Their statements should say, "There is no military victory alone".

But, we all know that. We also know there is little chance of political stability and reconciliation without military victory, without some stability and security in the streets and towns and cities of Iraq.

There is little chance of political progress and reconciliation without the stability and security. That's what a military victory will provide.

Bottom line is there must be military victory.

Welcome, Cassy!

Can you imagine having had to listen to Barack Obama for the last several years, long before he decided to share his wisdom with the nation at-large? That's what it's like for those of us in Chicago.

At first I lamented the idea of having to listen to Obama more than I was already forced to by the fawning Chicago media. Here and now, however, I am finding it enjoyable. Why?

Becuase the man is a complete and utter jacka**, and my assertions that 'The Obama Factor' is nothing more than an empty cipher of a man are no longer falling on deaf ears. I've told friends that I would happily vote for an African-American, provided that he was intelligent, reasonable and Conservative. The more Obama talks about foreign policy, the more others recognize him as not being ready for Prime Time, and the sooner we can introduce a Michael Steele or J.C. Watts to the public.

Amen to that, John.

Might I add that it's high time people stop saying that the Iraqis can't do things - or aren't capable of doing things?

This is the cradle of civilization, after all.

These people are capable of a hell of a lot - weren't these the same folks we were afraid of developing nuclear weapons? That ain't no small feat.

Talking about them as lost children is not the right tact to take.

Eliminate the islamists and the Iranian influence (which is the main thrust of the military aspect) and I'd betcha' the average Iraqi will impress the shi'ite out of all us.

Unfortunately idiots like Obama characterize "political solution" to mean compliance with benchmarks or scenarios the democratically-controlled congress has created. Much like "if you don't play the game the way I say I'll take my ball and go home". And I thought the libs were the thoughtful, well-read (thanks Pat Schroeder) intellectuals who had all the answers.

Eliminate the islamists and the Iranian influence (which is the main thrust of the military aspect) and I'd betcha' the average Iraqi will impress the shi'ite out of all us.

How often do we hear the democratics berate al Qaeda in Iraq, the other terrorists or the interference of Iranians?

No, to the democratics and leftists, those groups are not the problem. The problem is President Bush, Republicans who support the war, the military and the Iraqi people and elected government.

But the democratics won't openly criticize Iran for meddling because that's inflammatory and provocative. They won't criticize the terrorists in Iraq because that's intolerant and "they have a right to fight for what they want". After all, the terrorists are just responding to our illegal and immoral occupation of their country. Except that most of them aren't even Iraqis.

What they are terrorizing against is a social and political climate that will reject their Islamic extremism and sharia.

The terrorists cannot win in Iraq alone. They can only win if they can convince Americans it's not worth fighting for. So far, the terrorists have convinced our elected democratics and MSM.

It seems that Obama is saying "we can't win - so let's send even more troops over there!"

The guys is just so in over his head.

Gee, it's funny seeing you 25%ers yuk it up about Obama- especially considering EVERYTHING your president has said about the war has been wrong for the last 5 years.

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

I know this is nearly impossible for liberals to fathom, but the only reason Iraq has any resemblance whatsoever to Vietnam is because the liberals themselves have made it that way. They were a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards then, and they're a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards now.

If it wasn't for you meddling kids....then our master plan would have worked!

Meyers, you 14%ers, you need to update your talking points. We're 41%ers now (and growing).

"Have some respect for your fellow Americans."

If you understood what respect was you leftists wouldn't keep using the dead as pro-terrorist propaganda.

The terrorists aren't in Iraq, little boy. They are here. And Pakistan. And Afghanistan. Remember a guy called Osama bin Laden? That guy your president says he doesn't spend much time thinking about? Do a little research and don't come back until you've done your homework.

No terrorists in Iraq? Oh Meyers, how you project your naivete.
================

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

Unless you have some more recent information, that helo crash was not a result of an attack, but rather, likely a result of a malfunction.

That in no way diminishes the loss of life.

But, that's what happens sometimes when you send an air machine into the air.

One might argue that if we weren't in Iraq, with the need to lift troops from one place to another, the crash, and ultimately the loss of life, could have been avoided.

If no one drove, we could avoid all loss of life due to automobile accidents.

The fact of the matter is, in war, in combat, in peace, in training, military life is often inherently hazardous.

Just in the past week, during training, in non-combat arenas:

A helo crashes at MCAS Yuma, killing four. Probably a SAR training mission. Haven't heard the cause of the crash, but it was a Huey of some model.

A few days ago, off the coast of Virginia, an E-2 Hawkeye crashes into the sea shortly after cat shot. Three souls lost. It was during training.

In the past couple of weeks, a helo near Baghdad crashes. Non-combat related. It was on a check flight. Three souls on board. Check flights are inherently dangerous as it's to operationally check for proper performance of the craft after a major maintenance evolution.

How many more do you want me to provide?

Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat.

In no way does that minimize the total number of lives that have been lost by our military. Nor does it minimize the loss of those 600 or so not directly related to combat.

They all lost their lives in support of their mission. They are all valuable; they will all be remembered and honored - at least by most Americans. Some other Americans will just use their loss and sacrifice as a political club.

A few things we can agree on...

After 4 years...different Generals in charge (quick for 2 points who is our "War Czar?")
This mightiest..most technologically advanced military in the world...cannot stop what is happening...
Outside of a draft we will never have enough troops..

Find one General..past or present who believes military action WITHOUT serious diplomatic support... there can be "success"

I'm not a big fan of Obama...however,;
Which Republican Candidate for President has the best Plan for Iraq?
Does anyone even know their explicit views on Iraq?...(outside of Ron Paul ..of course)

That guy your president says he doesn't spend much time thinking about?

He's not your president, Meyers? Do you not live in the United States? You aren't an American?

If that is the case, as a court would say, you have no standing in this case.

If you are an American, or you live in the United States, then George Bush is your President. Whether you like it or not. So suck it up!

"They were a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards then, and they're a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards now. Is it so hard to figure out what the direct result of the decision to cut-and-run in Vietnam was? It'll be the same in Iraq."

I was wondering if any members of WingNut Nation would make reference to today's Bushistic analogies to Viet Nam.
Well, the subject is really Obama's stupidity, so let me say no matter how mind-numbingly stupid Obama is to open his mouth about foreign policy, he would NEVER say 10 years and 58,700 American lives spent was illustrative of 'cutting and running'. Yeah, we should have stayed another 20 or 30 years and sacrificed another 150,000 Americans.

