I bet Charlie Rangel's pissed that he won't get his draft after all.

Reid was for it before he was against it. There seems to be a lot of that going around...

So is 88% of the American people!! Only 12% support more troops. CBS says they only have 9,000 troops to use anyway, not much a surge, not even a bump!

As a matter of curiosity: What happens to the letters that congressmen send to the president? Do they get a reply? I am sure the lettes get archived, but is there any official protocol?

We encourage Al Qaeda to do what they please with the Iraqi people.

This is nothing more than a scare tactic that has absolutely no connection with reality. Al Qaeda has only a small base of support among the 20% of Iraq's population that is Sunni. The 80% Shiites and Kurds are implacably hostile to Al Qaeda. They aren't simply going to roll over and let Al Qaeda take over.

In addition, there are only around 1-2,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq to begin with. How exactly is such a small group of fighters going to subdue a country of 26 million people? We couldn't even do it with 140,000 of the best soldiers in the world backed up by the most technologically superior weaponry ever known to man. And yet, Al Qaeda is supposed to do it with it with a few improvised explosive devices?

C'mon Wizbang. You guys are better than this. Let's put this fearmongering aside and have a real debate on the merits of increasing our troop levels.

Ok Kim, dazzle me with your insight on how sending more troops to Iraq will make one single bit of difference.

Here's a hint, we should have listened to the brass before invading. You know, the career soliders who said taking Iraq would need at least 250000 troops who got brushed aside and sidelined because that might interfere with Rummy's glorioius vision of a hi tech, streamlined army.

And of course there was that little comb sucking dwarf Paul Wolfowitz who when before congress and said 100000 troops would be 'wildly off the mark' for keeping order in Iraq.

Don't you guys ever get sick of being so wrong all the time?

Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO today, delivers a good analysis of this "bump" in troop levels and what it could mean and should accomplish. (I believe you have to subscribe to NRO.)

Define: "taking Iraq"

Cornhole, er, Cornwell (same difference),

Other than dazzling us with your scatalogical and conspiratoiral view on historical events why don't YOU present an argument for why sending more troops is such a bad idea. (For the record: I also think it's a poor idea to send more troops IF we do not expand the parameters of operations; that is, dismantaling Shiite militias (incluiding capturing/killing al Sadr), laying an ironfist down on Sunni Baathists and thugs, closing the Iraqi siide of the Syrian and Iranian borders, and all of it with a decidedly more offensive bent--no presence patrols or other tactics that have not worked. Let our men and women do the job they were sent to do--and that is, kick ass and come home.)

Oh, now ... Peter, that's unfair and you know it.

It's painfully obvious that the left is incapable of generating any coherent concepts of their own. All they can do is sit back and critique.

yo,

I know. I guess I haven't learned much, now have I? lol

It's painfully obvious that the left is incapable of generating any coherent concepts of their own. All they can do is sit back and critique.

Well, you made it pretty easy to come up with critiques.

Oh, peter, poor dear. Have to make fun of my name, since you don't have a decent rebuttal to my assertions. That's fine, I know you and the average posters here are still sulking like 3 year olds about losing the elections, and you are sulking even more watching Nancy Pelosi become Speaker. Hey, for bonus fun, why don't you use that term "san francisco values" a few times to make you feel better about losing, mmmkay hon?

And yo, guess what buddy, we got the reigns now, so we will decide the policies and let your ilk sit on the sidelines for a while. You guys get to be the sore loser party now, screaming bloody murder about being in the minority.

Well, you made it pretty easy to come up with critiques.
Posted by: Davebo

Exactly my point.

Peter F proposes something that could possibly work--if we had done it 3 years ago with an extra 150,000 troops. Now, it's too late. Maliki is just a puppet now and Sadr is running as show (as demonstrated by Saddam's execution). Sadr will never agree to allow a large increase in US trooops aimed at destroying his militia.

Bush's plan is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for Iraq onto the Democrats. For 3 and 1/2 years he hasn't been denied a single troop or a single dollar to pursue this nationbuilding misadventure in Iraq. Now, suddenly, 3 and 1/2 years into this he's going to come forward and say he needs another 20,000 troops. Give me a break.

What's all the more remarkable about this story is that the policy review that led to this decision began in August of 2006! It took 6 months for Bush to finally make a decision after 3 and 1/2 years of his "deer in the headlights" approach to Iraq: afraid to escalate and afraid to withdraw.

He's not the decider, he's the indecider. I say it's time to take away the keys.

And for Peter, whose name is also a slang for male genitalia (what's the difference?), I'll say it again. Unless there are 250000 troops in Iraq, like there should have been from the beginning, sending 20000 more will do not a single thing except give the bad guys more targets. It will not stop the civil war, it will not stop Sadr (yea, go ahead and take him out. You think the violence is bad now...) it won't change the perception that we are occupiers, it won't do a damn thing positive for the US.

