What I find hillarious is Iran's reaction. According to a BBC article:

"Tehran said the attack violated all international conventions. It has summoned ambassadors from Switzerland, representing US interests, and Iraq.

A spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry described the raid as an attempt to sabotage Tehran's relations with Iraq. One Iranian MP said it showed America's cruelty and meanness."

Since when has the respect of a diplomatic mission been high on Iran's list of scruples?

If we don't have enough troops to "surge" in Iraq, how are we going to fight a war with Iran?

Bush has crossed the line into international criminal.

FYI, we were already detaining Iranians.

I'm not so sure how fighting the war that the terrorists and their enablers have chosen to fight makes anybody an international. I suppose we're guilty of being better at war than the enemy is. Oops I said enemy... Besides when the enemy doesn't get to choose how a war is fought if he's losing it.

But I suppose we should have an International Hug and make all the problems of the world go away.

I'm not so sure how fighting the war that the terrorists and their enablers have chosen to fight makes anybody an international

I meant interational criminal

Let's invite Achonmydinnerjacket to present a complaint to the UN Security Council.

Then we can efficiently dispense with all other matters before this August International Diplomatic Body.

Gee, what a coincidence this happens a day after the Prez's speech.

The question we don't know the answer to is how difficult could the Iranians make our situation in Iraq if they put their minds to it. Does anyone argue that they have been doing absolutely everything they can to disrupt the situation?

I don't think so. The Badr Corps which is the largest pro-Iranian militia in Iraq has been largely on the sidelines throughout this whole conflict. They are much more disciplined, better organized and armed that Sadr's Mahdi Army rabble.

Of course, we can all rest assured that Bush has thought through the consequences of escalating the conflict with Iran on the battlefield of Iraq. Surely, we have a spare 100,000 troops to send in as reinforcements if things start getting dicey right?

I'm sorry barney, do you not care if Iran helps kill U.S. troops?

You think the insurgency is funded by bake-sales at mosques, girl scout cookie sales and telathons?

Try bailing out a bathtub with a tablespoon while the water is running, and you may begin to understand our reason for deciding to turn off the faucet.

Well now, isn't this just special???

Bush has now violated long-standing international agreements recognizing that Consular and Emabassy compounds and diplomatic officials are immune from just this sort of action.

He has now rput US behavior and credibility on a par w/ Iranian violations in 1979.

Good for Bush & folks like Kim. They have now succeeded in making every US diplomatic office and its employees fair game around the world.

How long before the fool, Bush manages to ignite a conflagration w/ Iran?

Larkin:

Gee, what a coincidence this happens a day after the Prez's speech.

Not really. Kind of makes sense to me. Besides, this isn't the first action taken against Iran in Iraq.

Does anyone argue that they have been doing absolutely everything they can to disrupt the situation?

Of course they haven't. But given the reasoning in your post we should do nothing for fear of Iran actually putting a concerted effort into it?

Of course, we can all rest assured that Bush has thought through the consequences of escalating the conflict with Iran on the battlefield of Iraq.

When Iran started sending technology to the Iraq insurgency they escalated the conflict. They've been slowly digging the sand out from underneath our heels and I think it'd be foolish to not step on their hands.

I highly doubt Iran will operate without proxy in Iraq. The last thing they need is a few cruise missles heading for Tehran...and they haven't been doing a bang up job of making friends with the Nuclear issue.

aRepukelican:

Good for Bush & folks like Kim. They have now succeeded in making every US diplomatic office and its employees fair game around the world.

Yes, because as we all know, embassies, especially U.S. embassies, are the safest and most secure places in the world.

That was an asinine statement, my friend.

So good to see the uber libs have such an opportunity here to post, however ignorant and disruptive it is.

Why dont the libbie websites afford others the same voice on their websites.

BTW, did John Edwards not help people like Chris Reeve walk since no one was fool enough to elect hanoi john?

Puke,
I suspect it may have been before you were born, or at least before you were aware or the world outside your door, but do you remember this? I mean actually remember. The men the Iranians held hostage were not running guns or drugs or anything of the sort out the embassy. Their crime was being citizens of the Great Satan.
The raid being reported now, and the employees snatched in December were the result of criminals trying to hide behind diplomatic credentials. They should have holed up in a Mosque instead, since the US has a proven track record of walking on egg shells there.
Anyway,
The current regime in Iran cut its chops on viloating embassy rights. The US's, as it turns out. And the current President of Iran... one of the men who carried out the raid and kidnapping of the embassy staff.
The last thing Iran should have expected to get away with forever was playing the embassy as hallowed ground game. Sauce for the goose.

