The anti-American left (which, unfortunately, includes many elected officials these days) MUST keep up their mantra about Iraq being "unwinnable." The instant they admit ANY chance of success, they undermine their argument to cut and run away like scared children.

The enemies we are fighting today in Iraq are al Qaeda and Iran. They will not stop fighting if we leave Iraq - they were sworn to kill us long before this war, and will not stop trying just because we run and hide.

Iran has been declaring war against us since they invaded our sovereign territory in 1979. They have sponsored terrorist acts against us and our allies ever since - including the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and the Khobar Towers attack. We just don't seem to believe them. Perhaps once they make nuclear bombs they will be able to get our attention?

Al Qaeda seeks to reestablishment the Caliphate and make their radical version of Islam mandatory for all (it is questionable whether they would even tolerate a submissive dhimmi).

Withdrawing from Iraq only encourages and emboldens these enemies, and potentially supplies them with the huge oil resources of Iraq with which to finance their terrorism. Since it would also portend disaster for the Iraqis, there is no sensible argument for withdrawal - even if one believes the invasion was a mistake in the first place. We are where we are.

The left doesn't want America to win ANYWHERE. They want to see our noses bloodied, which is why they can barely contain their glee at news of American losses, and those of our allies.

I wish the Right would be a lot more honest as well.
I see no shortage of right-wing blogs brimming with hatred of Islam, and cheering the deaths of Muslims. They do not seem to be concerned with the poor Iraqi civilans, unless they were to convert to Christianity, that is.

I hear a lot of Republicans supporting torture, too. Innocent people are only innocent until you torture them enough to "admit" their "crimes", apparently. Yes, there is deep concern for human rights in Iraq, isn't there? Torture among the Iraqi forces has become rampant, but I don't hear any Republicans bringing that up. That's odd, considering their deepest concern is the poor Iraqi civilians, rule of law, and democracy.

I remember Bush Sr. and the Republicans looking the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Bush Sr. provided Saddam with intelligence, since Iraq were the "good guys" at that time as they fought a long and bloody war against Iran. The Bush Sr. Administration defended Saddam against the U.N's investigations of human rights abuses in Iraq. Now you guys are all about human rights and those poor Iraqi civilans that will die before "we" can get the oil out.

I remember the shrill Republican cries when Clinton went in to Kosovo to stop the massacre there. That was "nation-building" and we should not involve the military in something like that. I must have missed the concern about innocent civilians then. It seems strange that dissenting against a sitting President during wartime was okay at that time, though. Didn't Dubya campaign against "nation-building" in 2000?

Oddly, I don't hear a lot of Republican concern about human rights or innocent civilian deaths in countries that don't have oil, though. In fact, it seems that Republicans aren't concerned at all about bad things that happen in our allies countries', either. Ever heard of Turkish human rights violations? Is Saudi Arabia democratic? How 'bout those crazy Guatemalans, eh?
You want honesty? You say you respect honesty? I say "prove it". I guess 9//11 didn't change "everything"; Republicans seem to lie just as much and about the same things as before.

Todd, you seem to see things that I have missed with respect to these unnamed Republicans.

With respect to concern for "innocent civilians", you reference Clinton's operations in Kosovo ( which still haven't ended ) but you omit to mention that the supposed genocide ( that supposedly justified it ) ongoing in Kosovo turned out to be at best an exaggeration if not outright fabrication.

I find your comment to be more posturing than anything else however without examples of these awful dishonest callous Republicans.

Yes, Todd, please provide us with verifiable links to all this hatred.

I anticipate either spin or an echoing silence. Any wagers on which one we'll get?

Mmmmkay ... as I'm understanding this, America and the UN can completely absolve itself of all responsibility with respect to murder, terror, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. simply by withdrawing all our troops, then sitting down at the negotiating table and encouraging Iraq's warring factions and neighboring nations to all play nice together. And after we've given it the old college try, regardless of the outcome, we are henceforth absolved of all responsibility for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

On the other hand, as long as America has a military presence in Iraq and is physically combating evil-doers and killers, then we are completely responsible for each and every death that occurs in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances.

Uh, makes sense to me.

Of course, Mike, that is all dependent upon us anointing Hillary as Queen of America. If we elect a (gasp!) Republican President again, then we're at fault no matter what we do.

Remember, being a lefty is easy:

Democrat = good
Republican = bad

It's that simple.

Todd's drive-by spew also included the obligatory: "I hear a lot of Republicans supporting torture, too."

