Isn't it perversely hilarious to watch Keith "Uberman" invoke Nevellie Chamberlain in the same rant that he vigorously advocates a Neveille Chamberlain strategy for America in Iraq? Keith believes there is no threat from radical Islam if America retreats from Iraq and that the best course for America is a complete capitulation in Iraq that Al Qaeda will trumpet as a huge victory, that will turbo charge Al Qaeda's recruiting and fundraising, and that will allow a strengthened Al Qaeda to focus its full attention on attacking our homeland. He also feels comfortable that Iran will not add Iraq to its military alliance with Syria and use the combined force to overrun the Middle East oilfields that contain 2/3 of the world's oil supply. Even though America imports over 60% of its oil consumption, Keith is not concerned that control of most of the world's oil supply by America's worst enemies could result in a cutoff of oil to the USA, the collapse of the American economy, and the devastation of the financial well being of every American including the "Uberman" himself!

Keith is the media Neville Chamberlain of our era. He and people like him must be stopped for the same reason!

If you believe the scenario above is alarmism, please visit my url or the link below before you support Keith's insanity.

Well played, well played. Democrats try to pass a bill that provides perfectly adequate funding to the troops ALREADY IN THE FIELD, Bush VETOES THE FUNDING, and somehow the Democrats are 'denying funding to the troops'. Because you see, Bush isn't accountable for his veto or anything else he does - he's actually physically incapable of signing a bill that's anything other than what he specified he wanted. It's not like he could have gotten this funding to the troops months sooner by just signing the bill ad then wrangling over deadlines. It's not like Congress has control over funding and has the right to stipulate conditions. No no, the President has the right to do anything he wants and the Congress are just an annoyance in his way. Why do we even have one anyway?

You may have fooled the Democrats, scumbags, but if you think this will amount to any increase in public support for you or the war, you're mistaken. Understandable that the only idea of 'victory' that remains for you is simply dragging the other party down into your muck. Congratulations.

It's like banana grease coconut oil, you work it in to the recipe in bits and drabs until they are eating out of your hand.
It is truly a pleasant feeling to win the hearts and minds without kicking the asses and butts.
I have done both, I prefer greasing the skids, as opposed to to killing the ideas.
It is an an idea that was instilled in me many years ago.

In which case, we may as well get out now, rather than years from now after lots more Americans troops are dead.

The British governor's piece (which is well worth clicking through to, y'all) is persuasive to me most of all b/c he emphasizes that we cannot create "Iraq" for the Iraqis -- they have to do it themselves. And to adapt a phrase, they will not *begin* to stand up, until we stand down.

1. Conversely, I believe the flypaper strategy has worked and continues to work, though I'm not sure the administration deserves the credit you want to give them for it. Demanding a utopian ideal of never having another attack anywhere else as a measure of success isn't really a serious argument. FWIW, I am not certain that the flypaper strategy is morally and ethically a good one. It strikes me as a variant of a NIMBY argument, where we consciously shift the collateral carnage of innocents to someone else's neighborhood.

2. My emphasis isn't on timelines, but victory. I wish I knew how long it would take, but I don't, and neither does anyone else. I've worked on many large engineering projects as designer, developer, project manager and program manager. We always start by developing schedules and budgets, but we never confuse the end dates and total spend created when we begin with being complete. Requirements can change and sometimes projects have become to difficult or too expensive to complete and they have been cancelled, but cancelling them is not then considered as having completed them. Some new variant of the project is usually initiated because the need that created the project is still there. What amazes me is that anyone, the administration included, thinks this is anything less than a very long haul. I know that I'm a out on a ledge here, but I've said it before, what if this is as good as it gets?

3. I think we accomplished the military objective a long time ago, about three weeks after we started IIRC. Everything since isn't really a job for the military, but it's the only tool we have to try and take care of it that has the ability and the resources to even make the attempt, especially since the UN and most of the rest of the world refuses to seriously engage.

4. We'll just have to agree to diagree regarding the existential threat. Perhaps you meant to include the adverb imminent, in which case I'd probably agree. The existential threat isn't imminent, but it is real. IIRC, Osama bin Laden himself claims this, so am I supposed to believe him or not? As to the our sins or their sins argument, it is a false dichotomy and perhaps an appeal to authority as well.