Only the Presidunce
would have the single-digit IQ to make that
historic mental boner.

Semanticleo, I googled "white-feather-deserving" from your quote and, unsurprisingly, found exactly one hit: your comment here on Wizbang.

Nice "quote", nitwit.

For all the slams against him, this may be the most correct Obama has been yet in one of his foreign policy statements.

We are not going to "win" in Iraq with military power alone. The goal is and has been to leave a functioning country behind, and the political side of the process must work or we don't "win" according to our own terms.

On the plus side, Sadr has lost a lot of influence, especially since his "cut and run" to Iran. The Iraqi government has forged a couple of recent deals which isolate him further and freeze his bloc out of the overly influential position they had enjoyed.

We could easily kick their ass militarily if that were the only measure of success, and nobody except a few delusional islamic fanatics doubts that for a second. Take the restrictions off of the military and it'll be all over, but to what end?

Bottom line, Obama is correct in his basic premise, but I think he's wrong about his call to draw down the troops. Wait for the report, then resume your campaigning on the subject.

Ted;

The 'quote' was Classy Piano's.

That's the point. Get it?

Holy Moly.

Just heard on Hugh Hewitt, Captain Ed is reporting:

The leader of Iraq's banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party's former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

"AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces," al-Jashaami said.

But there is no military or political progress in Iraq. Just ask the democratics.

"Believe it or not, there are models of what can happen if you let the military do its job correctly when it comes to re-building a country" -- Cassie

And what the [expletive-deleted] hell did the Lying Chimp that you installed as president tell the voters back in 2000 regarding his views on nation-building, Cassie? WELL, [expletive deleted]??? Cat got your tongue, Cassie?????

Maybe I can help.

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America. Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do and WHEN IT GETS OVEREXTENDED, MORALE DROPS" -- The Retarded Chimp, Oct. 11, 2000

and

"[About Somalia...] It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war." -- The Immoral Chimp, Oct. 11, 2000

finally,

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence."
-- The Duplicitous Chimp, the day before the election in which Al Gore received the most votes from the American people.

Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat.

And may I point out that whether you use the 3,700 figure or the 3,100 figure, that is approximately half the American soldiers that it took to take one single solitary little island in the Pacific Theater during World War II.

Iwo Jima.

We lost 6,825 Americans taking that island.

That should put it in perspective.

The terrorists aren't in Iraq, little boy.

I beg to differ.

Maybe it's time for your own research.

Idiot.

Now Barack, go be nice, and maybe a little bit later you can go play Battleship with Shrillary and the Breck Girl.

Very Nice! I like this guy already!

Meyers:

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

"14 U.S. soldiers Killed in Chopper Crash."

There ya happy now that is mentioned?

And BTW, other than location of the crash being in Iraq, and not so incidentally was caused by mechanical failure not hostile action, what the hell is your point?

Other than a cheap assed and off-topic snipe attack I mean.

nogo:

Outside of a draft we will never have enough troops.. Find one General..past or present who believes military action WITHOUT serious diplomatic support... there can be "success"

Lets go... when does the draft start? No problems as long it has ZERO reasons for deferments not even for those in a wheel chair. Wheelchair bound you say? Fine you ride a desk at a military base in an allied country or at home to free up the able bodied to fight when needed.

College? Tough titties on a big kittty... it can wait "you're in the Army now!"

As far as the rest of your tripe nogo... why should I go searching for your mythical General. Everyone or nearly so would agree, and all that have been or are now in charge have also.

By serious diplomatic effort do you mean like this, from a government loonbats like you claim "hate" America.

Herman - aren't you tired of spewing the same tired Bush quotes after all this time?

Does it make your pee-pee grow bigger or what?

Pretzel Logic, this new contributor is a fine addition to Wizbang. But in case you missed Cassy's introduction, Cassy is not a guy. Not by a long shot!

"Of the 3700 plus military deaths in Iraq that are trumpeted by the critics, a bit less than 3100 are related to actual combat."

And fewer still were murdered by Osama been Forgotten on Sept. 11, 2007.

This should put the matter in even greater perspective: Bush and his "War on Terror" killing off even more Americans than Mohammed Atta and Crew themselves.

"She doesn't have the mental capacity to understand how it is that our military works or how a war is won."

And Bush does?

Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

Herman:

And fewer still were murdered by Osama been Forgotten on Sept. 11, 2007.

Forgotten? How may NATO and U.S. troops are in active search of him and his henchmen right now?

barney:

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam [sic] and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

Really? Can you provide the quote?

Ahemmm... while on the subject of dumb "Veit Nam"

Let me help you out... Vietnam, and not it's a single word.

Liberals are not cut and run cowards. There are certain wars they will never ever surrender in. Here is a list:

1. Legalized Abortion
2. Socialist healthcare
3. Higher Taxes
4. Man Made Global Warming
5. Absence of Religion

These are the wars liberals love to fight. These are the issues liberals will never surrender their position. Fight terrorism? Nah, not in their interest...or so they think.

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.

barney, how many times will you have to be called a useless, leftist POS, before you just go away for good?

Let's go back to the beginning. Who was it who first started referring to our fight in Afghanistan as a quagmire, bringing forth memories of Vietnam?

Who, since we have gone to Iraq has constantly conflated the fight there with our war in Vietnam? Referring to it as a quagmire? Comparing the deaths there to the ones in Vietnam? Telling us that if we don't get out now we'll again waste 58,000 lives?

The democratics can sure lower a bar, can't they?

Here's the only comparable thing between Iraq and Vietnam - the liberals and democratics are going to legislate us into defeat. They are going to work to ensure that we lose. Because see barney, one thing liberals and leftists can't stand is a strong America. They can't stand it that we are the world's sole super power, because that somehow makes it unfair to the rest of the world.

They want to make us militarily weak. They want to tax us to weaken our economy so we won't be so much wealthier than every other country. If they do those things they can proclaim that our way is not so great. It will strengthen their efforts to drive us toward equality of socialism and communism.

So, barney, stick it in you butt and smoke it.

Marc, thanks for the help. I am sure that you will appreciate it when I point out your typos and mistakes.

The following is just because I can:

"Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America--not on the battlefields of Vietnam." - Marshall McLuhan, Canadian sociologist. In the Montreal Gazette, 1975.

