This is a problem, but it's a problem I'm personally happy to see. I think it's great that the rest of the country is getting find out what the GOP is really all about.

"Each is Gaining publicity doing what they do."

Indeed. Except that Coulter is also getting official recognition from major GOP organizations. That's where the comparison to Moore falls apart.

You can't address this point, so you're pretending I haven't made it. How charming.

You're still dodging the question. You're providing the boilerplate talking point, but you're ignoring the questions the talking point fails to address.

Yes, we realize that in your view, withdrawal=surrender=defeat. No news there. We already know that. But I didn't ask you how you define defeat. I asked you how you define victory.

Is victory simply the absence of defeat? If so, then presumably you envision that we stay there forever. Is that what you advocate? It turns out that this seems to be what Bush has in mind (staying there forever). Is it what you have in mind?

If you don't envision staying forever, that means you contemplate withdrawing at some point. But doesn't withdrawal=defeat? The stock answer is that once the country is stable (whatever that means), we can withdraw in victory. But why should anyone believe that the same actions which have created chaos over the last four years are going to create anything other than chaos over the next four years? Or forty years?

"We're doing the right things."

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a common definition of insanity. If I spend four years beating my head against a wall, the wall doesn't really care very much, but I end up with a bloody head. You're taking the position that we should simply stay the course, because suddenly the wall is going to realize that it's no match for us. Really? What you don't realize is that this particular wall loves blood, and we're simply making the wall stronger.

Your position would be a little less ridiculous if you were advocating a different approach to the wall (like, say, a draft and a truly massive infusion of troops). But you're not. I'm not saying it's beyond our ability to knock down this wall. I'm saying that our current methods are not going to lead to that result, and there's no reason to believe that we are ready, willing and able to make serious changes in our methods.

Maybe you haven't noticed that the last three months have been deadlier for us than any three month period since the beginning. Presumably you're going to do the Orwellian thing and tell us this is a sign of progress.

How long are you willing to continue to write blank checks for a failed strategy? Another four years? Ten? Twenty? Forty? Sunni and Shia have been at war for well-over a thousand years. What makes you think they're suddenly going to decide they're done?

"This is not a TV show, where we're going to see results before 47 minutes goes by."

Rumsfeld didn't tell us we'd be done in 47 minutes. However, he did say we'd be done in six months. That prediction was wrong, by at least a factor of ten, roughly. Defeating whoever it is we're trying to defeat has now taken us longer than it took us to defeat our enemies in WWII, enemies who were much more powerful and dangerous. What interval needs to elapse before you admit that you're advocating a failed policy?

You seem to be saying the interval is infinite: that we should simply stay, period, even though there's no end anywhere in sight, and no rational plan for creating an end. Do I understand you correctly?