5. Pulling over a bus and killing everyone on it for racial/religionist/ethnic/whatever reasons is really, really bad, but in and of itself does not constitute genocide. Frankly, I think this is just a means to an end. Ultimately, I believe the Sunnis/Shia's/Al Qaeda/whatever really want to enslave the Shia's/Sunnis/Iraqis/whatever more than they want them all dead.

I respect the former British governor's opinion, and he has knowledge and experience that I don't have, but I disagree with him. FWIW, General Petraus has a lot of knowledge and experience I don't have as well, but I don't think he would agree with the governor's assessment. Certainly most of the uniformed servicemen and servicewoman with multiple tours of duty in the Sandbox who continue to reup would not agree with him either, but then that's one of the problems with the appeal to authority error.

(1) The "flypaper" theory makes no sense, for reasons oft stated. It didn't stop the Madrid or London attacks. Our analysts believe that the Iraq war is strengthening al-Qaeda, not weakening it. They're already rebuilding their training structure, this time in Pakistan, and with funds raised on the Iraq war. (Leaving aside the grotesque notion that we are deliberately sending kids to get blown up in Baghdad to spare civilians from getting blown up in Manhattan.)

(2) Maybe if your opposition to timelines made some sense, I would have more than snark to reply with. Look: we tell Iraq "achieve goal X by date Y, or we're outta here." If they DON'T achieve the goal, then what is the downside of leaving? Like the insurgents can't figure out that the gov't is failing? They will have firsthand knowledge of that fact, trust me. WITHOUT timelines, we're back to "now, now, Diem, we really need to see some progress ...."

(3) "Supporting the troops" is vapid logic. Were we going to starve them? Surrender them to the enemy? The point isn't "support," the point is: Do we have a military objective that we can accomplish with the resources at hand? No. We do not.

(4) Matt T ridiculed the "fighting for our Western values and way of life" rationale. You had nothing meaningful to say in response to that point. We do not face any existential challenge from Islamic terror, the way we did from Soviet nukes. Frankly, to echo the House of Lords, Western values are much more jeopardized by trading habeas rights for torture, than they are by anything Osama has done or could ever hope to do.

(5) If you don't think there's genocide going on now, then I'm not sure that the results of our leaving would strike you as genocide either. I call setting out to murder (in a given territory) everyone of a particular race, creed, or culture "genocide." If you think these murders are being done just to scare enemies into fleeing, then call it "ethnic cleansing." Either way, we can't stop it, and we aren't preventing it.

See this from a Brit who was governor of an Iraqi province a coupla years back.

The problems in Iraq are now so deep, complex, and intractable that they cannot be solved by surges or new tactics. They can only be solved by Iraqi political leadership and Iraqi political processes. * * * My instinct is that Iraqis can overcome their problems and create a functioning nation. But even if I'm wrong, I believe that what good we can do we have done. We should leave now.

I really enjoy the agreement, the disagreement, and the friendly banter.

I think all of you guys are really intelligent, and i enjoy the ideas and thoughts put forth.

Have to go now, had a contractor in the house all day and I have enjoyed the exchange.

Gotta go and get five animals to the Vet this afternoon.

Thanks,
confused
Tladoc
Robert
and all others.
Check you out later today.

That you are.

remember you dopes the soviets spent eleven years pounding the Islamists and there was no "liberal press" to undermine the effort. They gave up. Any lesson history has to offer people like you excel at ignoring.
How'bout two billion a month to secure the airports, for the INS, the border, the sea ports, for the FBI. No pour it down the dummy drain so you can feel good about hating democrats.
Maturity passed you and took intellect with it

At least you nailed that one.

And how appropriate. You gave us Jimmy Carter, after George McGovern.

And after more Islamnist terrorists attacks, you give us...?...

Good reply, a reasoned response to unbridled ignorance.

Everything at this point in time, is trying to discredit the US, simply because George Bush is President.

Let a democrat sit in the White House and all this would be interpreted as defending the US, and the ACLU would go to wanting to hang the enemies of the US instead of trying to find ways of giving them Constitutional rights.

"The World Turned Upside Down," There is a concert scheduled at Yorktown , Va. for all you democrats.