Doesn't matter what the topic is. Immigration, the economy, kite-flying, whatever. I was kinda surprised he didn't throw in our known cruelty to fuzzy-bunnies and puppies!

Is Todd the best we can do for a troll today? *sigh*

Of course the NY Times wants genocide. The want the Dems to cry over the next year about how Bush failed and got millions killed, so vote for Democrats. What's a few million lives and the loss of American pride when there are elections to be won?

That's the bottom line, Brian.

"I hear a lot of Republicans supporting torture, too."

Yeah Todd,
I was just down at the local Republican supermarket and a bunch of us were discussing torture while blocking the doors so African Americans couldn't get in.
Our budddy Jim Bob, who repairs Whites Only water fountains, suggested torturing poor Iraqi citizens unless they submitted to a forced conversion to Christianity. A fight almost broke out when Cooter got into an argument with Billy Rob over the fact that we wasted so much time and millitary resources on Haiti, Grenada, El Salvadore, Nicaragua and Panama just cuz they didn't have no damn oil. Billy Rob said we shoulda invaded Germany again because them Krauts were making poison gas for the thugs in the desert. Thankfully Cooter's brother ended the argument when he reminded everone that the Germans wuz makin' that gas for the camel jockeys that were killing Joooos with it too. Everyone was satisfied then, except Addy (his real name is Adolph) because he wanted to know why no Catholics weren't killed too.

Speakin of RC's, Joos and oil, just when things started to settle down and we thought we could get back to the business of being Republicans and starving the poor and all, you know who walks in? None other than a brother ( I'm good at rhymes...at times! I crack myself up!) Bobby Sheets Byrd! With just one more guy there we coulda had us an official meeting and conducted some official business.

Ole Bobby, he's big name famous now but he was just one of us back in the day. He told us not to worry about no innocent civilians and torture and the such ( we wuzzn't worried but some of us suspect he was dispensin political wisdom) because a famous American President turned his back on the same type of innocent civilians just at the time when we asked them for their support. I couldn't understand it all, his words being all political wizidry and the such (hey, my sister just said that was a pun! is that a good thing?) but it had something to do with some pigs in a bay and soldiers getting all butchered and cut up on a beach. Cooter said they got castroed or something, but I thought that's what we did to cattle to make them behave.

Anyway Todd, come on down to the republican supermarket anytime (You white ain't ya?). I'll spot you an RC and a Moonpie neighbor.

Your buddy,

Amon T. A. Bustya

C-C-G: I don't actually bookmark those blogs because they pretty much disgust me. One that springs to mind is Foehammer's Anvil, though, and that's only because of the artwork on the site. If I intended to lie, though, I could have done a lot better, but you probably won't change your mind when I do show you the links. I expect either echoing silence or spin. I see about three or so of the right-wing anti-Islam blogs a week, so they're out there. I'll come back and post the links as I come across them. I don't exactly seek them out. I'll append a few I find to this post, but it might be a few days or so.
I have also heard right-wing talk show hosts say tha we bomb the Qa'aba to show the Muslims we "mean business". I have heard several Republicans tell me in no uncertain terms that Iraq is great because it's a war where most the people dying are Muslims. Other conversations in discussion boards have brought out similar remarks, and no Republican has ever distanced themselves from them. Perhaps these remarks sound similar to those you may have already heard from others firsthand.
Just for the record, are any of you willing to distance yourselves from this anti-Islamic hatred?

Mike: the point is that there is a pretty sorry history wrt human rights and innocent civilian deaths in the Republican Party. It sounds pretty hollow to use that an as excuse to maintain the surge.

Justrand: Hey, I didn't expect to have to hang out waiting for a reply, as far as the "drive-by" remark goes. Do you deny that Bush and Cheney have basically okayed the use of torture on suspects, while re-defining the meaning of the word? Do you deny that we set up secret prisons where people were tortured? Again, my personal experience is that the vast majority of Republicans support torture of any "suspect" in the WOT. Also, torture in Iraqi prisons has been documented and the Interior Minister has admitted to it in a rather hand-wringing manner. A report just came out a few days ago about the situation in Kurdistan prisons. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38402
Complete silence from the party so concerned about human rights, however.

It doesn't bother me so much that so many Republicans seem to be so willing to look the other way about human rights, innocents being massacred, lack of democracy, etc. It's when they pretend that their concern for these things is genuine that I have to spaek out.

I see Todd that most of your examples still are unsourced, and the only ones I even start to recognize are distortions of the actual arguments.

