And could it be that people like yourself couldn’t care less about the Iraqi people or our troops as you so valiantly claim? Or perhaps it’s just because you get to use it against him. Bush haters like yourself almost seem thrilled that things aren’t going well in Iraq. So what does that make you?

Did you all hear the news today that Somalia is again completely controled by AQ?? The Bush Administration said it has no plans to go after AQ either. Huh, I have to wonder why we aren’t going after the people that did attack us on 9/11. Couldn’t be cuz the President is worn down by those who support the troops but not the mission.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?? The world may never know. – Lorica

You want to talk real quagmires, today is December 16, and on this day the Battle of Verdun ended in 1916. For 10 months the Germans and French fought around the town at a cost of 250,000 killed and probably x5 wounded.

If we were to follow the logic of some, we certainly would have bailed on June 6, 1944.

1. Land with a soft muddy surface.
2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.

I think number two is the closest, but it doesn’t sound any different than any other war, be it military or the war on drugs or poverty or Christmas. And, as said above, do we bail just because it’s difficult? Yeah, that’s called retreating, or even more colloquially, “running away”. That’ll look good in the ol’ history books. Makes for great confidence from our foreign friends as well.

But our purpose currently for still being there is, as has been said by Bush and conservative bloggers and pundits over and freakin’ over again, to support the Iraqi government and military until such time that they can effectively handle things without us. Perhaps solitaire can write that down so he doesn’t forget it.

And as for the situation after Saddam was captured – where are the Democrats’ ideas? Shrieking “NO! NO! NO!” is great for fundraiser letters and TV political ads (since they require no thinking), but makes poor national leadership.

Maybe Hilly aspires to one-up JFK and be for the war after being against it after she was for it.

The pentagon and the joint chiefs asks legitimate questions, ones they are being paid to ask during these meetings. They bring up points about logistics, they mention potential flaws in certain plans…. they are doing their job.

Joe Wilson even admitted to lying about the whole yellow cake ordeal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

We know that our military has found over 200 mass graves. Numbers from 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqis were murdered by Saddam. There were horrible unspeakable things done to the citizenry of Iraq, but you don’t even mention that in your divel.

Lastly the President mentioned a threat to his neighbors. Let’s see, Saddam attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He constantly attacked our planes that patrolled the No Fly Zone.

He was giving payments to the family terrorists who attacked Israel.

He was bribing Officials of other countries thru the whole oil for food program.

Solitaire? How long of a list do you need? I get alittle tired of the group speak that floods out of the mouth of the left. Thanks for you input, but you really needed to expand your knowledge. – Lorica

The terrorist?

Because that is exactly how they perceived it. That if they wait just a little longer, the infidel americans will crumble, they lack the will to fight, they are a paper tiger and they will be crushed, if we just continue doing what we are doing.

That sounds like defeat to me.

What do you call withdrawl of troops? I call it RETREATING.

Main Entry: 1re·treat
Pronunciation: ri-’trEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English retret, from Anglo-French retrait, from past participle of retraire to withdraw, from Latin retrahere, from re- + trahere to draw
1 a (1) : an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable (2) : the process of receding from a position or state attained b (1) : the usually forced withdrawal of troops from an enemy or from an advanced position

Link

[noun] (military) withdrawal of troops to a more favorable position to escape the enemy’s superior forces or after a defeat; “the disorderly retreat of French troops”

Those calling for it have relabeled it “redeployment”.

re·de·ploy (rd-ploi)
tr.v. re·de·ployed, re·de·ploy·ing, re·de·ploys
1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.
2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness.

Link

Redeployment, #1? Are we redeploying our troops to another combat zone? No. So this doesn’t fit.

Redeployment #2? Are we redeploying our troops to another place to be used for greater effectiveness? No. Moving them out of where they are needed now is rediculous, and doesn’t fit either.

So that leaves us with RETREATING, which seems ot fit exactly what the deomcrats have been saying all along:

an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable.

We hear that its too dangerous, its too difficult, ect, and we should bring the troops home.

I wonder, are these the same people who if a job is just too hard to do, they will give up?

As Baklava (just where is the old goat anyways..heh) always says, it is time to look forward. Retreating is moving backwards, and that is exactly what the Democrats have been suggesting (except Reid now advocates sending MORE troops now – strange NOW he supports that).

We went in, removed a sadistic disctator, the war went exceedingly well and better than we all had hoped. BUT there was some major flaws as I see it in the aftermath, in which I don’t think there was enough thought put into “well what d we do now that we have won?”

That is a big fault I found with this administration.

But again, that is looking back and I will not dwell on that, because its done, and its over with…we nened to look at the here and now, and the future.

How about we answer these questions instead of constantly going back and armchair quarterbacking things that have already happened:

- How do we win?

- How do we get more cooperation from the media to report the good happening in Iraq and not just the bad?

- What do the troops need?

- Give the troops a forum in which they can speak out without fear of any type of reprisal, and let the media broadcast on it each week.

Thee are many more things we can do to look ahead, instead of looking back all the time at what we “coulda done” or “shoulda done”. Hillary Clinton is doing enough of that as is….she would have voted differently if she knew then what she knew now.

Well I would have played the winning lotto numbers if I knew then what I know now also. But life just isn’t that way.

She’ll get a pass though.