al-Sadr to disarm his militia!!!!!!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As usual, the OP is disingenuous. Sadr isn't totally disarming the Mahdi army, just part of it-

On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops ? but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.

"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...WTUernQ5tIuHQBUQ2s0NUE

And the Op is obviously trying to pump a little sunshine up our collective skirts with this-

Finally, expect to see a major shift in the Iraq debate. We will no longer be talking about time tables and withdrawals but instead will start talking about long term commitments and residual forces.

Longterm commitments? Like what? How vague can you get, PJ?

Residual forces? Heh. Likely not many and not for long- the current lull in Iraq iis predicated on our departure. while the Sadrists and the rest of Iraq can probably find ways to put up with each other (they've done it before), that doesn't mean that they're willing to put up with us in the bargain...

Preferential oil deals? Permanent bases? Forget it. The problem with "freeing the Iraqi people" is that doing what they want isn't nearly the same as doing what we want... No matter what kind of rosy revisionist history spin is put on it... We've gone from the new version of Germany/ Japan/ Korea to some rather lame attempts to represent complete withdrawal on a timetable as something, anything else...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?

Right on! Perfect analogy!

:roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?
You ommitted some pertinent information.

The SWAT team had lots of support at the time too because the guy was a known drug dealer and he raped his neighbor in the past. He also constantly got into tussles with the police over the years by not complying with terms he agreed to. He negelected his own apartment in the process as well.

So it was a mistake, an honest one considering the history of this guy. Bummer. The vast majority of the landlords of the place are happy he's gone too.

And we are rebuilding that door. The shame is that you either haven't noticed or refuse to notice.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sure that if we had found WMD the left would be running around screaming "you said that war was to establish a working Democracy and that hasn't happen so the war is a failure!!!!"
Not me. I would have asked whether Saddam had the means to attack the US (answer: now) and why we weren't focusing on removing other nations' illegal WMDs (e.g., Israel).

One of the biggest problems with the neocon war on Iraq is that it is inconsistent anyway you look at it.
Have the means to attack??
Let's think about that for a second:

London bombings 56 dead, 4 attackers
Madrid bombing 191 dead, 4-11 attackers
9-11 2998 dead, 19 attackers
Oklahoma bombing 168 dead, 2!!! attackers
USS Cole 17 dead, 2 attackers

You get the point yet? The idea that Iraq or any country needs a large military to attack us is just plain stupid. All it takes is a few people willing to die and they can take dozens or hundreds with them if they are successful.

Add to that Saddam's KNOWN history of supporting terrorism and harboring terrorists, include those who attacked US interests in the past.

Then we have his previous irrational behavior, the guy tried to kill a former President of the US not the move of a overly smart person.

And we also have the fact that Saddam used WMD on both his enemies and own citizens.

Add all that up and you see the risks associated with Saddam. Not taking action to deal with Saddam would have essentially been a big gamble. Perhaps you get lucky and he doesn't do anything stupid or perhaps you lose and he does do something stupid.

BTW Israel has never used 'illegal WMD' on anyone so that argument is moot.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW Israel has never used 'illegal WMD' on anyone so that argument is mute.
If you unmute the argument, you might find it still moot
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?
You ommitted some pertinent information.

The SWAT team had lots of support at the time too because the guy was a known drug dealer and he raped his neighbor in the past. He also constantly got into tussles with the police over the years by not complying with terms he agreed to. He negelected his own apartment in the process as well.

So it was a mistake, an honest one considering the history of this guy. Bummer. The vast majority of the landlords of the place are happy he's gone too.

And we are rebuilding that door. The shame is that you either haven't noticed or refuse to notice.

In other words, you'll make all sorts of excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?
You ommitted some pertinent information.

The SWAT team had lots of support at the time too because the guy was a known drug dealer and he raped his neighbor in the past. He also constantly got into tussles with the police over the years by not complying with terms he agreed to. He negelected his own apartment in the process as well.

So it was a mistake, an honest one considering the history of this guy. Bummer. The vast majority of the landlords of the place are happy he's gone too.

And we are rebuilding that door. The shame is that you either haven't noticed or refuse to notice.

In other words, you'll make all sorts of excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Much the same as the anti-war crowd has done concerning the Surge and associated improvements in Iraq. Seems so many have that affliction. But at least I can claim mine was an honest mistake.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: OrByte
No I dont think its partisan hackery to want the administration whether R or D be held accountable if laws were violated.

I think sometimes people are relegated to partisan status in order to dismiss their positions.

And as for taking Bush down. I don't think its enough that he is held accountable only on forum boards.
I agree it's not partisan hackery to want an administration, R or D, to be held accountable IF laws were violated. IF Bush violated laws and it could be proven I have no doubt that the Dems would have taken that route too. The fact that they haven't says a lot. So whaqt partisan hackery involves are those who want to see Bush taken down regardless of whether he violated any laws or not.

