Rumsfeld is resigning.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I personally couldn't be happier. Rumsfeld is gone, Gates is in, and all the congressional committees will get new leaders, ones in favor of "phased withdrawal"!!!

Thanks to Bush, he gave the House and the Senate to the Democrats on a silver platter. So all you right wing conservatives can put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

Let's get our boys out of Iraq, let's tax the rich (and the dead), and lets get back to making this country strong, instead of wasting all our money overseas.

As a lifelong Republican, I have never been so embarrassed to see the number of defeats. It goes to show that without a doubt, Bush is a complete idiot, and a liability to the GOP, along with the other idiot, Rumsfeld. The good news is… Rumsfeld is gone, and the Senior Military Staff couldn’t be happier, and maybe now we can wash our hands of the mess in Iraq.

Good Job G Dubya!!!

Amen, brother Robert! Common sense is a precious commodity these days.

We can't withdraw from Iraq until the mission has been completed, there's a stable government there, and Iraq has a decent military to defend itself. To pull out now would be disastrous. It would not only signal a worldwide defeat to the terrorists, but destroy any credibility the U.S. may have had as a fighting force and with the Iraqi people, whom we liberated.

As for higher taxes, well...that money belongs in the hands of the citizenry, not the government. That's one of the most fundemental differences between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to think taxes are their money to play with while Republicans realize that taxation is money that belongs to the people.

Taxing the rich will only hurt everyone else in the long run. Who do you think employs most of America? It sure isn't the McDonald's employee. No, the rich own the businesses, which make up many jobs and healthcare opportunities for most people within this country. Start putting the squeeze on the rich, and they'll start cutting back on what they can in their business to retain profits -- this could mean firing lots of people, reducing benefit packages, lowering wage scales, etc. A business's main objective is to make money for itself and possibly the stockholders, if there are any. They are not in it for "the little guy," so taxing the rich is actually stabbing the middle-class and the poor right where it hurts.

I'm not even going to touch "taxing the dead" as I feel that's completely uncalled for in today's society.

If we really want something to tax (and make money off of), let's legalize marijuana and prostitution. Regulate both, and tax the hell out of them. Use the money then for whatever the government needs.

[rclouse 0]

I think you're drastically overexaggerating the influence of the terrorists. They might have wanted the GOP to lose, but Iraq has been ###### for a long, long time.

Al Qaeda has said publicly that Bush & Co. have been their greatest recruiters, so no, I do not believe the "terrurists" wanted the GOP to lose. Now Bush has less power to be stupid.

[almaty 19]

I think you're drastically overexaggerating the influence of the terrorists. They might have wanted the GOP to lose, but Iraq has been ###### for a long, long time.

Al Qaeda has said publicly that Bush & Co. have been their greatest recruiters, so no, I do not believe the "terrurists" wanted the GOP to lose. Now Bush has less power to be stupid.

yeap, he is the great satan to allot of those fanatics

[Sinergy 3]

I think you're drastically overexaggerating the influence of the terrorists. They might have wanted the GOP to lose, but Iraq has been ###### for a long, long time.

Al Qaeda has said publicly that Bush & Co. have been their greatest recruiters, so no, I do not believe the "terrurists" wanted the GOP to lose. Now Bush has less power to be stupid.

yeap, he is the great satan to allot of those fanatics

[garya505 2]

Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi has a plan. Wait, no she already decided we can't win!

[DeadPoolX 9]

Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi has a plan. Wait, no she already decided we can't win!

Don't you love it when politicians have such faith in the fighting men and women of their own armed forces?

[rclouse 0]

Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi has a plan. Wait, no she already decided we can't win!

I've been waiting to use that one. Thanks, garya!

[Sinergy 3]

Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi has a plan. Wait, no she already decided we can't win!

Don't you love it when politicians have such faith in the fighting men and women of their own armed forces?

Its not about our fighting men and women, they are doing a good job, its about the retarded and unthought through way bush threw our srv men and women over there. I dont think he even knew what he wanted to do, other than send our troops over there, ruin lives the budget and piss everyone off with his bs and lies. its not loss of faith for our military members, its lack of faith in our country leader.

[almaty 19]

the best thing either party can do for our fighting men and women..is come up with a plan..to keep them from getting KILLED

oh yeah, happy veterans day

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi has a plan. Wait, no she already decided we can't win!

Don't you love it when politicians have such faith in the fighting men and women of their own armed forces?

What would your definition of winning be? Stabilizing Iraq? Because you're certainly not going to win the hearts and minds of all the Iraqi people through occupation. Defining the war in Iraq in terms of winning or losing doesn't really work. We removed Saddam from power - that was successful, however, the consequences of the power vaccuum combined with a poorly planned strategy is why violence permeates in Iraq. So to say we can win this is a bit absurd, particularly if the indications are that the insurgency was born out of our occupation rather than a pre-existing enemy prepared to do battle.