Do not let us speak of darker days; let us rather speak of sterner days. These are not dark days: these are great days--the greatest days our country has ever lived. - Winston Churchill, from a speech, October 29, 1941.

The way to get out of Vietnam is to declare victory and leave. - George Aiken, U.S. politician. (A Republican BTW, but it sure mirrors more than a few dems now a days.)

If the Americans do not want to support us anymore, let them go, get out! Let them forget their humanitarian promises! - Nguyen Van Thieu, April 1975

barney:

Marc, thanks for the help. I am sure that you will appreciate it when I point out your typos and mistakes.

For one of the few times in our personnel history you're correct... I will appreciates it. And thanks in advance!

Now, where's the Bush quotes

"Let me help you out... Vietnam, and not it's a single word."

marc, that is some nice grammar.

Seems like you're having memory problems, marc. Let me see what I can do for you. There was a memo that came out around early August 2001: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." How did your brilliant Commander-in-Chief respond? Well, if I'm not mistaken, he went fishing upon being told of the memo, unwilling to let his month-long vacation be interrupted, even, say, to have the briefest of conversations with Richard "Your Government Failed You" Clarke (a poor soul frantically striving in vain to get the Bushevik ostriches to focus on al Qaeda).

Therefore, it's not surprising in the least that,

regarding Mr. been Forgotten:

"I truly am not that concerned about him."

-- Chimpy, March 2002

Bush wants to replicate Veit Nam and get 58,000 Americans killed; at least that is what he said today.
-------------------------------------
And the liberal democrats want to repeat the genocide in VN that claimed 2-3 million deaths. Here is what Bush said today

THE PRESIDENT: In 1972, one anti-war senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated, subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and they never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists. "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." The headline of that story dated "Phnom Phen," summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For most, a better life." The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.
...
THE PRESIDENT: Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Three decades later there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America.

herman:

Seems like you're having memory problems, marc. Let me see what I can do for you. There was a memo that came out around early August 2001: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." How did your brilliant Commander-in-Chief respond?

Ok lets make you "brilliant Commander-in-Chief" for the day for the sake of argument.

What would you have done? Keeping in mind that memo contained nothing that resembled where an attack would occur, what buildings, and only vague refs to how?

And BTW, despite what idiots like Clarke and a few others claimed there was no grand plan on terrorism that was EVER turned over from the Clinton admin.

Bush started from scratch and in the process switched from looking at terrorists as criminals and looking at the problem as it truly is. A bunch of jihadist-cut-throats whose single objective is to kill anyone who rejects their warped idea of what is otherwise a sensible religion

Herman,
Your man, Clinton, wouldn't even take Bin Laden when it was offered to him.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

You don't need to repeat it endlessly, over and over again, and especially not right before Gen. Petraeus is presumably going to have a report chock full of good news next month about how we are succeeding in Iraq.

political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq.

...
A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war.

But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives
...
Crocker and Petraeus conceded they are "now engaged in pursuing less lofty and ambitious goals than was the case at the outset."
...
some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.

Good news, everyone! Remember how we said our soliders are dying to bring Democracy to Iraq? Well, they're not anymore!

BTW herman I forgot:

"I truly am not that concerned about him."

I'm not concerned about osama either.

The quote is supposed to mean, in your mind, everything stopped, and no military action did or continues to occur in Afghanistan.

It's bunk and your mind is lying to you.

marc, "Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home."

marc, over 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam by the time we left, so based on Bush's speech another 58,000+ American casualties in Iraq is acceptable loss to secure Iraq.

I do not think so!

Brian,
Thanks for confirming that liberals don't like constitutional democracy. That 's why liberals have been against democracy since WW2

THE PRESIDENT: In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then, as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom. It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans as well as many other so-called experts expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience through their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote. Thirty-nine women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman. And just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's upper house.

marc, "Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home."
------------------------------------
This is perfectly true. Using Barney 's arg: a few years after we left VN, millions of people perished. So using the liberals' arg, 2-3 million deaths is an acceptable genocide to cut and run. Yet this time as pointed out, the mass-killers will follow us home.

Richard Engel, journalist for NBC News who has lived in Iraq for the past six years more on than off says there is a "very serious risk that Maliki's government could collapse" and that all the debate you are seeing in the US "is preparing for that". (Brian Williams)"The surge goal was to stabalize politically".......(Engel) "The troops have done an incredible job", they have brought some more security to Iraqi citizens" ......"BUT the ultimate goal of bringing political progress to Iraq" has not worked, in fact, we've seen the government weaker and on the brink of collapse."

No matter what you neocons think you know about bringing democracy to Iraq you are wrong. The surge is a stop gap measure. This war has done nothing but incite a larger front of fundamental hatred toward the US that could have been avoided had Bush concentrated on the prize. Instead he and his PNAC cronies diverted blood and treasure in a quest for the largest resource grab in history. And now we are all paying a very heavy price for imcopetence and lies. This is hardly about $3 gal gasoline. That is hardly the real cost.

No one, least of all Obama could possibly do worse with foreign policy than what GW Bush has done to upset the balance of this world. His judgement would be far better than to impose democracy with an Abrams tank. He knows it is much more complex than sword against sword. It is so much more than that. Obama is right.."There is no military solution in Iraq!" and no one is "blathering on about how we should give Iran nukes" either, they'll do that all on their own. But giving Saudia Arabia 20 Billion in arms and 30 billion more to Israel is like creating the backdraft that will kill us all. For christ's sake, it's your own president handing out the weapons to encourage a Middle East meltdown. How stupid can one possibly be.

Oh that's right, we're talking about the Decider.

.."There is no military solution in Iraq!"
-------------------------------------
There was no military solution in VN. Yup, let the genocide begin.

LAI, read the article again. It is Crocker and Petraeus who are saying this. Are they the "liberals" of which you speak?

Interesting (though irrelevant) excerpt you have about Japanese women. How do the freedoms of Iraqi women compare?

LAI,

It's interesting to note it was a woman, Beate Sirota Gordon, a snowy-haired American grandmother, who implored Japanese women to rise in defense of the Japanese Constitution's equal rights clause, which was fundamental, she said, to their rights as women.

She should know. At age 22, she wrote it.

"Japanese women should keep fighting for their rights," Beate-san, as she is known here, said in Japanese to applause from the sold-out crowd.