Part and parcel of any embassy being allowed to operate as foreign soil is the promise that the embassy in question will not be used to do things like funnel illegal materials into the host nation.

Does anyone argue that they have been doing absolutely everything they can to disrupt the situation? I don't think so. The Badr Corps which is the largest pro-Iranian militia in Iraq has been largely on the sidelines throughout this whole conflict. They are much more disciplined, better organized and armed that Sadr's Mahdi Army rabble.

You speak the truth, Larkin. The Iranians are not doing one-tenth of what they could do to make the US presence in Iraq impossible. They permeate the south of Iraq, their intelligence services and Quds Force special operations forces are present and ready to strike in either direct action missions (raids, sabotage, ambushes on convoys) or unconventional warfare (leading, equipping and inciting of Badr Corps and Mahdi Army militia against coalition forces).

The Kurds are pissed at this. There are no American forces in Erbil, it and Dohuk and Sulymania in the Kurdish region are the only cities in Iraq where a westerner could contemplate anything like driving alone, walking on the streets or eating in a restaurant unprotected.

It is also a violation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic missions, possibly. For what end?

If Bush attacks Iran, the shit is going to hit the fan in Iraq, and don't be too sure the US has the forces to prevail against the amount of subversion, sabotage and incitement the Iranians are prepared to cause.

Of course, uninformed zombies will think this is a good idea. They won't be there in Iraq when things go really bad.

05, isn't that the "shiite" that will hit the fan?

You and braniac Larkin are something else. Badr has 10k "militia" who don't want a fight with us. We'd decimate their ranks in no time. They're in Karbala and Najaf; I'd love to see them pick a fight and be done with them.

If you don't think Iran has already greatly facilitated the difficulties in Iraq, then you are a naive twit. And you really are.

The analogy would be, well, let's not go into Nazi Germany, what with all those thousands of snipers and storm troopers, as well as Soviet Army, left around, might cause trouble, big, big trouble . . .!

observer 5,

Glad you echo Larkin's assertion that doing nothing and letting Iran have free run of Iraq is the right move.

Of course, uninformed zombies will think this is a good idea. They won't be there in Iraq when things go really bad.

Oh! But you're so informed. We all read the same things, observer 5, so get off the high-horse before it bucks you off.

I'll tell you what I think is not a good idea. Yours. Which is no idea at all. Just criticism.

Yes, because as we all know, embassies, especially U.S. embassies, are the safest and most secure places in the world.

Bwhahahahahahahahah....

Heralder, that was excellent. You guys are good. If the trolls in here had the goal of making us rightwingers look even smarter than we are, they have succeeded.

Meanwhile, some more good news (O/T). Fourteen people from the Carter Center have resigned over Jimmah's lying book.

Yeeeeeeehaw. It's about time Saint Jimmah got his due.

I make my fair share of blunders in here too, Jo, as much as I wish it weren't the case.

Actually only the Iranians say it is a consular office. For it to be a consular office the Iraqis have to say it is.

By the way, I have been waiting for you guys to link to Michelle Malkin's first post from Iraq.

We the fact she was going was announced several commentors here said she was too cowardly. Well she is there and at an FOB, not the Green Zone. Some people here need to eat crow, but I doubt that will happen there are far too many half-truths, racial aspersions, etc to cast and just not enough time.

Jo, Jimmah was happy they left the Carter Center: too many Joos!

Heralder said: "Yes, because as we all know, embassies, especially U.S. embassies, are the safest and most secure places in the world. That was an asinine statement, my friend."

You're right. US embassies *are* targets for extremists all over the world. That's the cost of being the world's sole superpower. But when we defy the sovereignty of other nation's embassies in actions such as this, it validates the attacks on us. Was whatever we gained from the attack on the Iranian embassy worth the fact that we've now made attacks on our own personnel much more legitimate? How is what we did fundamentally different than what the "students" did to us in Teheran back in 1979?

