Harry Reid is a corrupt pathetic land hustler and is a poor excuse for an American Senator.

He should paint a big RED L on his forehead for leftist loser

I'd invite any of those of you who are supportive of Bush's not-so-excellent-adventure in Iraq to cite a benchmark - any benchmark - that shows we are any closer to the day when we can claim victory and pull our troops out.

Every six months or so for the past three years, Bush and company changes the chairs, names some new commanders, comes up with a highfaluting sounding strategy (clear and hold, surge, etc.). it's long past time for us to say to him that he's screwed things up long enough, he's wasted too many American lives, so he doesn't get any more cracks, and he ought to pull the troops out of danger and wait for somebody competent to come along in another year and a half (and yes, even a Democrat couldn't screw the pooch worse than Bush has done).

No surprise here, probably was frothing at the mouth at all the deaths in Bagdag this week, and couldn't wait to proclaim his already prepared statement. What a dumbass.

So Steve,
What do you say about all the peoople who will be slaughtered if we leave? "Sorry about your Luck"

Before Harry Reid proclaims the surge is a failure, maybe he should wait until it's in full swing for a while.

Gee Kim, it wasn't so long ago (15 days exactly) that you wrote ABC News: the Surge is Working. Now, you're asking for more time before we make a judgment?

Since then the terrorists have attacked the Iraqi Parliament building, blown up an important bridge in central Baghdad, and staged devastating mass casualty attacks in Sadr City marketplaces and other places around Baghdad. The terrorists have studied the tactics of the surge, adapted to them, and the carnage has resumed its usual pace.

Reid is spot on, the surge isn't working by any stretch of the imagination and it will never work because there isn't a military solution to Iraq's civil war. The only thing that will work is a political reconciliation between the country's warring factions and there's been zero progress on that as Iraq's dysfunctional political parties, militias and tribes continue their incessant bickering and back-biting as their country slides into all-out civil war.

Mr. Reid, I'd like to ask a follow up question if I may. Do you feel the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs are also lost? They have been going on longer and people are also losing their lives prematurely due to the lack of success of the current policies.

Kim: "maybe he should wait until it's in full swing for a while."

Kim Preistap on March 13, 2007:

The Iraq Surge is Working

I'm getting to this a couple of days late. Robert Kagan writing at the Washington Post, has a great piece in which he states the surge is succeeding:

So now we can see that over a month you'd decided (see your headline -- The Iraq Surge is Working -- that the surge had gone on long enough for you to declare it's working -- but a month later - with death tolls mounting and hard evidence that the violence IS NOT decreasing -- you're saying it hasn't been long enough.

That's an amazing bit of asshattery on your part there, Kim.

spypeach: yup. cold as it might be, I don't think American lives ought to be wasted (yes, wasted) trying to keep the Iraqis from killing one another. I just don't care enough for them, innocent though some of them may be, to have Americans die trying to keep them alive. The American military is supposed to keep us safe, not the poor people of the world, and it is a heck of a stretch (not that some of you won't try) to claim that we're actually better off because of our being in Iraq than if we weren't.

BTW, I was all in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Hussein and finding out once and for all what was going on with the WMDs... and then getting out and leaving the place to the Iraqis to figure out. It's the nation-building, the silly hope that we can instill western values in the cesspool of a region, this is where Bush fell down big time.

DaveD: no, the reason we keep fighting the War on Drugs and on Poverty is because in those two cases, it is American lives we're looking to improve... and because we (for some reason) think America is better off fighting those 'wars' than if we weren't. It's all about who benefits from the expenditure of American lives and money. Save an American, I'm all for it. Save an Iraqi... a Bosnian.. a Kosovite (?)... a Sudanese... I'll give money, but no lives. They just ain't worth it.

Kim,

Is there some way you can get video of Bush talking about the war and the surge today? I saw him live a few hours ago and he was excellent.

I'm not sure what the venue was, it looked like some sort of town hall meeting.

Right on Rightwingsparkle!

Do you think Bush will mention this?

Nationwide, the number of people killed or found dead today [Wednesday] was 233, which equaled the highest daily death toll since The Associated Press began keeping records in May 2005.

Yup! The good news just keeps pouring in from Iraq...

