There is no constructive solution offered by the opposition over the desperate situation, except "pull out." Who wants the loss of a single soldier? But we dishonor those that gave their lives and the current troops, who in vast majority are in support of being there. Why don't we allow their viewpoint to be heard?

One solution is to insist on the current elected Iraqi government to come down hard on anyone who insists on fomenting the violence, including Muqtada al-Sadr or any other Imam or cleric, who is in fact an accessory to mass murder of their citizens. At the very least they need to be held under arrest for war crimes as was done in Bosnia. Their's is not freedom of speech; it is aiding & abetting of the wicked wholesale murder of legal citizens. -Rev. S

Yes, there is something desperately wrong with many Muslim schools, that teach their students how to hate others to the point of suicide mass killings. But their "cause is to vanquish any attempts to provide freedom in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, their goal is to dominate the world, including the US & to not allow freedom of religion, only allowing adherence to Islam. But which one? Sunni or Shiite? So they kill each other.

But not all Iraqis feel this way. They voted to have freedom of a democratic state. And the opposition doesn't wish to acknowledge this, so they wickedly murder everyone, including women & children for their "cause." I don't call this boldness; I call it idiocy. But they are emboldened to follow their wicked "cause" & would eventually bring it to our shores. -Rev. S

Offcourse you want people like me to leave, so your kind can turn this into some wasteland that normal people would want nothing to do with living here.

They call that A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING..

You have a very "liberal" definition of brave..

I prefer the conservative definition..: "One who leads through personal courageous acts, often by risking their own well being"..

Hmmmm..Want to rethink your ridiculous and

unfounded compliment?

"just for political reasons, Ordnance altered the ammo of the m-16s just to make it fail."

Don't know where you come up with this nonsense, but you are really full of crap and don't know what you are talking about.

It is now a military axiom that a fight against a guerrilla insurgency is unwinnable without the support of the local population. THAT'S what happened in Vietnam, not inferior weapons or nefarious political plots.

"Anyone who confuses Oliver North with William Casey and uses Raygun twice in the same sentence is living on a completely different plane from the rest of us mere mortals"

Yes Ive noticed that BOOBOO, reading YOUR posts and logic Ive concluded you haven't been in touch with the human plane in quite a while. Keep Spinning.

Oh, but I forgot, they are all a part of the Conspiracy too! So they can't be trusted. In fact, only a handful of highly intelligent and remarkably gifted persons such as yourself have any idea at all what is really going on.

Anyone who confuses Oliver North with William Casey and uses Raygun twice in the same sentence is living on a completely different plane from the rest of us mere mortals.

My bet is that this is the last post on this thread since you have been caught in a pretty embarrassing position.

Being the Roman army in Mesopotamia and having troops killed everyday is not the best way to battle al Qaeda Sunni martyrs. This is a bad day here as bad as the days in Iraq no joke. This war is wasting our efforts and we will need to fight other battle with these same troops. Even going into Afghanistan to sit there for ten years does not thrill me as the way to fight the next battle.

Actually in answering your prior p[osts above what did come up was that William Casey who was to become RayGuns CIA director was negotiating with the Iranians via the Algerians to make sure the hostages would be released AFTER the election. Seems the Republicans feared Carter and his "impotent" talks was about to free the hostages and damage Rayguns chances. Altho the VERY VERY interesting thing is that when this was being investigated the pages in Casey's daybook that covered the dates of the alleged meeting were missing. Golly gee what is it with Republicans and missing documents. ROFLMAO.

Another good source on the arrangement between RayGun's Administration and the Iranians BEFORE Raygun took office

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/...

This is the name for the substantuve allegation that representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections, so that Reagan's opponent, then President Jimmy Carter, whose team had been negotiating, wouldn't gain a popularity boost (an 'October Surprise') before election day. The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and much of the tardy investigations centered on whether, at the weekend in question he was actually at Bohemian Grove retreat in California. Though William Casey was probably in London following the alleged meetings, critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later."