Look at the bright side though. You got a Scooter. :)

Something I read TODAY from the latest Time

10 Questions for Nancy Pelosi


Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush? Nancy Shipes WOODSTOWN, N.J.


I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.
-Pelosi

something to chew on I guess....
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: OrByte
No I dont think its partisan hackery to want the administration whether R or D be held accountable if laws were violated.

I think sometimes people are relegated to partisan status in order to dismiss their positions.

And as for taking Bush down. I don't think its enough that he is held accountable only on forum boards.
I agree it's not partisan hackery to want an administration, R or D, to be held accountable IF laws were violated. IF Bush violated laws and it could be proven I have no doubt that the Dems would have taken that route too. The fact that they haven't says a lot. So whaqt partisan hackery involves are those who want to see Bush taken down regardless of whether he violated any laws or not.

Look at the bright side though. You got a Scooter. :)

Something I read TODAY from the latest Time

10 Questions for Nancy Pelosi


Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush? Nancy Shipes WOODSTOWN, N.J.


I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.
-Pelosi

something to chew on I guess....

lol, that's some funny stuff right there.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
London bombings 56 dead, 4 attackers
Madrid bombing 191 dead, 4-11 attackers
9-11 2998 dead, 19 attackers
Oklahoma bombing 168 dead, 2!!! attackers
USS Cole 17 dead, 2 attackers

You get the point yet?

BTW Israel has never used 'illegal WMD' on anyone so that argument is moot.

Sorry but I've never seen any credible evidence that Saddam attempted to target the US with terror or that he planned to do so.

And I don't care if Israel doesn't talk about "illegal WMDs." I care that America does because America is the country that went to war with Iraq based on WMDs.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,220
654
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
London bombings 56 dead, 4 attackers
Madrid bombing 191 dead, 4-11 attackers
9-11 2998 dead, 19 attackers
Oklahoma bombing 168 dead, 2!!! attackers
USS Cole 17 dead, 2 attackers

You get the point yet?

BTW Israel has never used 'illegal WMD' on anyone so that argument is moot.

Sorry but I've never seen any credible evidence that Saddam attempted to target the US with terror or that he planned to do so.

And I don't care if Israel doesn't talk about "illegal WMDs." I care that America does because America is the country that went to war with Iraq based on WMDs.

Well we've had years of FUD from this administration, would you expect anything different from someone who tows the party line?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

?We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.?

~Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

There are plenty more where that came from...
I move to hereby nomintate this post as pwnage of the month.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
now THAT was brilliant pwnage!

well done.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
now THAT was brilliant pwnage!
well done.

Not really. Everyone knows that most of the Dems in power (along with "liberal institutions" like the New York Times) blew it. The question isn't whether the Dems were duped into or complicit with the administration. The question presented was what the war was about. Your crony's post just re-affirms that the war was about WMDs, not al-Sadr. Nice try though...
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: palehorse
now THAT was brilliant pwnage!
well done.

Not really. Everyone knows that most of the Dems in power (along with "liberal institutions" like the New York Times) blew it. The question isn't whether the Dems were duped into or complicit with the administration. The question presented was what the war was about. Your crony's post just re-affirms that the war was about WMDs, not al-Sadr. Nice try though...

what he said :)


ooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo burnt crispy!!
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: palehorse
now THAT was brilliant pwnage!
well done.

Not really. Everyone knows that most of the Dems in power (along with "liberal institutions" like the New York Times) blew it. The question isn't whether the Dems were duped into or complicit with the administration. The question presented was what the war was about. Your crony's post just re-affirms that the war was about WMDs, not al-Sadr. Nice try though...

The question is who was distributing the WMD only mindset.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As usual, palehorse is confused on the difference between words and deeds and needs to be reminded of that old adage, "sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

In the halls of kindergarten, to the chambers of congress, or the Oval office of the white house, children are the same the world around. They love to get together and out do each other by coming up with baseless and fanciful accusations to demonize those that the collective group does not like.

Maybe in kindergarten, there is a good possibility that some immature child will take violent offense to being called a nasty name, but as adults, we learn some better reasoning.

And we quickly learn that there is a huge difference between talking about screwing the pooch and actual action of screwing to pooch.

In short, I blame GWB&co and not congress. Congress's sin was in thinking GWB&co could be trusted, a lesson we all have painfully learned to the contrary, give GWB&co an inch and they will take a mile, and marry name calling with stupid action.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I'm sure that disarming the separatist militias Rummy Cheney & Company assured us wouldn't form after the invasion was an important pre-war goal that they just didn't think to mention at the time.


Originally posted by: jman19
Well we've had years of FUD from this administration, would you expect anything different from someone who tows the party line?
I must be in full Grammar Nazi mode this morning; toe the line.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,220
654
126
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I'm sure that disarming the separatist militias Rummy Cheney & Company assured us wouldn't form after the invasion was an important pre-war goal that they just didn't think to mention at the time.