A new poll came out that showed about 25% of the country still thinks Bush's Iraq policy is working. Now I know where that 25% resides.\

Toodles, all.

"And for Peter, whose name is also a slang for male genitalia (what's the difference?)"

And Cornwell chastised me for making fun of Bahrney Fwank's lisp.

Classic.

"That's fine, I know you and the average posters here are still sulking like 3 year olds about losing the elections, and you are sulking even more watching Nancy Pelosi become Speaker."

I don't see anyone around here "sulking" ... at least not in the same manner that the left has been sulking since 1994, and I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

I thought a Dem controlled Congress would bring about a return to civility and all of that lovey-dovey crap that was promised during the mid-terms.

Guess not.

What's a matter, yoyo, can't take a little sand getting slung back in your face? You guys sure can dish it out, but man you scream like little girls when someone does it to you. I was making a point to Peter, and I didn't call him Dick did I?

But continue to harp on the name calling, yo, and bypass my assertions in my post which you obviously cannot repsond to in a civil, rational manner. How's it feel to be the last one holding the torch for Dear Leader?

I don't see anyone around here "sulking" ... at least not in the same manner that the left has been sulking since 1994, and I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

Yes, try and turn it around and live in denial again. This isn't 1994, it isn't 2000, it's 2007. PLease try and join the present if you can, yo. Of course YOU don't see anything here, do you, because you wouldn't acknowledge it if it was staring you right in your mug.

Cornhole (sorry, if the name fits)

First, the reason I'm sticking with the cornhole reference is because, well, when you reduce to calling someone a "little comb sucking dwarf" (straight from the Department of Redundancy Department, I assume), I figure I'd stoop to a level you could understand.

And no, I didn't address you assertions because from the get-go i'm sure you're someone who's been against the war and no amount of troops--be it 250,000 or less than a 100,000--would have been to your liking, so what's the point in addressing it. Which pretty much goes for your subsequent posts thereafter, too.

Finally, it's not that I didn't get your genitalia reference. It was quite clever. But I'm just guessing that you're probably more of a Two-Pump Chump given your short, meaningless and forgettable posts.

Troll.

Oh, I can take the sand, champ. But, it's hard to take such sand tossing seriously when it's dripping with hypocrisy.

And, no .. you didn't directly call Peter a dick, but the message was definitely implied. That weak-assed argument won't fly.

Maybe you didn't see my question to you asking you to define "taking Iraq."

...I certainly don't see anyone on this site throwing constant hissy fits in the same manner that the left has been wetting their pants since 2000.

Well, yo, you should check out cry baby Rob LA Ca on the "Pelosi Drink with power" posting. He's making a real spectacle of himself. Here's a taste:

"Rhon, Fuck you you lying POS. Democrats are the party felons and criminal frauds and Pelosi got busted trying to give these criminals prominant posts.You are a bunch of infantile assholes and lying losers. None of your pathetic lies is going pollish your criminal turds."

... and that's just the beginning.

Lots of that kind of hissy fits here today. Ha ha ha.

"Yes, try and turn it around and live in denial again. This isn't 1994, it isn't 2000, it's 2007. PLease try and join the present if you can, yo. Of course YOU don't see anything here, do you, because you wouldn't acknowledge it if it was staring you right in your mug."

Um. Hm.

What I "see" is a troll.

Posted by: hansel2

I'll give you that. Every site is going to have a few loose cannons; however, to back up my point about the historic cry-babying from left, go here:

www.huffingtonpost.com

Just pick any ol' article at random.

Methinks some wingnuts need a nap and women, hence all these muted sexual references. I wonder why is it wingnuts are the first to mention gay sex ala Cornhole. My last name happens to be Cornwell, but that's fine if your manners never left the 8th grade.
And making two pump chump dumps whatever, what is that supposed mean? Oh well, that's what I get for wading over here.

Larkin:

What's all the more remarkable about this story is that the policy review that led to this decision began in August of 2006! It took 6 months for Bush to finally make a decision after 3 and 1/2 years of his "deer in the headlights" approach to Iraq: afraid to escalate and afraid to withdraw.

Would you rather him making a hasty decision, is that what you're saying? Granted, the tactics in responding to and/or greatly curbing or curtailing the militias, etc. has taken far too long and been too passive, but to critisize the Admin for taking time to consult the DOD, CIA, SD, the ISG and so on is really kind of a cheap shot. Would you rather he just do it willy nilly? Come on...

Bush's plan is nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for Iraq onto the Democrats.

What? How? If anything, if this increase in troop levels were to succeed (and we should ALL hope for that!) that would hurt the the Dems chances for the WH in '08 for sure. If it fails, and the Dems have been against it all along, then they can say "See what Bush/Repubs did? We were right. Now who do you want to run the country in '08?" In no way does it shift blame to the Dems. Unless they're afraid it might work...and maybe that's what they're afraid of. But shifting blame? That just doesn't make sense.