I have always supported the president when it comes to the war in Iraq. But he has failed to stop Iran, Syria, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia to name a few from "allowing" Jihadist to enter Iraq with impunity. This has become a political war and it's politics from both sides that has prevented our military from winning this war by tying their hands. If we pull out now there will be a slaughter ( the Kurds know this from Bush 1 ) and if we stay in the current capacity it will continue to be a war of attrition. Bush has failed to rectify his mistakes and Harry Reid is a coward for claiming defeat.

larkin,

Do you really think this war is about "good news?" You guys don't seem to get the fact that these "death tolls" are being created by the monsters we fight. Go check out how many died in WWII and tell me that none of that was worth stopping Hitler.

You guys are so consumed with hating Bush that you forget who hates us and wants us dead.

Do you not honestly think that if we pulled out of Iraq today that the enemy would not follow us back here?

He will. Of that I can assure you.

War is terrible. But not fighting this darkness would be the biggest mistake we could ever make.

The fact that the surge IS working doesn't mean it has been fully implemented, of course. The full complement of extra troops won't be in place until late May or early June. The early successes have been due more to the change in tactics and ROE and the change in attitude from the Iraqi government than to actual increased numbers.

Now, the leftists know this, or should if they cared enough to look. Instead, their attempts to lie about it and smear Kim demonstrate that they aren't interested either in success in Iraq, American interests, or the truth.

Larkin:I note that you admit that our opponents in Iraq are terrorists.You also want to stop fighting them and run away.So once we flee Iraq and an Iranian-backed Islamist dictatorship takes over resulting in a vastly better financed and much better armed Al-Queda with secure bases in both Iran and Iraq-what do you do then? I know the real answer-blame everything on Bush-but perhaps you can come up with something that sounds better? Can't you?

"BTW, I was all in favor of invading Iraq, getting rid of Hussein and finding out once and for all what was going on with the WMDs... and then getting out and leaving the place to the Iraqis to figure out. It's the nation-building, the silly hope that we can instill western values in the cesspool of a region, this is where Bush fell down big time."

The most pathetic and assenine comment of all time. You don't go incurr the costs in life and resources to solve a problem only to then allow it to become a bigger problem. Just dumb.

Larkin, there's something wrong with a supposed American gloating about the deaths of 150+ people to score political points. Not that it's surprising anymore, but still wrong.

The level of human carnage in Iraq is simply unacceptable where I'd certainly like to see the new security measures work, but clearly they are not. Yesterday's 198 killed and 240 wounded in 6 major suicide bomber attacks and today's new violence all make the Virginia Tech incident look like nothing special by comparison.

The U.N. currently has 83,000 soldiers in 15 hostile world areas right now including Lebanon where a nervous peace seems to be holding. Maybe the U.S. should consider a proposal to have U.N., NATO or even regional Arab forces police Iraq as nothing that the U.S. seems to be doing works for more than a few days until the insurgents figure a way to defeat those new security measures. Someone has to police Iraq and control the killing of civilians so maybe handing the situation over to some other force might be an alternative as maybe the U.S. has become too polarizing of a force to effectively police Iraq as the conflict with Iran and the U.S. only draws fire.

The Democrats who want to justify an American withdrawal from Iraq are just as wrong as the White House going with the current policies that aren't working either. It's time to consider something new such as U.N., NATO or regional Arab forces to take over security in Iraq.

Note to everyone, including Reid:

It's not a war.

jp2 is actually (stopped clock) right.

It's not a war. "Our side" isn't taking it seriously enough.

[psst, go look up "jihad" and "dar al-Harb" and tell me the OTHER guys don't think this is a war]

Reid has proven that he is unfit to be a leader.

Conservatives fight terrorism, liberals fight conservatives.............

steve sturm:The US military keeps us safe by fighting and killing our enemies OUTSIDE of the United States not waiting until they come here to kill us.When our enemies are able to do that it is generally regarded as fauilure-e.g. Pearl Harbor and 9/11.Yeah-I'll say we are better off fighting Iraq than not.You assume the alternative doesn't involve US troops fighting and dying somewhere and US taxpayers not paying for a war.I do not make that assumption.Al-Queda came looking for us, remember? Why do you think they would stop if we fled Iraq or had left Saddam in power? The main difference would be that in both cases our enemies would be vastly stronger.