Pelosi is being sensible about the complexity of the issue... it is not a war that is to be won - which has NOTHING to do with our military capability, but the fact that you can't shove democracy into people's faces from the end of a barrel.

the best thing either party can do for our fighting men and women..is come up with a plan..to keep them from getting KILLED

oh yeah, happy veterans day

Edited November 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[ceriserose 1]

I personally couldn't be happier. Rumsfeld is gone, Gates is in, and all the congressional committees will get new leaders, ones in favor of "phased withdrawal"!!!

Thanks to Bush, he gave the House and the Senate to the Democrats on a silver platter. So all you right wing conservatives can put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

Let's get our boys out of Iraq, let's tax the rich (and the dead), and lets get back to making this country strong, instead of wasting all our money overseas.

As a lifelong Republican, I have never been so embarrassed to see the number of defeats. It goes to show that without a doubt, Bush is a complete idiot, and a liability to the GOP, along with the other idiot, Rumsfeld. The good news is… Rumsfeld is gone, and the Senior Military Staff couldn’t be happier, and maybe now we can wash our hands of the mess in Iraq.

Good Job G Dubya!!!

Amen, brother Robert! Common sense is a precious commodity these days.

We can't withdraw from Iraq until the mission has been completed, there's a stable government there, and Iraq has a decent military to defend itself. To pull out now would be disastrous. It would not only signal a worldwide defeat to the terrorists, but destroy any credibility the U.S. may have had as a fighting force and with the Iraqi people, whom we liberated.

I'm really very curious about what kind of credibility you think the U.S. has now...not only as a fighting force, but also with the Iraqi people (who may have been 'liberated' but were also killed by the thousands).

Not challenging per se, just asking for your elaboration. I just don't see how pulling out now would be any more disastrous on to the credibility factor than is already occurring.

edited for a typo

Edited November 10, 2006 by ceriserose

[DeadPoolX 9]

What would your definition of winning be? Stabilizing Iraq? Because you're certainly not going to win the hearts and minds of all the Iraqi people through occupation. Defining the war in Iraq in terms of winning or losing doesn't really work. We removed Saddam from power - that was successful, however, the consequences of the power vaccuum combined with a poorly planned strategy is why violence permeates in Iraq. So to say we can win this is a bit absurd, particularly if the indications are that the insurgency was born out of our occupation rather than a pre-existing enemy prepared to do battle.

Pelosi is being sensible about the complexity of the issue... it is not a war that is to be won - which has NOTHING to do with our military capability, but the fact that you can't shove democracy into people's faces from the end of a barrel.

There are three things that need to be done in Iraq in order to "win" over there. These are:

• Defeat the terrorists and insurgents
  
• Build the Iraqi people a fully operational democratic government
  
• Train the Iraqi military how to defend their people effectively
  

After those three items are completed, then we can withdraw from Iraq, knowing we have successfully completed our mission and left Iraq stabilized and able to defend itself. Pulling out before then would be telling the Iraqi people, "We can't handle it and don't really give a damn what happens to you, sorry!" Now I know that isn't true, so why give the wrong impression to the Iraqis and the enemy?

I'm really very curious about what kind of credibility you think the U.S. has now...not only as a fighting force, but also with the Iraqi people (who may have been 'liberated' but were also killed by the thousands).

Not challenging per se, just asking for your elaboration. I just don't see how pulling out now would be any more disastrous on to the credibility factor than is already occurring.

edited for a typo

The United States, overall, has the world's greatest and most technologically advanced military. If you wanted to get nitpicky and talk about militaries "man-for-man," then Israel would top the list.

Withdrawing now would be retreating and claiming a loss -- something we (and the Iraqi people) cannot afford in this global war on terror. Take Israel's fight against Hamas recently. Militarily, Israel won the battle, hands down. However, because Israel pulled back (at the request of other nations and the UN), Hamas saw the act as a sign of weakness and as a retreat from battle. Because Hamas survived, they claimed victory, which practically everyone in the region believed.

The United States cannot fall into that same trap. If we pull back it will be seen as a victory for the terrorists, and they will use it for their own propaganda needs. Although I hate seeing American men and women get killed, we need to stay the course, and finish this war successfully.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

DeadPoolX said...

There are three things that need to be done in Iraq in order to "win" over there. These are:

• Defeat the terrorists and insurgents
  
• Build the Iraqi people a fully operational democratic government
  
• Train the Iraqi military how to defend their people effectively
  

After those three items are completed, then we can withdraw from Iraq, knowing we have successfully completed our mission and left Iraq stabilized and able to defend itself. Pulling out before then would be telling the Iraqi people, "We can't handle it and don't really give a damn what happens to you, sorry!" Now I know that isn't true, so why give the wrong impression to the Iraqis and the enemy?

Do you understand the insurgency? Specifically with regard to Iraq - who do you call terrorists? In other words - what's the difference between an enemy combatant and a terrorist (in Iraq)? There's a lot of misunderstanding of just who and what we are fighting against...or more accurately, who we are defending ourselves against (in Iraq).

Who are the insurgents?