To this day she is mobbed by both woman and men when she visits Japan.

CB has confirmed again that liberal leftists are against democracy. Liberals prefer dictatorship in the end.

lovie, I do not know what you are talking about? Cambodia was overthrown by the Khmer Rouge and not the Vietnamese. In fact it was the Vietnamese that invaded Cambodia and stopped the "killing fields". The commies were so pissed (China) that the invaded Vietnam.

Today, Vietnam is a favored trading partner of the US, so just because you ran away from your county (actual floated away) don't tell us to piss away our sons and daughters in Iraq.

Brian,
Sorry that CNN is a pro-Saddam liberal news source that was caught red-handed a few times in the honesty dept. Here is what Bush said today.

THE PRESIDENT: Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces, despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, but the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation. Prime Minister Maliki's a good guy, good man with a difficult job, and I support him -- and it's not up to the politicians in Washington DC to say whether he will remain in his position. That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship!

barney:

If you really think that Bush quote equates to him saying 58,000 would be killed you're out of your frickin' mind.

But I don't really believe that's true. What really happened is you pulled your snarky little trash out of your ass and when called on it you had to scramble to find something close.

You failed. Miserably!

Bush then:

QUESTION: ...some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam. ... What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy. ... [Press Conference by the President, 4/13/04]

Bush now:

"'I want to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life... And my concern is there would be a parallel. . . . ...'" [Washington Post, 4/20/07]

"Finally, there was Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans, and the tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I will limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today...." [President Bush Speech to VFW, 8/22/07]

Flip? Or flop?

That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship!

Well Bush had better consult his top general and ambassador, because they disagree with him.

"To this day she is mobbed by both woman and men when she visits Japan."

marc, the proper sentence structure would have been " To this day both men and women mob her when she visits".

I am just following your request.

Here is what Bush said today.

And here is what Maliki said today:

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere."

Sounds like a real "good guy".

Thanks barney, now where's my Bush quote?

Or will you admit you were talking out of your posterior?

Barney,
The Khmer Rouge was the Cambodian communist ally of the Vietnamese communists during the VN war. The Vietnamese communist enabled the Khmer Rouge to get into power. The war between Vietnam and Cambodia was simply a struggle of power between the Soviet Union and the Chinese communists. The Vietnamese communists have hundreds of thousands of people in reeducation camps. 500K boat people perished on the sea. THe blood of the the Cambodian, Vietnamese, Laotians perished at the hands of the communists in these 3 countries is on the hands of the liberal dems.

BTW, I am a naturalized citizen, so I am as much an American as you do. I have witnessed first hand the consequences of the liberal policies advocated by people like you. People like you were able to demonize and spit on our sons and daughters when they got back from VN. I cannot stand by while people like you slander our sons/daughters in Iraq (with Haditha, Beauchamp smears etc...). I cannot stand by while people like you continue to advocate another genocide for the Iraqui people.

Brian,

Your "Bush then" quote is comparing fighting in Iraq vs fighting in Vietnam. Your "Bush now" quote is comparing the results of pulling out of Iraq vs pulling out of Vietnam.

Apples and oranges.

Richard Engel, journalist for NBC News

Q: What's the safest place in Iraq?

A: Anywhere in the vicinity of Richard Engel.

Engel is the best propagandist the terrorist in Iraq have. They won't let any harm come to him.

That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship!

Well Bush had better consult his top general and ambassador, because they disagree with him.
------------------------------------
I think pro-Saddam CNN disagreed with Bush, not his general or ambassador.

Brian - the first question in the first Bush quote, what is the comparison referred to?

Was it someone calling it a "quagmire?" If so his comment is the correct answer. Without knowledge of what that comparison is your attempt to link the two quotes is pure unadulterated garbage.

BTW,
Who has been comparing Iraq to VN? The hypocrisy of the dem is fun to watch: only we can make the comparison to VN and you cannot.

marc, I already supplied one quote. Bush implied that 58,000+ Americans killed in an unnecessary war in Vietnam was not enough! Bush implies that 50,000, 100,000 or more US casualties in Iraq is justified to keep Iraqis from killing each other.

As I pointed out above the aftermath of the Vietnam war brought stability to SE Asia and a valued trading partner in Vietnam. We can only wish for the same in Iraqi/the ME.

As I pointed out above the aftermath of the Vietnam war brought stability to SE Asia and a valued trading partner in Vietnam. We can only wish for the same in Iraqi/the ME.
------------------------------------
After the VN war, Stability means 2-3 million deaths. So liberals can only wish for the same in Iraq. Wow.

That aside, Saigon was the jewel of the South East Asia. South
Vietnam 's economy was on par with South Korea in the 1960-1970s even with the war going on. Compare VN to South Korea today to see the difference. Not even South Korea, simply compare VN to Malaysia or Thailand.

That 's what liberals like Barney meant for stability: another genocide, 30 years of dictatorship rule, and backward economy for Iraq.

Bush implies that 50,000, 100,000 or more US casualties in Iraq is justified to keep Iraqis from killing each other.
-------------------------------------
Using the same standard, the liberal dems another genocide larger than the one in INdochina is justifed for their cut-and-run policy.

Semanticleo, I owe you an apology for the quote comment (#18 and #20). You are entirely correct, and I missed that little rant from the post's author on my first read-through.

I believe there's too much cutesy name-calling going on all around, and although I'm not overly impressed with Cassie's post, mangling her name intentionally doesn't help make the case for the point you're trying to make.

The lesson of Vietnam was that a inflicting a body count against Americans gives the American war opposition in the US a tool to use make the Americans leave.

Hence the attacks in Iraq center entirely around getting kills and little on anything tactical.

What a wonderful partnership.

The lesson of Vietnam was that a inflicting a body count against Americans gives the American war opposition in the US a tool to use make the Americans leave.
-----------------------------------jmp,
Since the terrorists cannot do that against American military (or even the Iraqui military) with a significant scale, so the opposition now resorts to the civilian death count.

lovie, what right do have to us to ask us to send our sons and daughters to die in Iraq? When your country needed someone to stand up and fight and die did you, or did you choose to float away?

You sir, are a coward of the worst kind. You turned your back on your country and your people, and now you have the gall to blame us, and tell us to send more of our own to die in a war that was not necessary, does not insure the security of our homeland or kill the ones responsible for 9/11.

