If the United States was defeated, it had to be by the Democrats. The pond scum known as AQ, Baathists, and other Islamo-nazi groups could not have done it alone.

Well done, left wing!

It is true that we have lost. We have lost our national pride, our patriotism. We have lost our political backbone. We have lost our sense of decency and our sense of right and wrong. We have lost all this to the Liberals in this country, and they couldn't be happier.

Who lost? The maimed and dead American soldiers who were send into this senseless carnage.

Who won? The people who wanted to send them there.

Publicus, that's even more incoherent than your usual blatherings. And that says a LOT.

J.

Publicus: "Who won? The people who wanted to send them there."

You mean all the Democrats who lined up during Bill Clinton's reign to espouse "regime change" as the OFFICIAL U.S. policy? They won?

You mean all the Democrats who over the years routinely decried the WMDs Saddam surely possessed and demanded we do something about them? They won too?

I guess you're right, pubicus

They ARE winning. They're having their cake and eating it too...thx to the memory-deficient MSM which rarely (if ever) calls them on their previous statements.

Who won? Al Qaida did, but not because the Democrats want to "cut and run."

As Tenet's book makes indisputably clear, Howdy Doody and his puppeteer, Cheney have inflicted this defeat on America because neither was ever fit to hold the highest offices of this country.

Cheney and Bush handed America's loss to Al Qaida w/ their moronic drive to lie this nation into war. Tenet makes it clear that it was Cheney who was behind the operation.

Thank all you Republicans for handing America's defeat to Al Qaida and for giving us the most incompetent presidency in the history of this nation.

The Bush 43 administration personalling succeeded in tight ly controlling this war from top to bottom...ignored advice from old hands from Bush 41, members of the State Deprtment, or old allies '0ld Europe', with some experience in the Middle East. Now that the war looks to have gone pear shaped who do their supporters blame: those who warned or were luke warm about the project from the beginning. Conservatives talk alot about personal responsibility and accountablity, but when things go badly, point the finger at those who had no influence on the war- the liberals. Winners: Blackwater, the war resource and petroleum companies, and those who held alot of shares in them.

When the Leaders of a Nation embrace the notion that the end justifies the means, the People lose.

The Mohammedan Jihad wins this battle by default. I say battle, because this war isn't over. We can say we are out of the war, but Al-Qaeda and the others won't stop fighting us until the New Caliphate succeeds or their hopes for it are smashed.

Obama, Reid, Hillary, et al have won, they hope.

Dems. vs. the U.S. How far the mighty have fallen into disgrace.

Democrats? Bill Clinton? Does it really matter who said what prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Everyone was talking about Saddam and how dangerous he might be but I don't seem to recall any plans by the previous administration to commit American lives and dollars on a grand scale to take him out. BushCo hit the ground running with plans to go into Iraq, based primarily on the PNAC manifesto and is solely responsible, along with all in Congress who voted to allow him to proceed.

I agree with Steve's list of "winners".

If al Quaeda won, why isn't Iraq ruled by al Quaeda, its agents, or sympathizers?

Logic is not in evidence among the libs.

At this point, we have a coalition gov't. in power in Iraq--Shia, Kurds, Sunni. No al Quaeda. The Iraqi Army is firmly anti-al Qaeda. The U.S. has lost very few soldiers relative to any armed conflict we have ever fought.

Only a fool would see defeat at this point. But liberals do.

Perhaps some of you Libs. would like to buy some "stupidity offsets" to cover your glaring inadequacies.

I don't have any to sell, but I'm sure you can make a market between yourselves.

It was stupid of us to trust this administration with anything, much less nation building. But even that stupidity is easily trumped by continuing to trust them. That's more like STOOPID!

if we lost, then who won?

To answer this question we have to distinguish which war you are talking about. The first war, between the US/UK and the Saddam regime was clearly won by us. We toppled the regime and established a new order.

The second war is the civil war that we see playing out now between the Sunnis and Shiites. We can't "lose" that war because we aren't one of the primary combatants. We are merely "standing in" for the Shiites to kill Sunnis for them, but that will one day come to an end before this war is concluded.

The third war is the war against Al Qaeda in Iraq. We haven't lost that one but we also can't win it. Only the Iraqis can win that because (as I've said before), they speak the lingo, they know the territory and they can pick the Al Qaeda out a crowd. We can't and never will be able to do those things. This third war we will leave without having concluded one way or the other. The idea that Iraq could "fall" to Al Qaeda is just sheer nonsense promoted only by bin Laden and right-wingers in this country.

So that's one victory, one not-present, and one draw by my count. Some would say those last two count as defeats since they weren't victories. I would tend to agree.

Can't wait to hear BarneyG's take--not!

Steve Crickmore: "ignored advice from old hands from Bush 41, members of the State Deprtment, or old allies '0ld Europe', with some experience in the Middle East."