Missing pages? ROFLMAO

This is the name for the substantuve allegation that representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections, so that Reagan's opponent, then President Jimmy Carter, whose team had been negotiating, wouldn't gain a popularity boost (an 'October Surprise') before election day. The allegations included a date-specific allegation that William Casey met with an Iranian cleric in Madrid, Spain, and much of the tardy investigations centered on whether, at the weekend in question he was actually at Bohemian Grove retreat in California. Though William Casey was probably in London following the alleged meetings, critical pages of his daybook diary were unaccountably missing when the investigators came to look for them over a decade later."

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

Wow RayGun let the Algerians set US policy???

"Various allegations have been made over the years concerning a deal between the Reagan Kitchen Cabinet and Iran that delayed the release of the hostages until after the 1980 U.S. election. " Wow reference to the Reagan Kithcen Cabinet there.

"Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election." UH OH can't WIKI all the info out there Goober.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html

So... after all your pro-war, pro-troops BS, you are going to blame the loss in Vietnam on the soldiers that fought and died there? You must be a big fan of Jane Fonda's.

You may think that is funny safely behind your keyboard. It's a good thing for you that we are all anonymous and can't really be held accountable for what we say, or you would have some serious reckoning coming. Ya knuckleheaded chickenhawk REMF.

From Wiki - "Although U.S. Senate and House of Representatives investigations in the 1990s declared the allegations to be unfounded, the conspiracy's existence or lack thereof remains a subject of as yet unsupported conjecture."

As I previously stated, all lies with no facts supporting some wacky conspiracy theory. Sure tin foil hat territory.

From Wiki - Notice that North didn't even work for the White House until 1981.

Heed your own advice "never let facts stand in the way of your idealogical BS"

"After Okinawa, North was reassigned stateside to Marine Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia for four years, was promoted to Major, then served two years as operations officer of Second Marine Division in Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He then attended the Command and Staff Course at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and graduated in 1981.

After Newport, North began his now-famous assignment to the National Security Council in Washington, D.C., where he served until his firing in 1986."

He is then shidt out of luck if the Democrats have any ballz... Congress doesn't have to send him another bill.

That's what he deserves if he turns the $$$$ down.

workingal, you appear to be one of Bush's 'enablers' in this pyrrhic defeat of American values.

Their blood is on his hands. The civil war may be the Iraqi's, but the American war is his.

Yeah history does have a way of making your spin look pretty bad. Especially when people remember the history as it actually happened. Tends to be a common problem with a lot of the way COns say things happened,

YES YOU should.

This war is not working.

We need to fight terrorism.

We need to switch tactics to fight more effectivly.

I guess I would feel better if I could see a measurable objective, a light at the end of the tunnel. It feels like we're trying to dismantle a mountian one rock at a time.

IMHO here are the facts...

Bush IS the President AND the Commander in Chief.

HE has the ability to veto any bill coming out of congress.

Congress does NOT have the votes to over-ride a veto on this.

The current bill is loaded with pork and contains a time-table for withdrawl.

Bush is against BOTH of those. (I agree with him on that point).

The intelligence that got us into the War was faulty, but the war was supported by a HUGE majority on BOTH sides.

The actual WAR was managed properly, the aftermath of it was NOT.

Telling your enemy when or what you are going to do, is insanity.

IF terror is not defeated today, it will have to be confronted again at a later date, possibly with a much higher price in human lives.

Keep the argument on point

He has had more tragedy because of his imcompetent handling of the office.

A good president would never go into any war without a plan of how to win the peace. This president went in without even a plan on how to win the war.

Sorry he is not a good president and he alone is responsible for most of the tragedy we are seeing.

Compromise involves giving up some of your demands and having the others give up some of theirs. When you insist the only compromise is to get what you want there can never be negotiation and compromise because of you not the other side.

That said tell us how we can negotiate and gain compromise when Bush refuses to accept anything except exactly what he wants.

Give it another 3 months and then you can see results that reflect the current not the prior congress.

Maybe the largest number of voters but don't forget he was only the 4th president elected with a popular vote minority so even the people did not want him in 2000. He won that because many small states have excessive electoral college voting power related to their population and in those states a single voter can have the impact of 100 voters in larger population states.