For shame!

Barney,
I have the right of an American. Yup, at least I wouldn't slander our sons and daughters fighting on our behalf. I wouldn't slander them as cold-blooded killers as Murtha and you. At least I have the decency to defend their honor and sacrifice. At least I don't like to see another genocide like the one after the Vietnam war.
I salute your courage in fighting against the honor of our troops on behalf of our enemies. I am a coward compared to your courageous battle against the "cold-blooded killers" in the US military.

Cleo

Yeah, we should have stayed another 20 or 30 years and sacrificed another 150,000 Americans.

Such mindless linear logic. The innertubes are being flooded Kossian absurdity.

"Ok lets make you "brilliant Commander-in-Chief" for the day for the sake of argument." -- marc

"What would you have done? Keeping in mind that memo contained nothing that resembled where an attack would occur, what buildings, and only vague refs to how?" -- marc

"And BTW, despite what idiots like Clarke and a few others claimed there was no grand plan on terrorism that was EVER turned over from the Clinton admin." -- marc

Well, let's see here. I guess some right-wing website is reporting that there was no "grand plan on terrorism" turned over by the Clinton Administration to the Busheviks. Suppose (only for the "sake of argument") that that's true. We definitely know now that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rice also CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE A "GRAND PLAN" THEMSELVES. So rather than say, spending time fishing or clearing brush on a month-long vacation, I suppose I would, as Commander -in-Chief, work hard with others in striving to come up with such a "GRAND PLAN." Better to strive to protect Americans than pull bass from the water -- what say you, marc?

"I'm not concerned about osama either." -- marc

Wow. Unconcerned about the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of your fellow citizens, a vicious criminal still at large. Although I find it a little surprising, your indifference means little to me, marc.
But let's just say that my standards for president are at least a little different than yours: I like it when presidents strongly focus their minds on capturing criminals who attack our country.

"The quote is supposed to mean, in your mind, everything stopped, and no military action did or continues to occur in Afghanistan." -- marc

Uh, marc, are you certain that Mr. been Forgotten is in Afghanistan as opposed to say, Pakistan, after the Bush-run military let him escape from Tora Bora? You see, marc, if OBL isn't in Afghanistan in the first place, then all that "military action" in Afghanistan isn't going to do much good in capturing Mr. been Forgotten, is it now, marc?

"Let me help you out... Vietnam, and not [sic] it's a single word." -- marc

Is it a single word or "not"? But more importantly, before you make utterly trivial criticisms of the writing of others, you yourself might want to learn about the distinction in meaning between "personnel" and "personal" (see your post above).

"fighting on our behalf" lovie

How are they fighting on our behalf? Did Saddam attack us on 9-11? Did he have WMD? Was he planning with OBL to attack America?

Again, tell me what genocide occurred in Vietnam? The Vietnamese government claims that 4-million persons were killed during the IndoChina war and Vietnamese war. The Vietnamese stopped the genocide in Cambodia, and that is a fact.

How are they fighting on our behalf?
-------------------------------------
No attack on American homeland in the last 6 years. Thanks to our brave men/women in the military (not "cold-blooded" killers as Murtha and you did call them). The rest of your questions, pick it up with your liberal dems. They solemnly warned us about Saddam Hussein.

The Vietnamese government claims that 4-million persons were killed during the IndoChina war and Vietnamese war. The Vietnamese stopped the genocide in Cambodia, and that is a fact.
-----------------------------------
Many of those 4 millions were probably killed by the Vietnamese communists themselves. After 1954, their mini-cultural revolution in the North claimed about 60,000 people. The Vietnamese communists massacred 3000 people after they withdrew from Hue in 1968. Yup the liberal media covered these atrocities during the VN war (just as they are doing now). The Vietnamese communists only invaded Cambodia after they sided with the Soviet Union and turned against China. So nice that they only came in after 2 millions were killed!

barneyG, why do you still live in the United States? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable and at home someplace like North Korea, or Cuba or Venezuela?

"The Vietnamese communists massacred 3000 people after they withdrew from Hue in 1968."

That is a pretty lame genocide. We killed more Indians on a simple relocation to Oklahoma than that.

By the way, I have not labeled our soldiers as "cold blooded killers" except for those few individuals that have been accused, tried and convicted of such.

You have to live with cowardice not me. Goodnight!

Your "Bush then" quote is comparing fighting in Iraq vs fighting in Vietnam. Your "Bush now" quote is comparing the results of pulling out of Iraq vs pulling out of Vietnam.

That's your spin on it. The "then" question that he responded to did not mention fighting. And Bush's "then" answer included "we must stay the course", which addresses the pulling out issue.

So both times his statement was regarding pulling out. Apples and apples.

Who has been comparing Iraq to VN?

Uhh, that would be Bush.

"The Vietnamese communists massacred 3000 people after they withdrew from Hue in 1968."
-------------------------------------
Still trying to justify a massacre. They simply buried 3000 people alive in one day when they withdrew from a small town of Hue. Yup it is small compared to what will happen in Iraq if you have your way.

Any of Haditha soldiers have been convicted as "cold-blooded" killers? Are we still waiting for an apology from Murtha? Barney was really courageous to jump on the Haditha wagon and the Beauchamp wagon.

Brian,
Who has been comparing Iraq to VN?

Uhh, that would be Bush.
------------------------------------
Oops, Brian now refutes his own quotes in 2004! Thanks for confirming again that liberals speak on both sides of their mouths.

QUESTION: ...some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam. ... What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

the first question in the first Bush quote, what is the comparison referred to? Was it someone calling it a "quagmire?"

A quagmire, the deadliest month, fewer than half of Americans supporting him, and continued declining support. Take your pick. Makes no difference.

"barneyG, why do you still live in the United States? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable and at home someplace like North Korea, or Cuba or Venezuela?"

Or, like under the same rock Bin Laden's been decomposing under?

Barney's (rewritten) history of Vietnam says volumes about the mentality of those who would turn their backs on our military just to get at Boooosh. This nation will survive and prosper with or without the Barney's of the world.

Gen. Petraeus is kickin' a** and taken few prisoners, and the surge is working. The political reconciliation will follow. And the left will sink into their own tombs of failure.

Take your pick
------------------
Obviously Brian picks the dem congress with the lowest approval rating in history and leaders bent on American defeat. Also Brian continues to pick against democracy.