It is clear our President is continuing his attempts to provoke Iran...however I am sure the Iraqi leader,knowing Iran's involvement will order them to leave...oh wait the leader of Iraq is Shia..
Well perhaps the purple thumb elected Representives will step in...oh wait they have not met since Aug...
Our troops are dying trying to prop up a government
...that does not exist.....
How will this help our brave men women as they attempt to stop Shia militia's in Baghdad? Support our troops?
How does this action do that?...just wondering....

Blackcat77:

But when we defy the sovereignty of other nation's embassies in actions such as this, it validates the attacks on us. Was whatever we gained from the attack on the Iranian embassy worth the fact that we've now made attacks on our own personnel much more legitimate? How is what we did fundamentally different than what the "students" did to us in Teheran back in 1979?

Because the Iranian "consulate" isn't a consulate that's recognized by other governments, especially Iraq's. It's simply a building where the Iranian terrorists make their plans to undermine Iraqi government.

Kim titled this post: It Has Begun: US Raids Iranian Consulate in Iraq

So just exactly what is "it"? Is "it" a punitive strike against Iranian interests in Iraq or a coordinated, comprehensive effort to eradicate Iranian influence from Iraq?

Of course, it has to be the first because the second approach would acquire a lot more troops and a lot more casualties all around. I don't think most of you appreciate just how deeply entrenched the Iranians are in the social and political fabric of Iraq. There are undoubtedly thousands of Iranian revolutionary guard operating in Iraq by now at all levels of the government, police and military. Some of them are likely undercover.

The Badr corps may be just 10K fighters but 1-2K Al Qaeda fighters have already kept us pretty busy. Large portions of the country in the South that have been relatively peaceful could be turned upside down if the Iranians wanted to.

The bottom line is there is no way to effectively curb Iranian influence in Iraq without a massive escalation in the conflict. In addition, the majority Shiites most likely have no problem with the Iranians. I'm sure they prefer the Iranians to us.

Larkin, a thoughtful enough post so I post a thoughtful rejoinder. As you well know Iraq is made upo various ethnic peoples. The same is true of Iran, in the south Iran is mostly Arab Shia. In the north the ruling Shia are Persians (and of course a whole boatload of other ethnic groups). Now what is more important, the fellowship of Shia or the emnity of Arab vs Persian. The emnity is more important. The Arab Shia are constantly rioting (go through the archieves of the Gateway Pundit to find examples). The fellowship of Arab Shia does indeed cross the borders. But the guys we are capturing (the four "diplomats for example) are Persian. Do your serious believe that the people that have hated the Persians since the time of Darius I are going to welcome their influence. I don't think so. This might be one of the reasons that Al-Sadr's dad thought his son was a dipshit.

Will casualties be heavier? Don't really know, if we disrupt their lines of supply we may actually suffer less casualties.

And finally you forgot the third option: 3. It was an intelligence operation. I sorta of wonder how many Iranian operatives might be heading for the hills, afraid that their cover has been blown.

Reuters is reporting this:

In a strongly-worded statement from one of Washington's closest allies in Iraq, the offices of the Kurdish prime minister and Kurdish president expressed their "disturbance and condemnation" over the predawn operation and urged the U.S. military to release employees arrested during the raid.

Great. So now Bush has pissed of our only true allies in Iraq, the Kurds, with this hamhanded PR stunt designed to convince he us he is taking on the Iranians in Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Kurds have a working relationship with the Iranians and are probably taking a generous cut of the weaponry that is flowing from Iran to the pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq. Bush is in way over his head and I don't think he hasn't even the slightest comprehension of the complexities of this situation.

Kim: I know that the Iraqi government has diplomatic relations with Iran, so you're saying that this wasn't a "real" embassy?

Kim

Unless you can provide a link to justify your statement that the consulate in Arbil was not a consulate, from what I see in the world press, you appear to be full of shit.

In addition, the Kurdish president is pissed off about the raid.

So, provide a link...from somewhere in the world media...that explicitly makes it clear that it was not a consulate. Links to rightie blogsites are not justifiable citations.

Ok, lets talk the Kurds. FIrst of all, Kurdistan is a two (or more) party country. The current ruling party is the PUK while Irbil is ruled by the KDP. This raid was approved by the PUK as evidenced by the partcipation of the Peshmerga. I think this is local politics being acted out by the AP (now isn't that a surprise). This would be like, oh say, Mitt Romney aiding the Feds in raiding factories in MA for illegals and the democrats screaming bloody murder. Oh, wait, that actually happened.

