These are the end times, folks; we are there to give Iraq a whack, and then, after, we will leave and some other power will move in. There is oil under that sand, but it wont be our oil.

"... the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone..."

I like that phrase so much I think I'm going to have it tattooed on my ass.

2008 is coming around the corner...

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Dirty Harry isn't trying to dupe the drive-by media. He issuing a talking point.

We did not defeat the Soviet Union and cause its downfall by fighting, though we were involved in an asymmetrical struggle with them for decades. Ultimately, we won with economic power, and because when people, including the Soviet people looked at us and looked at them, they generally wanted to be like us.

I’m no expert in military matters, but it seems rather odd to be suggesting that the war is both lost, but that it can be won.

Which likely explains why Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader and you are not.

;)

But don't question their patriotism:The war in Iraq is lost and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday. I believe ......

He's always the odd guy.

Also, from my naive perspective it seems silly to think one can win a war diplomatically and economically.

Which is why you guys should really stop thinking of it, and calling it, a "war." It isn't and it never has been. Neither legally nor practically.

It is about perception and control of it, which means it is about psychological warfare which, despite the name, has little to nothing in common with military war.

In reality Bush has no clue what to do in Iraq. All he knows is he has to run out the clock on his administration without leaving Iraq so Republicans will blame the next preseident, a Democrat for losing his war. There's no chance the rest of the country will go along with that. They don't buy the "defeatocrat" slur now and they sure as hell aren't going to buy it later.

Unless you are a politician it would be hard to understand how to say two different things at the same time.

Reid is merely stirring things up to get a better compromise or at least look good before the congress grants funds for the war effort.

It is somewhat monumental for someone of his stature to declare defeat, wait no, it's happened before. Anyway, he should know better, it does embolden those who wish us ill and hurts the morale of our fighting forces.

I hate to call names but what a chump.

I’m no expert in military matters, but it seems rather odd to be suggesting that the war is both lost, but that it can be won.

This really doesn't seem that hard. He's saying we can still accomplish our goals just not militarily. He specifically says "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

It can be won any way except using the one technique the administration insists on using- military might.

Taking isolated quotes out of context with the message a person has been consistently delivering is a pretty cheap shot - but that's just me.