I think pro-Saddam CNN disagreed with Bush, not his general or ambassador.

Are you off your meds again? Let me say this again. Crocker and Petraeus said they are no longer pursuing a democracy in Iraq.

Calling CNN "pro-Saddam" may help you feel better, but it doesn't change reality.

Also Brian continues to pick against democracy.

No, that would be Crocker, Petraeus, and senior U.S. military commanders. Are you really going to simply stick your hands in your ears on this one?

barneyGRUBBLE:

lovie, what right do have to us to ask us to send our sons and daughters to die in Iraq? When your country needed someone to stand up and fight and die did you, or did you choose to float away?

Let me ask you a somewhat related question. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Of those that voted for the Iraq war only one had a son or daughter in the military at the time.

Why did they send sons and daughters to war and allow their own sons and daughters to "float away"

Are you off your meds again? Let me say this again. Crocker and Petraeus said they are no longer pursuing a democracy in Iraq.
-------------------------------------
Show me the full text of their quotes or of the entire press conf, not a CNN cut-and-paste job. You just show us a dishonest snippet from the Dem website.

Do you want democracy in Iraq, Brian? Why are so you bent on its failure?

Barney - marc, I already supplied one quote.

No you supplied shit on a stick and I'm far from surprised you can't admit you got caught making stuff up.

"implied" my aching ass... did you work on the Kerry campaign as "nuance manager?"

Marc,
Barney will stand up and take every opportunity to slander the US and its military. That 's all the courage I have seen from him. Using his own standard, we would have seen liberals going to Iraq to be human shields for the Iraqui people.

herman:

Well, let's see here. I guess some right-wing website is reporting that there was no "grand plan on terrorism" turned over by the Clinton Administration to the Busheviks.

You truly are a blithering fool aren't you and that comment proves it beyond all doubt. Not that is was in much question.

First of all "grand plan on terrorism" are my word describing a report.

Secondly the link is to a "right-wing" site, one of the best. However if you would have taken even a cursory glance you would have also found a link to the Executive summery of the CIA's Inspector General's report to Congress just released this week. Here asshat read it yourself, it's a PDF file. (don't let that acronym strain your brain)

And last... it says exactly that, there was no plan handed over by Clinton.

ASSHAT

Show me the full text of their quotes or of the entire press conf, not a CNN cut-and-paste job.

Oh, so you know it was a press conference? And now you think CNN is fabricating quotes and attributing them to high-profile figures? How about this... show me the full text of Crocker, Petraeus, or the White House denying what CNN reports they said. After all, don't you think they would be denouncing CNN if they were lying?

You just show us a dishonest snippet from the Dem website.

Show where it is dishonest.

Do you want democracy in Iraq, Brian? Why are so you bent on its failure?

Hey, you can either berate me and CNN, or you can address the facts of what the top general and ambassador to Iraq have publicly stated. Which you choose will demonstrate how secure you are in your positions.

And BTW herman I forgot Uh, marc, are you certain that Mr. been Forgotten is in Afghanistan as opposed to say, Pakistan,

I know where he is. And you have forgotten the Preditor strikes that are occurring over the border and controlled in Afghanistan and as far away as the U.S.

Brian,
Just show the full text. Stop trying to spin. It is your job to show that you are telling the truth, not me. The dishonesty of the website has been pointed out to you already.
Still Brian, do you want democracy in Iraq? Since you don't want to answer that, I assume that you are against democracy.

I wonder if the Iraqi goverment is looking at ours and wonder how the hell anything works here. Constant fighting and rarely ever agreeing on anything. Each side blocking the other side from getting anything done. A president with no respect from most the representatives of the goverment. Slander, Scandal, Greed, and dishonesty rampant through everywhere. Month long vacations to get over it all. Here we are discussing how we are going to fix them. We demand they get over their divisions and unite to make things better when we can not do it ourselves. Half our goverment is playing to the terrorists..the other half fighting them. Now that I think of it...maybe the dems have it right. The Iraqi goverment is perfect...we can leave.

herman - not to pile on or anything but:

More on the report you chose to ignore at the OMG a "right-wing" site, this from Newsweek mag.

The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal "constraints" agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. "What did I do? What did I do?" Clinton said at one point. "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general's report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a license to "kill" bin Laden--one reason it never mounted more effective operations against him. "The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations," the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general's findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. "There was never any ambiguity," he said. "None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that's what the CIA lawyers told us." A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)

And the winner and still champeen, marc, by KO, round after round after round after round after...... (I love it when the libs do the, "Step right up and see if you can go three minutes in the cage with 'Killer Kowalski' -SUCKERS!")

Barney will stand up and take every opportunity to slander the US and its military.

LAI, you are right. August 7th, barney leveled some despicable charges against the military and DoD then scurried off.

I asked him to elaborate on his scurrilous charges, but he never returned.

I wonder if the Iraqi goverment is looking at ours and wonder how the hell anything works here.

A few weeks ago when the interim report on Iraq political progress came out saying they had met eight of eighteen critical milestones, the democratics decried the lack of success and progress.

I wondered, in a comment someplace, if we measured our goverment on eighteen critical areas, would it meet expectations in 44% of them.

Probably not.

"What did I do? What did I do?" Clinton said at one point. "I worked hard to try to kill him.

That's why in Buzz Patterson's book, Dereliction of Duty, he related the story of the day Bill Clinton was at a PGA tournament.

The CIA had crosshairs on OBL and needed Presidential permission to carry out the mission. Burglar and Patterson tried three times to get Clinton to give the go ahead.

Clinton never said yes or no. The opportunity passed.

Clinton, like so many things in his presidency, didn't want to make a tough decision. He was afraid to say yes, because if it went bad for some reason, he didn't want to be responsible. He wouldn't say no, because if that got out he might seem weak. So, he did nothing. He kicked the can down the road.

John - Kicked the can... aye!

barney..your still a dumdass. jeez

Too funny for words, those that support the war to a winning end are called 20 percenters or some such nonsense media matters an moveon indoctrinate the trolls with.

I just got this in an email from john kerry (don't ask why)

Here's the reality this week: Karl Rove is gone but a broken Iraq policy remains.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a party cling so disastrously to a policy that is as wrong as it is unsuccessful.

The pressure for change has been building day by day since I offered legislation last year to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, and still they insist on more of the same.