Why are we backing the Shiia in this fight, because that is what we are doing. The Shiia caused the sectarian war, and have emboldened Iran. The Golden Mosque bombing was retaliation against the death squads, and was not the flash point that started it.

The Shiite death squads (Shiia killing Sunni) started operating soon after the invasion per the 3/15/04 article by Stephen Grey titled "Rule of the Death Squads".

Up until the Feb., 2005 mosque bombing, most of the Sunni violence was initiated by al Qeada in Iraq against Sunni collaborators and US forces. This was a political, not religious movement. They even attacked a Sunni wedding party in a Jordan hotel.

By the end of 2005, hundreds of Sunni bodies were washing up on the banks of the Euphrates River without heads and hands. That is what lead to the Golden mosque bombing, and not Islamo terrorist as the Bush administration would lead you to believe.

Mitchell

Most, if not all, were "joos" as you used the term.

Not surprising that a gaggle of Israel-first Jewish-Americans would resign when anyone has the unmitigated gall to spell out just exactly what Israel is doing in the Middle East. These are the kind of Americans who are citizens of Israel first and the US, only second at best.

So, Puke, are you saying that all of the people that disagree with the content of Carter's book and dispute his version of events and facts are just Zionist partisans?
Part of some Jew conspiracy?

Barney,
How many of your details cite Jamil Hussein as a source?

SCSIwuzzy

Just read the Constitution article and the list of names.

I also realize that most of the right are not Jews, but from the political stance that many of you take, I am dure you'd be welcomed by the Israeli state as honary citizens.

Larkin, by the way, you were wrong: going into the Iranian "consulate" happened before the speech, nit wit--

"Beeb and the AP say the raid happened around 3 a.m. local time today, or 7 p.m. EDT yesterday--two hours before the president's speech."

Let's see... did 9/11 come from Iran?
..from Iraq?
...Syria?
nope it came from here..
"A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq."

Why has Bush forgotten 9/11?
70% of the sheep in America are looking up..some posting here are still grazing...
...don't bring'em home..put them in Afghanistan..
...at least they have a functing govt to support..How about we snuff the Taliban and warloards..and give this country another income than freakin' poppy's...

Puke,

I would gladly extend them citizenship if they are like the people I met when my ship pulled into Haifa for a port call. Y'all libs seem to LOVE throwing around the chickenhawk meme, so I'll throw it back at ya. How many times have YOU been to Israel to learn what the people are like?

This is not an endorsement, I'm just passing on an item that landed in my email inbox.

America says NO to the Iraq escalation.

Lee:

This is not an endorsement, I'm just passing on an item that landed in my email inbox.

When I get that Viagra, porn, etc spam, I simply delete. Odd choice to post it here.

The US citizens do not have the stomach or the will to fight. OOPS! I plagarized, Osama himself said that. He certainly knows some of the trolls. ww

Larkin, by the way, you were wrong: going into the Iranian "consulate" happened before the speech, --

BFD. The point is that it is part of the PR campaign around Bush's "new" strategy.

I can just see Bush now in the Oval Office telling the military that we need to raid an Iranian office somewhere in Iraq to coincide with the rollout of his new plan. Sort of like LBJ picking bombing targets during Vietnam...(and ultimately about as effective)

And now NPR is reporting that the Kurds held some of our troops at gunpoint for over an hour.

At what point do you deadenders say what the other 70% of the American people have already concluded? That Bush hasn't got a clue what he's doing in Iraq.

Clearly the "surge" is just a watered-down PR term for a major escalation. Looks like it still has the rubes fooled.

Sounds like the leftoids here support our troops, but not the notion of punishing the country that supplies the IEDs that kill those troops.

So Puke, anti-semitism... it's what for dinner, eh?

There are no attack on the US soil for 5 years. The US just conducted a rout of AlQuaeda in Somalia. All the liberals can talk about is defeat. They are still wishing for US defeat and terrorists to win in Iraq.

If Bush is clueless, then what are the dems/liberals? They must be in an intellectual dump since they have no ideas what to do except to cut and run before the terrorists.

Just like in South VN, the dems called for Vietnamization of the war. Then during the fighting, they cut off the aid to the South Vietnamese troops. The same pattern now wrt Iraq. They simply want the terrorists to win.