The democrats unlike the president are following the will of the people as expressed in the latest election in 2006. They need to continue and will continue to do what the people want so they stay in office and maybe even capture the white house in 2008.

The people have expressed their displeasure with GWB, but he won't listen and thinks he knows better than the entire country its that simple.

I didn't miss the point. I implied the point.

O.K., why Georgie? Are they "cutting off" your way of bringing in more money to stuff in your pockets? I guess so.

Georgie, for once in your miserable life,,,tell the truth.

I make an effort not to engage in personal attacks but silly ideas are a different kettle of fish.

That's not the case back here in the land of reality.

The lie is that Reagan was involved in some secret negotiations with the Iranians. There is abso;ut;y no so;id evidence for that no matter what sort of unfounded accusation are regurgitated by the Left.

I am sick of the media.....they exploit everything........

get a democrat in this country as presdient and see just how fast we are attacked again.....all the democrats will be hiding in a locked room...begging for the republicans to fight for them....

Just like Clinton...sweep terror under the rug...and have Moica under the desk...

Keep whistling past the graveyard, kiddies. LMAO!!!

It is not the soldiers' fault that their commander in chief is a war-profiteering criminal.

That is the fault of the party that committed the electoral fraud in 2000 and 2004 and the party that accepted the coup d'etat silently.

William Cohen is a Republican. (secretary of defense under Clinton, 1997-2001)

Politicians back off? Bush and the military have had carte blanche in Iraq for the past four years with a strongly negative impact.

Mr. Bush is a very good president...

It is unreasonable, to the point of being absurd, to think that once we leave Iraq those we have been fighting over there are going to follow us home!

This isn't about "Funding for the Troops" That's always been Bush's lie; he couldn't care less about the troops.

It's about funding to continue the war - pure and simple. This is the war that Bush staked his Presidency on, and it quickly went down the toilet due to his own arrogance, ignorance, and lack of proper planning. He doesn't want it to end on his watch, but to continue with the fighting through January 22nd, 2009.

You want to support the troops?? Extract them from Iraq's civil war now!!!

Or if you don't agree, get your butt over to Iraq and join the fray...

Why the hell should we go back! What is there in Iraq that is worth the life of another single American?

So, if Mr. Bush wants to send more troops now (3 years later), should he not be judged with the same yardstick?

We need to let the politicians back off and let the military do their job so we don't have another vietnam.

So why is it wrong for Congress to ask Mr. Bush as to expected results, a timeframe to acheive those results, and his plan to accomplish the mission? Our problem is that these questions were not asked originally.

btw - there are as many liberals that are as well armed(if not more so) as any of you cowards and moreover we know how to use them effectively!

Good analysis.

You are pointing to the essence of the problem.

If president Bush and his team had the same degree of philosophical, legal and moral analysis you expose, we wouldn't be in this imbroglio.

If the White House is persistent on this mistaken conflict, which side of the civil war are we fighting for?

"Bloviate" describes what suckslibs does fairly well though, don't you think?

So how will you find all the "Islamo-Fascists"? How will you distinguish them from the rest of the Muslims? How will you keep the majority of Muslims from turning into those "Islamo-Fascists" in response to our invading their lands, destroying their infrastructure, and killing their neighbors?

How are we doing in that war to win their hearts and minds?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/102506.html

NelsonR is quite correct in his statement that the fault will lie directly on Bush and not the Congress if the spending is not approved.

It may not be much comfort, but almost everyone feels very strongly that the lives of our military personnel are not to be trifled with. Please don't think that all of us are uncaring. We care very, very much and we want the troops equipped and supplied. As a matter of fact, the whole point of this standoff is that the American people as a large majority want the troops home now, not two years from now.

I think this President is fearful.

I do agree that the military was put in the middle of a politically ambiguous effort with no real end game just as Iraq.

In that situation, we were propping up a weak government just as we are in Iraq.

First of all, the loud mouth you're speaking about is the President. And guess what, he doesn't have a lot of power in Iraq. However, being a 'Holocaust denier' has