So, we need to push even harder.

This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course.

All summer, our friends at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have been organizing in swing districts and states across the country to put even more pressure on Republicans to do what is right and break with the President.

Now, next Tuesday August 28th, they and MoveOn.org will be holding events all around the United States to try to set the stage for the fights in September. These "End it in September" town halls and vigils will put even more pressure on Republicans, giving them lots to think about as they end their August recess in their home districts.

THAT is a true deadender!

kerry... where's your SF-180?

Wow, I see that the newest editor of Wizbang is a foaming at the mouth,nasty, name-calling, out of control, beet red-faced, nasty, gung ho writer. But wait there's more. She says this:

"Lastly, try to learn from history. I know this is nearly impossible for liberals to fathom, but the only reason Iraq has any more whatsoever to Vietnam is because the liberals themselves have made it that way. They were a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards then, and they're a bunch of traitorous, white-feather-deserving, military-hating, America-loathing, cut-and-run cowards now. Is it so hard to figure out what the direct result of the decision to cut-and-run in Vietnam was? It'll be the same in Iraq."

As for the name-calling nasties in that paragraph let me ask this question. When did you start being the xenophobic, racist, murderous bigot you obviously are Cassy?

Have you eaten your raw meat yet today? Oh, and what about those Republicans calling for what the dems are? Oh, and what about most of the sane people in the country doing the same? You must love life in your little bubble Cassy.

And then lastly, the obvious question. The one folks like you hate the most. Tell us what you've done so as not to be a "coward".

JFO felt a little suffocated behind the mask.
======================================

LAI, you are right. August 7th, barney leveled some despicable charges against the military and DoD then scurried off.

I asked him to elaborate on his scurrilous charges, but he never returned.

101. Posted by John in CA

John, I think you are a lying sack of crap. Please provide the direct quote where I disparaged the troops on the 7th, and your request for examples.

Kim:

zzzzzzzz

JFO:

Wow, I see that the newest editor of Wizbang is a foaming at the mouth,nasty, name-calling, out of control, beet red-faced, nasty, gung ho writer. But wait there's more. She says this:

I'm guessing she has modeled her discourse after you.

JFO,

Perfect analysis.

It doesn't really matter what these neocons think up as spin, ht emajority of American patriots know it's time to get out of Iraq and let them settle their differnces the best they can.

Even the guys in the 101st Airborne are speaking out. Great oped written by them in the NYT. Of course thecons will discount anything written by the rank and file if it appears in the rag they so despise. Had it been written in the Weekly Standard, a paper too conservative to give space to the troops who oppose the war it might not have made any difference either.

The essence is that even the troops are writing articles to let the cons know what is going on in Iraq. ANd they still put their fingers in their ear.

At this point it is up to the real patriots of this nation to rise up and quash this pestilence of un-americanism from the far right.

marc

My guess is, she's your sister

CB

Of course thecons will discount anything written by the rank and file if it appears in the rag they so despise.

As usual, your perspective if ill informed and wrong. We only disount ignorance and fools who can't think beyond their daily KOS cue card.

Read the link below. Written by a neocon Senior Master. In fact, bookmark the site. You might learn something.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/08/82nd-abn-ncos-i.html

Barn-comie is courageous in enjoying the freedom provided by the American military while slandering them at every opportunity as shown here. Also, Barn-comie is an apologist for the communists right on this thread. Wonder whether he is in one of communist utopias on earth right now (Cuba, North Korea, VN ...).

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/08/10/murtha-stands-mute.php#comment-630409
mitch and marc, my point is after Tillman, Lynch, Abu Gharib, and Hamdaniya it looks like the military in more concerned with cover-ups and sweeping "problems" under the rug than justice.

All you poor leftist saps fail to account for the change in the Sunni and the implications thereof. Muslims don't really want to kill Muslims and they only did it in Iraq because of Saddam. Well Bush took care of that. It's a changing scene over there; wake up and smell the fear you have that we've been a positive influence.
=========================================

Hugh, an excellent discussion there at black-five. "Michael in MI" put a very good question to Allan in regards to his suggestion that pulling out is "the logical alternative". He basically asked, "If pulling out of Iraq is the answer, what is the long term plan to deal with the inevitable consequences?" He goes on to detail the links throughout the Middle East and how events would cascade.

While I hear the argument all the time, then and now, that we didn't plan enough in advance, we didn't take enough into consideration, etc. - the only proper response is to ask those who advocate pulling out to do the same thing. Tell us what the long term plan is. It doesn't stop with just re-deployment.

Or, is the wholesale slaughter that would surely follow acceptable? Is it acceptable that Iraq would likely become "Iran 2.0" with roads wide open for transporting Iranian thugs and weaponry to Syria? What will happen to Kuwait? These are only a few questions.

Yup

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57237

DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES
War secret: Iraqis actually like the U.S. military
'We know you won't take sides, and that you're fair'

Here is what the soon to be released NIE will say about the failure of the surge:

"They also found that growing and entrenched polarization between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, inadequate Iraqi security forces, weak leaders and the success of extremists' efforts to use violence to exacerbate the sectarian war all created a situation that would be difficult to improve."

Please go ahead and spin this as me hating the troops.

Here is what the liberals said back then. Same arg from the apologists for the communists.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTI4OGYyYTJlOGU0ZmNmZjJmZDllOWExNTQ4NTlkNjc
The president is absolutely right to include the Khmer Rouge genocide in his recitation of the Vietnam endgame. When Congress, in the summer of 1973, legislated an end to U.S. military action in, over, or off the shores of Indochina, the only U.S. military activity then going on was air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught. "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier," Tip O'Neill declared. By 1975, administration pleas to help Cambodia were answered by New York Times articles suggesting the Khmer Rouge would probably be moderate once they came into power and the Cambodian people had a better life to look forward to once we left.

Trying to debunk the president's VFW speech, the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place. This claim, alas, is not supportable. What destabilized Cambodia was North Vietnam's occupation of chunks of Cambodian territory from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Cambodia's ruler Prince Sihanouk complained bitterly to us about these North Vietnamese bases in his country and invited us to attack them (which we did from the air in 1969-70). Next came a North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March-April 1970, to which U.S. and South Vietnamese forces responded by a limited ground incursion at the end of April.