Way to go. Time to take it to the Iranians and Syrians for that matter. Let 's adopt the strategy in Somalia. If we can get the Ethiopian troops there or simply unleash the Kurds. Tribal leaders are strongly against the terrorists and the US to help them rout these terrorists just as the Somalian and Ethiopian need the US help. Dems don't want to help the people fighting the terrorists. The liberals seem to be more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists and their sympathizers.

The dems/liberals are really clueless or they simply want the terrorists to win so that they can bash Bush/reps. The terrorists openly cheered for the Dems to win the election with the expectation that the US will cut and run. From an information war standpoint, the troop surge is a good message to send the terrorists. This raid against the Iranian sponsor of terrorism is long overdue.

The liberals are truly clueless while spouting their quasi-intellectual tripe picked up from their leftist teachers.

Lee and aRepukelican, if you're not careful, you'll have everyone on this board thinking you're not serious.

Lee with more off-point posts, Repuke making factually incorrect posts, then doing the Demo Pivot(tm) to another topic to throw a little indirection into things.

What a lousy, miserable life you two lead. Lee, a dolt, and Puke, a self-hating Jew hater. Wow, you don't get any better representatives of the hard left these days, do you. See DU, Kos, etc for even better examples.

I don't blame you for the self-loathing, though. I would feel the same if I were such a zero such as yourself, Lee and Puke. Otherwise, why waste your time here, if you had any life, idiots.

Mitchell,
It's like meeting the people in Zombie's photo gallery, isn't it?

Ahhh, I see the monkeys are banging on their cages again -- they get so excited when the smell blood.

Getting back on topic, so do these folks:

The senators went right back to attacking Rice, the only proxy they had handy for an unpopular president and his unpopular plan. "I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," announced Hagel, who earned two Purple Hearts as an infantryman in that war.

"I've gone along with the president on this, and I bought into his dream," Ohio Sen. George Voinovich added a few minutes later. "At this stage of the game, I don't think it's going to happen." Minnesota's Norm Coleman seemed to agree: "The cost is too high," he said of the plan for more troops. New Hampshire's John Sununu expressed mild disappointment. Added Alaska's Lisa Murkowski: "I'm not convinced, as I look to the plan that the president presented yesterday, that what we are seeing is that much different than what we have been doing in the past."

And those were just the sentiments of Republicans.

Too funny -- those were the Republicans! I guess they don't eat the same monkey food as the Winguts....

The Democrats pulled even fewer punches. "Failed strategy," said New Jersey's Robert Menendez.

"Extremely disappointed," said Maryland's Ben Cardin.

"A true nightmare," said Wisconsin's Russ Feingold.

"A fool's paradise," said Connecticut's Chris Dodd.

"More of a mess than at any time previously," said Massachusetts' John Kerry.

Even Bill Nelson, the hawkish Florida Democrat who backed the invasion of Iraq, joined in the Bush bashing by repeating the ejected protester's message. "I cannot continue to support the administration's position," he announced. "I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses. And the American people have not been told the truth."

Purge the surge -- looks like no one except the die-hard idiots are buying into Bush's lies this time around. How did they get to be so damned stupid? Dropped on their heads as a child? Huffing paint thinner as a teen? Or just the low-IQ that comes from several generations of hillbilly inbreeding...

Who cares - even the Republicans in Congress have grown sick and tired of the constant lies and bullshit that has come out of the White House.

Sounds like the leftoids here support our troops, but not the notion of punishing the country that supplies the IEDs that kill those troops.

What about punishing the countries, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, that provide most of the financing for Al Qaeda in Iraq? They are likely responsible for more deaths among our troops than Iranian IEDS.

I find it hard to believe that the Shiite Iranians are providing major assistance to Iraq's Sunni insurgent groups and Wahabbist Al Qaeda. As we've seen from the events in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites pretty much hate each other. The idea that they are in league together against us is about as farfetched as the idea that Saddam had drones that could spray chemical weapons the East coast of the US.

But you guys believed that crapola didn't you???

Mitchel,
Let me get this straight. You are for this administrations' new plan in Iraq, correct?

You voted for Bush in 2000 when he ran on a platform that nation building was not in Americas best interest. Yet here we are 6 years later and nation building has all but consumed this administration.