If it fails, and the Dems have been against it all along, then they can say "See what Bush/Repubs did?

So easy for you to think about this in terms of pure politics, Peter. I guess you're not on the front lines, nor do you have family there. This is the stock thinking of the current republican party - and good riddence to them.

Fortunately for us, the current democrats are thinking about the troops who have their lives on the line - and not a political "I told you so." If anything, the democrats are giving Bush a way to say "see, I could have won the war if they gave me 20,000 more troops." if they deny him the funds.

Go ahead and play your little fantasy games while others have to fight for you.

Well, upon viewing the last day or so of commentary, it sure looks like you got maybe 20 or so nutcases who comment on your bullcrap (like whining about how meany-mouthed those nasty ol' libruls are toward us Right-Thinkin Murkins just before soliciting same towards your newly-labeled Vikid Vitch of the Vest). And when the sane seventy percent notices and shows up to call you on it, you guys go into "must be sock puppets" delusions.

Guys, you really want a "coherent concept?" Here, sad to say, is the only sane solution, like it or not:

(1) Get the US military the heck out of harm's way ASAP,
(2) submit an international apology for our illegal, immoral actions,
(3) allow an international war crimes court to prosecute the archetects and executors of the war,
(4) Have the US pay restitution by engaging for competent (preferably non-US) contractors to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

But since (2), (3) and (4) don't have a snowball's chance in hell of occuring, all the US can do is get it's troops out of the way of the civil war.

All America can do it stop sending its children off to die.

That's your "coherent concept". You got any better ideas, you might want to share them with your Commander-In-Chief.

'Cause evidently he don't give a damn about his citizens.

Only his image.

Your war isn't winnable. And the only people left on the entire planet who don't seem to know this is about 90 million Americans (about 30 percent of the US population, or about 1.4 percent of the population of the Earth).

Wake up, guys.

So let me get this straight. Bush wants to send over 20,000 more troops, but CBS is reporting that Central Command only has 7,500 to spare. Meanwhile, Bidden is stating that most of Bush's administration is resigned to defeat, and only wants to hold on until a new President has to deal with it.

So what does Bush want to do? Send an Admiral with no middle east experience over to Iraq to lead the Army in a war.

And it is ALL the Democrats fault? Brilliant!

So Kim says in the first paragraph that the surge is a good idea because Dems are against it.

That's what it is with you folks isn't it. No rationale, no reasoning, no insight. Just kill some more pitiful kids in that shithole because the left has been 100% right about this war for 4 years.

You supporters of this travesty are really REALLY sick. I think Kim has actually lost a family member. Dead, gone forever a life wasted in a tragedy pushed by a delusional president and his absolutely ignorant minions.

Shame on you people. 3000 dead so you can try to save face.

And you think sending more troops are gonna make a difference?

Get some help folks...you're hanging by a thread.

You know, Fordrill, et al, I had an impassioned, emotional and very explicative filled response to your post, but then I stopped before I hit "post". Why? I really have too much respect for Jay Tea, Kim, Lorie, Kevin and company (it was so filled explicatives it might have been gotten me banned) to embarass them, myself and my fellow Wizbang readers/followers and stoop any further to entertain your cheap argumentative level, so I stopped. I think they'll appreciate that.

P.S.: I have friends in both the Iraq and Afghan theaters. Two are in the Stryker Brigade out of Ft. Lewis; the other is in Special Forces.

I am not making a value judgment based on age or military service...I want to make a simple observation...our President is locked into a dogma of nobody understands but me..we can certainly understand that attitude..because.. WE ALL HAVE IT at one time or another...the little difference is...we are not the elected President of the United States..

Ask yourself...what part of the Leadership our President has demonstrated as working in Iraq is working?...

If you can forget any thoughts about evil Dems..wingbats..whatever...as an intelligent..rational..thinking..person...
...What has our President looked us in the eye and assured us...has come to pass?

Everyone reading..and posting here has demonstrated an intelligent concern about the reality around us. We do not..or should not agree..or apoligise for how we feel.

...However,; we should be open to information that conflicts with what we know is right.....by the way...anyone out there willing to pay the over 2.1 billion a week for Iraq with higher taxes?...of course not...let others(our troops) ,ake the freakin' real sacrifices....

Bring'em all home..in health..

Come on Peter, don't be a pussy, let them have it. Only a pussy explains his inaction.

Hmm, no, Barney. No, a pussy resorts to cheap argumentative tactics ("you're not on the front lines"), name calling (like some cockring calling me "pussy", for example) and acts like a tough guy through a computer screen. Now THAT, my friend, is being a pussy.