You write "Do you deny that Bush and Cheney have basically okayed the use of torture on suspects, while re-defining the meaning of the word? Do you deny that we set up secret prisons where people were tortured?"

Yes, I deny it. And your claim that the word torture is being redefined by Republicans is an especially offensive misrepresentation since it is the Bush administration opponents who have redefined torture to mean anything and everything. Your own coinage of "basically okayed" shows that even you are slipping in your assertions and distortions.

So your claims about "so many" Republicans again remain just baseless.

Amon T. A. Bustya...SPLENDID!

Todd: "Again, my personal experience is that the vast majority of Republicans support torture of any "suspect" in the WOT."

when you put "personal experience" down as your basis for cubby-holing "the vast majority of Republicans" as closet-torturers it kinda takes your creds away...ya know?

Either meet more Republicans and find out what they REALLY feel...or STFU on the subject. (or find some actual by-God reference!)

And btw...define "Torture".

Hint: pantyhose on the head is NOT "torture"...nor is making someone listen to Barbara Streisand records non-stop. Though the Streisand routine would get closer! :)

C-C-G: I don't actually bookmark those blogs because they pretty much disgust me.

And spin wins!

Winners please report to the betting booth to collect your winnings.

Todd, there's a thing in all modern browsers called the "history." You can go back and see what sites you've visited recently even if you haven't bookmarked them. So you could easily find these sites, if they existed.

Unless, of course, you told the browser to keep 0 days in history because you don't want Dubya's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil henchmen seeing that you visit DU. (You probably don't care if they see that you visit "adult" sites.)

In short, you're full of Donkey dung, and you've been exposed for the fraud and liar that you are. Go create another sock puppet and come back to this thread and defend "Todd." now.

As to Todd's point of right wing Islam hate sights. Many include LGF in that category, when all LGF attempts to do is highlight the evil of the Islamist jihad movement.

Todd Dugdale:

the point is that there is a pretty sorry history wrt human rights and innocent civilian deaths in the Republican Party. It sounds pretty hollow to use that an as excuse to maintain the surge.

That knife cuts both ways doesn't it? Remind me again how many Rowandians were "saved" under Clinton's watch.

Do you deny that we set up secret prisons where people were tortured?

Do you deny the rendition program was started by Clinton?

Again, my personal experience is that the vast majority of Republicans support torture of any "suspect" in the WOT.

Your "personal experience" means dog squat without your definition of torture.

Also, torture in Iraqi prisons has been documented and the Interior Minister has admitted to it in a rather hand-wringing manner.

But how can THAT BE? We're the OCCUPIER, the OPPRESSOR, the new IRAQI DICTATOR!

Pffftttt!!!!...

Lorie, I'll acknowledge the surge might be making things somewhat better. And when the surge is fully in place, things might improve even more.

But so what? It isn't going to make things right, just as sending more police into a high-crime area doesn't turn the neighborhood into an area that will stay peaceful once the police leave. The surge isn't going to turn the Iraqis into people who, borrowing a phrase, love their kids more than they hate their enemies.

And even if it did, making Iraq right isn't worth the lives of American soldiers. yeah, it would be nice if the Iraqis weren't so set on killing one another (as well as anyone getting in their way), but while it is sad that there'd be genocide if we left, keeping that from happening is not something our military should be used for. Notwithstanding the kool-aid drinkers who see Al Qaeda behind every IED, every American soldier who dies in Iraq trying to keep them from killing one another is one less American soldier available to protect America from our real enemies.

stevestrum:

but while it is sad that there'd be genocide if we left, keeping that from happening is not something our military should be used for.

When the hell hasn't it been used that way?
Well... except for when it wasn't.

Like pussy-footing around in Africa (thanks slick willy!) or bailing out on Vietnam.

And BTW stevestrum:

And even if it did, making Iraq right isn't worth the lives of American soldiers.

Except "making Iraq right" would go a lot further earning trust in the Middle East vice turning tail and running.

Seems to me much condemnation was heaped on Bush I for doing just that when he left the Kurds to wither in the wind after the first Gulf war.

And that condemnation was restricted to Iraqi's it was and is a widely held opinion across the Middle East.

stevesturm

Well, at least you keep what was once good company: Steve, meet Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy.

just as sending more police into a high-crime area doesn't turn the neighborhood into an area that will stay peaceful once the police leave

If Guliani wins the nomination, prepare to hear a rebuttal to that remark every hour on the hour. Just out of curiosity: how many times have you visited NYC between 1976 and 2000? Note: if you are an NYC city dweller you are automatically disqualified for the same reason Rudy was elected against your wishes...you have not been mugged yet. Ever heard heard of the Broken Windows policy?

is one less American soldier available to protect America from our real enemies.