Washington rhetoric about the war raises many questions.

By Rob Elder

In war, he who rules the rhetoric controls the high ground.

Take the current term for people we are fighting in Iraq. Previously, Washington officials called them Saddam sympathizers and foreign terrorists. But most are Iraqis and many never liked Saddam. So now they're "insurgents.''

If you ask Google for a definition of insurgent, you get "a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions).''

That's not so bad. But my Random House Thesaurus associates insurgent with synonyms including rebel, traitor, turncoat, deserter, anarchist, dissenter, malcontent, maverick and upstart.

Those sound like bad guys to me. But if the Iraqis are the insurgents, how come we're the ones shooting up their country and trying to get them to adopt our kind of government?

Much of the rhetoric about Iraq raises questions. President Bush keeps saying Iraqis want freedom. But freedom from what? And to do what?

Might the residents of Baghdad want freedom from Paul Bremer, the American running the occupation government? It's pretty clear that people who live in Al-Fallujah want freedom from the U.S. Marines. And I'd guess a lot of Marines would love to be free of a war that makes our reasons for having fought in Vietnam seem clear and straightforward, by comparison.

The rhetoric Washington applies to the war against terrorism raises even more questions. This is important, because labeling it as a war has given the president and other parts of the federal government powers they would not have if this were an international police action.

Can the government arrest American citizens and hold them without charges in a military prison? Yes, the administration argued last week before the Supreme Court, because this is wartime.

The court will decide, but meanwhile we're left to wonder what it would mean to win or lose this war. Despite his use of wartime rhetoric, the president hasn't spelled out anything about defeat or victory.

Surely victory can't be defined as wiping out every terrorist everywhere, or, by definition, we can't win. Avoiding more attacks like 9/11 is certainly part of what we mean by winning the war; so is keeping known terrorists on the run. But is the war in Iraq synonymous with the war on terrorism? Washington isn't even consistent about what it means to win in Iraq.

It's easier to talk about what it would mean to lose the war on terrorism.

Suffering more major attacks on Americans at home or abroad would be part of that, but not just in the obvious sense of lost lives and real estate. Terrorists win this war if they frighten us into becoming more like them: ruthless people with no regard for law.

Writing in the New York Times Magazine May 2, Michael Ignatieff argues we could lose this war in several ways. One would be to empower the president, the CIA and other parts of the government to act secretly and arbitrarily, without restraint of law.

And that brings us back to rhetoric. In times of peril, it is particularly important for America's leaders to be clear and frank. Instead, President Bush has said almost nothing about the sacrifices Americans may have to make in the war on terrorism. The Pentagon hasn't even wanted Americans to see the flag-draped coffins of dead Americans returning from Iraq.

The president keeps talking about freedom. In fact, Americans forfeit precious freedoms in wartime, for practical reasons. Men and women in the military reserves and National Guard have temporarily lost the freedom to pursue their careers and be with their families. They and career military people alike are not free to put themselves out of harm's way. Before this war is over, Americans in general may give up some of the civil liberties we take for granted.

But if in the process we give up the rule of law and our all-important checks and balances, we lose.

"Regulating a war on terror with ethical rules and democratic oversight is much harder than regulating traditional wars,'' Ignatieff says. And I say a government that wants to keep ethical rules and democratic oversight must quit using euphemisms and empty generalities and talk clearly and frankly to the American people — even in an election year.

This article originally appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Wednesday, May 5, 2004.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[peezey 0]

We can't withdraw from Iraq until the mission has been completed, there's a stable government there, and Iraq has a decent military to defend itself. To pull out now would be disastrous. It would not only signal a worldwide defeat to the terrorists, but destroy any credibility the U.S. may have had as a fighting force and with the Iraqi people, whom we liberated.

You're using this in the past tense as if it's already happened. Please explain, because in my world, Iraqis are dying every day, afraid to leave their homes, and have closed a significant number of family owned small businesses. And dont' point to the b.s. of capturing Hussein or the vote in May as evidence of liberation. You are not liberated if you live in fear of being killed everyday.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We can't withdraw from Iraq until the mission has been completed, there's a stable government there, and Iraq has a decent military to defend itself. To pull out now would be disastrous. It would not only signal a worldwide defeat to the terrorists, but destroy any credibility the U.S. may have had as a fighting force and with the Iraqi people, whom we liberated.

You're using this in the past tense as if it's already happened. Please explain, because in my world, Iraqis are dying every day, afraid to leave their homes, and have closed a significant number of family owned small businesses. And dont' point to the b.s. of capturing Hussein or the vote in May as evidence of liberation. You are not liberated if you live in fear of being killed everyday.

Don't you remember? Liberty is messy according to Donald "Stuff Happens" Rumsfeld.

Oh, and we've long declared defeat to the terrorists by giving up on our values, liberties and freedoms. Now we ought to let them dictate how long we stay enganged wherever they choose to engage us and how many more lives we'll have to let go to waste in order to preserve a sense of our undefined "victory"?. Strategery, strategery...