More good news. It's good to hear more good news as time goes on. Perhaps we'll be able to start pulling out troops sooner than later. Sounds like they are getting their act together enough to be able to run their own turf. I just hope they pay us back at least some of the cash we spent there.

yeah... until he's dead or in exile somewhere, i wouldn't count him out.

Is it beyond the understanding of the pro-war crowd that the surge was and will be a temporary measure that has resulted in al qaeda simply deploying resources elsewhere, like Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Do you all really believe that the surge solved our problems in Iraq?

I saw an editorial in the LA Times by John Bolton where he called Obama "radical and naive" in his foreign policy vision.

That caused me to chuckle as I pondered how radical it was to abandon decades of military and foreign policy precedent by advocating "preemptive war" and how naive it was to expect that we would be greeted as liberators. It is equally naive to believe that the current reduction in insurgent activity in Iraq isn't as temporary as the surge in troops.

The good news just never stops coming, God bless Amurka and God bless our Glorious Leader whose sound planning has brought us to yet another victory.

*insert joke about 'spider hole' here*

Hindsight is 20/20. The surge was bad policy. Obama said so.

This is a good step, but there is a long way to go.

Howie Spankowitz: Is it beyond the understanding of the pro-war crowd that the surge was and will be a temporary measure that has resulted in al qaeda simply deploying resources elsewhere, like Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Do you all really believe that the surge solved our problems in Iraq?

I saw an editorial in the LA Times by John Bolton where he called Obama "radical and naive" in his foreign policy vision.

That caused me to chuckle as I pondered how radical it was to abandon decades of military and foreign policy precedent by advocating "preemptive war" and how naive it was to expect that we would be greeted as liberators. It is equally naive to believe that the current reduction in insurgent activity in Iraq isn't as temporary as the surge in troops.

^This.

Because of all that "wisdom" from the Fox News Brigade that told of how resistance was melting away as the push to Baghdad took place. Just melting away, never to be seen again.



Or, you know, there's this tactical thing called REGROUPING.

Howie Spankowitz: Is it beyond the understanding of the pro-war crowd that the surge was and will be a temporary measure that has resulted in al qaeda simply deploying resources elsewhere, like Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Do you all really believe that the surge solved our problems in Iraq?

I saw an editorial in the LA Times by John Bolton where he called Obama "radical and naive" in his foreign policy vision.

That caused me to chuckle as I pondered how radical it was to abandon decades of military and foreign policy precedent by advocating "preemptive war" and how naive it was to expect that we would be greeted as liberators. It is equally naive to believe that the current reduction in insurgent activity in Iraq isn't as temporary as the surge in troops.

Bolton is, if you will, radical and stupid.

This article demonstrates that everything in Iraq is going great and our troops are no longer needed. We can begin the withdrawal immediately.

Here's the problem. Anyone want to go back about 3 years ago and read all the articles about how the Taliban was "broken" and we were firmly in control of Afghanistan?

Just because someone retreats and lays low while they rethink and retool their strategy does not mean they are necessarily without power. Remember, we are paying many of the followers of Sadr basically not to attack us. What happens when they have accumulated enough money to buy the ammo and equipment or we stop paying them?

The most telling thing in that story was the recognition of the fact that not a SINGLE ONE of all the people interviewed for that story would agree to provide their name. Why would anyone be afraid of someone who is so impotent as otherwise portrayed in the article?

He's way too busy counting all the cash we give him to make much trouble!!!!

Some people are so damn stupid you'd think they're getting paid.

Jackpot777: Or, you know, there's this tactical thing called REGROUPING.

That reminded me of a recent article with this lead paragraph:

"There is an interesting piece of graffiti on a bridge near Basra. A fleeing militiaman has scrawled "We'll be back"; underneath an Iraqi soldier has scribbled in reply "And we'll be waiting for you"."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article 43 79923.ece

/Fascinating article that explains the dramatic change the moment the religious fanatics were forced out of that city.

Sammy Jenkins: Great, we won, SO WHY THE FARK DOES MCCAIN WANT TO STAY ANOTHER 100 YEARS?

All you republican pieces of shiat, for all the lives and money lost on this useless war, I hope you all burn in hell forever.

I will grant that the polls say Obama's winning, but I don't see that big a lead as people are claiming. Right now, the margin of error has to be about 8% this far out. So whatever Obama's number is, that's 8% either way the amount could be off. That's 16%. And then you have to do it again for McCain, so that's 32% now.

And when you add in the 12% undecided, right now you really have to be in the lead by 44% for it to be statistically significant.

Gallup only has Obama up 48-40 today, which is a statistical tie.

Sammy Jenkins: Great, we won, SO WHY THE FARK DOES MCCAIN WANT TO STAY ANOTHER 100 YEARS?

All you republican pieces of shiat, for all the lives and money lost on this useless war, I hope you all burn in hell forever.

Guess what? He's already ahead of you. I'd always wondered about the commotion over support for a "time-table" by the Iraqi government. As I'd said, it's no significant shift to say while it would have been ill advised to withdraw from Iraq a few years ago, doing so now represents not defeat but victory and so forth. Looks like they're slowly making their way towards that position.

Sammy Jenkins: Great, we won, SO WHY THE FARK DOES MCCAIN WANT TO STAY ANOTHER 100 YEARS?

Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for sixty years. We've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day. -- John McCain, January 2008.

I can understand that CAPS LOCK and hyperbole are your style, but this is the most worn out, busted attack you can level at McCain. You should be using the PANCAKES! attack. That one shows everyone why Obama is a much better candidate for higher office.