Who are our real enemies?

As to the Kool Aid drinkers...who are they?

Steve Drang and Sturm....have you read the most recent prnouncement from AQ #2 regarding Iraq? I suspect not.

So, Steve, are you trying to say that saving Iraqi lives is not worth American lives?

We are fighting out real enemies in Iraq. In addition to Al Queda, who have been our enemies for at least a decade and a half, the Baathist deadenders have been our enemies for just as long.

Robin makes a very valid point regarding the Baathists who have, very effectively, remained off the debate's menu for the most part. More comment on this would help.

Meanwhile, all is not lost despite what the NYT thinks.

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the "al Ameriki tribe," or "tribe America."

I've seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can--more or less and with giant caveats--rely on.

And note how few reporters were there. The vast majority of them arrived AFTER the main battle was over.

Hey, C-C-G, I've looked at about 150 blogs in the past two days, so that's not an easy task.
Here's two I got from by browser history:

foehammer.net
http://neoconcommandcenter.blogspot.com/

Well, folks, I really don't carry around a tape recorder and post conversations I have with people on the web. I also fail to memorise an awful lot of facts and URLs, which you guys must do an awful lot of. Maybe I should ask the people I work with, the musicians I play with, and every assorted person I encounter to sign an affidavit of their comments. While you guys seem to be different from a lot of the Republicans I know, it seems that mainly you've just found a different way to be assholes. I think I've been pretty strightforward here, and at least I post with my own name, in contrast to most of you here.
Here's a pdf of the "torture memo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf
This gives the WH definition of torture, which is pretty much that you can't cause organ damage. Want to cut off someone's finger? okay.
Also see here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html
Here's the WH saying it's okay if the CIA torures:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1025detainee-abuse25.html

I wash my hands of you. You are not interested in rational discourse. Perhaps you'd like me to provide a cite that Bush is actually President?
Nobody has addressed the other issues I raised, either. Of course, I didn't actually prove that we supported Saddam when he was at war with Iran. I didn't even prove Iran exists. Here's a wikipedia link, which is all the research I'm willing to do for you lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

So there, chortle away. The good news is that you guys can't convince anyone with even a marginal grasp of current events that you are right.

Todd, first of all Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. Secondly, the support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war is a red herring - irrelevant to any discussion of current events.

But as an example of the misrepresentations you have engaged in, you cite the Arizona Republic article on McCain's legislation as "Here's the WH saying it's okay if the CIA torures:..."

That's just a flat out lie on your part. Lying isn't rational discourse, its just lying. The article states that the White House wanted the CIA exempted from McCain's bill - 'an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the U.S. government' - a bill that prohibited conduct that just isn't "torture" in any but the most ridiculous of definitions. And this is exactly what we've been saying, that your claims are misrepresentations of the actual debates going on.

It is you who are not interested in rational discourse, as you are interested in propaganda only.

Does anyone else see a disconnect in Todds latest?

This ("I wash my hands of you. You are not interested in rational discourse.") follows shortly after This ("it seems that mainly you've just found a different way to be assholes.")

Todd is simply another leftist propagandist. The left didn't care much about the civilians killed by the communist in Indochina after the liberal Dems cut off aid to South Vietnam to abandon Indochina to the rule of communism. The killing field of Cambodia claimed about 3 millions deaths. The left was totally silent about it.

Now the left is willing the Iraqui civilians to the mercy of the terrorists and their sponsors in Iran. The left seems to cheer the terrorists on whenever they blow up more Iraqui women and children. Only people like Todd can turn away from these ugly truths about the left with a straight face.

Todd is simply another member of Brian 's club. If Todd truly cares about the civilians, he would have abandoned the left already. The fact that he is here to spout these propaganda shows that he is either duped or willfully ignorant about the shameful history of the left during the cold war and now the GWOT.

Todd, I visited your two sites, and could find many examples of stories about Islamoterrorism, but not demonstrating real hatred. In fact, I did a text search on the front pages and could not find the word "hate" (as in, "I hate Muslims") or "hatred" anywhere.

Is it your contention, therefore, that merely publicizing the terrorist actions of Muslims is "hatred"? That would fit nicely with your... er... "creative" definitions for words, so I suspect that is what's going on here.