If anyone was actually paying attention, General Petraeus stated, during his Congressional testimony I believe, that we should know whether the surge will work by the end of the summer.

For those who are 'calendar challenged', it's still not the end of the summer.

Kim,

The "surge" is not much of a surge anyway, so it's good money after bad. Wasn't meant to "work".

If only Bush would accomadate Sistani, who by all accounts controls the Shiites in Iraq (Al-Sadr calls him "boss"), we can get this baby wrapped up.

Give the Shiites their own zone to guard against their fellow Shiite Persians, which gives the Sunnis a window of opportunity to get their act together.

But getting blasted by Sunni insurgents while maneuveuring against Shiites because we want to harass Iran while Iraq is still a basketcase, is INSANE.

(And yes, we're taking hits from Shiites now. They're fighting back at US. It wasn't always that way.)

SO: Is Bush a Democrat Manchurian Candidate? Sent to bury the GOP?

Larkin, It's disturbing that you seem to take such glee from the deaths of Americans in armed conflict. We are fighting a war on terror. We are directly engaging Al Quada. Not on American soil, but in the middle east.

The source of the story is the AFP (Associated French Press). I went to the website and could not find any related story.

Doesn't anyone on this site check out the stories before they run with it?

Here is another quote from the same story:
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

How could Reid say both the war is lost and war could be won?

to those criticizing my comment: I'm all for going after al qaeda and our enemies wherever they might be, including iraq (and especially including Iran). but most of what is going on there is not fighting al qaeda but rather is sitting in the middle of the civil war bush refuses to acknowledge. most of our losses are not from al qaeda but rather from sunnis and shiites who are mad at us for supposedly favoring the other side... and they're not coming to america to kill us, they're happy killing each other right where they are

brainy435; yeah, I like you too. remember we spent next to nothing in terms of money or men going into iraq. 90% of the losses have come from our sticking around. I have no problem with us pulling out and telling the iraqis to sort things out and, if they screw up by giving sanctuary to our enemies, that we'll come back and take them out just like we did to hussein and give another batch of iraqis a chance. with the money and men we have wasted over the past three years, we could do a flushing every two years or so for the next generation and still end up better than we are now... or where we will be when the next president shows up and (rightfully) throws in the towel.

"the surge will work by the end of the summer.

For those who are 'calendar challenged', it's still not the end of the summer.

Posted by: _Mike_"

Bushco's modus operandi is Procrastination.

What goal has ever been met?

(And the Baghdad elections/constitions should be credited to Sistani. Look it up. The guy's tried to be nice, but NOOOO! Attack the Shiites. Hence the close quarters "resistance" in the Green Zone presently.)

How could Reid say both the war is lost and war could be won?

How could Reid vote legislation and them condemn the Supreme Court for upholding the Constitutionality of the legislation ?

Bushco's modus operandi is Procrastination.

What goal has ever been met?

Here's what I actually said:
we should know whether the surge will work by the end of the summer.

What goal hasn't Petraeus met ?

What goal hasn't Petraeus met ?

He hasn't declared the war a loss. That's the only goal these people seem to have.

Why don't we digest Roves' statements (made yesterday) on the war:
"I wish the war were over," Rove said. "I wish the war never existed... History has given us a challenge."

and
On who is at fault for the Iraqi war
"I think it was Osama bin Laden's," Rove replied

www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/17102685.htm

steve, your position is idiotic. There really isn't a good way to sugarcoat that. "Civil war" wasn't even mentioned until a year or so ago when the "insurgents" who are mostly coming from other countries started killing civilians instead of our soldiers. Which came after we killed the top al-quaida leader in Iraq.

Every terrorist we kill THERE, every weapons cache we find THERE makes us safer HERE. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

bryanD put down the bong-you're not making any sense

To take steve's idea futher, why don't we fall back and seize the oil fields. Not just Irag's but all of them (if they can't reform their house I don't see why we should continue funding our own destruction). We'd hold the proceeds of the oil sales for them in trust, to be disbursed when they reach certain benchmarks. After paying for our services, of course. Whenever they attempted to attack us, or they appeared to be developing the capacity to do so, we'd blitz in and eliminate the problem. Then we'd leave (if you break it you have to fix it my ass!). Sure, they'll hate us for the next five generations. But ultimately we'd be doing them a favor (and they're going to hate us publicly in any event).