Originally posted by: jman19
Well we've had years of FUD from this administration, would you expect anything different from someone who tows the party line?
I must be in full Grammar Nazi mode this morning; toe the line.

You're absolutely right :)

I have a defense though... I wasn't even near sober when I made that post :p
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?
. . . Says the SWAT team who breaks down the door of the wrong apartment looking for drugs and realizes it was the place down the block they were looking for. Yeah, I'd expect them to stick around too. Maybe they can help rebuild that door on their way out?
You ommitted some pertinent information.

The SWAT team had lots of support at the time too because the guy was a known drug dealer and he raped his neighbor in the past. He also constantly got into tussles with the police over the years by not complying with terms he agreed to. He negelected his own apartment in the process as well.

So it was a mistake, an honest one considering the history of this guy. Bummer. The vast majority of the landlords of the place are happy he's gone too.

And we are rebuilding that door. The shame is that you either haven't noticed or refuse to notice.

In other words, you'll make all sorts of excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Much the same as the anti-war crowd has done concerning the Surge and associated improvements in Iraq. Seems so many have that affliction. But at least I can claim mine was an honest mistake.

Yeah, you got the "mistake" part right. The "honest" part, not so much.

As for the anti-war crowd, while I obviously don't speak for them, clearly when you fuck something up for 5 long years and then you finally get your shit straight, don't expect a pat on the back. You don't get kudos for finally doing what you were supposed to be doing all along. Where do you even get that idea?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, you got the "mistake" part right. The "honest" part, not so much.

As for the anti-war crowd, while I obviously don't speak for them, clearly when you fuck something up for 5 long years and then you finally get your shit straight, don't expect a pat on the back. You don't get kudos for finally doing what you were supposed to be doing all along. Where do you even get that idea?
If the anti-war crowd were being honest themselves all along then you might have a point. But the problem, you see, is their continual insistance to act the pot and yell at the kettle. Iraq has been progressing in fits and starts for 5 years. It has not been fucked up for 5 years, as you claim. Just because something is not perfect or the best it can possibly be doesn't mean it's fucked up.

Why the anti-war crowd even imagines that they somehow are the determiners of what is success and what is not for a war they don't even support seems patently silly too. It's like asking someone who despises a TV show what their opinion of any one episode or season of that show is. So who the fuck cares what your opinion is anway? You'll poo-poo it no matter what because you hate the show in the first place. That's why all your whining ultimately doesn't mean shit.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
TLC, for all you deny it, the antiwar whining does mean much. Anyone with a brain, you possibly brainless excepted, realize GWB&co will not be any part of any final solution for Iraq. As long as Iraq is a bottomless rat hole the US pours money down, there will no redemption for this bungled GWB brainfart. At best the pro war has only the fact that things could be even worse. Which will be more than counterbalanced with almost certain failure in Afghanistan.

In Vietnam, pro war forces spent almost 20 years trying to live down their failures down with the vision of Colin Powell leading that rehabilitation with some common sense.

Sadly, Colin Powell and his common sense have become road kill in the GWB&co total lack of integrity. When the dust settled TLC, its almost certain to be be the pro war crowd that is discredited.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, for all you deny it, the antiwar whining does mean much. Anyone with a brain, you possibly brainless excepted, realize GWB&co will not be any part of any final solution for Iraq. As long as Iraq is a bottomless rat hole the US pours money down, there will no redemption for this bungled GWB brainfart. At best the pro war has only the fact that things could be even worse. Which will be more than counterbalanced with almost certain failure in Afghanistan.

In Vietnam, pro war forces spent almost 20 years trying to live down their failures down with the vision of Colin Powell leading that rehabilitation with some common sense.

Sadly, Colin Powell and his common sense have become road kill in the GWB&co total lack of integrity. When the dust settled TLC, its almost certain to be be the pro war crowd that is discredited.
Yeah, good old Vietnam. A war that Democrats got us into. A war that was primarily executed by Democrats and fucked up by the numbers all along the way by Democrats, until a Republican came along and finally extracted us. And the *cough* 'brainy' people like you want Democrats to once again be in control of a war and become our saviors?

Fat chance.

It seems the big problem is that Iraq has turned around so you and some others are squirming at the thought that Iraq didn't suck long enough for the D's to come in and take credit for the success. Thankfully they were prevented from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as well by those who did have some foresight and fortitude instead of being tuck-tails. But instead of admitting that success you'd rather plug your fingers in your ears and make lots of loud noises with your pie-holes, hoping you can stall any admission of success until your party gets into office. I'd bet then that you'll suddenly begin noticing how Iraq has turned to gold overnnight and try to give your guys all the credit, in the typical kind of revisionism that you love to apply.

That would make complete sense since revisionism is about all you have. Clearly your foresight sucks, probably because your vision of the present is so tainted by your partisan filters you can't even see straight.