You voted for Bush when running for re-election in 2004 when Bush said he would never put US troops under foreign control. What did he propose during last nights speech? You got it, he wants to put US troops under Iraqi military control. Embedded was the term he used.

Bush's many reasons for war with Iraq and the progress of that war have all turned out to be untrue and just plain wrong. I can not think of one thing Bush said was going to happen with his handling of this war that actually did. We were not greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil revenue did not pay for this war, mission was not accomplished, war profiteering is rampant at the expense of our brave men and women, the list goes on and on.

Yet here you are accusing two of your fellow Americans of doing the "Demo Pivot"?

Maybe Jesus the Prince of Peace had some advice for us all. Please read Luke 6:41

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Larkin: I just realized something. "IED" means improvised explosive devices. If words mean something, that would indicate that they are constructed from bits and pieces by amateurs. Now we're hearing that Iran is supplying "advanced" IEDs for Iraq. That makes no sense. If they are being deliberately constructed in Iran and imported into Iraq, then they simply are not "improvised." So if the Bush administration claims that these are mines or some other device, then they should call them that. If they really are IEDs, then they aren't coming from Iran, but they need to choose one or the other.

Nitpicking? Maybe. But it's one more example of this administration playing fast and loose with the language either so they can claim they didn't say what they did at some later date or they're just bulls---ting us.

You know, sometimes it takes a little time, but sooner or later one's true nature comes shining through. And in PukeBoy's case, his anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, "it's all the Jooooooo's fault," everyone would love us to pieces if we just threw Israel under the bus side finally revealed itself.

Thanks for letting it show, PukeBoy, but WTF did it take you so long? Don't you feel better for letting it all out?

As my BlogMother, Meryl Yourish, says, "anti-Semites of the world: just die already."

J.

Nitpicking? Maybe. But it's one more example of this administration playing fast and loose with the language either so they can claim they didn't say what they did at some later date or they're just bulls---ting us. Posted by: blackcat77 at January 12, 2007 01:36

That's not nitpicking blackcat77. Thats a full on acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Here's a G-Damn clue, not that it will do a bit of good.

"Since early 2005, insurgents have been using a "shaped charge", an IED adapted to concentrate the force of the blast, giving it a better chance of piercing armored vehicles. Describing the capacity of the shaped-charge IED, John Pike, director of US defense policy group GlobalSecurity.org, told the BBC News website that it could "go through the heaviest armor like a hot knife through butter". Insurgents have also advanced with regard to the detonators they use. With the US forces using electronic jammers to block radio-wave detonators, they have moved on to using infra-red lasers."

Back on topic... All the reports say this alleged Iranian "consulate" was located in the North. The original Iranian Embassy was established in the northern city of Karbala in 1929.

However if this is to be believed the current Iranian embassey is located in Baghdad.

Here, give'em a call and ask if they have had any desert cammo wearing visitors lately. tel: 8853714, fax: 5376341

The "show" will never get better than this folks:

What did he propose during last nights speech? You got it, he wants to put US troops under Iraqi military control. Embedded was the term he used.
:: by Live@9 on January 12, 2007 1:05 AM ::

One question, are U.S. troops under MSM reporters operational control when the are "Embedded?"

Deranged, delusional and just plain stupid!

Funny stuff. Why wasn't the US ambassador to Iran summoned from the US embassy in Tehran to answer for this?

It's telling that the resident moonbats are upset that the U.S. military would go after Iranians who the military believes are behind some of attacks on our troops. Should the military have simply let the Iranians continue to aid in attacks against our troops ? Or did you guys even trouble yourselves to think through it that far ? I know thinking through something to the outcome is out of character for a moonbat.

Marc,
I think you are 180 degrees off the mark.

When a reporter is "embeded" with US troops it's the US milatary that's in charge. Remember the Geroldo line in the sand incident and how the right wingers were freaking out?

The same holds true with Bush's proposal to embedded US troops with the Iraqi military.

Now go back and listen to his speech one more time. Bush proposed embedding US troops with the Iraqi milatary units, not the other way around.

Live@5,

As I recall, it wasn't a promise to never let US troops serve under other country's leadership. As I recall, it was vowing to not require UN permission to use our troops. "Passing the Global Test" was the phrase that set it off, as I recall.

US has let their troops be controlled by other countries before. It occurs every time a NATO regional commander isn't a US General/Admiral.