Paris Hilton is not as Has Been. She is a Never Was.

soy_bomb: Sammy Jenkins: Great, we won, SO WHY THE FARK DOES MCCAIN WANT TO STAY ANOTHER 100 YEARS?

Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for sixty years. We've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day. -- John McCain, January 2008.

I can understand that CAPS LOCK and hyperbole are your style, but this is the most worn out, busted attack you can level at McCain. You should be using the PANCAKES! attack. That one shows everyone why Obama is a much better candidate for higher office.

So, you think it's just dandy that we establish and pay for permanent bases in Iraq? That's some fine fiscal conservatism there, Lou. And are you naive enough to think that ANY permanent American military presence in that clusterf*ck part of the world won't result in Americans being "injured or harmed or wounded or killed"? I mean...it's not like it's right next door to Iran or something like that!

By the way, where should our next preemptive war to liberate a people from dictatorial leadership and tyranny be? I'll give you a while to sift through the long list of potential candidates.

Sammy Jenkins: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded? When does McCoont think this will happen? Maybe it's been too long since he's taken a trip to Iraq....

Well, the goal, whether you think it is attainable or not, is to stop US casualties (or any casualties really) by winning the war and drawing down the occupation. We will still be in the country, in our many permanent bases, but we will not be conducting active military operations, nor will we be an occupying force controlling the government's security (though we will certainly aid it if needed). It will take a lot less troops and lives to do this. All of this hinges on Iraq becoming self sufficient in regards to its internal security.

At least you can agree with the GOAL, even if you think it is impossible/unattainable.

Howie Spankowitz: So, you think it's just dandy that we establish and pay for permanent bases in Iraq? That's some fine fiscal conservatism there, Lou. And are you naive enough to think that ANY permanent American military presence in that clusterf*ck part of the world won't result in Americans being "injured or harmed or wounded or killed"? I mean...it's not like it's right next door to Iran or something like that!

Its better to have local bases than ship troops halfway around the world to deal with regional issues if you are worried about fiscal conservatism. Its curious you don't rail against the bases we have in South Korea, Japan and Europe. Just think about who and what is north of South Korea. Now wipe the spittle off your monitor and think about what you are going to type next time.

Howie Spankowitz: By the way, where should our next preemptive war to liberate a people from dictatorial leadership and tyranny be? I'll give you a while to sift through the long list of potential candidates.

Darfur might be the right place to do some good.

Don't worry, we will be adding some fuel to the fire with a new multi ethnic unit.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2390226~title_Bo sn ian-Infantry-Unit.html

soy_bomb: Howie Spankowitz: So, you think it's just dandy that we establish and pay for permanent bases in Iraq? That's some fine fiscal conservatism there, Lou. And are you naive enough to think that ANY permanent American military presence in that clusterf*ck part of the world won't result in Americans being "injured or harmed or wounded or killed"? I mean...it's not like it's right next door to Iran or something like that!

Its better to have local bases than ship troops halfway around the world to deal with regional issues if you are worried about fiscal conservatism. Its curious you don't rail against the bases we have in South Korea, Japan and Europe. Just think about who and what is north of South Korea. Now wipe the spittle off your monitor and think about what you are going to type next time.

How about we stop engaging in unnecessary wars and invading countries under shifting pretexts, or as you call it, "deal with regional issues."

Please don't try to divert the discussion away from Iraq. The bases we have in South Korea, Europe and Japan are not the remnants of an unnecessary and illegal invasion of another sovereign country for the purposes of establishing said bases. Those bases represent strategic alliances formed legally and with a clear purpose. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you already understood this distinction.

soy_bomb: Howie Spankowitz: By the way, where should our next preemptive war to liberate a people from dictatorial leadership and tyranny be? I'll give you a while to sift through the long list of potential candidates.

Darfur might be the right place to do some good.

Preemptive war on Sudan? That will solve Darfur's problems? How? Please be more specific and truthful than the rationale(s) given for the Iraq invasion.

Where next, Alexander the Great?!

wonderful news. can our troops come home yet?

burndtdan: wonderful news. can our troops come home yet?

Well, President soy_bomb is redeploying them to Sudan. And once we achieve the same kind of glorious, rockin' victory there, it's off to Venezuela!

Bonus: More oil!!!!!

Please don't try to divert the discussion away from Iraq. The bases we have in South Korea, Europe and Japan are not the remnants of an unnecessary and illegal invasion of another sovereign country for the purposes of establishing said bases. Those bases represent strategic alliances formed legally and with a clear purpose. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you already understood this distinction.

Your naiveté and ignorance of history (both past and recent) are stunning. Go get another latte and let the group ups talk.

Good. Considering the hundreds of millions it costs us in bribe money to keep him from letting loose his militia, we better be getting something out of it, other than the idea it makes a trickle of 20000 men seem like a super powerful winning surge. Yay bribery!

apeiron242: Please don't try to divert the discussion away from Iraq. The bases we have in South Korea, Europe and Japan are not the remnants of an unnecessary and illegal invasion of another sovereign country for the purposes of establishing said bases. Those bases represent strategic alliances formed legally and with a clear purpose. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you already understood this distinction.

Your naiveté and ignorance of history (both past and recent) are stunning. Go get another latte and let the group ups talk.

Besides the internet tough guy stance...whatcha got?

Go ahead...school me. Your little temper tantrum lacked...how shall I put it...content. Prove to me you are not just another American more concerned with their right to have an opinion than with having any facts to back them up.

And what the f*ck is a "group up?" Sounds kinky.

I blame Bush.

Man, I post the biggest logie failure I can come up with and I don't get one bite in 9 hours?

I do suck at trolling, don't I?