Steve, you're SUCH a kidder!!

"old hands from Bush 41"...BAKER??? The guy who just recommended having Syria and Iran "stabalize" Iraq for us? Next up he'll recommend Mark Rich to head up the IRS.

"members of the State Deprtment"...they don't call it "Foggy Bottom" for nuthin', ya know. The list of "successes" attributable to the State Dept. would ALMOST fill this space: [ ].

But I was merely chuckling until you came up with THIS zinger: "old allies '0ld Europe', with some experience in the Middle East"

Stop...you're killing me!! France? Germany? Two countries HIP deep in the Oil for Food scandal (that the NY Times never even HEARD of...though it took place in their backyard!). Yes...those "old allies from old Europe" DID (and DO) have experience in the Middle East. Al Capone had "experience" in Chicago...doesn't mean Elliot Ness should have consulted with him!!

Still, pretty good comedy routine. I eagerly await your next one! :)

ummm, since this conflict is not exactly a zero-sum game, i might argue that everyone lost and nobody won? maybe terrorists and, to some exten Iran, have gained, but I'm not sure they have won.

justrand.. How about this? Not only didn't the Bush/ Cheney circle seek or accept any admonitions as to the wisdom of the war, they didn't even have a serious debate, to echo Jay' words about possible winners and losers in Iraq. "No one, has pointed to a meeting, a memo, a full set of discussions, about what America would gain and lose." It was all blind hubris that this would be easy, that the Americans would be treated as liberators etc, once they had overthrown Saddam.

"Stop...you're killing me!! France? Germany? "

Don't forget Britain.

A century ago they knew T.E. Lawrence was barmy in his quest to bring the Arab tribes together in Damascus. Seasoned advisors needed now.--(call the White House)

Iran didn't fare too badly.

aWagmire.

Thank you for posting this, J. I posed this question after Reid's declaration, and none to my surprise nary a Reid-supporting lib would answer.

I know the answer:

Al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Those with Bush Derangement Syndrome won as well -- a victory handed to them on a silver platter.

If there's ever been a face of a loser ..... that face is Harry Reid's. And, he's got the voice to match.

"The U.S. has lost very few soldiers relative to any armed conflict we have ever fought"

Mitchell, why don't yopu offer to swap out your entire family and all of your relatives for some of those piddling few bodies lost lost in the Puppet's war of choice?

Mitchell said:
If al Quaeda won, why isn't Iraq ruled by al Quaeda, its agents, or sympathizers?

Peter F. said:
I know the answer [to the question of who won]:
Al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

You two should get together and work out whether AQ won or not.

Brian, idiot that you are, made a statement that Democrats have national pride, patriotism, and political backbone. Quit it. Never in my life time have I seen a display of national pride from the left. Patriotism? How can that be with America always being wrong? If the Dems had polical backbone they would not fund this war. Brian you are a fucking liar, STFU. Crickmore is a fool and a liar, the negativity he spews is like vomit from a drunk. Groucho is a communist who hates the US. All you antiamerican lefties are trolls in your own right. Something for you idiots to think about is the 215 billion barrels of oil that lie under Iraq. You brilliant Motherfuckerw want to turn that over to al Qaeda and other radical muslims. You really need to think, as if you were capable, about your actions.

Brian, your attempt to connect two entirely disparate thoughts as if to point to some sort of contradiction is pathetically tortured. As usual.

Big winner: Iran
Other winners: defense contractors, mercenaries, al Sadr, radical Islam
Big loser: tens of thousands of shattered American and Iraqi families
Other losers: American taxpayers, American respect around the world, any moderates in the mideast

FWIW, I don't believe al Qaeda is a winner because none of the warring factions really want them to be a part of the leadership of Iraq, and a stronger Iran runs contrary to their vision of Islam as well.

The price of stupidity offsets for Liberals just got a lot higher in the last several hours.

Hamilton, do you know where Bin Laudins kid is? Do you know where they caught the latest al Qaeda leader? Do you know who's army he was in before he joined al Qaeda? Do you know you are full of shit?

Mitchell, again, where is your offer to replace a piddling "few casualties" w/ the bodies of your family to make everything alright in your hailing of bloodsucking jingoism?

Wieder, that's not an argument for Iraq policy, it's a stupid slogan you got from some other half-wit.

If you think fighting al Quaeda is not worth it, and therefore the loss of military and civilian life (here and in Iraq), then your argument might make sense. Except that sticking your head in the sand and making ad hominem attacks is not much of a plan.

Wieder, you're now priced out of the stupidity offset market, so don't even try to buy.

VIA THE NEW YORK TIMES: surprisingly good news from Iraq. Especially surprising since it's via the New York Times. "Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat."

I'm with the winners, the USA and Iraq.

Damn, there's a lot of Amoebas spewing their vile here today! Amoebas like Publicus, Wieder, Crickmore, Semanticleo, and good ole Groucho.