ExSubNuke,

Your point is well taken. However we're not talking about NATO here are we? We are talking about US troops being embedded with Iraqi millatary units. Are you OK with that?

If it is done with the blessing of US commanders, furthuring US goals/interests... yes.

If it were US troops embedded in units being sent to loot and pillage.... no.

As an ex-servicemember (US Navy), I know they recieve training to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order. So, I'll trust the commanders to know what they're doing, and trust the troops to know what they can and cannot do.

ExSubNuke,

You are way more trusting of the Iraqis than I would be. I think after the first one or two "friendly fire" incidents occuring we have big trouble.

To see how the chain of command is going to be set up check out the link. I know it's the NYT but the info can be found in other publications if you choose to do the searching. The important info is found on page 2 of the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?ex=1326258000&en=e3d43e91d06bc254&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

So as I read it, the US is in overall command (at least until later this year).

The order from the high-higher ups is "Get control." (or somesuch similar)

Operational control of units is then the Iraqi's.

The Iraqi leadership (the Iraqi General) gives the order (filtered down through the chain via both Iraqi and US staff officers) to the individual units.

The units (compromised of both Iraqi and US troops) then carry out the order.

Seems perfectly fine to me, but then again, I participated in a BUNCH of multinational exercises during my time in the Navy.

Try to remember that these guys are on the same team working towards the same goal. The US troops and staff officers are just "ringers" to help bring the Iraqi's up to speed.

ExSubNuke,

You stated "Try to remember that these guys are on the same team working towards the same goal."

I hope for the sake of our brave men and women that your assumptions are correct and that my fears are wrong. I guess only time will tell. Have a great day.

Lee, Puke, Live, remember about 6 months, or less, ago, how most of the Dems like Kerry and Reid, Pelosi, and Levin decried the LACK OF TROOPS in Iraq! God you and your ick couldn't be any more transparently partisan. And worse, not serious about this country's defense.

I recall your Party's erstwhile leader, Mr. Clinton, opining a few years ago that Iran's elections were more "democratic" than even those in the U.S.

Good Lord, man, why would anyone in their right mind think you folks are capable of defending this country any better than the Repubs????

Good Lord, man, why would anyone in their right mind think you folks are capable of defending this country any better than the Repubs????

Two words: Iraq and Katrina.

Fordrill, that would be an error, as it is not a choice between Republicans and vauge "Good Government," but Republicans and Democrats.

What of their character, pronouncements, policies during the last 6 years have suggested a better way of winning in Iraq--none.

My examples, above, are real-world, you live in a different one.

What of their character, pronouncements, policies during the last 6 years have suggested a better way of winning in Iraq--none.

First of all, it is a choice between Democrats and Republicans. If you haven't really paid attention, Republican's have had the power, the rules, the votes, the media and the bully pulpit for the past 6 years. Even when the Democrats came up with both of their plans, it was like a tree falling in the forest.

Ignored by those in power and the media.

In contrast, the Republican's have fleeced this country through lobbyist corruption while the asshole in office has failed at everything he's touched.

THAT is why people like you hold a minority opinion in this country. Most of America can face the reality of what they see happening. You still regard your President as a great man when he is, in reality, a lying, cheating, murderous crook.

And hey, if the Democrats come up with nothing in the next year, throw them out, too. That's democracy, and the way I like it -- not something akin to 1984 which you people would rather adhere to through your cowardly, miopic minds.

Hold it, "both of their plans." What in the world are you talking about.

The Dims. are plan-free and have always been so.

Fordrill, words divorced from reality don't sound as good.

Fordrill:

Two words: Iraq and Katrina

In what world do you live in that you can actually DEFEND against a Hurricane?!?!

What're you proposing? The newly elected Dem. President Hillary Clinton save the east coast from Hurricane Shaniqua by dropping a nuke or firing missles at it?!?!

In what world do you live in that you can actually DEFEND against a Hurricane?!?!

Do I really need to explain this reference? Bush is inept even on the homefront. If this idiot and his brigade can't mobilize for an event on our own soil - one we saw coming - do you really expect him to defend us against ANYTHING that happens here?

The difference between you and I is that I forgive these people nothing in their actions on the job, democrat or republican. You make excuses for them. That helps nobody.

And the vast majority of American's saw the correlation, thus this prick's dip in popularity and the current election.