Here is the love for the troops (in an effort to defend Murtha 's smear)

my point is after Tillman, Lynch, Abu Gharib, and Hamdaniya it looks like the military in more concerned with cover-ups and sweeping "problems" under the rug than justice.

Gee lovie I didn't know that Tip signed the peace accord with North Vietnam that lead to the withdrawal of US troops from SEA. I always thought it was Nixon and Kissinger.

Barn-comie,
Obviously you couldn't help but spin for the communists and their liberal enablers (just as you did for Murtha). Yup, the dem congress just cut-off the military aid to South VN. And you want them to fight the North with the full support from the Soviet Union and China. You love the killing by the communists I guess.
--------------------------------------

Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the prospects for South Vietnam's survival. That balance of forces was reflected in the Paris Agreement of January 1973, and the (Democratic) Congress then proceeded to pull the props out from under that balance of forces over the next 2 ½ years -- abandoning all of Indochina to a bloodbath.

Barak Obama, keep opening up that mouth and letting us know you're NOT ready for prime time.

Yeeeeehaw.

Well lovie if your analysis is true then the lessened learned and to be applied to Iraq is to pull all our forces, but keep suppling material aid.

Lovie has found the solution for Iraq! Bravo

Amongst many ignorant statements you've mad Kim this one takes the cake so far:

"Muslims don't really want to kill Muslims and they only did it in Iraq because of Saddam. "

Of course not, they've only hated one another since the schism over who had the right to succeed Muhammad which slightly predated Saddam.

You ought to go back to making folks

zzzzzzzzzzzz

Barn-comie,
Let me explain slowly so that you can fully absorb it now. We had our troops in South VN for more than 10 years at least before we withdrew. Still we stay in South Korea for how long now? Can you draw the appropriate lessons now or you need more explanation?

JFO is reverting to his trademark of insults and distraction again. A leopard can't change its stripes.

A leopard can't change its stripes.

Does that mean a tiger can't change it's spots either?

John, I think you are a lying sack of crap. Please provide the direct quote where I disparaged the troops on the 7th, and your request for examples. 109. Posted by BarneyG2000

Well...so, barney caused me to go back and find the thread. It wasn't the 7th, it was the 10th, but here goes.

mitch and marc, my point is after Tillman, Lynch, Abu Gharib, and Hamdaniya it looks like the military in more concerned with cover-ups and sweeping "problems" under the rug than justice.

Come on! You got eight guys that participated in premeditated murder and only two get any kind of appreciable time?

27. Posted by BarneyG2000

All six cases have one thing in common and that is the Pentagon. You can not deny a patter exists, so you can not expect the establishment to produce justice!

32. Posted by BarneyG2000

ccg, the military does one thing very and that is to follow orders.

Enough said!

45. Posted by barneyG2000

barneyG, are you saying the only thing (the ONE thing) the military does well is follow orders?

I would say it's more than one thing. Just from the little bit I know, of course.

47. Posted by John in CA

C'mon barney, there are a lot of questions here you've inspired. Don't you think they deserve some answers from you? I mean, you've leveled some disparaging allegations against the military. Don't you want to defend them?

Or are you just the useless leftist P.O.S. everyone knows you are?

52. Posted by John in CA

After barney's statement of "the military does on thing very and that is to follow orders" he was gone. Never answering on that thread. Only to be seen on another thread.

Notice that barney is careful not to come right out and say something bad about the military, he, like jfo especially, couch their disparaging remarks in innuendo and intimation.

They leave themselves some wriggle room for deniability.

But hey, go look at the whole thread for the full context. I report, you decide.

So John I caught you in two lies:
1) It was not the 7th as you claim ("It wasn't the 7th, it was the 10th").

2) I did not disparage the military as you said (from above) "Notice that barney is careful not to come right out and say something bad about the military".

Where is my apology you libeling sack O'Crap?

barneyG, if you will call the mistake of listing an incorrect date as a lie, then we see where your sense of reality lies.

Couched in vague language or not, your allegations are scurrilous. Since you agreed with my analysis of innuendo and intimation, I'll take that as an admission that it is intentionally so and you don't have the 'nads to say what you really mean, but leave yourself room to weasel out. Not surprising.

John,
They didn't condemn Murtha 's silence on his quick condemnation on Haditha (which was a smear). They came out trying to defend Murtha by smearing the military as you pointed out. That says it all.

Still incompetent, I see, Barney.

"Believe it or not, there are models of what can happen if you let the military do its job correctly when it comes to re-building a country (see Japan after WWII). It only becomes a QUAGMIRE!! if you let idiotic liberals like Hillary Clinton or junior senators with no experience like Barack Obama make the decisions."

Last I checked, George Bush was the 'Decider', not Obama or Hillary. And guess what the Iraq War is? A quagmire! Making progress against the AQI (which formed and set up shop in Iraq solely because we are there)is not the same as making progress in Iraq. You can rebuild the infrastructure (that we bombed to the ground) as long as you want (remind me why we want to keep spending billions a year when our own budget isn't balanced?), and you can set up a 'democracy' (that is rigged by our government to suit it's foreign needs), but we will never be successful at stopping the sectarian violence. This has been going on for centuries, and you think a decade or so is long enough to set up a new democracy, much less stop an inherent tradition of in-fighting? al-Maliki has openly admitted he can't control his government because they're all too busy answering to their own parties and sects first, and al-Maliki second, if at all. Each sect wants the other dead or subjugated under their rule, not a democratic powershare deal, and some are willing to use AQI to ensure that. Just further proof that the "they're jealous of our way of life" argument is the worst kind of republican BS. So while you're busy giving democrats shit for comparing Iraq to Veitnam, how about you try not sounding even more ridiculously ignorant by suggesting Iraq will be a breeze to handle, because just look at Japan after WWII! It's not like all their citizens were already living in a unified society before the war; that'd be silly. Japan was made up of factionalized religious sects that hated each other and started fighting after the civil war we caused to start on their soil broke out... right? Hey, maybe if we drop two atomic bombs on Iraq, that'll make the job as easy as Japan! Knowing you bat-shit crazy conservatives (and I swear to God I've heard memebers of your ranks actually suggest it) you guys would love nothing better than to do so. Maybe even Iran and N. Korea too while you're at it. Because they COULD attack us, and that gives us the right to demolish other countries. Just like a wild animal COULD attack you, so you should shoot it on sight. Or you COULD get into a car accident tomorrow, so all automobiles should be banned. Morons.